So after taking a couple year break, I grabbed 6th edition and had a simple(hopefully) question: If a jump infantry or cav model with rending(Mark of the Wulfen Sky Claw, or a Thunder Wolf Cav member) charges, can their Hammer of Wrath attack rend? My gut says yes because both of the model types I listed did not gain rending from their weapons, but as a innate ability.

Thanks!

Yes.

The HoW attack is not a special weapon or wargear as listed in the MoW rule.

HoW attacks are S (user) AP -, not rending.

Did I interpret this wrong?

Yup. Seekers are awesome.

@loreweaver; HoW are S(User) AP - and do not use the S or AP modifiers of their wargear. Nothing is mentioned about other properties of the model making the attack, so we must assume they are still used.

chrisrawr wrote:Yup. Seekers are awesome.

@loreweaver; HoW are S(User) AP - and do not use the S or AP modifiers of their wargear. Nothing is mentioned about other properties of the model making the attack, so we must assume they are still used.

Can you point me to where it says this? The USR for HoW doesn't say, "Uses any special rules on the model." Just "Unmodified Strength" Init 10, AP-

Destroyer Lord with a Warscythe gets a single S5 AP- HoW hit.

Do "Seekers" specifically get rending for their HoW attack in their codex's FAQ?

Edit: It's quite clear actually, it's a hit "Resolved at Unmodified Strength AP-", so no special rules, no Rending, no anything, no Armourbane, etc...

It gets tricky because the rules do not say one way or the other if any properties aside from AP and S apply.

It does not ban the use of special rules. You already have permission to use your special rules, so they still apply except for:

The attack must be resolved at the model's unmodified Str. This means that you would not benefit from furious charge or the +2 from a warscythe, but you would get 2d6 from armourbane or the d3 from rending as these do not modify your Str, they modify your roll.

You would not benefit from the AP2 from rending or the AP1 from a warscythe as you are told that the attack is to be resolved at AP-.

The reason we would assume that they still get their rules from weapons or abilities is because it says they get one additional attack, but then goes on to the limitations, ie, unmodified strength and no AP, but it doesn't prohibit special abilities or rules, it is just like other attacks, but fast.

EDIT: ninja'd by maelstrom, exactly, you already have your permission to use your abilities and rules.

1) Is HoW an attack that grants a to-wound roll?
Yes. It's an attack resolved at I10 that hits automatically. It's resolved at the model's unmodified strength and at ap-, but does not have an attack profile of its own; the only things about this attack that change from the models' normal attacks are, explicitly, the S and the AP. It still uses the attackers' weapons and other special rules - it ONLY modifies the S and AP.

2) Rending, whether from a rule or from wargear, only cares about to-wound rolls. If you make a to-wound roll with this weapon, and it comes up as 6, that attacks' AP is modified to 2 (even if it was already 1), and automatically wounds. (Against vehicles, simply roll another d3.)

If the rules do not modify or replace the model's CCW or Special Rules in CC, then you must assume they are still being used. Since the only things modified, explicitly, are the S and AP-, you modify those ONLY.

Hammer of wrath is a weapon profile that give s: user and ap: -. Thus it would not include rending or the use of any weapons.

By using a weapon you get the special abilities of that weapon. If you use a power sword you get s: user ap: 3. The hammer of wrath gives you an I 10 attack with the profile: s: user ap: -.

So you would still get innate special rules of the model, not the weapon. So armourbane, Rending, etc.

You are given a detailed profile from the attack, and you are not allowed to use USR or weapons. There is no way I would allow someone to do this, and I reall think this is a case of people seeing what they want/hope instead of what is there.

Find where it says you CANNOT use the models special rules.

Not weapons, the special rules of the *model* Given it is defined as an additional Attack, you're going to strugge here.

Have a house rule against it if you want, but currently inate rending (etc) still works.

Permissive rule set, where does it say you can?

Lobukia wrote:Permissive rule set, where does it say you can?

Permission comes from the codex. Just a couple of examples from the Cron dex:

Phase Attacks: Close combat attacks made by Canoptek Wraiths have the Rending special rule.

Destroyer Lord Special Rules: Prefered Enemy (Everything!)

Now where does it say you cannot use special rules with HoW?

I think the flavor of the rule is that it's simply a S (user) AP - I 10attack. The model is just literally hitting the enemy as it charges into combat, not using any specific weapon or rule. I think of it as like when a vehicle explodes. The attack only sort of comes from model with HoW, just like the attacks only sort of come from the vehicle. It's one attack made at S (user) AP - I 10 . That's it.

Lobukia wrote:Permissive rule set, where does it say you can?

From the codex. HoW is an Attack. MotW means CC Attacks from that model are Rending. Permission grnted

Find where it is removed, with actual rule quotes

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lobukia wrote:Permissive rule set, where does it say you can?

From the codex. HoW is an Attack. MotW means CC Attacks from that model are Rending. Permission grnted

Find where it is removed, with actual rule quotes

Forget rending, it means Monstrous Creatures HoW at AP 2, and Gargoyles get their poison.

Oh indeed, it makes HoW a little more interesting

No, Hammer of Wrath is a rule in itself.

(pg 37) Hammer of Wrath
"Many warriros hurl themselves headlong into combat, seeking to crush or trample the foe.

...it makes one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the models's unmodified S with an AP of -..."


That's it.

It doesn't say you get to whip out your claws, head butt, bite them with poison, whip with your tail or anything else.... It's a permission based game. You get exactly what it says. Nothing more.

Hammer of Wrath says, it's a additional attack at Init 10, base S... you only get it if you charge and make it to base to base. You don't even get an extra pile in step... it's a simple bonus for trampling the enemy.... see its fluff.

Don't try to make it something it's not...

Your weapons and special rules for your model will do what they are supposed to, in the appropriate Init step. For now, HoW says nothign about your bonus rules... it also says nothing about punchign your opponent in the face, but you don't get to do that either.

Permissive rule set.

Sorry,

It would depend on the exact wording of Mark of the Wulven. As far as AB states it says that it grants rending to any "weapon" that doesn't use special rules. HoW is not a weapon.

AB doesn't get 1 for 1 rules though so someone will need to confirm the dex.

Tactica wrote:No, Hammer of Wrath is a rule in itself.

(pg 37) Hammer of Wrath
"Many warriros hurl themselves headlong into combat, seeking to crush or trample the foe.

...it makes one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the models's unmodified S with an AP of -..."


That's it.

It doesn't say you get to whip out your claws, head butt, bite them with poison, whip with your tail or anything else.... It's a permission based game. You get exactly what it says. Nothing more.

Hammer of Wrath says, it's a additional attack at Init 10, base S... you only get it if you charge and make it to base to base. You don't even get an extra pile in step... it's a simple bonus for trampling the enemy.... see its fluff.

Don't try to make it something it's not...

Your weapons and special rules for your model will do what they are supposed to, in the appropriate Init step. For now, HoW says nothign about your bonus rules... it also says nothing about punchign your opponent in the face, but you don't get to do that either.

Permissive rule set.

Sorry,

The rules tells you what you can't do during the attack, it says unmodified strength, no AP, but if you got no bonuses or abilities, then why not say it? There is a permissive ruleset, it tells you when making attacks you get to use these special rules, the HoW is an additional attack with restrictions and it lists those restrictions. Why should it have to tell you again that you can use the units own abilities?

The Rending special rule says "For each To Wound Roll of a 6, the target automatically suffers a Wound, regardless of Toughness. These Wounds are resolved at AP 2."

So, someone would need to make the argument that when you are rolling to Wound after an HoW auto-hit, you're not actually rolling to Wound. Since you ARE rolling to Wound, Rending applies. So would Boneswords and Poison, since those effects are triggered on any Wound caused in close combat.

Once again is depends on the wording of the gear/abilities the model has.

Boneswords - These are weapons, not the HoW. therefor do not apply.

Poison - Would depend on the wording of toxin sacs. if it states "all attacks" then it would apply.

MoW - This depends on if it states it applies to a "weapon" inwhich case HoW doesn't use a weapon.

Toxin Sacs make close combat attacks Poisoned (X+).

BlueDagger wrote:Once again is depends on the wording of the gear/abilities the model has.

Boneswords - These are weapons, not the HoW. therefor do not apply.

I don't believe that's correct. HoW gives me one bonus Attack at I10. This is a CC Attack. The only stipulation is that it is at my unmodified strength and is AP-. While the Bonesword/Rending attack might be AP-, their effects are triggered by Wounds (or unsaved Wounds in the case of the Bonesword), not Attacks. And GW has ruled that all of my CC Attacks benefit from all of my wargear. If I have scything talons and rending claws, all my Attacks reroll 1s and all my Wounds Rend on a 6.

In order for Rending to not apply, the resolution of the auto-hit HoW attack would have to be something other than a Wound. Is it?

BlueDagger wrote:Poison - Would depend on the wording of toxin sacs. if it states "all attacks" then it would apply.

Again, it's not the wargear, it's the Poison special rule we must consult. The Poison special rule is triggered on Wounds, not Attacks. Am I resolving a Wound with HoW after auto-hitting, or am I not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As further strength for my argument, Smash specifically excludes HoW attacks. Rending and Poison do not. Boneswords do not.

I feel like this is RAW vs RAI. If any player tries to use any USR of SR in a HoW against me, it's going to come to a roll off, as I see this a blatant rule lawyering (that I think is also wrong when looking at RAW). That being said, I really think GW needs to keep the 'nids in mind and make a ruling that SA and USR not given by the weapon be used on HoW attacks.

Lobukia wrote:I feel like this is RAW vs RAI. If any player tries to use any USR of SR in a HoW against me, it's going to come to a roll off, as I see this a blatant rule lawyering (that I think is also wrong when looking at RAW). That being said, I really think GW needs to keep the 'nids in mind and make a ruling that SA and USR not given by the weapon be used on HoW attacks.

Rending says it takes effect on each To Wound roll of a 6.

Am I rolling To Wound when resolving a HoW Attack which automatically hit? Or am I rolling for something other than To Wound?

1) HoW is not a weapon attack. It has no weapon profile. It ALTERS your CURRENT attack profile to S(unmodified user) and AP-, and happens at I1. That is ALL that it does. It does not do anything else, at all.

It is still made with your special rules and your weapon special rules (i.e. a chainfist will still roll 2d6 to pen if it has that rule.) It does not alter what weapons you attack with. It is not a weapon by itself.

It is a modified attack. It is EXPLICIT in what it does. Your other special rules are EXPLICIT in what they do.

The ruleset is PERMISSIVE. if HoW DOES NOT specifically alter ANYTHING but the Ini step, S, and AP of your attack, then that is ALL it alters.

No, it allows (permits, also in the word permissive) a given S a give AP, and a given I. That is it.

So for the people advocating that Rending works, would hte special rules for Boneswords work? If they do, does that include the special rule for ignoring armour saves?

Janthkin wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Lobukia wrote:Permissive rule set, where does it say you can?

From the codex. HoW is an Attack. MotW means CC Attacks from that model are Rending. Permission grnted

Find where it is removed, with actual rule quotes

Forget rending, it means Monstrous Creatures HoW at AP 2, and Gargoyles get their poison.

No, the Smash ability specifies that it doesn't apply to HoW attacks.

For anyone who somehow doesn't think that HoW attacks are close combat attacks, look at the facts:

• It is called an attack.
• It is resolved at an initiative step.
• It has to specifically say that it doesn't allow a pile-in move.
• It has to be specifically forbidden from benefiting from Smash (since Smash normally applies to all of a model's attacks).


Basically the 'smash' exception is precisely what each special rule for a model would need to deny that special rule from working with a HoW attack. Again, WEAPONS carried by the model do not benefit HoW attacks, but any base abilities the model has would still apply.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:So for the people advocating that Rending works, would hte special rules for Boneswords work? If they do, does that include the special rule for ignoring armour saves?

Again, any benefits provided to a model by using a weapon would not apply to HoW attacks because the model is not using any weapons to make this attack (just his base strength).

However if the model has an innate special ability that grants him something like Rending or Poison to all of his attacks then this would apply to HoW attacks as well.

However if the model has an innate special ability that grants him something like Rending or Poison to all of his attacks then this would apply to HoW attacks as well.

I agree 100%.

I disagree with you Maelstrom808 that HoW rending would grant the D3 extra penetration but not the AP2. It does grant the AP2 if your wound roll is a 6. If you need examples from elsewhere, the AP of TWC' and Wraiths' attacks is already '-' untill they roll a 6 on the wound and therefore modify the attack's final AP to 2. HoW hits operate in the same way, like Yakface described.

I don't think this rule is ambiguous in the slightest.

Someone explained HoW as the 40k equivalent of Impact Hits in Fantasy.

If you look at it that way--

"Finally, as Impact Hits are a close combat attack (albeit of an unusual type) any unsaved wounds they inflict count towards combat resolution, just as any more conventional close combat attacks would." pg 71

Consider that HoW wounds count towards Assault Results i'm willing to bet that somebody left out a similar, yet crucial, paragraph from HoW as written in the rule book.

