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.

 Kriswall wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


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.

There is a part of the mixing and matching weapons rules that says "unless otherwise stated" Well Colossal states otherwise so in this case you can mix and match abilities, since the model simply needs to possess the weapon for its Colossal rule to be active.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


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.

There is a part of the mixing and matching weapons rules that says "unless otherwise stated" Well Colossal states otherwise so in this case you can mix and match abilities, since the model simply needs to possess the weapon for its Colossal rule to be active.

Please quote the portion of the Colossal special rule that states it applies when the model is not using the related weapon during an attack. I'm not looking for some vague implication. I'm looking for wording that unambiguously and explicitly states that the weapon ability can be used when the weapon is not being used.

I've looked. I don't see anything. All I see is instruction for models with the weapon to attack at Initiative step 1. I don't see anything about being able to do so when not using the weapon.

That's what you keep saying, but it doesn't mean your point of view is any more correct than ours.

Locking the thread was called for pages ago, I don't see any possibility in having a common ground here.

Naw wrote:
That's what you keep saying, but it doesn't mean your point of view is any more correct than ours.

Locking the thread was called for pages ago, I don't see any possibility in having a common ground here.

And yet nobody has underlined the portion of the Colossal rule that states it may be used when the weapon is not being used. Odd. My point of view may not be correct, but I've given opportunity after opportunity for my opposition to show me where Colossal states it may be used when the weapon is not being used. Hasn't happened yet. It's beginning to make me think my opposition can't find that statement anymore than I can.

 Kriswall wrote:

 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.

OK, but assuming for a moment that it isn't a mistake and the word "fighting" was deliberately an omission for the D thirster version of the rule, what then are the RAW implications?

 Kriswall wrote:

Naw wrote:
That's what you keep saying, but it doesn't mean your point of view is any more correct than ours.

Locking the thread was called for pages ago, I don't see any possibility in having a common ground here.

And yet nobody has underlined the portion of the Colossal rule that states it may be used when the weapon is not being used. Odd. My point of view may not be correct, but I've given opportunity after opportunity for my opposition to show me where Colossal states it may be used when the weapon is not being used. Hasn't happened yet. It's beginning to make me think my opposition can't find that statement anymore than I can.

Wow! Just wow! It has been said so many times that one more time doesn't make any difference. But hey, I'll try one more time: Rules in a codex can and will alter or override BRB rules, this is one of those cases. The rule is in effect all the tile, not just when you fight in melee.

There is the additional angle of you making up rules to support your view, e.g. when to choose a weapon. I urge you to find an item from BRB that makes you act before your initiative. There are none. Codex authors come up with a lot of fancy stuff that, which more or less fit in to existing rules. Sometimes we are called for to fill in the gaps ourselves. Yet you claim RAW on something that is not in the rules.

I understand that the fight sub-phase is when attacks are made, but the order of acting is based in Initiative. It works when there are no rules or wargear that modify the values. The exact rule is Models make their attacks when their Initiative step is reached and later in the same paragraph that Initiative can be modified.

Naw wrote:
Wow! Just wow! It has been said so many times that one more time doesn't make any difference. But hey, I'll try one more time: Rules in a codex can and will alter or override BRB rules, this is one of those cases. The rule is in effect all the tile, not just when you fight in melee.

Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

Naw wrote:
There is the additional angle of you making up rules to support your view, e.g. when to choose a weapon. I urge you to find an item from BRB that makes you act before your initiative. There are none. Codex authors come up with a lot of fancy stuff that, which more or less fit in to existing rules. Sometimes we are called for to fill in the gaps ourselves. Yet you claim RAW on something that is not in the rules.

First you make up the rule that possession allows one to ignore when a Weapon's abilities cannot be used, then you accuse others of making up rules. Talk about "wow".

No one stating that the Weapon's abilities cannot be used have made up a rule. Even at the point when we are talking about choosing a weapon, we pointed out that there is nothing stated about it, then we pointed out that in order for certain Weapon abilities to be used, it must be performed at a point that allows abilities that add to Initiative to be used. Nothing made up, just pointing out the obvious points.

