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.

Goblet of spite: "...will always hit on a 3+ in HtH combat reguardless of other factors."


Does this thing really allow the unit to hit (even with grenades) on a 3+ ?

Not really.

First the 40K universe is moving away from game rule breakers. They're being left in Fantasy.

Second, when two rules conflict you are supposed to dice off. Remember, skimmers are hit on a 6+ in HTH is also an absolute.

So no, it doesn't allow this. Most ruling on the matter are against you ever hitting on a 3+. Since there are no skimmers (besides Vect) with a Weapon Skill, and the rulings/faq's have all pointed towards: No WS, no free to hit modifiers allowed just use the BBB rules....well, it might fly in a friendly game but it shouldn't and at tournaments it won't.

not to harp on what I already posted... but skimmer, 6's to hit... those are "other factors". "Reguardless of other factors"... that is what it says.

I've used it as such without argument with the rulings on tyranid bioplasma, Kharn's 2+, and to a lesser extent Intercept as backup.

Always hits on X will work on skimmers as long as the rule does not require the target to have a WS.

Ask yourself this question, are you in "HTH" (as it was defined in 3rd ed when the codex was written) with the vehicle? Each of the others that Moz mentions is worded differently (and written for 4th ed rules, as well) so they are not valid examples.

To be fair to the OP I've researched this topic extensively. It appears even games workshop doesn't know which way is up on this one. I've heard it reported both ways from GT's. Normally you need the target to have a weapon skill for "always hit on" to apply however that's not the view they took when they wrote the thing. To me it seems clear that what GW originally wanted this to do and what they want rules like this to do now are different things. To that end I don't attempt to use them to hit skimmers. Generally if a rule is gray I try to stay away from it.

What is the line of argument from a RAW perspective that:
"always hits on 3+ in close combat regardless of other factors" does not apply to skimmers?

Codex being older than the BGB is irrelevant, as there are a number of rules that are newer than the BGB with the same effect and very similar wording.

Specific overrides the general, and with the following example I will let you judge which is which.

To hit a vehicle in close combat chart:
Immobilized : autohit
Moved under 6" : 4+ to hit
Moved over 6" : 6 to hit
Skimmers always count as moving over 6"

Goblet of spite: "always hits on 3+ in close combat, regardless of other factors"

don_mondo wrote:Ask yourself this question, are you in "HTH" (as it was defined in 3rd ed when the codex was written) with the vehicle? Each of the others that Moz mentions is worded differently (and written for 4th ed rules, as well) so they are not valid examples.

HtH is never mentioned in the 4th ed rules, even in the descriptions of any of the assault rules. If your implication is that Goblet of Spite doesn't do anything in 4th ed, I consider that to be a bit of a stretch.

Additional edit: Hits on 3+ in close combat only with things that have a WS was already acknowledged as preferred enemy at the time. See Codex Witch hunters : Celestians if you want to see how this rule would have looked if it did not work on vehicles, from a release around the same time.

Moz wrote:...If your implication is that Goblet of Spite doesn't do anything in 4th ed, I consider that to be a bit of a stretch.

Isn't that how RAW works!!!


Panic

As a completely undefined term, HTH cannot be used in any RAW argument in 4th ed is more the point.

Moz wrote:What is the line of argument from a RAW perspective that:
"always hits on 3+ in close combat regardless of other factors" does not apply to skimmers?

Codex being older than the BGB is irrelevant, as there are a number of rules that are newer than the BGB with the same effect and very similar wording.

Specific overrides the general, and with the following example I will let you judge which is which.

To hit a vehicle in close combat chart:
Immobilized : autohit
Moved under 6" : 4+ to hit
Moved over 6" : 6 to hit
Skimmers always count as moving over 6"

Goblet of spite: "always hits on 3+ in close combat, regardless of other factors"

What part doesn't apply? The bit about being in close combat; in 3rd ed, when the codex was written, you could not be in "close combat" or "hand-to-hand" with a non-WS vehicle, therefor the GoS did not work against them.