Good luck either way you try to play it!!

yakface wrote:

Again, any benefits provided to a model by using a weapon would not apply to HoW attacks because the model is not using any weapons to make this attack (just his base strength).

Where is said that a model is making an HoW attack without a weapon? Many melee weapons are resolved using your base strength. In fact, all MC CC weapons are resolved at base strength unless using the Smash rule to boost your strength. The fact that a HoW attack is only resolved using your base Strength in no way implies a weapon is not being used.

In fact, even being AP - does not imply that a Bonesword is not being used, since Boneswords do not have an updated profile. They are AP * where * = ignores armor saves. They have no assigned AP value. Not a big deal in 5th since they were power weapons, and all power weapons were de facto AP 2. And also no big deal being AP 2 since AP 2 conferred no bonus anywhere (edit: except for determining whether or not you get a FNP roll). Not so in 6th.

Furthermore, when reading the Bonesword rule, it says the insta-kill effect is only triggered on unsaved Wounds. If I am not rolling to resolve a Wound with a HoW attack, what am I rolling? If you are not rolling to save against a Wound, what are you rolling? If you do no save, is that an unsaved Wound or not?

yakface wrote:However if the model has an innate special ability that grants him something like Rending or Poison to all of his attacks then this would apply to HoW attacks as well.

Agreed.

The other question is the "competing set value" issue with Rending and HoW. Both are set AP values . One is set to AP -, and the other is set to AP 2. Wouldn't that trigger a roll-off if Rending applies to HoW attacks?

Note that for Nids, all CC Weapons apply to all attacks - so allowing Rending allows Boneswords.

And both are worded similar to Poison (all CC attacks...).

rigeld2 wrote:Note that for Nids, all CC Weapons apply to all attacks - so allowing Rending allows Boneswords.

Agreed. The question is then does the Rending AP 2 set value count, or does the AP - HoW set value count? Rending would still auto-wound in all situations regardless, but which set value would take precedence? Would this be a roll off situation?

Edit to add: All Nid CC weapons apply to all CC attacks only. If a Vector Strike is not a CC attack, then CC weapons would not apply.

We aren't discussing Vector Strike - were discussing Hammer of Wrath.

I think Rending is more specific than HoW, so it would override the AP -, but I'm biased so I've been trying to stay out of the discussion.

I'm playing it as it's written in the USR, a hit resolved at S(user) AP -.

My opponents will thank me. If someone pulls this rending HoW against me, I'll just pick my models off the table, clearly winning is too important for this guy.

Therion wrote:

However if the model has an innate special ability that grants him something like Rending or Poison to all of his attacks then this would apply to HoW attacks as well.

I agree 100%.

I disagree with you Maelstrom808 that HoW rending would grant the D3 extra penetration but not the AP2. It does grant the AP2 if your wound roll is a 6. If you need examples from elsewhere, the AP of TWC' and Wraiths' attacks is already '-' untill they roll a 6 on the wound and therefore modify the attack's final AP to 2. HoW hits operate in the same way, like Yakface described.

I don't think this rule is ambiguous in the slightest.

Yeah, I flipped my view on that and agree, but didn't bother to post earlier as I think it was already covered pretty well.

lord_bobbington wrote:The rules tells you what you can't do during the attack, it says unmodified strength, no AP, but if you got no bonuses or abilities, then why not say it?

Why should it have to tell you again that you can use the units own abilities?

It's a permission based game. That means, a player can't do it unless the rule says you can.

Example: Movement phase doesn't say you can't shoot with your weapons or assault that your model has... It just tells you what you CAN do and that is, how you move. You don't get to use your gun or your psykic ability, assault distance etc until the rule says you can... that is, until you are permitted by the rules.

This is a special rule, the BRB doesn't tell you what you CANNOT do... it just tells you what you CAN do.

The whole game works that way.

Cheers,

Is the rending rule granted by a close combat weapon? Then no rending for you on HoW.

Is the rending rule granted by unit entry or by a piece of generic (non weapon) wargear?
Congrats, you have a sharped face/head with which to bash your enemies.

Yeah, I would also say HoW doen't allow special rules stacked on it. If so, say hello to my Shrikes with their Dual Boneswords IDing on LD rolls of 3D6 at I10

I wouldn't allow it simply because there are so many ways this can be abused really badly.

60mm wrote:Yeah, I would also say HoW doen't allow special rules stacked on it. If so, say hello to my Shrikes with their Dual Boneswords IDing on LD rolls of 3D6 at I10

I wouldn't allow it simply because there are so many ways this can be abused really badly.

So you're arguing RAI or HYWPI, not RAW? That's fine - but you should say so up front.

rigeld2 wrote:

60mm wrote:Yeah, I would also say HoW doen't allow special rules stacked on it. If so, say hello to my Shrikes with their Dual Boneswords IDing on LD rolls of 3D6 at I10

I wouldn't allow it simply because there are so many ways this can be abused really badly.

So you're arguing RAI or HYWPI, not RAW? That's fine - but you should say so up front.

I'll make sure to say completely obvious things up front for now on sir.

Slackermagee wrote:Is the rending rule granted by a close combat weapon? Then no rending for you on HoW.

The Rending special rule is only triggered on a To Wound roll. Are you or are you not rolling To Wound on a HoW attack?

If we look on Page 423 at the Hallucination power on a 5-6 it states

"using that model's own Strengths, but using the Strength bonuses, AP values and special rules of their most powerful close combat weapon."

Now I mention this because it specifically states that when this unit attacks itself it uses the special weapons in these attacks. Hammer of wrath states that:

"makes one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model's unmodified Strength with an AP of -. "

Rending states that "for each To Wound rule of a 6 the target automatically suffers a Wound regardless of Toughness."

Now if you used your unmodified Strength of 4 and assault a T8 model you could not cause a wound since the To Wound chart states that you require - which means it's unable to wound. However since you've got rending you cause a Wound on a 6. Is this modifying your strength? In a way it is giving your Strength a special rule that is modifying the Strength allowing you to wound anything you normally would not be able to wound. Since it is a modification of Strength which is used in the To Wound roll you are not allowed to use it.

Basically modifications of Strength are not just additions or subtractions it is also special rules.

rogueeyes wrote:If we look on Page 423 at the Hallucination power on a 5-6 it states

"using that model's own Strengths, but using the Strength bonuses, AP values and special rules of their most powerful close combat weapon."

Now I mention this because it specifically states that when this unit attacks itself it uses the special weapons in these attacks. Hammer of wrath states that:

"makes one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model's unmodified Strength with an AP of -. "

Rending states that "for each To Wound rule of a 6 the target automatically suffers a Wound regardless of Toughness."

Now if you used your unmodified Strength of 4 and assault a T8 model you could not cause a wound since the To Wound chart states that you require - which means it's unable to wound. However since you've got rending you cause a Wound on a 6. Is this modifying your strength? In a way it is giving your Strength a special rule that is modifying the Strength allowing you to wound anything you normally would not be able to wound. Since it is a modification of Strength which is used in the To Wound roll you are not allowed to use it.

Basically modifications of Strength are not just additions or subtractions it is also special rules.

Excepting that is not what rending is at all.

Rending in no way ever modifies Str.

Also, since we are on the subject, take a Look at the Chariot Special Rules: The Chariot itself has the Hammer of wrath special rule, but gains d6 attacks rather than one and resolves them at Str 6 AP -, unless otherwise stated.

SO here we have a model tat does not have a Strength Stat and that gets to make Hammer of wrath Attacks at a Strength of 6 via Special rule.

So obviously Special rules based on the Model itself can alter the Hammer of Wrath Special rule.

And again Rending does not alter strength; you still make an attack based on your model's base Strength, but get the advantage of Auto -wounding regardless of Toughness on a roll of 6.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

And again Rending does not alter strength; you still make an attack based on your model's base Strength, but get the advantage of Auto -wounding regardless of Toughness on a roll of 6.

I would argue that there would also be a roll-off to decide if the Rend is AP 2 or AP -.

You already had something more restrictive than a roll-off.

You had a 1-in-6 chance to change the AP- to AP2 when you rolled to wound.

Most of the models we are talking about already are striking with an AP- at their regular I step, so unless you think you should roll-off every time you rend with normal attacks; then you wouldn't need to roll off when rending on a HoW attack.

Kommissar Kel wrote:You already had something more restrictive than a roll-off.

You had a 1-in-6 chance to change the AP- to AP2 when you rolled to wound.

Most of the models we are talking about already are striking with an AP- at their regular I step, so unless you think you should roll-off every time you rend with normal attacks; then you wouldn't need to roll off when rending on a HoW attack.

Yeah, that's true. Chain Swords and Close Combat Weapons are also set values at AP-. And I don't think anyone would argue those have to be rolled off every time you get a Rend. Same with Assault Cannons at AP4.

This is one (maybe the only one) area of the game where Nids have an advantage.

None of their weapons are weapons as much as biomorphs. It only matters that you have it, not that you are using it. If you have boneswords, they work even if you are attacking with Rending claws, or scything talons, etc.

This is ridiculous. Honestly, people are trying to imply that HoW denotes rending and poison and whatever else? It's a user Str auto hit resolved with AP-...that's all it is.

I feel that if the rule says you use str and ap--, and you use str and AP2, even if you say its from rending you still broke the rule and used an AP other than ap--.

Why not also argue its ap3 with a power weapon? Hammer of Wrath does NOT say you dont use a weapon. In fact, if you have a power fist, why not use that to make your attack ap2?

DevianID wrote:I feel that if the rule says you use str and ap--, and you use str and AP2, even if you say its from rending you still broke the rule and used an AP other than ap--.

Why not also argue its ap3 with a power weapon? Hammer of Wrath does NOT say you dont use a weapon. In fact, if you have a power fist, why not use that to make your attack ap2?

Because it is permissive. It states that it makes one additional attack that hits automatically. Nowhere is it said to use your weapons for this special attack.

This special attack is granted by a specific set of rules HoW. Rending is granted for all attacks for a model with the special rule. All attacks is more general than a specific attack granted by a special rule at s and ap -. Since this is a specialized attack and does not state that yoi use the special abilities or wepons of the model then it will always be done at s user and ap -.

If you were able to use special rules for this attack the rule would state that you are granted an additional attack with any spedial weapons or special rulws available to the model. since you are given a strength and ap profile you must use this strength and ap regardless. Even if you roll a 6 to wound and rending kicks in that is more generalized rule that would happen for any attack rather than a specialized how attack that states it hits at ap of -.

rogueeyes wrote:

DevianID wrote:I feel that if the rule says you use str and ap--, and you use str and AP2, even if you say its from rending you still broke the rule and used an AP other than ap--.

Why not also argue its ap3 with a power weapon? Hammer of Wrath does NOT say you dont use a weapon. In fact, if you have a power fist, why not use that to make your attack ap2?

Because it is permissive. It states that it makes one additional attack that hits automatically. Nowhere is it said to use your weapons for this special attack.

This special attack is granted by a specific set of rules HoW. Rending is granted for all attacks for a model with the special rule. All attacks is more general than a specific attack granted by a special rule at s and ap -. Since this is a specialized attack and does not state that yoi use the special abilities or wepons of the model then it will always be done at s user and ap -.

If you were able to use special rules for this attack the rule would state that you are granted an additional attack with any spedial weapons or special rulws available to the model. since you are given a strength and ap profile you must use this strength and ap regardless. Even if you roll a 6 to wound and rending kicks in that is more generalized rule that would happen for any attack rather than a specialized how attack that states it hits at ap of -.

So then how do you resolve a Chariot's HoW?

If you do not apply its special rules, then it has no Base Str. Its Special rules also Detail that it does D6 Attacks.

Rending, and Poison are Special rules that certain models have. Neither modifies the Str of the model attacking, and Rending only alters the AP on a roll of 6 to wound(the attack was made at an AP-); which is far more specific then Smash, or Power weapons variant APs, or even a Basic CCW(which is also AP-).

You know what, lets go back to that simple CCW. It has a Detailed Profile that you make attacks at a Strength as user, and an AP-.

So can Rending or Poison no longer effect the attacks made by normal CCWs?

Is that what you are trying to claim?

"Many warriors hurl themselves headlong into combat, seeking to crush or trample the foe." BRB page 37 Hammer of Wrath description.

When all else fails turn to the description. It doesn't use weapons because it specifically states the AP and Str rather than leaving it up to what the model is carrying. Since we all seem to agree there are no weapons used for HoW I think we can leave that one alone.

The description states that the model is crushing or trampling the foe. For jump troops this is the impact of them slamming into the ground/boosting forward (a la DoW2/Space Marine). For bikes it is the impact of the bike hitting the enemies. For MC it is the impact of them jumping/stomping the first model it can reach. Since the atttack is clearly not what the model would normally use to do damage in a melee attack but the impact of them charging even the model's special rule should not apply to any HoW attacks.

Yeah, poisoned rending claws wouldn't do anything special when stomping on a bad guy.

Lobukia wrote:No, it allows (permits, also in the word permissive) a given S a give AP, and a given I. That is it.

Ummm...

Then how can any attack (shooting or cc) benefit from the rending usr?

