In a nutshell, do defensive grenades remove bonuses from special abilities like furious charge and hammer of wrath or do they only remove the additional charge attack?

The Defensive Grenade rules specify exactly what they do. Check the Index of the BRB for the page number for Defensive Grenades.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Defensive Grenade rules specify exactly what they do. Check the Index of the BRB for the page number for Defensive Grenades.

I think what "deathreaper" means to say is; Defensive grenades only remove the bonus attack a unit would normally receive from charging.

 JEREMSTER wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The Defensive Grenade rules specify exactly what they do. Check the Index of the BRB for the page number for Defensive Grenades.

I think what "deathreaper" means to say is; Defensive grenades only remove the bonus attack a unit would normally receive from charging.

what he really meant to say was "what does the rule say?"

It's a fair question. I'd say that they do not negate Rage and hammer of Wrath, only the normal charge bonus.

I'm pretty sure rage is negated as it's still the same bonus attacks for charging, it's just +2 instead of +1.

"Models charging units equipped with defensive grenades do not gain bonus Attacks from charging"

Hammer of Wrath and Rage give you extra attacks for charging. If you define 'extra attacks' as 'bonus attacks' then yes. If not, then no. I'm gonna go with the first one.

Rage yes. HoW no.

Dont have the BRB in front of me, but doesn't Furious Charge only give +1 Str? It gave an extra attack in 5th, so maybe thats what you are thinking of.

Moridan wrote:
Dont have the BRB in front of me, but doesn't Furious Charge only give +1 Str? It gave an extra attack in 5th, so maybe thats what you are thinking of.

It was actually +1 Strength and Initiative in 5th Ed, not Attacks. You are right about Furious Charge in this edition though.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:

Moridan wrote:
Dont have the BRB in front of me, but doesn't Furious Charge only give +1 Str? It gave an extra attack in 5th, so maybe thats what you are thinking of.

It was actually +1 Strength and Initiative in 5th Ed, not Attacks. You are right about Furious Charge in this edition though.

Gotcha, thanks 9-)

So to answer the OP, No to both.

FC-no
HoW-no
Rage-yes

yawwwwwwn

lets see bonuses for charging
+1 attack for charging
rage
hammer of wrath
rites of battle
furious charge

all these things require that you charge

ergo defensive grenades deny the bonus for charging effectively making it so that you havent charged and there for loose all the above and any other extras unique to your army

Chris Lysander wrote:
ergo defensive grenades deny the bonus for charging effectively making it so that you havent charged and there for loose all the above and any other extras unique to your army

Citation required.

Chris Lysander wrote:
yawwwwwwn

lets see bonuses for charging
+1 attack for charging
rage
hammer of wrath
rites of battle
furious charge

all these things require that you charge

ergo defensive grenades deny the bonus for charging effectively making it so that you havent charged and there for loose all the above and any other extras unique to your army

Yawwwwwwn
You are just making things up. It says that they do not get bonus attacks, nothing about denying other bonuses. Hammer of wrath would be denied because it specifically says that it is an attack at I10 (BRB 37). Furious charge says nothing about extra attacks only that you do not receive the bonus if your charge is disordered. IMO you would receive the bonus for furious charge as it is not an attack, merely a modifier of strength.

 jamin484 wrote:

Chris Lysander wrote:
yawwwwwwn

lets see bonuses for charging
+1 attack for charging
rage
hammer of wrath
rites of battle
furious charge

all these things require that you charge

ergo defensive grenades deny the bonus for charging effectively making it so that you havent charged and there for loose all the above and any other extras unique to your army

Yawwwwwwn
You are just making things up. It says that they do not get bonus attacks, nothing about denying other bonuses. Hammer of wrath would be denied because it specifically says that it is an attack at I10 (BRB 37). Furious charge says nothing about extra attacks only that you do not receive the bonus if your charge is disordered. IMO you would receive the bonus for furious charge as it is not an attack, merely a modifier of strength.

Defensive Grenades affect the bonus attack from charging (pg 24). It does not affect the Special Rule of Hammer of Wrath nor has any affect on FC.

What they said. Its just the bonus attacks from Charging. So Rage is effected (since it just increases the number of the bonus attacks) but not Hammer of Wrath. Look more carefully at the wording of Hammer of Wrath and I'm sure you'll see why.