Alright, and for my obvious rebuttal: We aren't playing 3rd edition. Not applicable in the slightest.

We have a DE player in my local area...he uses his to this effect and it isn't that huge of a deal, and honestly it is the only literal translation you can achieve if you are playing RAW.

Until DE get the serious loving, or considering GW's most recent Codex releases, butchering, RAW for the rule can be interpreted in no other way.

You can make as many rebuttals as you wish but the one phrase "regardless of other factors" rules over all skimmer rules or other vehicle rules. When it gets redone I can see it being worded as Preferred Enemy, and only applying to models with a WS, but until that day nothing will change.

As far as comparing it to Celestian Squads, all you're doing is comparing apples to oranges. We are considered with what the DE codex says and how it affects the BBB, not the RAI as compared to a different codex.

3rd/4th, doesn't matter, just giving the history. But sure, feel free to ignore the part before that, the bit about needing to be in hth..................... I think we define that as locked/engaged in 4th. So can you be locked/engaged with a non-WS vehicle?

Is there anything in the V4 rules that define Hand to Hand as different than Close Combat? Per the Necron FAQ you need 6's to hit a Monolith because you are a) in Close Combat with said Monolith and b) it is a Skimmer.

Unless Hand to Hand can be defined as something different in the rules than Close Combat, the requirements of the Goblet seem to have been met? Given that the yakFAQ refers only to Close Combats and existing Close Combats without the use of any "Hand to Hand" phrasing, I doubt it, although I don't have the BGB on hand to verify this.

Remember, skimmers are hit on a 6+ in HTH is also an absolute.

Read the new rules for Kharn. It sure sounds to me like he hits them on a 2+.

- G

Kharn I agree with, as it is phrased differently for him: "Kharn's close combat attacks always hit on a roll of 2+.", not "will always hit on a 3+ in hand-to-hand combat". No requirement for Kharn to be in HTH, ie locked or engaged. In the vehicle section it notes that you can never be locked or engaged with a non-WS vehicle, but you can assault them and attack them using your close combat attacks, so Kharn is good to go. GoS, not so, as they have to be in hth, ie locked and engaged, for it to work.
Other abilities mentioned were Nid Bioplasm and Swooping Hawk Intercept. Intercept definitely works against skimmers, that's even one of the examples (But isn't supposed to work against Walkers, whole 'nother thread......). Bio-Plasma, same thing, "may make a single close-combat attack..", again no requirement to be lcked or engaged, it's just getting an additional attack with some special rules.

See the difference?

don_mondo wrote:Kharn I agree with, as it is phrased differently for him: "Kharn's close combat attacks always hit on a roll of 2+.", not "will always hit on a 3+ in hand-to-hand combat". No requirement for Kharn to be in HTH, ie locked or engaged. In the vehicle section it notes that you can never be locked or engaged with a non-WS vehicle, but you can assault them and attack them using your close combat attacks, so Kharn is good to go. GoS, not so, as they have to be in hth, ie locked and engaged, for it to work.
Other abilities mentioned were Nid Bioplasm and Swooping Hawk Intercept. Intercept definitely works against skimmers, that's even one of the examples (But isn't supposed to work against Walkers, whole 'nother thread......). Bio-Plasma, same thing, "may make a single close-combat attack..", again no requirement to be lcked or engaged, it's just getting an additional attack with some special rules.

See the difference?

Do you have a page reference on this definition of Hand to hand?

As far as I read the BGB never uses the phrase 'hand to hand'.
So my position is that hand to hand translates to close combat, and his is that hand to hand translates to locked.

Fair enough impasse since there's no definition of it at all. I'm poking around for any other current references to hand to hand, but haven't found anything yet.

-And the point of bringing up celestians was to deflate the earlier intent argument. Had the idea been to keep GoS only working in combat with targets that have a WS, it could've been written just as the celestians 'Holy hatred'.

Anyways. Do we have any other odd uses of 'Hand to Hand' out there?