Naw wrote:
I understand that the fight sub-phase is when attacks are made, but the order of acting is based in Initiative. It works when there are no rules or wargear that modify the values. The exact rule is Models make their attacks when their Initiative step is reached and later in the same paragraph that Initiative can be modified.

The order of striking blows and pile ins is done by Initiative, but are you saying that a model with a Swiftstrike Weapon cannot used because you cannot pick the Weapon until after that bonus Initiative step has arrived? No. Selecting a Weapon would have to be done before any Initiative bonuses are allowed to be in place, so before Initiative Step 10. Not the Written rules, but there are no actual rules, so we're operating on the logic of the situation.

 Kriswall wrote:


Please quote the portion of the Colossal special rule that states it applies when the model is not using the related weapon during an attack.

I have, several times.

Does the model HAVE the weapon? because the rules state a model WITH this weapon...

Not Attacking with, simply having the weapon evokes the rule.

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

The "Unless otherwise stated" part of the more than one weapon rules. Colossal states otherwise.

Also Codex > BRB

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


Please quote the portion of the Colossal special rule that states it applies when the model is not using the related weapon during an attack.

I have, several times.

Does the model HAVE the weapon? because the rules state a model WITH this weapon...

Not Attacking with, simply having the weapon evokes the rule.

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

The "Unless otherwise stated" part of the more than one weapon rules. Colossal states otherwise.

Also Codex > BRB

Hmmm... and you're going to highlight the bit of Colossal that states it can by mixed and matched in (used) when the weapon in question isn't being used to fight with? I'll wait. Note that "A model with this weapon" does not say "This weapon ability may be used even when the weapon isn't being used to attack".

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

The "Unless otherwise stated" part of the more than one weapon rules. Colossal states otherwise.

Also Codex > BRB

Note that none of us have stated BRB > Codex. This is a fabrication in your mind that we are stating this.

You have yet to provide one single quote to support the question asked. In order for the codex to conflict with the BRB, the question in my quote MUST be answered. Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used"?

I would have to say that with the colossal rule, being in effect while the model has the rule would always strike at I1. What I fail to see is any other weapon's rule that specifically overrides the colossal rule. I would think that it would have to call out the colossal rule and cancel it. I do not know of any such weapon with such a rule. Just my opinion.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
I would have to say that with the colossal rule, being in effect while the model has the rule would always strike at I1.

100% agreed. The issue with your statement though, is that the model doesn't have the rule when not using the Axe of Khorne in the Fight Sub-Phase.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
I would have to say that with the colossal rule, being in effect while the model has the rule would always strike at I1. What I fail to see is any other weapon's rule that specifically overrides the colossal rule. I would think that it would have to call out the colossal rule and cancel it. I do not know of any such weapon with such a rule. Just my opinion.

If another Weapon is being used, you cannot use the Colossal rule in a Weapon's type. That is what mixing and matching means. The other Weapon does not need to address it, because it is not in force.

The colossal rule is in effect while said model has said weapon, this is what the rules say. Not that it has the colossal rule while striking, or at the fight subphase, or while driving a volkswagon jetta through Compton trying to score some rocks. It has that rule at all times. The multiple weapons rule in the BRB must override it as it is a rule that affects the model not the weapon.

Also, why would another weapon have to specifically override Colossal, but colossal not have to specifically override the more than one weapon ryle?

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

The "Unless otherwise stated" part of the more than one weapon rules. Colossal states otherwise.

Also Codex > BRB

Note that none of us have stated BRB > Codex. This is a fabrication in your mind that we are stating this.

You have yet to provide one single quote to support the question asked. In order for the codex to conflict with the BRB, the question in my quote MUST be answered. Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used"?

Does the model have the weapon with the Colossal rule?

If so then its rules, since they are written so they take effect simply by having the weapon, are in effect.

There is the quote, read the Colossal rule, that rule says a model with this weapon (or something similar).