Perhaps you are right but I feel it is ambiguous at best. I hope you are right because I play white scars. Here is the rule for hammer of wrath, followed by the rule for defensive grenades

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 that hits automatically and is resolved at the model’s unmodified Strength with an AP of – [i](BRB 37)

[i]Models charging units equipped with defensive grenades do not gain bonus attacks from charging (see page 24) (BRB 62)

Is hammer of wrath a bonus attack? If not why not?

D. Grenades specifically refer to the bonus attacks from charging listed on page 24. Hammer of Wrath is not one of those listed bonus attacks.

I think it affects all of them, P62 refers to "bonus Attacks".

P24 only ever refers to "bonus Attacks" once, and that encapuslates three bullet points, which includes "Other bonuses" Which as I understand it, would include HoW.

?

Andrew

How is furious charge a bonus attack?

HoW is not listed as a bonus attack for charging.

It has its own specific rules so it is not taken away by defensive grenades.

P24 has the following second paragraph;

Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks:
(emphasis mine)

* +1 Charge Bonus....
* +1 Two Weapon....
* Other bonuses: Models may have special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks.

So the term bonus Attacks encompass three seperate areas as per P24, the last of which covers special rules, which include such things as HoW though probably not furious charge because the bullet point refers to abilities that give extra attacks.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
P24 has the following second paragraph;

Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks:
(emphasis mine)

* +1 Charge Bonus....
* +1 Two Weapon....
* Other bonuses: Models may have special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks.

So the term bonus Attacks encompass three seperate areas as per P24, the last of which covers special rules, which include such things as HoW though probably not furious charge because the bullet point refers to abilities that give extra attacks.

Cheers

Andrew

Actually, since it says "Other bonuses", you could infer that the +1 Two Weapon attack is a bonus attack that one receives when charging (after all, if you hadn't charged, you'd not be in base to base contact to initiate an assault). The fact that you also get that Bonus on turns when you don't charge is immaterial, going off your reading of the rule - which is probably the correct RAW interpretation.

Personally, I'd play it as losing the +1 Charge Bonus, and the benefit to Rage (since rage affects the Charge Bonus specifically), and that it didn't affect anything else.

I agree with the loss of the +1 Two Weapon rule, because the unit has charged that turn, in later turns they are locked in combat and the bonus is continuous. (and IMO the unit is no longer 'considered' to be charging for the purposes of the Defensive Grenades.) Why didn't I point that out? Because I didn't want shouted under for an over-extreme reading of the rule (even though an accurate one) in order to get my original point across which is that Special Rules/Abilities/Wargear is also negated by Defensive Grenades.

HoW does fall under the desciption of the third bullet point. Is it a special rule? Yes. Does it give an extra attack? Yes.

It does meet the description and so should/would be discounted.

Cheers

Andrew

The +1for 2CCW is a not a "charging" bonus, but an additional attack. It is not contingent upon you having charged

Agreed, but is it listed under the 'bonus Attacks' as per P24?

Andrwe

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The +1for 2CCW is a not a "charging" bonus, but an additional attack. It is not contingent upon you having charged

Well, as I pointed out, I'd play it as only affecting the explicit charge bonus, personally. I'd be interested in your opinion on the actual rule under discussion (the effect of Defensive Grenades on Rage/HoW/etc.), though! You always tend to have insightful, absolute and unwavering answers regarding rules questions.

I havent commented more, as it is clear that bonus attacks from charging are lost, however Furious Charge is a bonus OF charging, but is not a bonus attack FROM charging, so is not affected.

ITs essentially the same as 5th edition

 AndrewC wrote:
Agreed, but is it listed under the 'bonus Attacks' as per P24?

Andrwe

The first bullet point on pg 24 clearly shows the bonus attacks from charging. The rest of the bullets are "bonus attacks" but have nothing to do with charging.

Fragile, I am not completely sure what you are alluding to, but look at it this way, if the unit is not charging do they receive those bonus attacks?

Since the answer is obviously, to me at least, no, then all those bullet points apply to a charging unit.

The 2CCW one is debatable, and IMO shouldn't be there, but it is.

I would be interested to hear why you have taken that point of view?

Cheers

Andrew

You need to reread the rules in question if you are confused. Defensive grenades remove the bonus attack for charging. The bonus attacks on pg 24 includes more than just the bonus attack for charging.

Now I am confused.

What exactly are you saying here?