Every single attack has a 'profile'.

Using this interpretation, assault cannons can never rend because their attacks ARE ALWAYS str6 ap4.

Rending either works regardless of the weapon profile or it never works at all.

EDIT
Speaking of which is there a rule anywhere that states you HAVE to use your 'weapons' in cc?

Rending states that it applies to a model's/weapons attacks. It does not state that it applies to a Hammer of Wrath attack.

A chariot specifically overrides the Hamnmer of Wrath rule stating that it does D6 attacks. This is more specific so it over rides the generalized rule.

Here's a little chart to show generalized to specific - note this is often confused by codex trumps rulebook which is not the case.

1. Normal Attack in CC S: user AP: -
2. Normal Attack Overrided by Power Sword since not all models have the Power Sword rule S: user AP: 3
3. To wound with Rending of a 6 overrides Power Sword since it only happens on a to wound role of a 6 but will happen always on a to wound of a 6. This will happen in every single round of combat that a to wound of a 6 happens.
4. Hammer of Wrath happens only when a charge happens by a unit with the Hammer of Wrath rule and it is granted a I10 attack at a specific strength and initiative. This will only happen the first round of combat where you charge. This is more specific then a normal attack, a power weapon attack, or a rending attack. This over rides all other rules in this case leaving you with S: user AP: -.

Why is this reasoning?
Power swords happen in any CC attack equipped with Power Swords granting AP3. This is very general. It can be any round of combat or even when being charged. You do not have to be in base contact.

Rending overrides power swords because it can also happen in any round of combat. You just are required to roll a 6 in the to hit phase. If you roll a 6 you are granted AP2. You can use this rule when being charged.

Hammer of Wrath cannot be used when being charged. It activates when you charge something and land in base to base contact. It gives you a specialized attack at S: User AP: - and automatically hits the opponent during the I: 10 step.

Using this interpretation, assault cannons can never rend because their attacks ARE ALWAYS str6 ap4.

Rending either works regardless of the weapon profile or it never works at all.

Rending over rides an assault cannon rule because rending is more specific then the assault cannon weapon profile that can be used in any type of shooting. Rending kicks in when a shooting or close combat attack with the specific rule happens on a to wound of a 6. Like I said this can be any phase of combat or turn or even when using overwatch.

Rending is more generalized than normal shooting rules or close combat attacks. Even close combat attacks with specific weapons like Power Weapons. A Power Axe on a S2 model will wound a T10 model on a roll of a 6 if it has rending because rending kicks in and it scores an automatic wound because of it.

Hammer of Wrath is more specific. The S: user is never modified (specifically stated in the rule) and other special rules do not apply to it unless they are more specific then it which means that they must be more specific then this:

Model must be charging and have the special rule HoW.
Model must be in base to base contact after the charge move.
Model must use an I:10 attack granted by the rule
Model must use Auto hit with granted I10 attack
Model must roll to wound using specific unmodified Strength of User
Model must use AP: - when rolling to wound.

If hammer of wrath stated that other special rules applied or happened in all cases when the user was attacking then yes Power Weapons would kick in and work. Also, Rending would work. This is not the case.

blah. This is not the case.

Rending, if its on a weapon, would not work with HoW.

If the model has rending, then HoW will be rending.

The only thing that is 'specific' about HoW OVER a combat weapon is that no str mods are applied.

Nothing else.

The only way HoW doesnt get rending is if rending is a str mod or HoW is not a cc attack.

HoW is no more 'specific' about how it attacks 'on the charge' than a lance weapon.

I dont even know where this 'specificity' is coming from...

Rending changes the profile of all attacks to ap2. HoW is an advanced rule with a unique profile of AP--. The advanced HoW rule supersedes the more basic rule allowing rending for all the cc attacks.

DevianID wrote:Rending changes the profile of all attacks to ap2. HoW is an advanced rule with a unique profile of AP--. The advanced HoW rule supersedes the more basic rule allowing rending for all the cc attacks.

False. Rending causes wounds that roll a 6 to be resolved at AP2. The weapons profile is not changed.

imweasel wrote:

blah. This is not the case.

Rending, if its on a weapon, would not work with HoW.

If the model has rending, then HoW will be rending.

The only thing that is 'specific' about HoW OVER a combat weapon is that no str mods are applied.

Nothing else.

The only way HoW doesnt get rending is if rending is a str mod or HoW is not a cc attack.

HoW is no more 'specific' about how it attacks 'on the charge' than a lance weapon.

I dont even know where this 'specificity' is coming from...

Specific over general. Pg 7 on Basic vs Advanced rules. Advanced rules override basic rules. Rending is more basic then HoW is. Thus HoW overrides Rending since HoW is more advanced in when and how it is applied compared to rending. The AP - over rides the AP 2 since a HoW attack is auto hit and uses S: user and AP: -.

Why are you saying Rending is a basic rule while HoW is advanced?

Both HoW and Rending require wounds to be resolved at set AP values, how this is resolved is evenly debatable

However all other benefits of Rending would definitely still apply
(+d3 Pen and autowound)

rigeld2 wrote:Why are you saying Rending is a basic rule while HoW is advanced?

HoW is a more specific advanced rule than Rending is. Rending occurs in certain circumstances as does HoW. This attack is granted by HoW thus is must abide by the rules set forth in HoW. Rending occurs on all attacks for a model or weapon that has rending. This is more advanced than say a typical CCW attack or power weapon attack.

If I follow the advanced rule for HoW I must apply the S user and AP - according to the rules in HoW. As soon as I apply the rules for rending I am applying an advanced rule that is not stated in HoW. If HoW gave permission to use other special rules than there would not be an issue but it does not state to use the special rules of any weapons or models. Therefore you must use the attack S and AP given in the rule.

rogueeyes wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Why are you saying Rending is a basic rule while HoW is advanced?

HoW is a more specific advanced rule than Rending is. Rending occurs in certain circumstances as does HoW. This attack is granted by HoW thus is must abide by the rules set forth in HoW. Rending occurs on all attacks for a model or weapon that has rending. This is more advanced than say a typical CCW attack or power weapon attack.

If I follow the advanced rule for HoW I must apply the S user and AP - according to the rules in HoW. As soon as I apply the rules for rending I am applying an advanced rule that is not stated in HoW. If HoW gave permission to use other special rules than there would not be an issue but it does not state to use the special rules of any weapons or models. Therefore you must use the attack S and AP given in the rule.

I have permission to use Rending on all of my attacks.
Hammer of Wrath is an attack.
Hammer of Wrath does not deny permission granted in step 1.

Do you disagree with any of those? I feel like you're trying to obfuscate things and talking in circles. What basis do you have for saying HoW is "more advanced" than rending -or "more specific" as you attempted to prove?

You're acting like "HoW is advanced." is absolute fact and stated somewhere. Can you provide a page number?

False. Rending causes wounds that roll a 6 to be resolved at AP2. The weapons profile is not changed.

I didnt mention weapon profile in the part you quoted, so think your rebuttal needs to be reexamined.

HoW is a special rule that resolves an attack at init 10, s:user, and AP--. You are claiming that your second special rule allows you to change HoW's profile to ap2 on a to-wound roll of 6. However, HoW says your profile is ap--. You can not use both HoW's profile and rendings profile at the same time.

I get what you are trying to say, which seems to be that HoW is yet another attack that the model makes in close combat, thus rules that modify a model's close combat attacks should apply.

However, I disagree with this, partly because HoW is by design already an exception to how a model attacks in CC.

HoW does not say if you do or do not get to use a weapon, for example, just the same as it says you do not get to use rending. But I feel it doesnt need to. HoW is fully contained in HoW, excepting additional special rules that state they specifically work with HoW like the chariot rules. When there is a conflict, such as ap-- versus ap2 with rending like you get on your normal attacks, we are to use the more advanced rule. The more advanced rule is clearly HoW.

DevianID wrote:

False. Rending causes wounds that roll a 6 to be resolved at AP2. The weapons profile is not changed.

I didnt mention weapon profile in the part you quoted, so think your rebuttal needs to be reexamined.

HoW is a special rule that resolves an attack at init 10, s:user, and AP--. You are claiming that your second special rule allows you to change HoW's profile to ap2 on a to-wound roll of 6. However, HoW says your profile is ap--. You can not use both HoW's profile and rendings profile at the same time.

I get what you are trying to say, which seems to be that HoW is yet another attack that the model makes in close combat, thus rules that modify a model's close combat attacks should apply.

However, I disagree with this, partly because HoW is by design already an exception to how a model attacks in CC.

HoW does not say if you do or do not get to use a weapon, for example, just the same as it says you do not get to use rending. But I feel it doesnt need to. HoW is fully contained in HoW, excepting additional special rules that state they specifically work with HoW like the chariot rules. When there is a conflict, such as ap-- versus ap2 with rending like you get on your normal attacks, we are to use the more advanced rule. The more advanced rule is clearly HoW.

2 things:

First your argument seems to return to the Claim that Rending when making attacks with a Normal CCW(such as Mark of the Wulfen Rending requires) Is always going to Be AP-(Same with the Assault Cannon always being AP4); because that is the profile on the weapon. This is of course not the case.

Second; The More Advanced rule is in no way the rule that gives a Blank all the time profile, it is clearly the rule that alters to profile on a given roll(Rending).

When you have a Special rule that has a Basic State, and you have a rule that alters or modifies that state, the Altering or modifying rule is the more advanced rule, If the altering/Modifying rule only functions after a specific Dice roll then it is doubly more advanced.

rigeld2 wrote:I have permission to use Rending on all of my attacks.
Hammer of Wrath is an attack.
Hammer of Wrath does not deny permission granted in step 1.

Do you disagree with any of those?

I do disagree with the first premise. You do not have permission to use rending on all of your attacks. You have permission to use rending when you attack with a close combat weapon. HoW is not a close combat attack with a close combat weapon, it is a special attack that is used when charging an enemy unit. There is a huge difference. Just because the weapon in question is a part of your model's body does not mean it is not a weapon for the purpose of this discussion. If your special rules involving close combat weapons could be used there would be no need to add that the HoW attack is made at user str and ap- because you would already know what your str and ap would be. If this was considered a close combat attack the wording would have said "This is an automatic hit that is resolved at Initiative 10." Why did they specify the str and ap of this attack? Because it is not a normal close combat attack but a special attack made with special rules, and those special rules are limited to what is written under that special rule.

Like I said earlier, the HoW attack is the impact of the charge not an attack they do when they get there.

No HoW is very much a Close combat attack(a special one, but still it is one); it is done at the Initiative 10 step, along with any other Initiative 10 models attacking. The reason it has a Stated Strength and AP is that it is not made with any weapons your model has(which could have other Strengths and AP values, along with certain special rules granted by the weapon).

Not that it matters, Thunder wolf Mounts and Mark of the wulfen grant rending to Attacks made in Close Combat(Which HoW is undeniably one of); not "Close combat Attacks".

Also to quote the necron codex under wraiths "Phase Attacks: Close combat attacks made by Canoptek Wraiths have the rending special rule."

If a wraith makes a HoW attack, which is a close combat attack, then the HoW attack has the rending special rule.

If another rule is worded differently you may have a case, however for wraiths HoW has rending.

Captain Antivas wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I have permission to use Rending on all of my attacks.
Hammer of Wrath is an attack.
Hammer of Wrath does not deny permission granted in step 1.

Do you disagree with any of those?

I do disagree with the first premise. You do not have permission to use rending on all of your attacks. You have permission to use rending when you attack with a close combat weapon. HoW is not a close combat attack with a close combat weapon, it is a special attack that is used when charging an enemy unit. There is a huge difference. Just because the weapon in question is a part of your model's body does not mean it is not a weapon for the purpose of this discussion. If your special rules involving close combat weapons could be used there would be no need to add that the HoW attack is made at user str and ap- because you would already know what your str and ap would be. If this was considered a close combat attack the wording would have said "This is an automatic hit that is resolved at Initiative 10." Why did they specify the str and ap of this attack? Because it is not a normal close combat attack but a special attack made with special rules, and those special rules are limited to what is written under that special rule.

Like I said earlier, the HoW attack is the impact of the charge not an attack they do when they get there.

False. According to the Tyranid codex all of my close combat attacks have Rending. Nothing is mentioned restricting it to weapons.

DevianID: when you say "profile" what do you mean other than the attacks profile? Which, of course, Rending doesn't alter.

My search isn't working, so I'm not sure of this has been mentioned, but the Smash SR specifically exclude HoW attacks from using its enhanced AP2. The Rending SR does not make this same exclusion. Possible prescedence and demonstration of intent here?

So out of (idle) curiosity, I have some way of giving a pyrovre HoW (hypothetically of course). It has a special rule that states it's close combat attacks ignore armour saves. So would HoW ignore Armour saves?

The same way that Shrikes with Boneswords ignore armor saves, yes.

Oh BTW, rigeld, in case you didn't ntice, they finally fixed the Spre Cloud typo in the FAQ.

You had me excited. I thought by "fixed the typo" you meant "removed that question entirely because it's slowed"

Wait, what typo??

