Hello everyone. Recently when trying out my wood elves i was able to put my Razor Banner BSB in a unit of glade guard and i thought it would give them armor piercing. Now however my opponent promptly threw a fit after i all but wiped out a unit of his dwarves with this in combination with short range and said that i cannot do that. After looking into the rule more to me it seems rather clear that i can use the razor banner to make my shooting attacks have armor piercing, is this correct? Thanks for the help mates.

All of your attacks have Armour Piercing, it does NOT specify that ths is close combat only

In short: your opponent was wrong. Whenever someone claims you cannot do sometrhing, get them to actually give you a rules reason....

Oh dont get me wrong i had the rulebook there and handy he claimed to interpret the meaning though however and it got to the point where he was threatening to quit so i just let it go, still won and dont plan on playing him anytime soon.

RAW amour piercing only affected CC attacks (sorry bit of a rules geek ).

p503 Razor Standard
"Models in a unit with the Razor Standard have the Armour Piercing special rule."

p67 Armour Piercing
"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier, in addition to those for strength"

Sorry but as the Razor Standard gives the rule to the unit and not the bows in the unit hence shooting is not affected by the razor standard (sucks I know as I play wood elves and -2 GG bows at short range does sound nice)

For Wood Elves a Razor standard is only good for EG or Wild Riders really.

hope this clears things up

I think i see what you are saying, so because it does not say it give the longbows in the unit armor piercing it means that they cannot use it. That actually makes sense when interpreted that way, i was reading the bottom part where it stated CC or Shooting attacks that are made with the weapon that has armor piercing. Well good to know things worked out in the end and i still won! Thanks for the heads up mate

Why are you reading the CC section for Armour Piercing?

Armour piercing most certainly works in shooting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Why are you reading the CC section for Armour Piercing?

Armour piercing most certainly works in shooting.

I was reading the special rules section for Armour Piercing not in the CC section

Yet armour piercing does apply to ranged weapons. And given the "unit" has Armour Piercing their bows (which are a part of the units gear) do as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet armour piercing does apply to ranged weapons. And given the "unit" has Armour Piercing their bows (which are a part of the units gear) do as well.

The Armour Piercing rule only applies to ranged weapons that already have it and as the Bows don't have it to begin with then the bows don't get the benefit.

Don't have the BRB on me just now so cant quote the whole rule (which I should have done in the first place, my bad )

Why wouldnt the bows get the benefit, when the *entire* unit, and everything in it, has Armour Piercing?

Mmmmmm, I think I am getting your logic nosferatu1001,

I have just re-read the rule and had a chat with the guys at my local GW, they are in agreement that if it effects the entire unit as you say then the ranged attacks get the benefit to.

I think my confusion lay with the wording of the Armour piercing rule and I apologise for my confusion,

I am now looking forward to trying this out with the Razour standard and HoDA, 3d6 armour piercing S4 attacks..... yes please

I wonder if you can combine both the Banner of Eternal Flame and the Razour standard? Flaming, Armour piercing attacks sound quite nice!

As silly as it is, I think RaW the Armour Piercing granted from the Razor Standard would only apply to close combat. Page 67, as noted earlier, explicitly states:

Page 67, Rulebook wrote:Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier, in addition to those for Strength.

The rulebook gives two situations:

1. The model has the special rule.
2. The model is attacking with a weapon that has the special rule.

The book goes on to give an example, and then further clarification:

Page 67, Rulebook wrote:For example, a Strength 4 model with the Armor Piercing special rule would inflict a -2 armour save modifier when striking in close combat, rather than the usual -1.

If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing.

In situation 1, where the model has the special rule, it is designated to only offer this in close combat. In situation 2, the model gets the benefit of Armour Piercing if using a weapon designated as being Armour Piercing (such as DE Crossbows).

The Razor Standard states:

Rulebook wrote:Models in a unit with the Razor Standard have the Armour Piercing special rule.

It makes no mention of granting Armour Piercing to the weapon; the banner clearly states the model is granted Armour Piercing. Per situation 1 under the Armour Piercing rule, when the model has Armour Piercing and not the specific weapon, then it is only applied in close combat.

Yes, I agree it is a bit silly, but it does appear to read that you do not get Armour Piercing arrows.

Kirbinator: it is an *example*, yet you are assuming it is an exhaustive example

This is not true, and forming a restrictive conclusion based off a non-exhaustive example (you have added in the word ONLY there, when the example does NOT place this restriction on you) is an invalid line of argument

Edit: to make this clearer. You *cannot* assume that the example is the *only* situation which can occur, as it is by its very nature NOT the only situation (it would not be an example if it were exhaustive). As such you have *no rule* which states AP on a model is CC *only*, just an example where a model is attacking in close combat

It is faulty logic to extend this example to your "point 1" and equate it to a restrictive rule

A model with armour piercing has armour piercing for both shooting and CC

The example does not form the restrictive conclusion. The separate wording of a model with special rule as opposed to a model using a weapon with the special rule provides the restrictive conclusion. The Razor Standard explicitly states that the model is granted the special rule, not the weapon. The example helps to illustrate it. Do you feel it would be better presented if I emphasized the rule text rather than the example text?

I understand that a reader could be lead to the conclusion that a model with the special rule clearly must have weapons with the special rule, but that is not a valid connection. If it were, the rule would not have needed the distinction between a model with the special rule and a weapon with the special rule.

Another thing to note is that a similar magical banner, the Banner of Eternal Flame, grants a model Flaming Attacks. Under Flaming Attacks it explicitly states:

Pg69, Rulebook wrote:Unless otherwise stated, a model with this special rule has both Flaming shooting and close combat attacks...

There is no restriction of model vs. weapon so it is not a situation of "Well GW just wrote it funny on the AP banner". I am aware consistency is not always GW's strong point, but there is a distinct difference in the writing here. Armour Piercing rule states a model with this special rule has the benefit in close combat (unless using a ranged weapon with it). Flaming Attacks rule states a model with this special rule has the benefit in both shooting and close combat.

Kirbinator - the distinction is made so DE RxB dont give their bearers armour piercing in close combat

The initial rules quote does not even mention ranged attacks.

You're right, the rules do not ever state that the model is granted Armour Piercing ranged attacks. It specifically states that the model is granted the bonus in close combat.

Clearly there are ranged attacks with the Armour Piercing special rule, though. This is why the rule goes on to state that when the weapon has Armour Piercing, then attacks made by that weapon have Armour Piercing. Just as you state, a weapon with Armour Piercing does not give the model the special rule. Likewise, the model having Armour Piercing rule does not give the weapon the special rule.

"If it were, the rule would not have needed the distinction between a model with the special rule and a weapon with the special rule. "

This premise is faulty, as the example with RxB shows - there is a reason to specify when a weapon has it that it only applies to ranged / cc, depending on the weapon. When the entire model has AP tehre is no rule that restricts that to CC *only*

By definition if the entire model has AP the bow, which is a part of the model, has AP. Exactly the same way a cavalary model granted Frenzy frmo the MoK gains frenzy on both the mount AND the rider

So how do you reconcile "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule..."? It's the very first line. It doesn't read "Wounds caused by a model..." or even "Wounds caused by a model during shooting or close combat" like Flaming Attacks. It's very specific: "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule..."

If that were the end of the rule, we would all say "But wait, what about <insert ranged weapon with Armour Piercing special rule>?" The rule goes on to read that if a specific weapon has the rule, then attacks made by that weapon have the benefit. This does not supersede the initial statement of "Wounds caused in close combat by a model..." and it does not cause this initial statement to be changed to "Wounds caused in close combat or shooting by a model with Armour Piercing..."

There is a RaW difference in a model having Armour Piercing and a weapon that the model is using having Armour Piercing.

Glade Guard with Armour Piercing shoot their bows. Are they in close combat? No, they are shooting. Armour Piercing states if a model has it, the benefit is given to wounds caused in close combat. The exception is unless they are using a ranged weapon with the rule. Does a longbow have the special rule of Armour Piercing? No.

Edit: I would like to reiterate my point earlier that I do believe that while the distinction is evident, I do think it's a silly one and am only speaking as purely RaW. If I were your opponent I'd let your Longbows have Armor Piercing if you went and paid for the BSB.

Kirbinator wrote:There is a RaW difference in a model having Armour Piercing and a weapon that the model is using having Armour Piercing.

Glade Guard with Armour Piercing shoot their bows. Are they in close combat? No, they are shooting. Armour Piercing states if a model has it, the benefit is given to wounds caused in close combat. The exception is unless they are using a ranged weapon with the rule. Does a longbow have the special rule of Armour Piercing? No.

With what do glade guard make their close combat attaks? Like very nearly everything in the game, they use a specific weapon - in this case, a 'hand weapon' which benefits from the AP rule given to the unit. I have little problem assuming (with Nos) that the AP banner enchants all of the weapons in the unit equally - the hand weapons with which the guard make combat attaks as well as the long bows with which they make shooting attaks. The only real weapon-less combat attaks I can think of are monsters with random attaks (looking at it, the doomwheel lacks a hand weapon too, but the skaven book is riddled with holes so ...) and stomps. And stomps, while the sort of generic 'in combat' without a weapon attaks that Kirb keeps pointing out in the AP rules, quite clearly would not benefit from the AP banner, as they can't use special rules of any kind.