Defensive grenades remove all bonus attacks from a charging unit. P24 defines bonus attacks as three different things, +1 Charging bonus, +1 Two weapon and Other bonuses.

I say that the defensive grenades remove all 3 sources, are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Cheers

Andrew

"...do not gain Bonus attacks from charging..." -Defensive Grenades rules on page 62.

Nothing there related to "all bonus attacks" or "from a charging unit". You need to read what the rule says. You're adding words that change the meaning of the rule significantly.

Of the sources of additional attacks on page 24 only one is related to charging and depends on it as the source of the additional attack. Those are the only attacks negated by defensive grenades. Not sure what the confusion is or how you could possibly construe defensive grenades to affect any attacks other than those their rules specifically state they do.

Andrew - then you are wrong.

You get bonus attacks, only SOME of those are for charging. 2 close combat weapons is NOT a bonus you get FROM charging, but FROM having 2 CCW.

Firstly Nos I agreed with you earlier, I do think that the +1 for 2 CCW shouldn't have been included in the list, however, GW in their usual track record of poorly written rules, has, wrongly, included the +1 for CCW under the definitions of bonus Attacks.

@helotaxi, please define 'bonus Attacks'? For once GW has actually included the definition in the BrB. Its on P24 and has 3 sections. I've quoted them earlier. Why do you insist that defensive grenades only applies to point 1 and not point 3?

P62 refers to Attacks (plural) P24 point 1 refers to charge Attack (singular)

Rage, a USR, is included, but HoW, an extra attack gained from charging isn't?

Cheers

Andrew

Edited for grammar.

 AndrewC wrote:

@helotaxi, please define 'bonus Attacks'? For once GW has actually included the definition in the BrB. Its on P24 and has 3 sections. I've quoted them earlier. Why do you insist that defensive grenades only applies to point 1 and not point 3?

Defensive grenades only apply to point 1 because the defensive grenade rule removes bonus attacks from charging. It does not remove bonus attacks from the charging unit.

Andrew - again, you are missing the qualifier "from charging"

+1A for 2CCW IS a bonus attack, but it is NOT from charging. Therefore it is not removed. That is entirely clear.

HoW is a bonus attack you get when charging, so should be removed.

Rage is an alteration to the bonus attack for charging, from 1 to 2, so is removed.

Alright let me take a crack at it.

Def. Grenades negate bonus attacks from charging.
[While not the complete rule, the bone of contention is the last part anyways. Also this refers to multiple due to the plural form and since there is no specification, we must assume all bonus attacks from charging.]

What are bonus attacks from charging?

Without the book in front of me, I can think of three. +1 for Charging, +2A for Rage, and yes HoW.

Why HoW? Because it only applies when you charge a unit.

So in order I declare charge-> overwatch yadda yadda-> determine charge distance-> make it into base contact-> bonus attacks? why yes good sir i get these bonuses because i charged. OK add em to the total-> def. grenades sorry you lose your bonus attacks that you got from charging

But honestly folks use common sense. GW has a tough time wording the rules anyways. And if you were being shot at while charging and having grenades thrown at you, wouldn't you lose momentum to make a HoW attack?

But make the best judgement between you and your opponent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

HoW is a bonus attack you get when charging, so should be removed.

I disagree with this for the following reason: HoW isn't on page 24. True, it is an additional (not "bonus") attack received when charging bu the Defensive grenade rule specifies what charge bonus it is referring to: the one described on page 24.

If we apply the Defensive Grenade rule to the HoW rule, for the sake of consistency, we would also have to apply Rage to HoW as well as Swiftclaw Berserk Charge, Carnifex Crushing Claws and every other rule that modifies charge attacks. If you want to give me extra HoW attacks for Rage or Berserk Charge, I'll take them, but there is nothing in the rules to support you doing so. Neither is there anything in the rules to support D. Grenades eliminating the HoW special rule.

Rage is an alteration to the bonus attack for charging , from 1 to 2, so is removed.

Which is why would agree that it is affected by D. Grenades. HoW does not interact with the rules on page 24 at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

41_WarGaming wrote:
And if you were being shot at while charging and having grenades thrown at you, wouldn't you lose momentum to make a HoW attack?

Only if you, as a MC, lost a lot of weight while charging, or you as a biker or chariot suddenly stopped charging altogether. It actually doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective for D. Grenades to affect HoW either. It's not like your normal infantry model has the HoW special rule.