I thought you meant the 'lose attacks' BS....

coredump wrote:Wait, what typo??

I thought you meant the 'lose attacks' BS....

Before the latest update, the Venomthrope FAQ said "Spre Cloud" and had a few other misspelled words.

Once again, 40k is a permissive ruleset... meaning, if it doesn't say you can then you can't. It doesn't say you can use USR's then you can't. No rending, no preferred enemy, no fleshbane or armorbane, etc.
As a person who plays destroyer lords and wraiths... I hope I'm wrong.

They should have included the statline for a cc weapon

Range S AP Type
Hammer of Wrath Attack - user - Melee
Chariot HoWA - 6 - Melee D6

Anpu-adom wrote:Once again, 40k is a permissive ruleset... meaning, if it doesn't say you can then you can't. It doesn't say you can use USR's then you can't. No rending, no preferred enemy, no fleshbane or armorbane, etc.


They should have included the statline for a cc weapon

Range S AP Type
Hammer of Wrath Attack - user - Melee
Chariot HoWA - 6 - Melee D6

Yes, 40k is a permissive ruleset.
I have permission to use Rending on all close combat attacks.
HoW is a close combat attack.
Find the rule that denies my permission to use Rending.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, 40k is a permissive ruleset.
I have permission to use Rending on all close combat attacks.
HoW is a close combat attack.
Find the rule that denies my permission to use Rending.

So along that train of thought a Monstrous Creature has AP2 on his HoW attack and not AP- ?

rigeld2 wrote:

Anpu-adom wrote:Once again, 40k is a permissive ruleset... meaning, if it doesn't say you can then you can't. It doesn't say you can use USR's then you can't. No rending, no preferred enemy, no fleshbane or armorbane, etc.


They should have included the statline for a cc weapon

Range S AP Type
Hammer of Wrath Attack - user - Melee
Chariot HoWA - 6 - Melee D6

Yes, 40k is a permissive ruleset.
I have permission to use Rending on all close combat attacks.
HoW is a close combat attack.
Find the rule that denies my permission to use Rending.

Find where it says that Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack. RAW just says 'it makes one additional Attack', while during close combat... it doesn't say that it's a close combat attack.

The rules say that my HT has 'preferred enemy' and gets to reroll all 1's on failed wound rolls.

So why would that not apply? Permissive ruleset means it would apply (as would rending if on the model).

Anpu-adom wrote:Find where it says that Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack. RAW just says 'it makes one additional Attack', while during close combat... it doesn't say that it's a close combat attack.

Yakface addressed that earlier in the thread. If you want to continue along that line of argument, you might start by addressing his points.

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, 40k is a permissive ruleset.
I have permission to use Rending on all close combat attacks.
HoW is a close combat attack.
Find the rule that denies my permission to use Rending.

So along that train of thought a Monstrous Creature has AP2 on his HoW attack and not AP- ?

Read the HoW rule.

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, 40k is a permissive ruleset.
I have permission to use Rending on all close combat attacks.
HoW is a close combat attack.
Find the rule that denies my permission to use Rending.

So along that train of thought a Monstrous Creature has AP2 on his HoW attack and not AP- ?

No. Smash gives me AP2. HoW specifies AP -. If HoW specified that no special rules applied, I'd be down. It doesn't.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, 40k is a permissive ruleset.
I have permission to use Rending on all close combat attacks.
HoW is a close combat attack.
Find the rule that denies my permission to use Rending.

So along that train of thought a Monstrous Creature has AP2 on his HoW attack and not AP- ?

No. Smash gives me AP2. HoW specifies AP -. If HoW specified that no special rules applied, I'd be down. It doesn't.

No.

Smash Specifies that it does not function during HOW attacks.

Smash's AP vs HOW's AP is the single worst comparison of APs one could use to argue against other Special Rules coming into use alongside HOW.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, 40k is a permissive ruleset.
I have permission to use Rending on all close combat attacks.
HoW is a close combat attack.
Find the rule that denies my permission to use Rending.

So along that train of thought a Monstrous Creature has AP2 on his HoW attack and not AP- ?

No. Smash gives me AP2. HoW specifies AP -. If HoW specified that no special rules applied, I'd be down. It doesn't.

No.

Smash Specifies that it does not function during HOW attacks.

Smash's AP vs HOW's AP is the single worst comparison of APs one could use to argue against other Special Rules coming into use alongside HOW.

Fair enough - I was right even if I was wrong about why I was right :-)
(sorry, working partially from memory for tonight)

S'alright; Nos got the same answer wrong(Instructed DR to look at the HOW rules, which say nothing about Smash), only reason why I picked on your post was that it was the more recent of the two and was also the correct Idea.

I got picked on.

rigeld2 wrote: I got picked on.

Ah, but picked on... For Great Justice!

... For the greater good?


... TAU LOVER!!!

Nurgle nurgle?

Topic?


No thank-you, I'm trying to quit.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Topic?

Indeed.

No, annoyingly I said to look at Smash first, then second guessed myself and thought it was under HoW.....

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, annoyingly I said to look at Smash first, then second guessed myself and thought it was under HoW.....

I missed it in the HoW rules. TY for the Smash rules, I did not even think to look there.

This discussion is interesting, what I gleaned from it is if a d-lord and his 6 wraith buddies change in and they all make base contact. They will get 7 HOW strikes at I10 AP- base S
meaning
1 S5 from the lord
and 6 S6 from the wraiths with rending potential.

Pile PE on from the lord and they will reroll failed to wound rolls of a 1.

HOW is good on that squad.

Correct.

Maybe I missed it but how are you rolling for HoW attacks when the hit automatically in order to rend? Wouldn't you need permission to roll for attacks that automatically hit even though they already hit? I have never read that you can roll something even if the hit is successful just misses.

Also when you roll 2d6 or rending (against a vehicle)it does modifiy the str and AP of the attack in order to pen the vehicle. Personally I could see the ID working on boneswords but not rending attacks because they require a roll, where as bone swords affect the wound and isn't worried about ap value. As long as you are only using unmodified str, and AP to satisfied the HoW rule then its fine.


Someone explain the reasoning for allowing rending,or armorbane etc for these attacks. I understand flesh bane or poison because how it wounds doesn't invalidate the str,nor ap value.

chewielight wrote:Maybe I missed it but how are you rolling for HoW attacks when the hit automatically in order to rend?.

Rending occurs on the To Wound roll, not To Hit.

And it modifiers the AP roll, not the str (same as 2d6 AP).

The way I see it, is that if the model has the rule, it's part of the model, regardless of how you want to fluff the HoW attack. If the model is making it (which it is, right? this attack isn't coming from the emprar) then why doesn't the model get the bonus?

If I had a monstrous creature that had a special rule for the model that says: "ignore all armor saves" then wouldn't the HoW attack ignore all armor saves?

As far as intent I kinda figure the HoW attack is only meant to imply the model isn't getting to use weapons, the only point of contention I have against my point of view is... why didn't GW just say "don't use any of the model's weapons when resolving this." Since they gave it a profile, maybe they meant it to just be that profile and nothing else?

Stupid GW... We really need an FAQ, there are so many rules like this where the answer is buried beneath conflicting and valid arguments and me and my bros just have to make our own calls. Maybe that's for the best, but for costing so much the rulebook could at least offer some more clarity.

Happyjew wrote:

chewielight wrote:Maybe I missed it but how are you rolling for HoW attacks when the hit automatically in order to rend?.

Rending occurs on the To Wound roll, not To Hit.

Doh I knew that and yet I have a brain fart. That being said it shouldn't be ap2 though but auto wound ap -

This would still satisfy the HoW rule without ignoring the ap part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maelstrom808 wrote:And it modifiers the AP roll, not the str (same as 2d6 AP).

No where is there a 2d6 roll for Ap it starts at - and ends at 1. The 2d6 is for armor pen which modifies the users/weapons str. So for HoW it would still hit with unmodified users str and ap - . As long as this rule is satisfied and doesn't change those to aspects of HoW then I don't see an issue. Any additional issues during the wounding wouldn't be affected.

No, it would be AP2, as that is the AP of a rending HoW attack, the most specific case of all HoW attacks.

chewielight wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:And it modifiers the AP roll, not the str (same as 2d6 AP).

No where is there a 2d6 roll for Ap it starts at - and ends at 1. The 2d6 is for armor pen which modifies the users/weapons str. So for HoW it would still hit with unmodified users str and ap - . As long as this rule is satisfied and doesn't change those to aspects of HoW then I don't see an issue. Any additional issues during the wounding wouldn't be affected.

AP is also commonly used as short hand for armor penetration. In light of the conversation, I probably should have written it long hand, but was in a hurry. Anyway, you are modifying the armor penetration roll, not the user's strength. If you treat the 1d6 part of the armor pen roll as a modification of the user's strength, it causes problems in other areas. Thus, you can add the +d3 or the additional d6 from various rules without modifying the user's strength from what is listed in the HoW rule.


EDIT: And +1 to what Nos said.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

chewielight wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:And it modifiers the AP roll, not the str (same as 2d6 AP).

No where is there a 2d6 roll for Ap it starts at - and ends at 1. The 2d6 is for armor pen which modifies the users/weapons str. So for HoW it would still hit with unmodified users str and ap - . As long as this rule is satisfied and doesn't change those to aspects of HoW then I don't see an issue. Any additional issues during the wounding wouldn't be affected.

AP is also commonly used as short hand for armor penetration. In light of the conversation, I probably should have written it long hand, but was in a hurry. Anyway, you are modifying the armor penetration roll, not the user's strength. If you treat the 1d6 part of the armor pen roll as a modification of the user's strength, it causes problems in other areas. Thus, you can add the +d3 or the additional d6 from various rules without modifying the user's strength from what is listed in the HoW rule.


EDIT: And +1 to what Nos said.

I know what AP means. That's what confused me by your comment. When anything references armor pen it is modifying the users/weapons str, always has and always will. If your meaning ap of a weapon then ap1,2 means +to the damage chart or armors saves being ignored to wound. You stated that your modifying the armor penetration roll and adding + from various rules, but you can only modify the models str because that what those are added to. I don't see a rational argument for using a models unmodified str at ap - if you are adding a an extra d6 or d3 or ap anything other than -.

Its nit picking to be sure but rending,thunder hammers,powerfists,MC bonuses all add to the users/weapons str roll to determine if it can get through armor. That's why you add str plus modifiers and compare it to AV value. AP is a value give only to determined if armor saves on non vehicles can be made or on how penetration on vehicles damage charts are effected.

We cant have it both ways.

Please cite the rule that says modifying the armor penetration roll is modifying the user's str. You have modifiers to the user's str and modifiers to the armor pen roll. The latter is not a more specific version of the former. That's why rules like armorbane don't say "add 1d6 to str when rolling for armor penetration". Another clue is when you roll for armor penetration, it says "roll a D6 and add the weapon's Strength". It's not a strength modification, if anything it's the strength modifiying the armor pen roll.

HoW is not made with weapons, but the model's base stats profile.

In the case of thunderwolf cav, S5 AP- is the profile for the HoW, and THE MODEL has the RENDING special rule, NOT THE WEAPONS.

Any model with this rule makes an additional attack that autohits at base Str with Ap- at the I10 step.

My model has rending, therefore HoW can rend with TWC.

Wraiths have rending as well, therefore they can rend with HoW.

No model ability is used for HoW. It's a special ability. That special ability has a characteristic. Str (user) Ap-. init 10. Done, nothing else. Stop adding things.

HoW is it's own attack. It is an additional attack but at a different profile. From my understanding it's from the force of the attackers bearing down on the enemy and not from swings from weapons. This is why the AP- is used. If it was a straight additional attack at init 10, then you can use what ever you want. But it doesn't say that.

Take the power for what it is. I little fluff that could get you a few kills.

Now I'm waiting for someone to tell me they can get auto hits with witch blades to wound on a 2+.

Just remember that HoW is not a Close Combat Attack. It's a special ability that you get for assaulting. Some people get +1 Str when they attack. HoW gets a free pimp slap.

Wrong. It is an Attack. that capitalisation means something - namely it is a close combat Attack.

Stop straw manning. The MODEL gets to use the MODELS abilities, barring Smash (because it says it doesnt work)

No it does not get to use abilities. HoW is it's own animal. Stop trying to change it's ability.

Lets break this down. The power represents the force of the attacker bearing down on the unit it attacked. This is why it's at Init 10 and at Str of user with an AP-.

If HoW was worded. Models with HoW get an additional attack at init 10 that auto hits. Then you can do what ever.

They don't want people to do the following.

Use rending ability, use power fists, use power weapons, use witch blades and implant attacks....

Why do they do this? Because GW doesn't want the Assault to end when you just jump into combat. It's a little bonus for having HoW. It's not a game changer vs infantry.

Vs Vehicles Str 4 can wreck Armor 10 vehicles. Just 3 glancing hits takes care of them.

MJThurston wrote:No it does not get to use abilities. HoW is it's own animal. Stop trying to change it's ability.

Lets break this down. The power represents the force of the attacker bearing down on the unit it attacked. This is why it's at Init 10 and at Str of user with an AP-.