- Salvage

Kirbinator - again, you are assuming that a statement about close combat means the model is limited to only attacking with AP in close combat

You are inserting an "only" where none exists.

This is getting messy quite quickly

I was with Kirbinator to begin with in my understanding of this rule simply because Flaming attacks and Poisoned attacks clearly state that both shooting and CC attacks benefit from the rule.

The way Armour piercing reads it just mentions CC attacks then goes on to give the example of a ranged weapon with the special rule.

I am glad that RAI will prevail and as I mentioned the GW staff (where I play most my games, still to track down a club) agree that it affects ranged attacks as well so I am running with it (I know staff can be unreliable with rules interpretations)

I am not assuming that a statement about close combat means the model is limited to only close combat AP attacks. I am pointing out that the words clearly state that while in close combat, a model with AP benefits from the rule. There is no line in the rule stating that AP can apply to ranged attacks when the model has the AP special rule. The only exception allowing a ranged attack to benefit from AP is if the weapon description itself gives AP, which a long bow does not.

Boss Salvage wrote:With what do glade guard make their close combat attaks? Like very nearly everything in the game, they use a specific weapon - in this case, a 'hand weapon' which benefits from the AP rule given to the unit. I have little problem assuming (with Nos) that the AP banner enchants all of the weapons in the unit equally - the hand weapons with which the guard make combat attaks as well as the long bows with which they make shooting attaks.

This is an invalid connection, though. It does not matter with what the Armor Piercing model make its close combat attacks, be it hand weapons or a character's magical sword. All that matters, per the first line of the rule, is that the wounds are caused in close combat by a model with the special rule of Armor Piercing. It does not enchant the weapons the model is using; it enchants the model with a close combat bonus. This is the root distinction that is being glossed over and has not been reconciled.

Boss Salvage wrote:And stomps, while the sort of generic 'in combat' without a weapon attaks that Kirb keeps pointing out in the AP rules, quite clearly would not benefit from the AP banner, as they can't use special rules of any kind.

I don't see why a Stomp could not benefit from Armor Piercing. Armor Piercing allows for all wounds dealt by the model during close combat to get the bonus and looking under the Stomp rule there's nothing against adding modifiers such as Flaming or Armor Piercing to this attack. Unless I overlooked something. [Edit #2 for correction]As Avatar 720 pointed out, this is covered by the FAQ disallowing Stomps from benefiting from special rules, weapons, or magical equipment.[/edit]

Edit #1: I found another case in which ranged attacks can benefit from Armor Piercing! Aside from the aforementioned weapon that includes Armor Piercing in its profile, the Spell #2 of the Lore of Metal, Enchanted Blades of Abain, gives us the following:

Enchanted Blades of Abain wrote:All of their attacks also count as both magical attacks and have the Armour Piercing special rule.

This is another clear distinction (much like Flaming Attacks) that allows for both Ranged and Close Combat attacks to have Armor Piercing. This is an exception, though.

Reading over the rules in the book again, I have to agree with Kirbinator's conclusions. I can see how people could read it the other way, but he's right that the way the rule reads, the only thing that states an affect about the model and not the weapon having AP is related to Close Combat.

I don't see why a Stomp could not benefit from Armor Piercing.

Because Armour Piercing is a special rule, and the FAQ states that Stomp/Thunderstomps do not gain any benefit from other special rules, equipment or magic items.

Avatar 720 wrote:Because Armour Piercing is a special rule, and the FAQ states that Stomp/Thunderstomps do not gain any benefit from other special rules, equipment or magic items.

Ah, that would certainly explain why I didn't find it in the rulebook. Silly GW and calling erratas FAQs... nearly every other special rule can be combined with others so long as they don't override each other (Poisoned, Armor Piercing attacks for example).

Honestly, the more I read into the rule of Armor Piercing and how the exceptions to the rule are worded, I'm even further inclined to agree with the Dwarven opponent in not allowing ranged attacks without the exceptions to benefit from Armor Piercing. Of course, I only agree as far as the actual ruling, not in immaturely threatening to quit the game. I assume if he presented a better argument he wouldn't have felt it necessary to do that.

So a model with MoK does not give it to the mount?

The bow has AP because the model has been given AP. Is the bow part of the model? Yes? Then the bow has AP as well, and is now a ranged weapon with the AP special rule. If you disagree, not only do Chaos MoK knights not give their mount frenzy (which is incorrect) but it states you believe that when they stated "model" they actually meant "but nothing that theyre carrying"

Nothing in the rules acts as a restriction, or states it is all inclusive

You are making an invalid conclusion using an entirely different situation. To my knowledge (don't have the book in front of me), the Mark of Khorne bestows Frenzy upon the entire model, meaning both the rider and the mount. If it stated it gave Frenzy to the rider, per page 82 of the little rulebook, only the rider would benefit from Extra Attack to add +1A to its profile. To my knowledge, the Mark of Khorne also bestows Frenzy upon the mount, so it also gets Extra Attack. But again, this is a different subject entirely.

Armor Piercing, the rule itself and not the exceptions, is a close combat benefit. It is the very first sentence of the rule. There is nothing at all in the rule stating that model with the Armor Piercing special rule has both ranged and close combat attacks at -1 armor. It specifically states that this is bestowed to wounds caused during close combat.

You appear to be stating that because the model has Armour Piercing, it imbues all weapons carried by the wielder to cause -1 to armor saves. This is not the case. The rule clearly states that attacks made during close combat by a model with Armour Piercing gets this benefit. There is no allowance at all for it crossing over into ranged attacks, whether the model has ranged weapons or not. None at all.

So mount is a part of the model but a weapon isn't

The Armour Piercing rule says that wounds caused by models with this special rule get the bonus in close combat. Units can only get the benefit from shooting when the weapon has the special rule.

The Razor Standard specifically states that it gives models the armour piercing rule and mentions absolutely nothing about weapons getting the rule.

Which sucks, because that Standard made my Glade Guard very happy pandas.

HoverBoy wrote:So mount is a part of the model but a weapon isn't

That is not part of the equation. The Armour Piercing rule states that wounds caused in close combat by a model with this rule get the -1 to armor. It does NOT say all attacks made by this model get -1 armor. It further does NOT say that all weapons carried by the model are given Armour Piercing in its profile. Wounds caused by ranged attacks are by definition not wounds caused in close combat. Armour Piercing only benefits wounds caused in close combat, or by weapons with Armour Piercing in its profile, or due to the Metal spell.

So the bow has the armour piercing rule (because it is part of the model, and we know the ENTIRE model, and ALL of its components, has the rule) yet it cannot use it

Invalid concllusion based on an invalid assumption that the rule is detailing an exception for ranged weapons. It isnt

The bow has the AP rule because, and I will say this slowly: the entire model has it.

Just likea mount gains Frenzy because it is PART of the model, a BOW is PART of the model and so gains AP

It is ludicrously simple.

Kirbinator wrote:This is an invalid connection, though.

I was simply asking you to keep in mind that there are extremely few combat or shooting attaks that don't involve a weapon, I wasn't really trying to make a connection, valid or otherwise Per RAW, I actually do think that you're correct. Per RAI, I think it's clear that Nos and those allowing a quite expensive banner to give AP shooting are correct. It's also much simpler to treat AP in the same manner that GeeDub more clearly treats Poison and Flaming (IMO including the restrictions on magic and magic weapons, but that's lacking in the AP entry as well), but that isn't technically the case.

Anyway, you think they'll cover this in the next rulebook FAQ? Might be worth e-mailing something to someone, assuming they're listening to us now.

- Salvage

nosferatu1001 wrote:So the bow has the armour piercing rule (because it is part of the model, and we know the ENTIRE model, and ALL of its components, has the rule) yet it cannot use it.

This is not what I said. The model is granted Armour Piercing. Per the rule, a model with Armour Piercing gains the benefit to wounds caused during close combat. Any wounds caused during Close Comabt by the model with AP would then have the effect added to it. Any wounds caused by a model with AP outside of close combat do not have the effect added to it unless the weapon profile itself includes Armour Piercing. A model having the Armour Piercing special rule DOES NOT give the weapon profile Armour Piercing. It DOES make wounds caused during close combat to take an additional -1 armor modifier. Changing the weapon profile is not written in the rule at all, and I'm not sure from what basis you are insisting it is.

A Bret Knight in a unit with the Razor Standard is not suddenly imbued with an Armor Piercing Lance. Rather, all wounds caused by this Bret Knight during close combat inflict an additional -1 to armor, and he happens to use a lance as his weapon. If this Bret Knight for whatever reason had a longbow, this bow would not be an Armor Piercing Bow; it would still be a longbow. Wounds caused by it happen to be outside of close combat, and do not inflict an additional -1 to armor.

It's ludicrously simple. See? I can add statements that imply "I'm right, you're wrong, why can't you see that?" in a rather condescending tone. Could we avoid those for future banter?

Boss Salvage wrote:It's also much simpler to treat AP in the same manner that GeeDub more clearly treats Poison and Flaming (IMO including the restrictions on magic and magic weapons, but that's lacking in the AP entry as well), but that isn't technically the case.