Do you have anything stating that the model no longer has the weapon when fighting with a different weapon? If not, then Colossal will always apply because the model has the weapon. Therefore it is otherwise stated, and you mix and match Colossal with other weapons.

 jokerkd wrote:
Also, why would another weapon have to specifically override Colossal, but colossal not have to specifically override the more than one weapon ryle?

The wording on Colossal puts a restriction on the model, not a weapon. LC shred rule is attached to the weapon, not the model. If a guy has a LC and a PF he chosses what restictions/benefits he wants to use. Shred and strike at Init with less strength, or double strength at Init 1. They are specific in that they are written to be an effect of the weapon.

Just having the axe on a model puts the colossal rule on the model.

 OIIIIIIO wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Also, why would another weapon have to specifically override Colossal, but colossal not have to specifically override the more than one weapon ryle?

The wording on Colossal puts a restriction on the model, not a weapon. LC shred rule is attached to the weapon, not the model. If a guy has a LC and a PF he chosses what restictions/benefits he wants to use. Shred and strike at Init with less strength, or double strength at Init 1. They are specific in that they are written to be an effect of the weapon.

Just having the axe on a model puts the colossal rule on the model.

You need to go back and reread the thread. We've posted many, many times about how and when a model, or its attacks can get special rules from a weapon. During the Fight Sub-Phase, there are two ways to do so. The first is using the weapon to strike blows. In our scenario, the Axe of Khorne is not being used to strike blows, so this option isn't relevant. The second is if the special rule explicitly states that it is allowed to function while the weapon is not being used to strike blows. This is relevant to our discussion. Unfortunately, the Colossal special rule doesn't have any specific wording saying that it can function in the specific scenario where it's not being used to strike blows. Hence, the model and its attacks can't gain the Colossal weapon ability from the Axe of Khorne in this manner either. There are literally no other ways for a model or its attacks to gain special rules from a weapon in the Fight Sub-Phase.

If you think there is specific wording in the Colossal rule unambiguously telling us that we can apply Colossal when NOT attacking with the Axe of Khorne, awesome. Play it that way. We're 12 pages in and as of yet, nobody has quoted the specific, unambiguous wording allowing Colossal to be applied while the Axe of Khorne is NOT in use. In the absence of this quote, I'll continue to believe it's not there.

There are essentially two requirements for making use of Colossal in the Fight Sub-Phase.

1) Per Colossal's wording, the model must have the weapon.
2) Per the BRB's wording, either the model must use the weapon to strike blows OR the weapon ability must state that it may be used when the weapon is not being used to strike blows.

Requirement 1 is fulfilled. Requirement 2 fails because the Axe isn't being used and Colossal doesn't have wording stating it may be used when the weapon (the Axe) is not being used to strike blows.

It sort of feels like you guys think that fulfilling requirement 1 alone is enough to make Colossal work. You can't look at isolated rules. You need to read them all and fulfill all of the requirements before doing something. This is how permission works in a permissive rule set.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used?" Still waiting on that.

The "Unless otherwise stated" part of the more than one weapon rules. Colossal states otherwise.

Also Codex > BRB

Note that none of us have stated BRB > Codex. This is a fabrication in your mind that we are stating this.

You have yet to provide one single quote to support the question asked. In order for the codex to conflict with the BRB, the question in my quote MUST be answered. Where does possession mean "always works, even when the Weapon's abilities can not be used"?

Does the model have the weapon with the Colossal rule?

If so then its rules, since they are written so they take effect simply by having the weapon, are in effect.

There is the quote, read the Colossal rule, that rule says a model with this weapon (or something similar).

Do you have anything stating that the model no longer has the weapon when fighting with a different weapon? If not, then Colossal will always apply because the model has the weapon. Therefore it is otherwise stated, and you mix and match Colossal with other weapons.

So no quote to support your answer to the question. It feels like is that I'm getting is a "because" as your answer.