If HoW was worded. Models with HoW get an additional attack at init 10 that auto hits. Then you can do what ever.

They don't want people to do the following.

Use rending ability, use power fists, use power weapons, use witch blades and implant attacks....

Why do they do this? Because GW doesn't want the Assault to end when you just jump into combat. It's a little bonus for having HoW. It's not a game changer vs infantry.

Vs Vehicles Str 4 can wreck Armor 10 vehicles. Just 3 glancing hits takes care of them.

It's an Attack.
It resolves during the Fight step (happens at I10)
How is it not a close combat attack?
You can't use Power Fists, Power Weapons, Witch Blades because they're weapons...
Show me where my Tyranid Shrikes are using anything but the default CCW as a weapon.

If a SM can't use it's weapons why would that change for a Nid to use it's weapons. Don't try to word screw this around to argue that Nid arms are just arms and not weapons.

The attack represents shoulders, knees, elbow and feet.

No matter how you want to word this. HoW is what it is. It's not a way to cycle abilities through.

This rule is already ridiculous with free hits and now people want to abuse it more.....

MJThurston wrote:If a SM can't use it's weapons why would that change for a Nid to use it's weapons. Don't try to word screw this around to argue that Nid arms are just arms and not weapons.

The attack represents shoulders, knees, elbow and feet.

No matter how you want to word this. HoW is what it is. It's not a way to cycle abilities through.

This rule is already ridiculous with free hits and now people want to abuse it more.....

While that may possibly be the intent of the rule, unfortunately the rules do not support that same conclusion as they are currently written. If GW wants it played the way you are describing, most likely it will get FAQ'd when then the BRB FAQ is released, but until then...

"Many warriors hurl themselves headlong into combat, seeking to CRUSH or TRAMPLE the foe".

This is in the description of the rule. It is assumed you are not using a weapon or ability with this, but the sheer mass and speed of the charge is doing damage. If you could use rending (or anything for that matter) why does this rule override the AP? I agree that if someone tried to stack abilities onto this, I would simply not let him. This is simply an example of people trying to exploit the rules.

I agree with MJThurston and what has been said above. There are no rules to support HoW otherwise.

Fluff /= rules.

If you want to bring fluff into it anyway, I don't think it unreasonable that when a model that is covered in blades or big spikey bits, weighs as much as a semi, or can phase parts of it's body to appear inside of it's opponent's armor smashes into an opponent, they cause more damage than simply being body slamed by a guy in a jetpack.

Maelstrom808 wrote:Fluff /= rules.

Tell that the Daemons, "Plasma Weapons", pre-reissue of the Avatar FAQ on "Flamers", Any other items where the fluff is exactly the rules.

Then also find me the rule that says Fluff =/= rules.

Now I am going to go back and read what this quote is in reference to.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:Fluff /= rules.

Tell that the Daemons, "Plasma Weapons", pre-reissue of the Avatar FAQ on "Flamers", Any other items where the fluff is exactly the rules.

Then also find me the rule that says Fluff =/= rules.

Now I am going to go back and read what this quote is in reference to.

Fair enough, in some cases it is, but please find me some form of rules to apply in the fluff he quoted.

No one has proven that anything but Str of user AP- is used on this auto hit. Just wishful thinking.

MJThurston wrote:No one has proven that anything but Str of user AP- is used on this auto hit. Just wishful thinking.

Well again, take Wraiths for example:

"Close combat attacks made by a model with this special rule have the Rending special rule." (From Phase Attacks).

HoW is clearly a close combat attack as it has an initiative step and happens in close combat. The attack is resolved at S: user and I 10 with an AP -.

As a close combat attack, it gains the Rending special rule, as the codex specifically states this.

I thought it was quite cut and dry?

Iranna.

MJThurston wrote:If a SM can't use it's weapons why would that change for a Nid to use it's weapons. Don't try to word screw this around to argue that Nid arms are just arms and not weapons.

Nids don't use anything but a base CCW.
Your argument for not applying to HoW is exactly as valid as an argument saying that boneswords, poison, rending, etc. don't apply to a normal CCW attack.
Both have a specific profile to use. Neither explicitly denies model abilities.

The attack represents shoulders, knees, elbow and feet.

Fluff argument - irrelevant.

No matter how you want to word this. HoW is what it is. It's not a way to cycle abilities through.

This rule is already ridiculous with free hits and now people want to abuse it more.....

Cycle abilities through? What?
My Shrikes have dual boneswords and toxin sacs. They don't have a CCW so I am treated as having a S:User AP: - no special ability weapon.
All close combat attacks made by my models are modified by my boneswords, toxin sacs, and rending claws.
HoW is a close combat attack.

The statement in the Tyranid codex in regards to ccw simply means they never get +1 attack for have two single handed weapons. Based upon your interpretation they only ever use one type of attack... Like boneswords and lashwhips.

Dozer Blades wrote:The statement in the Tyranid codex in regards to ccw simply means they never get +1 attack for have two single handed weapons. Based upon your interpretation they only ever use one type of attack... Like boneswords and lashwhips.

No, that's not what I'm saying.
Boneswords and lash whips aren't CCWs.
Warriors aren't equipped with CCWs.
This means they're treated as having a default CCW.

Assuming that HoW would never use a models special abilities because the profile doesn't specifically state it is the same as saying Tyranids don't have their attacks modified because the default CCW doesn't specifically state it.

The boneswords, rending claws, toxin sacs say that all close combat attacks are modified. Is HoW a close combat attack?

Why no, it is not a close combat attack. It's just a special rule that gives you an attack. Attack and not an additional Close Combat Attack. Never once in it's description does it say Close Combat attack. Just auto hits at Str of user at AP-.

Some here are believing that these are close combat attacks and there for get special abilities.

This of course is not true.

After reading the rule you only get these auto hits if you end in base to base. So there are no throw in attacks from models with in 2".

So again it clearly is stating that these hits are not by weapons or special abilities. Just body hitting body.

rigeld2 wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:The statement in the Tyranid codex in regards to ccw simply means they never get +1 attack for have two single handed weapons. Based upon your interpretation they only ever use one type of attack... Like boneswords and lashwhips.

No, that's not what I'm saying.
Boneswords and lash whips aren't CCWs.
Warriors aren't equipped with CCWs.
This means they're treated as having a default CCW.

Assuming that HoW would never use a models special abilities because the profile doesn't specifically state it is the same as saying Tyranids don't have their attacks modified because the default CCW doesn't specifically state it.

The boneswords, rending claws, toxin sacs say that all close combat attacks are modified. Is HoW a close combat attack?

You missed my point... The Tyranid codex states they are armed with teeth claws and talons.

The only ccw Nids have are 'Claws and Teeth' and even then most of the models do not even come with that. Almost every Nid falls under the category of 'No Specific CCW' regardless of what they are actually armed with.

Dozer Blades wrote:You missed my point... The Tyranid codex states they are armed with teeth claws and talons.

Cite the page that says Shrikes are armed with Claws and Teeth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MJThurston wrote:Why no, it is not a close combat attack.

Really?
They're an attack in the Close Combat phase, at an Initiative step.
I don't have my book with me, but... That sounds exactly like a Close Combat Attack.

Just because it happens in the Assault Phase does not make it a close combat attack. Matter of fact it's a SPECIAL RULE.

HoW. A unit with this ability come into the assault so powerfully and swiftly that they get an automatic hit, at init 10 using their base str and an ap-.

To get this hit you must touch base to base with an enemy model. If you do not touch, you do not get this special ability.

Lets be further clear. Don't confuse a special ability with anything else. It is what it is. You are reading into this ability and taking out what you want.

Tyranid close combat weapons - page 33 of the Tyranid codex.

Tyranid rules do not affect a special ability.

Dozer Blades wrote:Tyranid close combat weapons - page 33 of the Tyranid codex.

That doesn't mention weapons for Shrikes.
Look at the bonesword entry. It doesn't mention anywhere that it's a CCW. 6th Ed didn't give it a profile.


MJ - Bone Swords just say all wounds inflicted in close combat... Doesn't specify close combat attacks.
Are wounds from HoW inflicted in close combat?

HoW is a special ability. It's resolved during Close Combat but is not in any way modified to add or subtract from it's rule. It is what it is.

Boneswords are listed as Close Combat weapons. You can't use CCW's with the HoW special ability.

Do you want to argue in circles?

Pg 83 of the Nid book lists Boneswords as CCW's.

MJThurston wrote:HoW is a special ability. It's resolved during Close Combat but is not in any way modified to add or subtract from it's rule. It is what it is.

Boneswords are listed as Close Combat weapons. You can't use CCW's with the HoW special ability.

Do you want to argue in circles?

Pg 83 of the Nid book lists Boneswords as CCW's.

It'd be great if you read the rules for boneswords.

I read the rules to boneswords.

Does the rule say "Can be used with HoW?" Nope.

It's a CCW and can't be used for HoW.

MJThurston wrote:I don't have the read the rules for Bonesword.

Does the rule say "Can be used with HoW?" Nope.

It's a CCW and can't be used for HoW.

So you're going to ignore the rules for bonesword then?
Okay, you can feel free to play with your house rules.

The actual rules say that all wounds caused in close combat ignore armor saves. Not "all wounds using this weapon".
Is a wound caused by HoW a wound caused in close combat?

rigeld2

First - You can't use boneswords with HoW.

Second - If you can't use the boneswords then the rule for boneswords can not be used.

Which part of this don't you understand?

MJThurston wrote:rigeld2

First - You can't use boneswords with HoW.

Second - If you can't use the boneswords then the rule for boneswords can not be used.

Which part of this don't you understand?

I don't think you're getting his post...

He's saying that he isn't USING Boneswords, rather they confer an innate ability while in CC.

HoW is an Attack resolved in CC and so, benefits from innate abilities.

Why is that hard to understand?

Iranna.

Oh because he doesn't understand the rules on boneswords.

Page 83 tells you the rules of boneswords. Listed as CCW and all powers from it say wounds from the bonesword.

Again. Trying to add innate abilities to a Special Ability is not RAW. You use the rules for the Special Ability as listed and you do not add or subtract from it.

MJThurston wrote:Oh because he doesn't understand the rules on boneswords.

Page 83 tells you the rules of boneswords. Listed as CCW and all powers from it say wounds from the bonesword.

Again. Trying to add innate abilities to a Special Ability is not RAW. You use the rules for the Special Ability as listed and you do not add or subtract from it.

Is it a wound caused in close combat?

If so, the bonesword rules apply.

If its a CCW what's its profile? Since its not given anywhere...

MJThurston wrote:Oh because he doesn't understand the rules on boneswords.

Page 83 tells you the rules of boneswords. Listed as CCW and all powers from it say wounds from the bonesword.

Again. Trying to add innate abilities to a Special Ability is not RAW. You use the rules for the Special Ability as listed and you do not add or subtract from it.

I actually had to register just to respond to this.....
The last part of the quoted post is utter rubbish - pg32, Main rulebook says that the effects of different special rules are cumulative.
So, I charge into combat using my jump pack, and gain the Hammer of Wrath special rule.
I also have the rending special rule (as I'm a wraith)
The rule book tells me that different special rules are cumulative.
So.... what happens when I roll a 6 to wound on my HoW attack?....

You wound if the model you hit doesn't have a Toughness double +1 of your Strength.

Rending is from CCW's. It's not from HoW which is not rending.

Read the posts for the last 5 pages.

MJThurston wrote:Rending is from CCW's. It's not from HoW which is not rending.

Absolutely false in his example. Wraiths do not have CCWs.

MJThurston wrote:You wound if the model you hit doesn't have a Toughness double +1 of your Strength.

Rending is from CCW's. It's not from HoW which is not rending.

Read the posts for the last 5 pages.

I did read them - its a shame you didnt do me the courtesy of more than skim-reading my own post - a wraith doesnt get the rending rule as the result of a ccw, it gets it as a special rule applied directly to the model, therefore bypassing the entire arguement you just tried to refute my post - thanks for playing.
So, since I have a special rule giving me an extra attack at a set strength/ap/initiative, and another special rule, *not tied to a ccw* and says that on a to-wound roll of a 6, the ap is set to 2, why on earth do you think that HoW should take precedence over rending, when the rulebook itself says its cumulative?

For those of you who think that special rules should apply to the Hammer of Wrath attacks:

GW gives a bonus attack at your base strength without AP, maybe so it's not too powerful, but when it comes to an ability which ignores saves and Rending GW would allow it?
Do you really think that was their intention? That they thought through (fluff-wise or not) the difference between a close combat weapon and what is equally effective, a special close combat ability?

Chaospling wrote:GW gives a bonus attack at your base strength without AP, maybe so it's not too powerful, but when it comes to an ability which ignores saves and Rending GW would allow it?

You're asking about RAI rather than RAW. I honestly have no idea what the intent was. I couldn't care much less, and I'd play it however my opponent was okay with. Just like 90% of the discussions I have here.

I recommend staying away from the Nid issue, since it is actually secondary to this discussion.