It may be simpler, but that's not how it's written. If GW wanted it to affect both ranged and close combat attacks they could have easily written it as they did the other two rules, or written it as they did the Metal spell. Given how the exceptions to the rule are written (and how Flaming/Poison are written), I don't think it's against RaI to not allow ranged attacks to benefit from the Razor Standard. I agree the Razor Standard is expensive and is probably a little more worth its points if allowed to affect ranged attacks that normally would not benefit from it; that's certainly a house rule that people could take into consideration.

"If a model has the weapon with the Armour Piercing rule...."

The model has the AP rule
The bow, as you were told every part of the model gains AP, has AP

The bow thus, according to the rule above, gains the use of AP.

No mention of the word "profile" is used. Again, you are adding in words to the rules that do not exist, which negates your arguments validity.

You are now reduced to proving the bow does not have the AP rule, and I've already mentioned the problems you wil have with that.

I refer back to my Bret Knight example. He is not imbued with an Armor Piercing Lance. It is a normal lance, and due to his own Armor Piercing qualities he gets the benefit with wounds caused during close combat. He is not imbued with an Armor Piercing longbow. If (somehow) the longbow could cause wounds during the close combat phase then those wounds would get the benefit. This is not the case. I have no problem asserting this; this is correct.

No mention of the word "profile" is used. Again, you are adding in words to the rules that do not exist, which negates your arguments validity.

I have added no words, though. You are adding extra meaning to "If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule". The model does not have a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule. The model has a longbow. Look at the description of a longbow, there is no mention of Armour Piercing. Look at the description of a DE Crossbow, there is Armour Piercing.

As pointed out at the very beginning, there are two situations in this rule:
1. The model has Armor Piercing, thus wounds caused by the model during close combat deal -1 to armor.
2. The model is using a weapon that has armor piercing. Wounds caused by this weapon deal -1 to armor.

The Razor Standard grants the model Armour Piercing. Per rule, a model with armor piercing gets this bonus added to wounds dealt in close combat. It does not give him an Armour Piercing weapon. These are two separate entities. See the Lance vs. Armour Piercing Lance above.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"If a model has the weapon with the Armour Piercing rule...."

The model has the AP rule
The bow, as you were told every part of the model gains AP, has AP

The bow thus, according to the rule above, gains the use of AP.

No mention of the word "profile" is used. Again, you are adding in words to the rules that do not exist, which negates your arguments validity.

You are now reduced to proving the bow does not have the AP rule, and I've already mentioned the problems you wil have with that.

I think it's faulty logic to apply the rider/mount rules to a model/weapon situation.
If you take that approach it becomes messy pretty quick: Khorne warriors with extra hand weapons should get 5 extra attacks each; 4 for frenzy: 1 for the model, 1 for the hand weapon, 1 for the extra hand weapon, and 1 for the shield, then another for fighting with 2 weapons.. Yay for 7 attacks!

I do think that the intent was to make the 45 point banner give shooting AP, but I think RAW says no.
I believe that the basic rules for AP rules were written with dark elf crossbows in mind (to not give AP in melee just because you've got an xbow).
Outside of daemonettes, heralds of slaanesh, and the new goblin slittas, does any model start with the AP rule, applied to the model and not a weapon?

On a very related topic, does the AP granted by the lore of metal augment including shooting? It does say +1 to hit and magical, then states "All Attacks" are also AP.

Somebody kick GW in the nuts for me.

-Matt

I will say this again: the longbow is part of the model. the ENTIRE model has been granted the AP rule. This includes the longbow

So, if you were to write out the longbows profile, it would have the "AP" rule appended to it, because that is what the razor standard has done.

This is different to a model which inherently has armour piercing, hence the distinction made in the rule.

To give you another example:

Cavalry model, unit is given MoK whcih gives every mdoel "Frenzy"

So you now have:

Chaos Knight: .... , Frenzy
Warhorse: ...., Frenzy

They did not appear on their profile before, yet they are there now because of the special rule.

The Razor Standard is the exact same thing. Please, come up with an argument that actually addresses this point, as you have so far failed to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt - "Frenzy" does not stack, so no, it would not gain those extra attacks

Thought I would post all the relevant rules while I have the BRB in front of me.

p3 - Models & Units
"Each Model is an individual playing piece with its own skills and capabilities. To reflect all the differences between such warriors, each model has its own characteristics profile."

p89 - Weapon profiles
"Each 'special' weapon confers a number of abilities onto the warrior wielding it. This will sometimes be a bonus to their characteristic profile (normally strength) or perhaps grant the wielder one or more special rules, detailed n the weapons section. In order to keep a weapons abilities nice and clear, we give each a characteristic profile much as we do a warrior."

I include these two basic rules to show that a "model" and a "weapon" are indeed two separate entities so in theory the rule Razor Standard should read "gives every model and weapon the armour piercing special rule" however the Razor Standard wording can be found below

p503 - Magic Standards
"Models in a unit with the Razor Standard have the armour piercing special rule"

So as previously discussed (and my initial interpretation) the Razor Standard give the rules to the model not the weapon and as the rules above the model and weapon are two separate entities .

now onto the Armour piercing rule itself (in its entirety)
p67 - Special Rules
Armour Piercing
"wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier, in addition to those for strength.

For example, a strength 4 model with the armour piercing special rule would inflict a -2 armour save modifier when striking in close combat, rather than the usual -1.

If a Model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing"

The rule makes note to mention the model and the weapon individually and so unless the wording on the Razor Standard changes only the model not the weapon is affected (I agree with Salvage this is just silly but hey its GW)

Now as I mentioned the guys at my local GW store are with nosferatu1001 on this and say shooting is included in the armour piercing special rule, since this is where I will play most my games I am going to roll with it until I know the guys better as I don't want to walk in and say "Oi, you guys are wrong" that's just rude and I like the guys there.

I feel though that I agree with Kirbinator and all his arguments and that as RAW Razor standard does not grant a Unit armour piercing shooting.

I know this will not settle the debate so I am going to curl up in a corner and cry

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, if you were to write out the longbows profile, it would have the "AP" rule appended to it, because that is what the razor standard has done.

Where are you coming up with this? There is nothing in the description of the Razor Banner that states you do anything at all to the weapon's description. Literally, nothing. Because there is nothing in the rule that changes the weapon's description you cannot make the leap from "This model has Armour Piercing" to "All attacks made by this model have Armour Piercing". If this was the case, it would have been worded exactly as the Metal spell already is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:To give you another example:

Cavalry model, unit is given MoK whcih gives every mdoel "Frenzy"

So you now have:

Chaos Knight: .... , Frenzy
Warhorse: ...., Frenzy

They did not appear on their profile before, yet they are there now because of the special rule.

This is correct, the Mark of Khorne specifically states that you change the profile of the model to give it Frenzy. Now you have a Frenzied Knight on a Frenzied Mount. Frenzy gives them each +1A. If the Mark of Khorne stated that it only gave the rider Frenzy, and specifically not the horse, then only the rider would gain +1A. Again, though, this is an entirely different subject because it specifically alters the profile of the model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The Razor Standard is the exact same thing.

No it isn't! There is nothing that changes the weapon's description at all. Lance vs. Armour Piercing Lance. The Knight is NOT given an Armour Piercing weapon. Because the Knight has been given Armour Piercing, the effect of wounds caused during close combat has been altered. Wounds caused during any other phase have not been altered. The lance has not been altered. The longbows have not been altered. The only thing that granting a model Armour Piercing does is alter the wounds caused during the close combat phase.

Wrong, there is no mention of "profile" there, not at all.

"A model with the MoK is subject to Frenzy"

It does not alter the profile in the way you say it does, however it works in exactly the same way as Razor standard.

Every. Single. part. Of. the. Model. Has. Armour. Piercing. You have yet to find a way to avoid this.

The Bow has armour piercing because the razor standard gives it to every, single, little part of the model

Your error filled argument leads to Khorne knights not giving their horses frenzy. which is wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong, there is no mention of "profile" there, not at all.

"A model with the MoK is subject to Frenzy"

It does not alter the profile in the way you say it does, however it works in exactly the same way as Razor standard.

Every. Single. part. Of. the. Model. Has. Armour. Piercing. You have yet to find a way to avoid this.

The Bow has armour piercing because the razor standard gives it to every, single, little part of the model

Your error filled argument leads to Khorne knights not giving their horses frenzy. which is wrong.

Ok sorry to say nos but did you just ignore my entire post that the model and weapon are separate entities?

On the frenzy Ruling I haven't had much dealings with WoC so I am making an educated guess, both mount and rider are one and same model wise hence the term cavalry model.

And please keep this agument at least civil and less of the patronising tones

They are separate components of the same model

Same as horse and rider are separate components of the same model

When you are explicitly told "the model" gains something, ALL parts of the model benefit

So, all parts of a Chaos Knight model gains Frenzy. ALL parts of a bowman gain AP

nosferatu wrote:Wrong, there is no mention of "profile" there, not at all. "A model with the MoK is subject to Frenzy"

Mark of Khorne: Model becomes frenzied. Cavalry: Rider and Mount have separate profiles, but are the same model. Rider becomes Frenzied, Mount becomes Frenzied. We're in agreement.