Colossal's rules matter little because its own rules do not specifically exempt it from the More Than One Weapon restriction. You have prevented nothing on this other than possession. Possession as a concept does not override the restriction against using the rule when the Weapon is not in use. It is not otherwise stated, it is only your assumption at this point.

 Charistoph wrote:

So no quote to support your answer to the question. It feels like is that I'm getting is a "because" as your answer.

Colossal's rules matter little because its own rules do not specifically exempt it from the More Than One Weapon restriction. You have prevented nothing on this other than possession. Possession as a concept does not override the restriction against using the rule when the Weapon is not in use. It is not otherwise stated, it is only your assumption at this point.

I gave a quote, Read the Colossal rule where it says a model with this weapon (or something similar).

 Charistoph wrote:

Colossal's rules matter little because its own rules do not specifically exempt it from the More Than One Weapon restriction.

and that is where Codex> BRB

Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

So no quote to support your answer to the question. It feels like is that I'm getting is a "because" as your answer.

Colossal's rules matter little because its own rules do not specifically exempt it from the More Than One Weapon restriction. You have prevented nothing on this other than possession. Possession as a concept does not override the restriction against using the rule when the Weapon is not in use. It is not otherwise stated, it is only your assumption at this point.

I gave a quote, Read the Colossal rule where it says a model with this weapon (or something similar).

I see nothing about it working when another Weapon is being used or when the Weapon cannot be used (ala Disarm). So you have no quote. Possession alone is insufficient to override the More Than One Weapon restriction without it being defined as such.

You need to provide evidence that "possession" allows you to count the rule when the Weapon's abilities normally are not in play. Where is it besides your assumption?

DeathReaper wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Colossal's rules matter little because its own rules do not specifically exempt it from the More Than One Weapon restriction.

and that is where Codex> BRB

Only if it conflicts. Colossal does not address the More Than One Weapon restriction in any form, so it does not conflict. No conflict, Codex is not gaining precedence.

timetowaste85 wrote:Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

Here you go:

Colossal: A model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

Or more simply, they didn't think there would be a time when you weren't using the Greataxe if you have it. The D-Thirster comes with it as his only Melee Weapon, and does not have the option to add or swap another Weapon in to it.

That being said, the question then comes up with the Smash Attack, which does not use the Weapon or allow for a Weapon's abilities to be in play.

Or when its a daemon of chaos BT, when it can easily get more melee weapons...

DR - "otherwise STATED" - you have implied that the More than one weapon rule is overridden, but it is not stated.

Find the exact statement concernign more than one weapon. 6th time of asking.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

Or more simply, they didn't think there would be a time when you weren't using the Greataxe if you have it. The D-Thirster comes with it as his only Melee Weapon, and does not have the option to add or swap another Weapon in to it.

I find this highly unlikely tbh. As you imply, the word "fighting" is not strictly required for the Colossal rule as applies to a KD D thirster, but even if they took the time to consider this, why bother amending the rule from the IK version? If the intent was for it to only apply when using the weapon, why not just leave it as it is? It still would have worked just fine even though the KD D thirster can't take any other weapons.

Leaving the rule as the IK version (or changing it back) would have also made things a lot clearer for the Chaos Daemons D thirster and avoided introducing any ambiguity.

Given the existence and wording of the IK Colossal rule I can only see two possible scenarios re the D thirster.
1. The omission of the word "fighting" from the rule was a mistake in the KD codex which has carried over to the Daemon versions, and which may or may not get errata treatment in the future.
2. The word was deliberately removed for the D thirster version with the intention of it striking at I1 no matter what weapon it used. For all we know the KD and Chaos Daemon rules were written at the same time.

It's clear that some believe RAW that scenario 2 is largely irrelevant; my opinion is that RAW indicates the D thirster is I1 anyway but I believe that part of the debate reached a stalemate a long time ago. I think either an errata or FAQ is needed at this point to clarify the intent and how it should be played.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

Or more simply, they didn't think there would be a time when you weren't using the Greataxe if you have it. The D-Thirster comes with it as his only Melee Weapon, and does not have the option to add or swap another Weapon in to it.