The Wraith example is much better, as it doesn't being in a separate issue.


All CC attacks by a wraith are rending, so the *only* issue is if HoW is considered a CC attack or not.

Similarly, what happens if the model has Preferred enemy? Does it get to reroll the failed wound rolls (1's anyway)?


I find it hard to fathom the argument that an attack, that happens during the CC phase, at a CC init step, that counts towards CC combat resolution... is somehow supposed to be anything but a CC attack.

Does that mean I can take cover saves against HoW attacks?
How does wound allocation work for HoW attacks?
Can LOS be used if HoW is neither shooting nor CC?

I don't know the intent either, but I'm against people act like robots some times when they read the rules, without any thought for what was really intended or people who try to twist the rules in their favour.

In 5th edition there was a difference in Terminator armour rules, the most updated codices had the best armour. If some people think that GW deliberately meant for a difference in Terminator armour from chapter to chapter because of some fluff which aren't common knowledge, then they'd be my guest, but that's acting like robots as well.

Chaospling wrote:I don't know the intent either, but I'm against people act like robots some times when they read the rules, without any thought for what was really intended or people who try to twist the rules in their favour.

In 5th edition there was a difference in Terminator armour rules, the most updated codices had the best armour. If some people think that GW deliberately meant for a difference in Terminator armour from chapter to chapter because of some fluff which aren't common knowledge, then they'd be my guest, but that's acting like robots as well.

Just as an aside, I love the inherent contradiction of that first sentence - you know, where you say you don't know the intent, and then go on to say how you dislike people who do things without any thought of the intent....which you don't know.... :p

The Wraiths CC attacks cause rending and not a free hit from HoW. I can see an argument for this but clearly HoW is not an extra attack. It's a special ability.

MJThurston wrote:The Wraiths CC attacks cause rending and not a free hit from HoW. I can see an argument for this but clearly HoW is not an extra attack. It's a special ability.

....and the special abiility.....gives you an attack....an attack, by the way, that in terms of writing, is no different from how the attacks made in the close combat phase are worded in the rulebook...

*edit* Hang on, lets do this differently.... how are you justifying the HoW attack not being a close combat attack?
It takes place in the close combat phase, at a defined initiative step, and it's worded in the same way as normal attacks (nowhere in the rulebook are they defined as "close combat attacks", just as "attacks")

Hehe I know... Didn't want to change it as it's late and I'm tired. But it doesn't contradict 100% as I wrote "... without ANY thought for what was really intended..." and I stand by that.

I'm a Chaos Daemon player so if special rules would apply then it would be great for me, but I don't think that was intended in this case.

I've met so many players who want to twist the rules in their favour and my guess is that 95% of the people who argue pro special rules should apply is only because it could help them.

No it is not an attack, it's an ability. Not the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
First as per the rules, no attack is automatic. They always miss on 1's. This is an ability that always hits. So it's not an attack. It's an ability that happens at init 10, Str (user), AP-.

MJThurston wrote:No it is not an attack, it's an ability. Not the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
First as per the rules, no attack is automatic. They always miss on 1's. This is an ability that always hits. So it's not an attack. It's an ability that happens at init 10, Str (user), AP-.

First line of HoW rule (not including fluff) - If a model with this special rule charges and ends its charge move in base contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional Attack... (etc etc)..

So, given that the rule itself gives you an additional attack (edit, and, more importantly, *calls* it an Attack), can we move on to your next argument?

So show me the weapon used for this ability.

MJThurston wrote:So show me the weapon used for this ability.

I can't, obviously - but then I'm not arguing that any and all weapons can be used during a HoW attack - thats clearly not the case - I'm arguing that special rules inherent to the model, not applied by a weapon, CAN be used during a HoW attack - which is why my examples have always specified Wraiths, since they're the easiest, best known example of a model with a special rule (rending) applied without being granted by a weapon.

So I'd appreciate it if you'd try and refute the argument I'm making, rather than invent an argument for me and then refute that.

(P.S, I'm actually quite enjoying this - at least partially because I'm on night shifts this weekend and this is helping me stay awake....)

This is where I see the grey area and you pointed it out.

It's an attack but it's from a special ability. This ability is only given to bikes and jump infantry.

The attack is Str (user) AP-. That's it. Nothing extra. If it was just an extra attack at init 10 then I'd be with you all day long.

But it's not just an attack at init 10. It has a Str and an AP. There is no extra modifiers.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I can see the arguments on both sides.

My issue with the argument you're making now (the set strength and AP, etc) is this:

How is that functionally different from a Psycannon? That has a set profile with a set strength and a set AP, but when it rolls a 6 to hit, due to rending, the set profile is modified.

I know, I know, it's a shooting weapon, different phase, etc, but the fact of the matter is that something with a set profile in the 40k ruleset CAN have its profile modifed due to an interaction with a special rule

MJThurston wrote:This is where I see the grey area and you pointed it out.

It's an attack but it's from a special ability. This ability is only given to bikes and jump infantry.

The attack is Str (user) AP-. That's it. Nothing extra. If it was just an extra attack at init 10 then I'd be with you all day long.

But it's not just an attack at init 10. It has a Str and an AP. There is no extra modifiers.

Look at the profile for the default weapon on page 51 (iirc). It says it's STR:User and AP:-. Using your argument it cannot be modified either.

If HoW is not a close combat attack, then cover saves can be taken against it?
Can't see a rock protecting you from jump-troops landing on your head.

The above statement makes no sense.

If you try to use abilities with HoW then you are going to have issues.

Is it ok for a GK Interceptor to use this and then claim he can force weapon you?

MJ: Simple question. We *know* that HoW provides an "additional attack"

So, is that 'additional attack' a CC attack or not?

If it is not, do its casualties count for combat res?

If it is not, then can we take cover saves from it? (CC attacks don't allow cover, but if HoW does not allow a CC attack...)

How do you allocate the wounds from HoW attacks? (There are rules for allocating shooting attacks, and rules for CC attacks...)

Further, how do you justify saying it is *not* a CC attack.? (Since it is an attack using the Users Str, in the CC phase, at a CC init step, etc.

MJThurston wrote:The above statement makes no sense.

If you try to use abilities with HoW then you are going to have issues.

Is it ok for a GK Interceptor to use this and then claim he can force weapon you?

No, because then he is using a weapon, not an ability inherent to the model. Is the GK Interceptor had a special rule, saying (for example), that his close combat attacks cause Instant Death then it would work.

Actually he has a good point. Boneswords are listed as CCW on page 83... Doesn't get much simpler than that.

MJThurston wrote:
The attack is Str (user) AP-. That's it. Nothing extra. If it was just an extra attack at init 10 then I'd be with you all day long.

But it's not just an attack at init 10. It has a Str and an AP. There is no extra modifiers.

Now, if you can provide a rule that supports the parts in bold, you will have a valid assertion.

You are assuming the word 'only' in the rule, and it does not exist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dozer Blades wrote:Actually he has a good point. Boneswords are listed as CCW on page 83... Doesn't get much simpler than that.

Until you read the rules for it... possession of the bonesword means that all CC attacks by the model has certain abilities... it does not need to use the bonesword. Unlike typical CCWs where you use the weapon to get the effect.

So where exactly do the rules in the Tyranid codex say that? Id like to read that myself.

Page 33 iirc.

Dozer Blades wrote:So where exactly do the rules in the Tyranid codex say that? Id like to read that myself.

33 says Nids don't use weapons normally, 83 says that the bonesword works for all wounds inflicted in close combat.

I knew 33 was something about Nid weapons.

It's listed under the section entitled Close Combat Weapons.

Dozer Blades wrote:It's listed under the section entitled Close Combat Weapons.

Good catch! Now, read the bonesword rules.

I did - doesn't change a thing.

huh?? It specifically says that no armor saves can by taken by wound from the tyranid, not from the bonesword. The bonesword works as wargear.

Rules for Thunderhammer says that you have ot use the weapon for the effect. Rules for Boneswords gives an ability to the model.

Ok lets see here is HoW a CC attack?
Looking at the facts, it has an S but so do other non CC attacks, it has an AP which is still not specific enough, it has an I value ok now it's getting close, it happens during the combat phase. Well that seems settled.
Now then lets look at it again does it have other restrictions, no weapon bonuses, good yes how about CC per model rules, hmm doesn't say anything. Well ok let's check all of those rules, interesting only Smash has any restrictions regarding that situation, well then i guess all the others are good to go.

Dozer Blades wrote:I did - doesn't change a thing.

It doesn't?

It doesn't have to be used as a weapon. All wounds inflicted in a close combat.
Are wounds from HoW inflicted in close combat?

Like I said its listed as a ccw. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

so is that a "No, I didn't bother to read the rules"

I read the rules indeed good sir. I even listed corresponding page numbers too.

I'll word bonesword for you.

Wounds inflicted in close combat by a tyranid WITH a bonesword....if a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a tyranid with a bonesword.

This is not saying the tyranid just simply holds it. The tyranid has to use it as a CCW, which on page 83 clearly lists it as a CCW.

So no CCW can be used for HoW.

So if no CCW can be used how can innate abilities be used?

-------------------

I believe and will hold to my guns that HoW is a special ability that auto hits and is just Str (user), AP-. I don't even think that Furious Charge modifies this. I think with Overwatch it was easier just to make it init 10 instead of an initial hit before close combat started. If the rule wanted you to get all your innate abilities and weapons it would just simply say, "1 extra attack at init 10."

At this point for me, I will play it as just a special ability with no extra's until a FAQ is made.

I'm inclined to agree on the bonesword seeing as the section is named CCW, still toxin sacks would work just fine.

coredump wrote:

MJThurston wrote:
The attack is Str (user) AP-. That's it. Nothing extra. If it was just an extra attack at init 10 then I'd be with you all day long.

But it's not just an attack at init 10. It has a Str and an AP. There is no extra modifiers.

Now, if you can provide a rule that supports the parts in bold, you will have a valid assertion.

You are assuming the word 'only' in the rule, and it does not exist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dozer Blades wrote:Actually he has a good point. Boneswords are listed as CCW on page 83... Doesn't get much simpler than that.

Until you read the rules for it... possession of the bonesword means that all CC attacks by the model has certain abilities... it does not need to use the bonesword. Unlike typical CCWs where you use the weapon to get the effect.

No the Nid codex does not make CCW innate. They are CCW and the description of the bonesword says wound caused by it. Not wounds caused by the model.

MJThurston wrote:I'll word bonesword for you.

Wounds inflicted in close combat by a tyranid WITH a bonesword....if a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a tyranid with a bonesword.

This is not saying the tyranid just simply holds it. The tyranid has to use it as a CCW, which on page 83 clearly lists it as a CCW.

So no CCW can be used for HoW.

So if no CCW can be used how can innate abilities be used?

No coffee will be served to a person with a hat.

You're saying the hat would be used to serve, I'm saying the people with hats would be unhappy. The context of the paragraph agrees with me.

Also, how are you linking CCWs with innate abilities like a Wraiths Rending?

MJ - erm, nope, you#re still wrong

"Wounds inflicted in close combat by a tyranid WITH a bonesword"

I've bolded the bit that is important - you have not parsed tyhe sentence at all correctly, which is why you're not understanding your error

The objet causing the wound is the tyranid, not the bonesword. BY a tyranid with.... is the key part.

You still cannot answer the points which disprove you - which is that it is a defined Attack, making it a close comabt attack. I have permission to use model provided Rending frmo a Wraith, now PROVE I cannot do so, using actual language

Your guns are wrong. Feel free to make it a houserule, but until then its not anywhere close to RAW

LOL.

If you do not understand that the bonesword is the part that is important, then I can't help you.

The description as CCW and it's write up are clear that the bonesword has the power and not the tyranid.

You are fishing for this.

So attack is all your worried about. So tell me what kind of attack is HoW? Is it a CCW attack? Is it a model attack? Is it a HoW attack?

Oh it's a HoW attack. Does HoW in it's write up say that it's a CC attack? No it does not. It simple says it's an extra attack resolved at the sub-phase of init 10. What is this extra attack you ask? Oh it's a Str(user) AP-. So if it's an AP- how can that be changed to AP2 which is a rending attack? Oh it can't be.

Does HoW say it can be modified by innate powers? No.
So tell me how you are twisting this rule to make the AP- change to AP2?

Sigh.

No, the subject object relationship in that rule is clear, you are just incapable of parsing it correctly. It states a wound BY A TYRANID, not "by a bonesword". You are also ignoring the rules on page 33 of the nid book.

Still, you're missing the point of Wraiths

Attack is a defined word, hence the capitalisation - which as Im sure you know means you look up Attack. Which is a close combat "thing". Menaing Attack == close combat attack. They are the same thing.

Does HoW say it is a close comabt Attack? Yes, because Attack, note the capital, refers to Close Combat. You can tell this if you look at the characteristics page - note that "A" refers to your Attacks in close combat?

So, we know it is a CC Attack, and have proven it 100% incontrovertibly to those who can parse the rulebook and the rules of English grammar.