Frenzy states that the subject is granted two special rules: Extra Attack and ItP. The rider gains Extra Attack and ItP. The mount gains Extra Attack and ItP (not that that part matters).

Extra attack states to give the model +1A. Attack is a profile number that you have increased by one. Yes, there is a clear (though admittedly indirect) mention of profile and direct instruction to alter it.

There is nothing in the Armour Piercing rule that dictates you alter anything on the model itself. Quite literally, nothing on or about the model is altered when you grant it Armour Piercing. The ONLY thing that is altered is the effect of close combat wounds caused by this model. It does not change the weapons (Lance vs. AP Lance, Longbow vs. AP Longbow). You are insisting that it does change the weapon the model is wielding. As you have said repeatedly, there is nothing in the rule about changing the profile or description of the weapon.

In any case, I've certainly presented my view of the topic and how I would "Make Da Call" so I believe I will bow out from here. Happy gaming!

I am glad this came up, I never noticed the issue.

Thanks again for the perspectives.

nosferatu1001 wrote:They are separate components of the same model

Same as horse and rider are separate components of the same model

When you are explicitly told "the model" gains something, ALL parts of the model benefit

So, all parts of a Chaos Knight model gains Frenzy. ALL parts of a bowman gain AP

Aesthetically I agree that the Bow and wielder are part of the same model but this is not true in terms of the game mechanics where the weapon and model are separate with separate profiles and special rules, unless you can quote me a page number and the rule that states "a model includes the warrior and all equipment carried by it" then I will have to disagree with your point nos.

I get the feeling that we will just have to end this agreeing to disagree and await a FAQ to clear the matter up officially, like Kribinator I am going to bow out having put my point across with everything that I can think of being argued and referenced.

Would just like to quote one more thing from the rulebook though;
p3 Spirit of the Game
"You'll realise soon that Warhammer is different to any other game you have played. It is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game. Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players - not just the victor - have a good time."


Happy gaming folks

So the "model" doesnt actually include everything on the model?

That interpretation causes more issues than you would realise. For example if you arbitrarily remove weapons from the list of things included when you talk about "the model" then you should be consistent, and consider armour to also not be included - meaning models cannot take armour saves, as the rules always refer to the models armour.

It doesnt need a page number because English tells you the answer - if something refers to "the model" it inherently MUST apply to every part of the model, as you have not restricted it in any way. To remove items the model has, such as a Horse or a weapon et al, you would need to provide an alternative definition

Essentially my point is one of consistency - both Razor Standard and MoK deal with units of models and models directly, and both apply to all parts of the model

nosferatu1001 wrote: For example if you arbitrarily remove weapons from the list of things included when you talk about "the model" then you should be consistent, and consider armour to also not be included - meaning models cannot take armour saves, as the rules always refer to the models armour.

Ok this really is going to be final response on this and I again will quote from the rulebook.

p43 - Armour Saves
"The value of the model's armour save is determined by the equipment it carries,"

So again this separates the terminology of armour(equipment) and the model, the model does not have an inherent save (unless provided by a special rule i.e. scaley skin) and armour weapons etc are the game mechanics that provides benefits to the that model, be it a save, an extra attack or armour piercing.

I agree that consistancy is not GWs strong point (hence the constant updated FAQs) and I agree that armour piercing should work in the same way as poison and flaming attacks but as it stands RAW the benefit of the Razor Standard does not grant armour piercing to shooting attacks, This is the belief I hold after dissecting the rules and have presented my arguments with all the supporting evidence from the rulebook.

As before I think this is a agree to disagree moment and I say play with your interpretation of the rule so long as you continue to have fun.

like I say this will be my final comment on this debate so would like to thank you nos for the lively debate and would shake your hand if I could

To be honest i never expected things to get so heated and ugly so fast. As far as i can tell it appears that opinions are split on the issue and i am afraid that it may continue to be the case in regards to players my my local gamestore as well. I am really just tempted to call GW and see if i can talk to one of the game developers about the rule to hopefully solve it however until then what am i to do about the Ard Boyz tournamnet? What if one location says you can and the other says you cannot?

Womblejim - no, RAW does not say that

Time and again (read the cavalry, monstrous cavalry and monstrous mounts section) it tells you that they always count as one model, despite having two profiles

The consistency is that you have components of a model still being "the model"

That line also does not say what you think it says - the equipment is still part of the model, and not separate from it.

So a chaos lord on a Steed of Slaanesh gains the poisoned attacks of his mount? Or a skaven warlord on a Great Pox Rat?

Do the poisoned attacks of the mount state they affect the entire model?
No

Now, care to name the logical fallacy you just committed?

Hey, I could hope :(

*goes off to actually learn how to read*

Well knowing how GW has treated RAW written the BRB, I think we could procedes in a manner such as this example from page 501 What's in a name?

"The magic weapons listed below often have a name that describes them as specifically being a sword or another particular type of weapon. This doesn't mean that the model has to have a sword to use the 'Ogre Blade'. We can simply assume that his axe, hammer or other suitable hand weapon has the properties and is for example, an 'Ogre Axe'"

Now, by this logic, I think it would be safe (and albeit, assumed by GW) that we could say that, in this case, the 'Razor Standard' could simply be a way of stating that this unit of archers has been trained to not fire as a group, but instead go for quick kill or incapacitating shots between armour plates or some similar thing like that, in fact I find it hard to believe that an army would not train at least one group of archers in such a manner.

However, I do think it slightly disappointing that GW have been a bit ambiguous as to how the term 'equipment' relates to the term 'model'.

gmaleron wrote:what am i to do about the Ard Boyz tournamnet? What if one location says you can and the other says you cannot?

I would contact the TOs and have two separate army lists just in case, better safe then sorry

Wh8ich is generally the best option for tournaments anyway - I've seen too many dodgy rulings whcih are seemingly based on personal preference and not the actual rules.

This is indeed a tough call. The real issue now seems to be:

"Does equipment count as part of the model"?

There isn't anything to state that yes, it does, outright. To my knowledge. But...it feels so obvious, even from a RaW standpoint, that you could just assume. I mean, Nosferatu assumed as much. That says something.

So here's my question, Nos: can you post something definitive that shows equipment counts as part of a model? I mean equipment. Not mounts or anything else. I'm just talkin' RaW- no assumptions from one rule to another or from one term to another, no matter how basic or fundamental.

And please note: I'm just curious. So be cordial.

I've not had a chance to over the weekend (when all books were around!) as I had a house full

From a "RAW" perspective the equipment is part of the model ,as that is just how the "ENglish" understanding for this would go - like we dont need to have a WHFB definition for "the", when you are told "the model" is naturally encompasses the whole of the model (unless told otherwise) - and this IS backed up by the mounts sections, when you are repeatedly told that even something with an entire many-entry stat line is STILL just part of the model.

So while there is nothing directly stating it, there doesnt need to be anything - there would need to be something stating the extraordinary claim that the equipment is NOT part of the model for you to be able to comfortably claim otherwise

WHich is where the anti-side falls down: there is nothing stating the bow is NOT part of the mdoel, and all persuasive evidence indicates that is IS, and therefore it *would* gain AP.

I know I said I'd bow out of this, but I just couldn't resist.

Nos's suggestion is that because a model is granted Armour Piercing, it now has Armour Piercing weapons. The problem is there's nothing at all in the rule stating you alter anything on the model, including the effect and description of the weapon. Nothing on the model is changed! This is why the Mark of Khorne example doesn't work; that Mark specifically directs you to alter the model's profile by adding frenzy (and thus Extra Attack).

By this interpretation and assumed connection to Mark of Khorne, it is being suggested that the Knight now has a Frenzied Sword and is wearing Frenzied Chaos Armor and the mount is wearing Frenzied Barding. Surely this is not the case, but this is exactly what is being suggested. While we all know Frenzy does not stack, other effects do. Do these effects stack for each and every piece of equipment he is wearing? No. Why? Because that would change the equipment description, which is not what those rules tell you to do.

Warpsolution wrote:The real issue now seems to be: "Does equipment count as part of the model"?

This is not the real issue. Equipment is part of a model, but that does not mean that you alter the equipment a model is wearing. The true question is "Does the rule state to alter the equipment?" In the case of Armour Piercing, the answer is no. In fact, there are very few rules in all of Warhammer that states to alter a piece of equipment's description. The vast majority (including AP) change an interaction with the model.

Let's take a look at Plague of Rust (Metal #1): "The target's armour save is lowered by one". Let's target a Chaos Knight with shield. Does this spell mean the target's armor now only offers a 5+ armor save and its shield offers no benefit at all because these pieces of equipment have been enchanted? By the thought that if a model has been enchanted, its equipment has thus been enchanted, yes! Wow that's a nasty spell! But this is not the case. No, the equipment's description is still the same so it still offers a 3+ armor. The model's armor save (3+) is then reduced by one. The model is being enchanted, not the equipment.

