An expression such as قُمْتُ وَأَصُكُّ وَجْهَهُ seems to place wāw before an affirmative imperfect. If the latter were interpreted directly as an ordinary affirmative verbal ḥāl, it would appear to conflict with the rule.
The proper response is to establish the syntax first. Is the wāw truly circumstantial? Is an unexpressed subject understood, making the construction effectively nominal? Could it be ordinary coordination? Or is a special idiomatic explanation required? An apparent surface exception cannot by itself overturn the more specific rule.