As it is a close combat attack, please find me the rule that denies inate rending, from a Wraith, from working

Note: do not respond more on tyranids, they are irrelevant to this. Stick to the easier to understand case of Wraiths, and that HoW is a defined CC Attack. Please follow the tenets of this forum in your response, by actually using rules this time.

The HoW attack is classified as AP-.

Dozer Blades wrote:The HoW Attack is classified as AP-.

Attack. Fixed it for you

AP- - And? So are attacks made with a default CCW. So youre saying Rending doesnt set ANY Attack to AP2 now? Or are you not being consistent in how you are making up rules?

LOL,

Really. Just a wound by a tyranid. So why don't all tyranids have this ability? Oh because they don't have boneswords. You are honestly telling me that on page 83 titled CCW's, under the description Bonesword, that it's a tyranid power and not a CCW? I'm not buying it. Try to word screw this all you want. Boneswords are CCW. They do not give Tyranids innate abilities.

No HoW does not state it's a close combat attack. No where in it's wording.

An extra attack resolved at sub-phase 10 init. That's very clear. Resolved at meaning that it has happened. So it's an attack that happened outside the assault phase but resolved at sub-phase init 10.

That is pretty clear that the attack already happened. If the attack already happened, then it clearly was not a Close Combat Attack.

What was it? Wait for it.....HoW. Nothing more and nothing less.

I'll stick to what ever I want.

Wrong. I'm talking subject object here. The object is "a tyranid with a bonesword", it is not "Bonesword"

Stop strawmanning, as this is yet another lotgical fallacy from you.

Read page 33 and the nid FAQ. If a bonesword, rending claws et al were CCW then you would have to choose one.

They give nids inate abilities. Try to avoid and ignore actual rules all you like, which is what you are doing, but it will not alter basic facts of the game.

As you keep missing it:

Attack is defined as a close combat attack. I've underlined the bit you keep ignoring. So HoW IS an Attack, meaning it is a close combat attack. That is what is meant in English when you capitalise words within a sentence - they are proper nouns, i.e. they are the name of something. In 40k that means that "Attack " is a specific "thing", in this case it is specified as a close combat attack

You cannot alter this fact by constantly repeating the same ruleless statements.

I've not said you cant, its just your way is a houserule, unconnected to the actual rules of the game.

They do not give nids innate abilities. They have CCW's that give them abilities.

No you are missing it.

By touching base to base you have auto hit. This auto hit is Str(User), AP-. Also this auto hit is resolved at sub-phase init 10. So the auto hit is an extra attack but it happened outside of the assault phase. So it's not a close combat attack.

LOL on your constant house rule theory.

The attack is S as user AP- and nothing more. Arguing it further would be like me saying that Lelith's grenades ignore Armor Saves, which they do not. Lelith's attacks ignore armor saves in her rules. Her grenade is AP4. There is no logic to in saying she can use it with her grenade, any more than allowing rending in a special rule that does not allow for the use of other special rules in it.

MJThurston wrote:They do not give nids innate abilities. They have CCW's that give them abilities.

No you are missing it.

By touching base to base you have auto hit. This auto hit is Str(User), AP-. Also this auto hit is resolved at sub-phase init 10. So the auto hit is an extra attack but it happened outside of the assault phase. So it's not a close combat attack.

LOL on your constant house rule theory.

Yes, he CCW gives the ability. The ability is not restricted to close combat attacks - you should read the rule again.

And again, you're ignoring (completely, even when asked directly) Wraiths.

megatrons2nd wrote:The attack is S as user AP- and nothing more. Arguing it further would be like me saying that Lelith's grenades ignore Armor Saves, which they do not. Lelith's attacks ignore armor saves in her rules. Her grenade is AP4. There is no logic to in saying she can use it with her grenade, any more than allowing rending in a special rule that does not allow for the use of other special rules in it.

The above is a non-sequitur, since Lelith's grenade's have a separate profile AND cannot benefit from (most) models' special rules.


A close combat attack, however, benefits from all relevant special rules, and HoW has only excluded special rules derived from weapons

MJThurston wrote:They do not give nids innate abilities. They have CCW's that give them abilities.

Page 33. Nid book. Read it. You will remain wrong on this, and you will remain OT on this. Or do you play that nids dont get to use rending claws and boneswords together?

Stop ignoring that this is irrelevant to Wraiths.

MJThurston wrote:No you are missing it.

Sigh. Then stop posting in the rules forum if you are unwilling to make rules based arguments. You are ignoring a very, very basic concept which is critical to understanding this game and English in general

Attack is a defined term within 40k. This means, to bresak this down into simple terms, that you have to look up what "Attack" means within a 40k context. This means you HAVE to look at the rulebook under "Attack" to find out what this means

Attack is defined as close combat attacks.

MJThurston wrote:By touching base to base you have auto hit. This auto hit is Str(User), AP-. Also this auto hit is resolved at sub-phase init 10. So the auto hit is an extra attack but it happened outside of the assault phase. So it's not a close combat attack.

WRONG. It happens during the Fight! sub phase, because it happens AT Init 10. It contributes to the close combat result

You are now, simply, making gak up. You have zero, nada, zilch, zip rules support, and your continued failure to provide ANY means you are constantly breaching the rules of this forum.

If you continue to ignore the defined phrase Attack, and explain why you are revoking permission to use a Wraiths Rending ability, you have automatically conceded the argument.

MJThurston wrote:LOL on your constant house rule theory.

Not theory, fact, as you have aptly demonstrated

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:The HoW Attack is classified as AP-.

Attack. Fixed it for you

AP- - And? So are attacks made with a default CCW. So youre saying Rending doesnt set ANY Attack to AP2 now? Or are you not being consistent in how you are making up rules?

The rule says AP -. If you want to play by your own house rules that is fine though. I am just following the RAW here.

So, you agree that Rending never sets you to AP2?

Please, apply some consistency - do you agree or disagree with that statement? Bare in mind, as you have been shown, melee weapons are ALSO AP-

(Hint: you arent following the rules, because you are ignoring specific > general, so feel free to houserule HoW if you want, but in terms of real, actual written rules you remain in the wrong]

Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:The HoW Attack is classified as AP-.

Attack. Fixed it for you

AP- - And? So are attacks made with a default CCW. So youre saying Rending doesnt set ANY Attack to AP2 now? Or are you not being consistent in how you are making up rules?

The rule says AP -. If you want to play by your own house rules that is fine though. I am just following the RAW here.

The default CCW also says AP -. Are you asserting that wraiths can never rend?

rigeld2 wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:The HoW Attack is classified as AP-.

Attack. Fixed it for you

AP- - And? So are attacks made with a default CCW. So youre saying Rending doesnt set ANY Attack to AP2 now? Or are you not being consistent in how you are making up rules?

The rule says AP -. If you want to play by your own house rules that is fine though. I am just following the RAW here.

The default CCW also says AP -. Are you asserting that wraiths can never rend?

I've aksed that question twice now. I'm assuming Dozer will ignore it again. In fact its been asked more than twice this thread, and ignored comprehensvely each time.

The rules say the attacks are AP - so they can't rend during the how attacks.

Dozer Blades wrote:The rules say the attacks are AP - so they can't rend during the how attacks.

Why is your statement limited to HoW attacks?
The default CCW has the exact same profile.

Dozer Blades wrote:The rules say the attacks are AP - so they can't rend during the how attacks.

So, you still wont answer the question?

Please, provide a rules reason as to why the more specific rending rule doesnt override the HoW rule. Anything rulesbased would be good.

Otherwise you ARE stating that Rending NEVER makes an attack AP2.

If you continue to dodge that is what you are agreeing with, and have conceded the point.

Dozer Blades wrote:The rules say the attacks are AP - so they can't rend during the how attacks.

He's ignoring all rules based argument, no point continuing to make the same point he isn't even attempting to counter, he's wrong, it wouldn't suprise me if he knew he was and is now just trollolololing

HoW is more specific. Look - 1000 people here can post you are right but that does not necessarily make it so. Remember all the hoo-haa about falchions conferring +2A? This is your interpretation and nothing more.

Dozer Blades wrote:HoW is more specific. Look - 1000 people here can post you are right but that does not necessarily make it so. Remember all the hoo-haa about falchions conferring +2A? This is your interpretation and nothing more.

HoW is more specific than rending?
So obviously the default CCW is as well, right?

Also, what happened to coded overrides brb?

On the nid issue, the FAQ is what is getting left out. ALL nid CCW special rules are in effect for ALL attacks in assault. This is a 'nid special quirk. So either all nid CCW special rules work with HoW (really really scary) becuase they are granted to all attacks, or none of them do.

It is a separate issue about biomorphs like implant attack, Adrenal glands and Toxin Sacs that grant special rules to the Model. Do they apply or not?

More time with HoW for me on this I think.

I have followed all 7 pages of this post pretty closely.

It is not open to dispute that rending applies to close combat attacks and that HoW is a close combat attack.

It is not open to dispute that a rending weapon is resolved at AP 2, regardless of the weapon's base AP (psycannon, assault cannon, rending claws all have to for rending to work at all).

It is not open to dispute that attacks made in CC by a model with the rending rule (or a weapon with this rule)...rend.

Given these three facts, I cannot see how the HoW close combat attack would not benefit from the rending rule for models with the special rule - Rending (note I am excepting the weapons)

I get that models with weapons that are rending would not benefit, but otherwise you need to undermine one of those three statements for HoW not to work for models with the rending rule.

Lobukia wrote:I feel like this is RAW vs RAI. If any player tries to use any USR of SR in a HoW against me, it's going to come to a roll off, as I see this a blatant rule lawyering (that I think is also wrong when looking at RAW). That being said, I really think GW needs to keep the 'nids in mind and make a ruling that SA and USR not given by the weapon be used on HoW attacks.

I agree. They (GW) definetely need to look at this again. I feel like the rule was clearly intended to give bikes, jump packs and etc. a slight advantage on the charge.
(Dawn of War anyone? Don't you just love smashing things by landing on them with Assault Marines?)
But, people are going to try and exploit this rule for what it is written as and the game developers are going to be shaking their heads when they write the next FAQ.

Yeah, using the rules as they're written is a bad thing.

For comparison:

"Thunder hammers release atremendous blast of energy
when they strike,"
Not a marine with a thunderhammer, the actual thunderhammer...

Concussive:A model that suffers one or more unsaved Woundsfrom a weapon with this special
Again, the weapon, not a model with the weapon

Force:, all unsaved Wounds inflicted by the Force weapon that turn have the Instant Death special rule
Again, "by the force weapon", not by the model with a force weapon.

Ignores Cover:Cover savescannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Coverspecialrule.
Not by models with that weapon.... by that weapon.


Etc, etc.

Almost all weapons give the benefit when the weapon is being used. Nid weapons are part of the model, you don't have to use them to gain the benefit, all benefits are used in all CC attacks. that is why if you have rending claws, and a lash whip, and a bonesword... they will all work; even if you only get 1 attack.
Yes, they are called CCWs, but they do not operate as standard CCWs, they operate as wargear.

My take on this...it HAS to be a close combat attack otherwise it wouldn't/shouldn't count towards combat resolution. It's basically an attack that turns your body into a weapon which is why you use your models strength and not any modified strength from weapons being held. Which also means no special rules from "weapons", but you should get special rule advantage for wargear that is NOT a CCW that grants you something, such as furious charge or rending.

Basically, to me, you're getting a free "weapon" for that first round of assault and that "Weapon" is your body. So, what rules does your body have?

In the case of the tyranid bonesword, I'm not sure if it's a CCW or not but it should still confer it's bonus since it says "all attacks" and Hammer of Wrath *IS* a close combat attack. It's ridiculous to say it's not when it is resolved as a close combat attack (Fight Sub-Phase) and counts towards close combat resolution.

And ignoring the Nid argument....

Wraiths have Rending innately. There has been no valid argument against it applying to HoW unless it also does not apply to the default CCW - which is all Wraiths will ever use.

There is a valid argument.

Touching base to base is the auto hit. Doing the wounding is delayed to sub-phase init 10.

I don't see how this is debatable. These are not close combat hits. They are hits that happen when a model touches another model during assault.

Resolved is the key word. So it happened but rolls to wound are done at this time.

So no they are not close combat attacks.

Is it a wound Inflicted in close combat?

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, using the rules as they're written is a bad thing.

Unfortunately you are not.

If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.

therefore you may not rend.


a more interesting question is does furious charge apply to HoW.

Dozer Blades wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, using the rules as they're written is a bad thing.

Unfortunately you are not.

You've proven nothing like that.

In fact, you've failed to address a very I portent question when asked multiple times.
You've failed to prove your assertion.
It'd be great if you could answer it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.

therefore you may not rend.


a more interesting question is does furious charge apply to HoW.

The default CCW is STR:User and AP: -. Is it allowed to Rend?

MJThurston wrote:There is a valid argument.

Touching base to base is the auto hit. Doing the wounding is delayed to sub-phase init 10.

I don't see how this is debatable. These are not close combat hits. They are hits that happen when a model touches another model during assault.

Resolved is the key word. So it happened but rolls to wound are done at this time.

So no they are not close combat attacks.