Let's also take a look at The Mark of Tzeentch. This Mark (unlike Khorne's) does not alter a model's profile or grant a special rule. Let's give a model with the MoT the Armor of Fortune (5+ ward). When taking a ward save, what happens? Well, the Armor gives a 5+ Ward. The Mark of Tzeentch does NOT change the armor's description to give a 4+ ward save. The armor still gives a 5+, the item's description has not been changed. The model just gets an additional +1 during the interaction of taking ward saves to get your total of a 4+ save.

Adding Armour Piercing to the model does not give you an Armour Piercing Weapon. Where does it say to do this? There is nothing at all in the rule about giving you an Amour Piercing Weapon. As given above, the Bret Knight is not given an Armour Piercing Lance, he still has a regular Lance. Nos's suggestion is just the opposite, the Knight is indeed given an Armour Piercing Lance.

Yes, I do understand how the connection has been made. The AP effect is being attributed to the weapon rather than the wielder, but it is the wielder that is imbued with an extra close combat prowess. It is not the weapon description that is being changed.

The Mark of Khorne is not a correlating situation because it specifically changes the model's profile. Correlating situations are things that change the effect of an interaction, but not the item or model itself. Plague of Rust, Mark of Tzeentch, etc.

My suggestion works the way anything applied to this game works

Model (Armour piercing) == ALL( Model components (Armour Piercing)) == {Man(AP), HW(AP), Bow(AP), ....}

Given AP does not stack (only extra attacks) this is a valid result and expansion. This is why Warps question is valid, and is one you have sidestepped with a false assumption - that the weapons profile is not modified. I have shown that it *is* modified, have backed it up with a logical expansion of the term "the model gains AP" and shown that yes, when GW state "the model" they really do mean EVERYTHING on that model

Your assumption is that the model does not gain an AP lance, when they do - they *also* gain AP normal attacks, which is a redundancy (you only need one or the other to make AP CC attacks, after all) but that does not make it nonexistant

Your plague of rust example is false, as it specifies "the armour save" - you only have one armour save which is a combination of all applicable saves. If you reduce that by more than 1 in total (by reducing each individual piece by 1) you have broken the rule for the spell.

This is entirely, 100% different to armour piercing, where you are told the model, and by extension all parts of it, have armour piercing. You are *repeatedly* told that all parts of the model are still "the model", whcih is why the question posted by Warp IS valid, as my expansion above shows

I can not believe this has gone on for 2 pages, especially when it was so clearly answered early on page 1.

The AP rules are clear. If a model has the AP rule all his CC attacks have it, not his ranged attacks. The only way for his ranged attacks to have AP is for his weapon to have the AP rule.

So the banner gives the unit AP which means for CC only.

However I must say the standard is poorly written. If the intent was to disallow ranged weapons from having AP, then the wording for the standard could have been so much better to avoid these issues.

Or perhaps GW feels that it is so obvious that it can not be debated? GW does seem enjoy that stance way too often.

If a model has the AP rule all his CC attacks have it, not his ranged attacks

The rule does not actually state that. It only mentions the close combat attacks, it does not de facto deny the model having ranged AP attacks (it just doesnt consider it at all)

The only way for his ranged attacks to have AP is for his weapon to have the AP rule

Again not strictly true. There is no "only" in the AP rule.

The point I was making is that, by giving the *entire* model the AP rule, you are giving it to *every* part of the model - as you are repeatedly told, many many many times GW realy do mean "the whole of the model, including all the bits on it" when they state "the model" (see ALL the different types of mounts rules, for example) - and by giving it to every part of th model you do, in fact, give it to the Bow (or other ranged weapon) and it DOES modify the Bow to now say "Bow, AP" (same as a magical lance with AP can be written as "Lance, AP")

As only "extra attacks" stacks this is a valid expansion, as you stgill only have a single instance of AP for the whole model.

Im not looking to get dragged into this, but here we go...

If a model has the AP rule his attacks in CC have it to. This is clearly stated. It does not state that his ranged attacks get it as well.

If a model has the AP rule, which means his CC attacks benefit but his ranged do not, then how is the Standard different?

So this means that if my unit has the AP rule and bows I can not use AP shooting, so long as the AP rule is in my unit entry in the Armybook.

However, if I purchase the banner for a unit without the AP rule, they now gain it on their ranged attacks.

This is the logic that I'm getting from you. I could be wrong in what I think your saying.

Yeah, this is definately not as cut-and-dry as one would assume.

From what I've gathered, the arguments are:

1. The standard gives the model the special rule. The special rule only applies in close combat, unless the special rule is on a ranged weapon, in which case it works with that weapon.

2. The standard gives the model the special rule. The model includes all of its equipment, so each of its weapons has this special rule as well.

There is one point I'm a little confused on: AP works on wounds caused in close combat. Nosferatu says this doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't work on ranged combat.
Nosferatu, do I understand you correctly? I feel like this falls outside a permissive system.
Not that you really need that point in this argument, though. If a warrior's and all of his weapons' profiles gain AP...

So, in conclusion thus far: If the first argument is correct, this standard puts "Armour Piercing" on a warrior's profile. This would basically mean the standard sucks.

If the second argument is correct, the standard puts "Armour Piercing" on the warrior's and his weapons' profiles. Assuming that AP only works in close combat, this means that the standard is better than having the rule to begin with.

Warpsolution wrote:So, in conclusion thus far: If the first argument is correct, this standard puts "Armour Piercing" on a warrior's profile. This would basically mean the standard sucks.

Considering this is EXACTLY what the Razor Standard says it does, yes, the Razor Standard is fairly expensive for only a moderately decent upgrade in combat prowess that is often better spent on other 45pt or less banners. GW put an item in the game that is about fifteen points more than it's worth. Fairly par for the course. Heck, Dark Elves already had one at 25 points.

Warpsolution wrote:If the second argument is correct, the standard puts "Armour Piercing" on the warrior's and his weapons' profiles. Assuming that AP only works in close combat, this means that the standard is better than having the rule to begin with.

I don't understand how you can say "Alright, so if this Warrior comes standard with Armour Piercing, it only works in close combat because the rule states it only works in close combat. HOWEVER, if you use this banner that says it gives this Warrior Armour Piercing, it now applies to ranged wounds too." If this were the case, then the warrior would have AP bonus to ALL attacks to begin with since he is inherently imbuing them with this capability. Further, if this were the case, why would GW need to specify that ALL wounds dealt while using Metal 2 spell gain AP? Because it is an exception, that's why.

nosferatu1001 wrote:and by giving it to every part of th model you do, in fact, give it to the Bow (or other ranged weapon) and it DOES modify the Bow to now say "Bow, AP" (same as a magical lance with AP can be written as "Lance, AP")

It does not. The book clearly dictates what Armour Piercing does, it adds the effect of -1 to armour saves due to wounds caused in close combat. It does not state that it gives attacks made with any weapon this effect and in fact does not mention affecting the weapons of the model with Armour Piercing at all. It clearly specifies that models with this special rule get a bonus to wounds caused in close combat. It goes on to state that weapons that have this special rule get the bonus to wounds caused by that weapon. Outside of using a weapon that already has the special rule, or the Metal 2 spell, Armour Piercing does not affect wounds caused outside of the close combat phase. The Razor Standard does not grant the exception written into the Metal 2 spell, it grants standard Armour Piercing. Much like Mark of Khorne does not give you a Frenzied Sword and a Frenzied Shield, it just gives you a Frenzied model. Armour Piercing gives you an AP model. By your own statement, a model that has AP on its profile gets a close combat bonus, nothing further.

Kirbi - so, yet again, you ignore that every part of the model is "the model", and ignore the very clear expansion i laid out.

Selective quoting of a small partr of an argument doesnt help your argument. Not one iota.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kirbi - so, yet again, you ignore that every part of the model is "the model",

Show us where it says this explicitly in the BRB.

Until then, Kirbinator's argument is better supported than yours, IMO.

just to let you guys know, i also thought for a long time that MoK got applied to the whole model, and that my horsey got an extra attack, this sadly is not the case. There is actually a paragraph in the book that points out that only the element with frenzy gets the +1 attack not he whole model. ill put this in a new thread as the bow issue is what needs to be discussed.

"If either the rider or the mount have frenzy then the whole model is subject to beserker rage, but only the element with the Frenzy rule gains the extra attack." pg 82

Even though i agree with Kirb on this matter, if i had to fight a WE player id let them have it, i just feel kinda bad for them. If it did apply to the weapons think of all the cool things we could do.

Flaming armour piercing Template weapons....

Flaming armour piercing Impact hits (they do count as CC attacks so this actually works)....

To name a few. In ard boyz or a tourney i might argue it, but in a friendly game i don't care.

Platuan4th wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kirbi - so, yet again, you ignore that every part of the model is "the model",

Show us where it says this explicitly in the BRB.

Until then, Kirbinator's argument is better supported than yours, IMO.

Read the cavalry section. Note that the mount is part of the model. In every section about mounts, in fact.

Look at a model. If you can say, with a straight face, that the Bow that is part of the model is not, in fact, part of the model, then well done. That level of doublethink is classic.

Magus - you're wrong on MoK, been through this. Read the cavalry section, note that "THE MODEL" includes both the mount AND the rider. By saying "the model gets Frenzy" then both the mount and the rider have Frenzy.