That being said, the question then comes up with the Smash Attack, which does not use the Weapon or allow for a Weapon's abilities to be in play.

The codex: Chaos Daemons version has access to additional weapons through rewards

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

Or more simply, they didn't think there would be a time when you weren't using the Greataxe if you have it. The D-Thirster comes with it as his only Melee Weapon, and does not have the option to add or swap another Weapon in to it.

I find this highly unlikely tbh. As you imply, the word "fighting" is not strictly required for the Colossal rule as applies to a KD D thirster, but even if they took the time to consider this, why bother amending the rule from the IK version? If the intent was for it to only apply when using the weapon, why not just leave it as it is? It still would have worked just fine even though the KD D thirster can't take any other weapons.

Leaving the rule as the IK version (or changing it back) would have also made things a lot clearer for the Chaos Daemons D thirster and avoided introducing any ambiguity.

Given the existence and wording of the IK Colossal rule I can only see two possible scenarios re the D thirster.
1. The omission of the word "fighting" from the rule was a mistake in the KD codex which has carried over to the Daemon versions, and which may or may not get errata treatment in the future.
2. The word was deliberately removed for the D thirster version with the intention of it striking at I1 no matter what weapon it used. For all we know the KD and Chaos Daemon rules were written at the same time.

It's clear that some believe RAW that scenario 2 is largely irrelevant; my opinion is that RAW indicates the D thirster is I1 anyway but I believe that part of the debate reached a stalemate a long time ago. I think either an errata or FAQ is needed at this point to clarify the intent and how it should be played.

This was my initial impression, but on further thought it is equally possible that the rules writers, like many on this thread, felt the word "fighting" was redundant and unnecessary because of the more than one weapon clause in BRB so took it out.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Since it came up, what does the Imperial Knight colossal rule state? It was discussed, but the exact wording wasn't laid out. And...I'm not about to go buy an Imperial Knight book when I'm never going to field it, just in order to find out. I'm sure someone in this thread has it.

It says "a model fighting with this weapon Piles In and fights at Initiative step 1". You'll notice that the inclusion of the word "fighting" makes things a lot clearer for the IK version. I'm interested in the rules implications if this word was omitted deliberately from the D thirster version. The logical conclusion is that the intent would be for the D thirster to go at I1 whichever weapon he was using.

Or more simply, they didn't think there would be a time when you weren't using the Greataxe if you have it. The D-Thirster comes with it as his only Melee Weapon, and does not have the option to add or swap another Weapon in to it.

I find this highly unlikely tbh. As you imply, the word "fighting" is not strictly required for the Colossal rule as applies to a KD D thirster, but even if they took the time to consider this, why bother amending the rule from the IK version? If the intent was for it to only apply when using the weapon, why not just leave it as it is? It still would have worked just fine even though the KD D thirster can't take any other weapons.

Leaving the rule as the IK version (or changing it back) would have also made things a lot clearer for the Chaos Daemons D thirster and avoided introducing any ambiguity.

Given the existence and wording of the IK Colossal rule I can only see two possible scenarios re the D thirster.
1. The omission of the word "fighting" from the rule was a mistake in the KD codex which has carried over to the Daemon versions, and which may or may not get errata treatment in the future.
2. The word was deliberately removed for the D thirster version with the intention of it striking at I1 no matter what weapon it used. For all we know the KD and Chaos Daemon rules were written at the same time.

It's clear that some believe RAW that scenario 2 is largely irrelevant; my opinion is that RAW indicates the D thirster is I1 anyway but I believe that part of the debate reached a stalemate a long time ago. I think either an errata or FAQ is needed at this point to clarify the intent and how it should be played.

This was my initial impression, but on further thought it is equally possible that the rules writers, like many on this thread, felt the word "fighting" was redundant and unnecessary because of the more than one weapon clause in BRB so took it out.

So why even have it in the rule in the first place?

Because the different codex writers don't seem to talk to each other and all have their own ideas of how rules should be templated. My guess at least.