What? And, you realize it is the "fight" sub-phase, which is the second phase (I think) to an assault, which is the phase where ALL close combat attacks are taken and received by initiative order. They don't "happen when a model touches another model" it is an additional attack that specific unit types get to make when they use specific movement to get into assault, it just happens to have a stipulation that only models in B2B get to make the attack.

By all definitions and by order of operations, they are close combat attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.

therefore you may not rend.


a more interesting question is does furious charge apply to HoW.

Yes to both. A wraiths CCW are set to "STR:X AP -" but all close combat attacks from a wraith having the rending special rule and rending states it is AP 2, which overrides this value. Hammer of wrath attacks aren't a "set value" like whip coils do to initiative, it is an attack with a profile as detailed in the book but it's not "set". No more so than any other attack with a profile, anyway.

Snap shots have nothing to do with this, the wording is different and the circumstances are different.

HoW doesnt specify you can use weapons, wargear or other special rules.



it specifically states what the initiative attack and ap of the attack are. There is no mention to modify it or permission to modify it based on the models other USRs, wargear, etc. There is also no mention that it works or counts as standard close combat attack.

blaktoof wrote:specifically states what the initiative attack and ap of the attack are. There is no mention to modify it or permission to modify it based on the models other USRs, wargear, etc. There is also no mention that it works or counts as standard close combat attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.
therefore you may not rend.
a more interesting question is does furious charge apply to HoW.

The default CCW is STR:User and AP: -. Is it allowed to Rend?

It'd be great if you could answer that question. Or this one - what is the difference between the HoW profile and the default CCW profile on page 51? (might be wrong with the page number - book is at home)

blaktoof wrote:HoW doesnt specify you can use weapons, wargear or other special rules.



it specifically states what the initiative attack and ap of the attack are. There is no mention to modify it or permission to modify it based on the models other USRs, wargear, etc. There is also no mention that it works or counts as standard close combat attack.

The profile for a CCW specifically state what the S and AP of attacks made with it are. So, by your logic, CCWs can't benefit from innate abilites possessed by the model?

Actually, there are many things which indicate it is a close combat Attack.

Firstly, in the rule entry, it describes it as an "Attack" (notice capitalisation, this refers to a Proper Noun in English. I.E, a Close Combat Attack.)

Secondly, it happens in the Fight! Sub-phase. close combat attacks are resolved in this phase.

Lastly, it has an initiative, strength and AP value - what would it be if not an Attack?

Iranna.

nothing which oddly doesnt matter, because many things in the game have similar basic rules. but answer this, why list the values instead of saying may make 1 attack at initiative 10?

if you can explain that for me that would be great.

I am guessing the fact they listed rules for the values means those are the rules you are given permission to use for a HoW attack.

normal close combat attacks are given further permission to use the models wargear/weapons/USRs however HoW is not given that, nor does it state make 1 attack using the models normal rules, USRs, Weapons, etc at initiative 10. It gives a set profile the attack uses.

MJThurston wrote:There is a valid argument.


So no they are not close combat attacks.

Okay, then please answer these questions:

Do you get a cover save against HoW?

Do the wounds affect Combat Resolution?

How do you allocate wounds from HoW?

Can a character use LOS from wounds caused by HoW?


I, and others, have asked these questions a number of times... could you please explain how they should be played?

Dozer Blades wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, using the rules as they're written is a bad thing.

Unfortunately you are not.

So, you still cannot answer the question?

Well done at conceding you dont have a rules argument, bravo.

blaktoof wrote:If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.

therefore you may not rend.

A close combat weapon has the specific rules of AP-, setting the close combat weapon to AP2 would not follow the rules, therefore you may not rend.

That is your argument. You have just made Rending not ignore armour saves, bravo!

Or you could use specific > general. A Jump unit with inate Rending is the more specific rule.

MJThurston wrote:There is a valid argument.

ooh this could be good!

MJThurston wrote:Touching base to base is the auto hit. Doing the wounding is delayed to sub-phase init 10.

Nope, started badly. Have you yet read the rulebook, 6th edition, on Assaults? there is no "sub phase init 10" that the "hit' is delayed to. HoW triggers in the Fight! sub phase, at init 10.

You have yet to use any rules

MJThurston wrote:I don't see how this is debatable. These are not close combat hits. They are hits that happen when a model touches another model during assault.

Wrong. So wrong. You have been shown why, and you still continue to ignore the actual rules in favour of your made up stuff. I wont repeat tehm as you keep ignoring them, and are just now trolling.

MJThurston wrote:Resolved is the key word. So it happened but rolls to wound are done at this time.

No, it tells you when in the Fight! sub phase the auto hit occurs. It is a Close Comabt Attack because that is what an "Attack", noting the capitilsation you ignore / dont understand the importance of, IS.

HoW is a Close Combat Attack
HoW is a Close Combat Attack

If you disagree, provide some rules. Just for once.

MJThurston wrote:So no they are not close combat attacks.

Thats your house rule, that has no relation to reality

blaktoof wrote:nothing which oddly doesnt matter, because many things in the game have similar basic rules. but answer this, why list the values instead of saying may make 1 attack at initiative 10?

if you can explain that for me that would be great.

Easily. They wanted Hammer of Wrath to exclude any type of weapons and weapon properties. With that premise, I give a question back to you. What profile would you use if the attack uses no weapons?

I am not sure how you think rending is more specific than hammer of wrath, they both seem like USRs and would both have the same specificity, no where in the rulebook is there a prioritizing of which USR is more specific than the rest, so not sure where you get that information from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SCvodimier wrote:

blaktoof wrote:nothing which oddly doesnt matter, because many things in the game have similar basic rules. but answer this, why list the values instead of saying may make 1 attack at initiative 10?

if you can explain that for me that would be great.

Easily. They wanted Hammer of Wrath to exclude any type of weapons and weapon properties. With that premise, I give a question back to you. What profile would you use if the attack uses no weapons?

the profile specified by the ability you are using which in this case is HoW?

blaktoof wrote:I am not sure how you think rending is more specific than hammer of wrath, they both seem like USRs and would both have the same specificity, no where in the rulebook is there a prioritizing of which USR is more specific than the rest, so not sure where you get that information from.

Well in the case of Wraiths:

All Jump Infantry have HoW.

Wraiths are Jump Infantry.

However, not all Jump Infantry have Rending.

Wraiths do.

Therefore, the more specific Rending takes precedence over the more general HoW.

Iranna.

And that is why hammer of wrath has a profile. Does it necessarily mean that that profile is immutable?

blaktoof wrote:I am not sure how you think rending is more specific than hammer of wrath, they both seem like USRs and would both have the same specificity, no where in the rulebook is there a prioritizing of which USR is more specific than the rest, so not sure where you get that information from.

JI with Rending is MORE specific than JI.

Iranna wrote:

blaktoof wrote:I am not sure how you think rending is more specific than hammer of wrath, they both seem like USRs and would both have the same specificity, no where in the rulebook is there a prioritizing of which USR is more specific than the rest, so not sure where you get that information from.

Well in the case of Wraiths:

All Jump Infantry have HoW.

Wraiths are Jump Infantry.

However, not all Jump Infantry have Rending.

Wraiths do.

Therefore, the more specific Rending takes precedence over the more general HoW.

Iranna.

I see why you think that makes it more specific, but in actuality they are both just USRs from the main rulebook. Its not like there is more specific class of jump infantry that is rending jump infantry they are two seperate USRs, the fact that some models have more than 1 USR does not mean the combination of the two makes it more specific. Sorry.

if you actually believe being able to combine USRs into one ability like vector strike and poisoned attacks means your more specific and can therefore ignore one of your specific rules because you have 2 specific rules, all i can say to that is...


fascinating.

SCvodimier wrote:And that is why hammer of wrath has a profile. Does it necessarily mean that that profile is immutable?

The profile can't be immutable unless it says so - the default CCW has the same profile which would mean Wraiths don't Rend.

Except that is exactly how it works. The more specific instance wins.

JI with rending are more specific than JI.

You can disagree, it just means you stay incorrect.

blaktoof wrote:

Iranna wrote:

blaktoof wrote:I am not sure how you think rending is more specific than hammer of wrath, they both seem like USRs and would both have the same specificity, no where in the rulebook is there a prioritizing of which USR is more specific than the rest, so not sure where you get that information from.

Well in the case of Wraiths:

All Jump Infantry have HoW.

Wraiths are Jump Infantry.

However, not all Jump Infantry have Rending.

Wraiths do.

Therefore, the more specific Rending takes precedence over the more general HoW.

Iranna.

I see why you think that makes it more specific, but in actuality they are both just USRs from the main rulebook. Its not like there is more specific class of jump infantry that is rending jump infantry they are two seperate USRs, the fact that some models have more than 1 USR does not mean the combination of the two makes it more specific. Sorry.

Yes, these USRs interact with one another during HoW attacks. In order to figure out which takes precedence, we have to use Specific over General.

In GENERAL, all Jump Infantry have HoW.

SPECIFICALLY, Wraiths have Rending.

Therefore, Rending will take precedence, generating a Rending HoW Attack.

Sorry.

Iranna.

rigeld2 wrote:

SCvodimier wrote:And that is why hammer of wrath has a profile. Does it necessarily mean that that profile is immutable?

The profile can't be immutable unless it says so - the default CCW has the same profile which would mean Wraiths don't Rend.

That is what I am trying to get at. People are assuming that the profile was given in the rule because the writers wanted it to have that specific strength and AP, when actually (IMO), they gave the profile because if they wanted to exclude weapons from the attack, there would be no relevant profile to reference.

Entirely RAI, but something to consider when talking to your opponent before the battle.

sorry you are both wrong.

HoW is not a general abiltiy. A general rule is something that every model in the game has access to unless specifically told they do not.

a specific rule is one that certain models are given permission to use.

both rending, and HoW are specific, you cannot have a rule that is more specific than specific, and ignoring one specific rule that sets something because you have another specific rule that does something is not correct. the order of operations says a set value takes precedence.

blaktoof wrote:sorry you are both wrong.

HoW is not a general abiltiy. A general rule is something that every model in the game has access to unless specifically told they do not.

a specific rule is one that certain models are given permission to use.

both rending, and HoW are specific, you cannot have a rule that is more specific than specific, and ignoring one specific rule that sets something because you have another specific rule that does something is not correct. the order of operations says a set value takes precedence.

You've made up this entire post. Please post actual rules.

You can absolutely have a rule that's more specific than another.

There is no set value in this case. Again, making up rules. Post some page numbers that actually agree with you.

please show me in the rulebook where it orders specificity or gives any criteria for doing so?

blaktoof wrote:sorry you are both wrong.

HoW is not a general abiltiy. A general rule is something that every model in the game has access to unless specifically told they do not.

a specific rule is one that certain models are given permission to use.

both rending, and HoW are specific, you cannot have a rule that is more specific than specific, and ignoring one specific rule that sets something because you have another specific rule that does something is not correct. the order of operations says a set value takes precedence.

Except you're entirely wrong?

Of course you can have something that is more specific than something specific.

For example, saying: "someone from Africa is more specific than saying "Someone from Earth". Then saying "Someone from South Africa" is more specific than saying either.

Saying Jump Infantry have HoW is specific to JI.

Simmilarly, Wraiths are JI. Thus they have HoW.

But they also have Rending, which is more specific amoung JI. Thus, Rending is more Specific, in this instance, than HoW.

Iranna.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, using the rules as they're written is a bad thing.

Unfortunately you are not.

So, you still cannot answer the question?

Well done at conceding you dont have a rules argument, bravo.

blaktoof wrote:If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.

therefore you may not rend.

A close combat weapon has the specific rules of AP-, setting the close combat weapon to AP2 would not follow the rules, therefore you may not rend.

That is your argument. You have just made Rending not ignore armour saves, bravo!

Or you could use specific > general. A Jump unit with inate Rending is the more specific rule.

MJThurston wrote:There is a valid argument.

ooh this could be good!

MJThurston wrote:Touching base to base is the auto hit. Doing the wounding is delayed to sub-phase init 10.

Nope, started badly. Have you yet read the rulebook, 6th edition, on Assaults? there is no "sub phase init 10" that the "hit' is delayed to. HoW triggers in the Fight! sub phase, at init 10.

You have yet to use any rules

MJThurston wrote:I don't see how this is debatable. These are not close combat hits. They are hits that happen when a model touches another model during assault.

Wrong. So wrong. You have been shown why, and you still continue to ignore the actual rules in favour of your made up stuff. I wont repeat tehm as you keep ignoring them, and are just now trolling.

MJThurston wrote:Resolved is the key word. So it happened but rolls to wound are done at this time.

No, it tells you when in the Fight! sub phase the auto hit occurs. It is a Close Comabt Attack because that is what an "Attack", noting the capitilsation you ignore / dont understand the importance of, IS.

HoW is a Close Combat Attack
HoW is a Close Combat Attack

If you disagree, provide some rules. Just for once.

MJThurston wrote:So no they are not close combat attacks.

Thats your house rule, that has no relation to reality

You can lead a horse to water as the old saying goes.