There's a difference between "the model" as sold by GW and "the model" as that model is treated by the rules. "The model" in the latter case is more akin to "the statline" or "the profile" than the physical item on the table representing the various rules that we agree that it represents in order to play a game. As far as the latter is concerned, there may well be a distinction between the equipment of the model and the profile of the model. There is, in fact: you can destroy or nullify the effects of various magical items, and the rules of magical weapons often don't apply when they're not being attacked with.

Which isn't to say one way or the other that the razor standard gives armour piercing to the weapons of the model. I don't think it does. It just wouldn't suprise me to find that GW had badly worded a rule.

Magus Nebula wrote:just to let you guys know, i also thought for a long time that MoK got applied to the whole model, and that my horsey got an extra attack, this sadly is not the case. There is actually a paragraph in the book that points out that only the element with frenzy gets the +1 attack not he whole model.

Look earlier in the thread where I go over the Mark of Khorne and why it is applied to both the rider and the mount. In this case Nos and I are in complete agreement, though he goes to apply the same logic to equipment where I do not. Because of the cavalry rules, both the horse and the rider receive the Mark and thus both gain frenzy. You wind up with a frenzied rider on a frenzied horse, quite the angry pair!

Edit: Just for further clarification, this is also why my Bret Knight with Armor Piercing gets the bonus on horse wounds caused in close combat. It's not because the horse has Armour Piercing hooves, it's because the horse with AP has dealt wounds in close combat.

Warboss - yet, repeatedly, you are told there is no difference.

A model which has two entirely distinct parts, a Dragon with HE Lord, with two *entirely* different stat lines, equipment and abilities is *still one model*

So why is the equipment suddenly not part of the model? All signs point to "the equipment is part of the model", in the game and with the actual physical model.

Ok, I think there is a bigger (smaller?) issue here:

GW uses the word "model" in two different, though related, senses.

1: Model = the plastic or metal thing on one base. Cavalry, ridden monsters, infantry etc. all one model. This is Nos's use as well, one thing on one base that if parts came off you would be reaching for glue. Weapons, mounts, etc.

2: Model = Dude Fella, what the model represents. Not so much the sense of plastic man, but rather a functional being who is equipped with stuff. So your model can have this weapon, or that weapon. The model (physical object) has whatever is sculpted on, but the "dude fella" the model represents has various options which change his nature. This is the sense Kirbinator seems to be going for, some soldier/character who is equipped with stuff.

So there are two uses, the first the representation, the second the soldier himself. You might think of it as the second being the naked fellow, and after you add all his stuff and freeze him in carbonite it is the first.

The trouble seems to be that GW doesn't recognize they use the two interchangeably. "You may equip the model" makes for easier cutting and pasting, but really they mean to equip the soldier. (You are not gluing a full size great sword on the thing, but rather a model great sword on a model soldier.)

So we are left with the problem of figuring out which cases use the "plastic thing on a base" usage, and which uses the Dude Fella usage.

Thanks GW.

Hm. Okay. So: tactile versus mathematical. Yes?

So, when GW says that cavalry "counts as one model", they mean that the numbers that represent the horse and the rider counts as one model. Mainly because no one cares what the tactile sense of "model" counts as in this or most other cases.

@Kribinator: here's what I'm trying to say about standard AP versus (razor) standard AP, according to what I think is Nosferatu's argument- the rule "Armour Piercing" follows the rules for itself when it comes up. Okay. But if Nosferatu is correct in thinking that a "model" includes all of the equipment on it, the standard doesn't just give the warrior the AP rule, but gives it to all of his stuff.

@Nosferatu: continuing with the above, I pose this- can you offer evidence that Armour Piercing (in general) grants the extra -1, even with ranged attacks? I might be missing something here, but it seems like the rule says "it does this in close combat", and sense this is a permissive system, blah blah blah.

Okay. So, if this is not the case, and AP works the way Kribinator thinks it does, then, if you're right about what counts as "the model", the razor standard does something slightly different than the basic rule.

All right. If that's true, then I'd wonder about assuming that a model's equipment benefits in the same way that cavalry does. Because I'd normally assume this, but I'd also normally assume that an item that grants a rule just...grants the rule.

So it becomes: which thing is more fundamental?

...did I lose anyone (beyond myself, of course)?

Platuan4th wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kirbi - so, yet again, you ignore that every part of the model is "the model",

Show us where it says this explicitly in the BRB.

Until then, Kirbinator's argument is better supported than yours, IMO.

I really agree with this. Nos, this is your own language, not something from the rulebook. Kirbinator's distinction between the "model" and the "weapon" comes from the AP rule itself.

It's the wording of Flaming and Poisoned that convinces me, as well, since if GW wanted AP to work like that, they could have easily worded it as such. Clearly, they do not, and there is a dinstinction between AP-causing weapons (such as DE crossbows) and AP-possessing models (who can use their AP in close combat only, according to the RAW).

Edit: Also, credit to WombleJim for noticing this earlier! I continue to be impressed by your theoryhammer and grasp of the rules in planning out wood elf tactics (even though it didn't work in this case, it's neat that you noticed it).

I have been thinking what Wehrkind said and can not find a resolution.

I have always read it as nosferatu1001 has stated, but now I understand the counter-point well enough that it makes me sad to look at the banner and think it would be useful.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Warboss - yet, repeatedly, you are told there is no difference.

A model which has two entirely distinct parts, a Dragon with HE Lord, with two *entirely* different stat lines, equipment and abilities is *still one model*

I would argue that it is two models which are treated as being one model while the two are still alive (except for certain things like shooting and such), given that you can kill either the griffin or the HE lord and have the survivor remain on the table.

Unless that's something that didn't carry over from 7th, and I've actually been playing it horribly wrong this whole time.

I would argue that it is two models which are treated as being one model while the two are still alive (except for certain things like shooting and such), given that you can kill either the griffin or the HE lord and have the survivor remain on the table.

Unless that's something that didn't carry over from 7th, and I've actually been playing it horribly wrong this whole time.

Actually they are considered one model for all gaming purposes. There are references to this in terms of how war machines interact with these types of models, as well as spells. If one part of the "model" dies, it will still be just one model (only without the dragon / rider). Although I do not have my book at hand, and so cannot quote any pages exactly.

I can think of one example.... If the model is forced to take a characteristic test, it only tests once, on the best score it possesses.

I don't mean to derail the thread though.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I would argue that it is two models which are treated as being one model.

Enjoy you'r argument that is in total contradiction of the rule on page 104 where it says a character and his mount are "treated as a single model for all rules purpoces, exept as noted below..." and then proceeds to give the exceptions for the various mount types.

HoverBoy wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I would argue that it is two models which are treated as being one model.

Enjoy you'r argument that is in total contradiction of the rule on page 104 where it says a character and his mount are "treated as a single model for all rules purpoces, exept as noted below..." and then proceeds to give the exceptions for the various mount types.

How is that contradicting my post? I said very nearly the same thing. Two models (because you can kill one and the other lives) treated as one model.

Here's something I thought about:

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

- Not sure if I have this right, but couldn't you rearrange this phrase like so:

"A model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier on wounds caused in close combat."

So...this phrase seems to claim that ranged weapons can never benefit from this rule.

"... in addition to those for Strength...If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing."

- This sentence doesn't seem to clear anything up. But it does mention shots fired. When it says the attacks or shots are Armour Piercing, we should be able to insert the definition of the term (and my rearranged one) in its place, right?

"...only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon inflict a further -1 armour save modifier on wounds caused in close combat..."

Now: convince me one way or the other!

Oh dear..... really didn't want back into this but oh well

Again I quote from the rulebook in an effort to support my reasoning that in game mechanics the model is seperate from the weapons and armour that bestow bonus properties to said model.

p4 - Other Important Information
"In addition to its characteristic profile each model will have a troop type, such as infantry or cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on p80. It might also have a save of some kind, representing any armour or magical protection it might have, and it could be carrying one or more shooting or close combat weapons (see page 88) or might have one or more special rules (see page 66)"

Ok now dissecting the english in this shows that the "model can have special rules" and can carry weapons (two seprate things in game mechanics), now as quoted before the Razor standard affects the model (which can have special rules) and there is no mention of the standard bestowing it armour piercing on a weapon, again the armour piercing special rules can be quoted as saying "If a model has a weapon with the armour piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing.

This will be my final comment for a few days as am heading down South, when I am back at the weekend I fully expect this thread to be on page 10
@RiTides, thank you for the compliment, lets hope theory works in practice when I get to the table end of the month

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:How is that contradicting my post? I said very nearly the same thing. Two models (because you can kill one and the other lives) treated as one model.

Because it clearly says they're one modelm, nowhere in the ridden monsters rule does it say they aren't. Being able to die separately may sound like a logical reason to declare them as separate models but it has no basis in the rules.

In fact all we have to go on RAW-wise is an FAQ ruling that mentions models with different "locations":

Q: Can spells that pick out individual models, even if they are in a
unit, choose what is hit when targeting a model with multiple
locations? For example The Fate of Bjuna is cast at an Orc Warboss
on a Wyvern, the caster can choose to target the Warboss or the
Wyvern and it will be resolved against the Toughness of the target.
(Reference)
A: Yes.

Womble - again, that does not state that the model is separate from the equipment.

MOst people have skin, which has certain characteristics entirely different to the other parts of their body (elasticity, permeability, etc) - does that mean your skin is not a part of you?

No.

In the same way your model has equipment with stats - this equipment is STILL part of the model.

The extraordinary claim is that a part of a model is not actually a model. That has so far NOT been backed up by any poster. Assertions have been made that GW view them differently, but not a single rules quote has been given (that actually states a model and the equipment that is part of the model is not actually part of the model)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If a model has the AP rule all his CC attacks have it, not his ranged attacks

The rule does not actually state that. It only mentions the close combat attacks, it does not de facto deny the model having ranged AP attacks (it just doesnt consider it at all)

If a rule says that you gain X for Y situation, you do not additionally gain X for Z situation.

You may not assume to gain Armor Piercing ranged attacks for having the Armor Piercing unit rule.

You may gain Armor Piercing ranged attacks for having a weapon with the Armor Piercing weapon rule.

ph34r - which is my argument: the Banner gives AP to the model, euipment is an inherent part of the model, therefore AP is given to the equipment in the exact same way MoK gives frenzy to a mount as well as the rider.

It's one supported by English, by the actual models (and we all know GW is a mdoelling company first....rules somewhere in the distance) and by their consistent usage of such throughout the rule book.

nosferatu1001 wrote: but not a single rules quote has been given (that actually states a model and the equipment that is part of the model is not actually part of the model)

I would like to say that yourself have not supported your claim that the model includes the playing piece and all equipment it caries with any quote from the rulebook.

I maintain my argument that the model is separate from any equipment that would grant it any additional abilities (poison, AP, flaming etc etc) as it is the mechanic of the equipment (not the model) that allows the model to make such attacks (unless said model has the inherent special rule).

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - which is my argument: the Banner gives AP to the model, euipment is an inherent part of the model, therefore AP is given to the equipment in the exact same way MoK gives frenzy to a mount as well as the rider.

It's one supported by English, by the actual models (and we all know GW is a mdoelling company first....rules somewhere in the distance) and by their consistent usage of such throughout the rule book.

Would you consider an effect that gives a unit +1 strength to give the unit's handguns +1 strength? How about an effect that gave the unit +1 leadership?

Exactly! You simply cannot generalize "model" and apply the effect to the ranged weapon attacks when it is specifically stated that it is for close combat attacks only.

Otherwise, you would run into examples such as ph34r is stating above, and open up a whole can of worms. It is much clearer, and much truer to the RAW, to make a dinstinction between the effect applied to the model and to its weapon, because the rule itself makes this distinction, and explains what is meant.

Nos, I think you're just being stubborn about it at this point, honestly... most people disagree with you, the wording disagrees with you, and all you can point to is a vague thing about "it says model so it affects everything" when there are cases when this isn't true (ph34r's examples) and the dinstinction between the two is made by the rule itself.

Instead of claiming the "the english language" supports your view, you should really use the rule in question, instead... the reason you aren't is that it does not support your view at all, and at this point you just won't admit it.

Sigh.

Nope, not at all. I have used the rule a number of times now. I used the rule repeatedly, especally that part about "the weapon".

How about everyone leaves it, since we're now on the 3rd page of repetition? I have yet to see any argument that proves "the model" is different to "the models equipment" , and the rulebook heavily implies the contrary (ref every section on mounts), meaning nothing can be *proven* , just assumed, on "your" part.

Using the language "assume" for the other side of the argument is silly, as you are quite obviously assuming that the sections referring to mounts apply to weapons, and this is not necessarily the case. The rule we are actually talking about calls them out as separate entities.

And if you are arguing based on implications at this point, you are no longer arguing RAW. The rule in question makes a distinction between the two, so there is a dinstinction- unless you can provide proof (not the other way around) that there is not a distinction.

You keep asking for proof of why the term "model" doesn't apply to the weapon, when the rules calls them out separately. You need to prove that they should be joined, contrary to the wording of the rule, and you haven't done so.

Alrighty, I think both sides can be done now. Nos can play with Khorne Warriors and their Frenzied Shields vs. Black Guard and their ASF Heavy Armor as much as he likes, it is an open game for all to enjoy. Let's not require a mod to lock a thread to put this one to rest, shall we?

Kirbinator wrote:Alrighty, I think both sides can be done now. Nos can play with Khorne Warriors and their Frenzied Shields vs. Black Guard and their ASF Heavy Armor as much as he likes, it is an open game for all to enjoy. Let's not require a mod to lock a thread to put this one to rest, shall we?

Was that really called for? I could equally mock you for your bows that arent actually part of your model, despite being an integral part of it - which is your eventual argument. It doesnt actually help matters, especially when I attempted to end this discussion civilly.

I don't think it was uncivil, as that is basically what you are doing- extending a rule to apply to things that are not mentioned in the rule.

It's a fair comment, and not uncivil... and AFAIK Kirbinator wasn't trying to take a jab at you (we've been PM'ing about this issue, as well).

If you really wanted to end the discussion, it would have helped to admit that you are stretching the rules a bit to cover this instance, instead of arguing as if it is the other way around. Your application of the word "model" is broader than the rule's wording allows it to be, and that stance makes it very difficult to discuss the rules based on the actual wording, instead of what you think they are implying.

Okay, so people are going to assume it doesn't from this point. Sure. Whatever.

...but can someone please respond to my last post? If it can't be wrapped up in a few posts, I'll have to start another thread ("Armour Piercing: Never Ranged?", or something like that).

RI - so you're hanging on a rule which functionally has no allowance for AP outside of CC, *ever*?

From the wording, yes- unless the weapon is described to have AP, as in the DE crossbows in the example.

The rule makes no allowance for what happens at range, only in CC

You are assuming it is -1 at range sa well, because that is how it has always been.

Still an assumption on your part.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there, Nos.

Do you think it should not give the -1 AP at range for DE crossbows (or just playing devil's advocate)?

But I would say you are right- I would assume that they would work at range, because it describes them having AP. However, that is not contradicting anything in the rule, only filling in a gap from it's description. The reading that you were espousing sounded to me to be in direct conflict of the wording of the rule, which only allowed for close combat attacks with AP from a "model" possessing AP (not a weapon).

nosferatu1001 wrote:I have yet to see any argument that proves "the model" is different to "the models equipment"

The rulebook does not need to. The rulebook tells you what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T do. If the rulebook says it effects cc, it doesn't mean you can assume it effects ranged unless it says otherwise.

If the rulebook says model, you can't assume it also effect's all of the model's equipment.

Except you can, as I pointed out - I even showed you the logical expansion of what happens when something is given to the "whole" model, and it happens for MoK on cavalry.

English AND the consistent use of "model" throughout the rulebooks shows that claiming "saying the whole model excludes ...." is the *extraordinary* claim to make. Again, I point to cavalry - something that is entirely different to the rider is STILL ONE MODEL. Not two, not a model plus some extra bit, *ONE*model. Suddenly claiming that equipment are NOT part of the model is ludicrous given terminology.

Ri - technically there are no rules covering ranged AP, at all. There is a *huge* gap there. Assuming you get -1 at range is what everyone does, but the rules do not support it.

It is also NOT a contradiction - whcih was the point.

There is no limitation in the initial sentence, i.e. "if the model has AP, it can ONLY ever make CC attacks with AP" (to loosely word the type of restriction i'm talking about to get meaning) it just tells you what happens IF the model has AP. IF the model is carrying ranged weapons then it *also* has ranged AP attacks. So the razor banner giving the whole model AP, which includes its equipment, means:

1) The model has AP, so it can make CC attacks with an extra -1
2) It carries ranged weapons with the AP special rule, so we assume this means ranged attacks are at -1 (because the rules dont ACTUALLY say tht)

Claiming that model /= whole of the model is an extraordinary claim to make. As I said - hold a model up. If you can claim, TRULY claim, that the bow that is integral to the model is NOT part of the model, then you have won part of the argument. I'd love to see anyone try it.

I think Nosferatu has a good point there, and no one's said anything about it: a model's equipment is obviously part of the model. Whether you mean model as in "plastic bit" or "dude guy", he's still got a (model) sword and a (model) suit of chain mail.

Now, the issue I'll have next is threefold:

- a model gains an ability. We've had the Mark of Khorne on knights for a long-long-long-standing example. And there's no problem here; the equipment's profiles don't have an Attack section, which means that there's no place for that +1 from Frenzy to go. It doesn't go from 0 to 1, it goes from - to -. Right?

- Now, here's the second issue: what about bonuses that the warrior and his equipment can both benefit from? The only one I can think of is Strength, in terms of weapons. If I give an orc model +1S (...such as, it's the first round of combat), and this logic is to be followed, then this would be the case:

orc's S = 3+1, weapon's strength = (wielder's strength=3+1)+1 = 5

This isn't a problem with grammar. It's just showing a trend toward silliness due to some poorly written stuff.

- finally, this is what everyone else seems so keen on: the cavalry section is very similar to this situation, but it is not the same. The rules don't give us an explicit way to deal with this sort of thing.
If we keep following cavalry as an example, we'll inevitably get to the section on special rules, and how they don't effect the mount (or, if we're to keep the comparison going, the equipment).

Doing so would result in an assumption. But so would assuming that the rules pass on to equipment- even though it is obvious that it's all the same model, we're never told such, so it's still, technically, an assumption.

Therefore, I move that we all assume weapons don't get special rules when the models do, like cavalry, because we're not told (directly) one way or the other, it gets silly otherwise, and that's also the way it was intended.

...oh. And we can assume that ranged attacks allow AP to work. No logical arguments for that, though. I just don't feel like being that mean. GW messed up. Whatever. Spirit of the game. Blah blah blah.


El fin.

Warpsolution wrote:I think Nosferatu has a good point there, and no one's said anything about it: a model's equipment is obviously part of the model. Whether you mean model as in "plastic bit" or "dude guy", he's still got a (model) sword and a (model) suit of chain mail.

Actually, a page or two ago, two rules were quoted where gear isn't part of a models intrinsic abilities.

-Matt

I could only find this:

p3 - Models & Units
"Each Model is an individual playing piece with its own skills and capabilities. To reflect all the differences between such warriors, each model has its own characteristics profile."

p89 - Weapon profiles
"Each 'special' weapon confers a number of abilities onto the warrior wielding it. This will sometimes be a bonus to their characteristic profile (normally strength) or perhaps grant the wielder one or more special rules, detailed n the weapons section. In order to keep a weapons abilities nice and clear, we give each a characteristic profile much as we do a warrior."

And this proves that equipment is separate from a model's abilities. But that doesn't make it not part of the model. Like a dragon; it has its own profile (like a sword) and is separate from the model's abilities, but it's part of the same model.

...unless you were referring to something else that I missed in my cursory glance backwards in time. In which case, you may disregard the above.

The points above were what I was getting at: nothing tells you that that-part-of-the-model (the equipment) isnt actually part of the model. In fact, every time something is explicitly mentioned - it IS part of the model.

It's a stretch in the same way that using ranged AP to any effect is a stretch. Sloppy rules writing FTW

Wow this is a really sticky one. I would tend to go with Nos on this until they release an errata on the Razor Banner. I think both arguments are valid though. I just personally wouldn't deny my opponent the ranged AP when it is so poorly written, and can be argued either way so equally.

I wouldn't claim the bonus myself, but at 45 points, I would deny my opponent the bonus if he claimed it.
I would say this is the moral high ground to take; giving the advantage without taking.

The biggest issue is, we don't have a model in the game that the model has the armor piercing rule, and a ranged attack. We just don't have a single point of reference.

-Matt

I'd certainly give my opponent the bonus. But at 45pts, I'd double-check with my opponent, to make sure he's okay with giving me the bonus.

How is this still up for interpretation? The ranged attacks don't get it.

And nosferatu's "the model includes it's gear and special rules give it to the whole model" argument is invalid.

LOOK at the description of the characteristics of a "model". Nowhere does it state the equipment are part of a model's characteristics.
and then look at the description for SPECIAL RULES. It affects the model. and weapons are not part of the model characterstic. period.
You cannot just assume they are. The rules say what you can do. they don't state every single thing you can't do. otherwise we'd have 2000 page rule books.
If it doesn't say you can do it, it means you can't do it.

The only way to cause armour piercing ranged attacks is if it is already in the weapon's profile.
Special rules or buffs given to a model do not transfer to their weapons profile.

Does a spell giving a model a +X to strength give it to their equipment too? so can I have +3 strength from lore of beasts buff on my character and just carry that over onto my ranged weapons profile too?
WHY NOT? OMFGX0RZ IT'S PART OF THE MODEL!!! AND WEAPONS CAN HAVE A STRENGTH PROFILE. MY CROSSBOW IS NOW S7

Your weapon isn't armour piercing unless it's already got it in the weapon profile.
Get over it.

Marlo wrote:How is this still up for interpretation? The ranged attacks don't get it.

And nosferatu's "the model includes it's gear and special rules give it to the whole model" argument is invalid.

LOOK at the description of the characteristics of a "model". Nowhere does it state the equipment are part of a model's characteristics.
and then look at the description for SPECIAL RULES. It affects the model. and weapons are not part of the model characterstic. period.
You cannot just assume they are. The rules say what you can do. they don't state every single thing you can't do. otherwise we'd have 2000 page rule books.
If it doesn't say you can do it, it means you can't do it.

The only way to cause armour piercing ranged attacks is if it is already in the weapon's profile.
Special rules or buffs given to a model do not transfer to their weapons profile.

Does a spell giving a model a +X to strength give it to their equipment too? so can I have +3 strength from lore of beasts buff on my character and just carry that over onto my ranged weapons profile too?
WHY NOT? OMFGX0RZ IT'S PART OF THE MODEL!!! AND WEAPONS CAN HAVE A STRENGTH PROFILE. MY CROSSBOW IS NOW S7

Your weapon isn't armour piercing unless it's already got it in the weapon profile.
Get over it.

So, you're saying the only way to get armour piercing attacks is to attack with your bare hands? Because if you give armour piercing to a unit attacking with halberd, you have now given the special rule to the weapon. see, I can point out stupid technicalities in your argument too.

Well, I'd like an answer to his actual question:

If giving Armor Piercing to a model also gives it to all weapons carried by that model

Then, why does not giving +1 Strength to a model also give it to all weapons carried by that model?


Anyway, the basic rule book states on page 89 that special weapons gives (uses the word 'confers') their special rules to the warrior wielding it. Additional hand weapons gives the model Extra Attack, for example. The weapon itself doesn't have an attack value.

In your example, striking with an Armor Piercing Halberd gives the base attacks Armor Piercing and +1 Strength. Rule wise, you are effectively modifying your hands by using a weapon.

This is (as far as I read the rules) also the case with ranged weapons. When you are shooting with a ranged weapon that has Armor Piercing, you confer the Armor Piercing to the warrior that is shooting.


As far as I can tell, the rules for Armor Piercing are incorrectly written because taking them literally, you can't use Armor Piercing for ranged weapons ever. It's strange that this hasn't been changed in an Errata.

It's also strange that the whole "What is a model?" thing hasn't been cleared up officially yet, but that's GW for you. It would be SO much easier if they just used the word Warrior consistently, instead of using it in just some places but not others.

^^^ yeah I agree the armour piercing is a skill/special buff for the warrior and his attacks, not directly to his weapon. it is written "for wounds caused in close combat" OR "attacking with a weapon with the special rule"
the weapon doesn't have the special rule. the character does, and it works for his attacks with whatever sword fist hoof horned head or whatever he fights with, IN CLOSE COMBAT.

Arion wrote:

Marlo wrote:How is this still up for interpretation? The ranged attacks don't get it.

And nosferatu's "the model includes it's gear and special rules give it to the whole model" argument is invalid.

LOOK at the description of the characteristics of a "model". Nowhere does it state the equipment are part of a model's characteristics.
and then look at the description for SPECIAL RULES. It affects the model. and weapons are not part of the model characterstic. period.
You cannot just assume they are. The rules say what you can do. they don't state every single thing you can't do. otherwise we'd have 2000 page rule books.
If it doesn't say you can do it, it means you can't do it.

The only way to cause armour piercing ranged attacks is if it is already in the weapon's profile.
Special rules or buffs given to a model do not transfer to their weapons profile.

Does a spell giving a model a +X to strength give it to their equipment too? so can I have +3 strength from lore of beasts buff on my character and just carry that over onto my ranged weapons profile too?
WHY NOT? OMFGX0RZ IT'S PART OF THE MODEL!!! AND WEAPONS CAN HAVE A STRENGTH PROFILE. MY CROSSBOW IS NOW S7

Your weapon isn't armour piercing unless it's already got it in the weapon profile.
Get over it.

So, you're saying the only way to get armour piercing attacks is to attack with your bare hands? Because if you give armour piercing to a unit attacking with halberd, you have now given the special rule to the weapon. see, I can point out stupid technicalities in your argument too.

No, don't be a moron. Did you not read the part where it gives the model a special ability. a characteristic for the model, have you read page 3 of the rule book as to what that means?, regardless of what weapons he uses, he has armour pericing. BUT, the rule for armour piercing says in close combat.

With the argument of transferring it into a weapon profile, then following the same logic, can buff my crossbowmen with the cauldron to have killing blow crossbow shots? Even though killing blow states it is for close combat just like armour piercing. that doesn't matter, because the special ability can transfer to my weapon profile. (WHY NOT? there are a tonne of other weapons with the killing blow special rule, and now, my crossbows have it too!!!!)

Use your common sense people. It says close combat. stop trying to lawyer loopholes around it. even your lawyering fails. just because you can string together half-arsed logic sequences (model gets special ability, weapons are part of model, thus weapons all get special ability)

Whoa, guys. This thread was...a while ago. There's a new one up, though. Check it.

Personnally I agreed with the people saying that you get it in combat as well as shooting, but, after looking through the rulebook after being told otherwise, in the other thread, I believe that the Razor banner only gives cc attacks ap. personnally, I think people could take the moral high ground, and don't take the damn banner, it would solve a lot of issues.