Except for HoW, which specifies it benefits from no special rules.

But you would argue that it could be negated by what amounts to a basic rule?

 AndrewC wrote:
Firstly Nos I agreed with you earlier, I do think that the +1 for 2 CCW shouldn't have been included in the list, however, GW in their usual track record of poorly written rules, has, wrongly, included the +1 for CCW under the definitions of bonus Attacks.

@helotaxi, please define 'bonus Attacks'? For once GW has actually included the definition in the BrB. Its on P24 and has 3 sections. I've quoted them earlier. Why do you insist that defensive grenades only applies to point 1 and not point 3?

P62 refers to Attacks (plural) P24 point 1 refers to charge Attack (singular)

Rage, a USR, is included, but HoW, an extra attack gained from charging isn't?

Cheers

Andrew

Edited for grammar.

I'm curious: Why do you keep referring to page 24 having 3 sections? It's a part of the fight sub-phase section of the rules, not the charge section. It's referred to in the DG section but that's for the fact that they include the +1 bonus for charging to be included in that fight sub-phase.

"Models charging units equipped with defensive grenades do
not gain bonus Attacks from charging (see page 24)"

" +l Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this
turn get + I Attack this turn. Remember that models in
units that made a disordered charge (see page 27) do not
get this bonus."

I honestly think it's just referring to the +1 Charge Bonus. That is it.

Since that's the only bonus from charging listed on the page referenced in the D. Grenades rule, I'm not sure where any of the confusion is coming from either.

Shaozun wrote:

I'm curious: Why do you keep referring to page 24 having 3 sections? It's a part of the fight sub-phase section of the rules, not the charge section. It's referred to in the DG section but that's for the fact that they include the +1 bonus for charging to be included in that fight sub-phase.

"Models charging units equipped with defensive grenades do
not gain bonus Attacks from charging (see page 24)"

" +l Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this
turn get + I Attack this turn. Remember that models in
units that made a disordered charge (see page 27) do not
get this bonus."

I honestly think it's just referring to the +1 Charge Bonus. That is it.

Because of the way it is written. When you look at P24, it refers to the number of attacks that you receive in CC. It defines them by the use of the colon and the three bullet points (The three sections I keep referring to) It determines that models in CC receive bonus Attacks from 3 sources. The non disputable +1 for charging, the +1 for 2CCWs and then the last bullet point, other bonuses, which refers to special rules and wargear which grants extra Attacks.

Now look at HoW. P37

If a model with this special rule charges and ends its move in base contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional Attack...

I just don't see how anyone can argue that HoW isnt a bonus attack gained from charging.

@helotaxi, if, as you argue, that the only attack lost is from charging, why is it written in the plural rather than the singular?

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nos, I don't think that +1for 2CCw should in anyway be removed by the use of defensive grenades, but I am going to be consistent in my argument as to the definition of bonus Attacks, because once I discount one of the bullet points then it undermines my position to argue the last point.

You are right, +1 for 2CCW comes from the use of 2 weapons, not a bonus for charging, but I am going to maintain that it be included, because it is included under the definitions of 'bonus Attacks'.

Cheers

Andrew

Again, your reason for doing so is worng.

You are told to remove bonus attacks FROM CHARGING.

The bonus from 2 CCW IS a bonus attack, however it is NOT FROM CHARGING, so CANNOT be removed.

Your position is wrong.

Nos, I think my additional post may have crossed with yours...

Cheers

Andrew

It is a bonus attack, agreed

It is not a bonus attack from charging, so cannot be removed. Agreed?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is a bonus attack, agreed

It is not a bonus attack from charging, so cannot be removed. Agreed?

Agreed
and
Agreed.

If I refer to it again, it is simply in the context of the definition of 'bonus Attacks' and not that it is removed as an effect of Defensive Grenades.

Cheers

Andrew

Ah ok, not a problem, wires crossed

 AndrewC wrote:

@helotaxi, if, as you argue, that the only attack lost is from charging, why is it written in the plural rather than the singular?

Playing Devil's Advocate, Rage explicitly pluralises the charging bonus, so it might be written in the plural as a reference to the fact it is possible for units to have +2A from charging. Note that this is different to HoW, which grants an attack that is out of profile - that is, the attack does not occur at the model's initiative step, and is not made using the model's weapons.

Not saying that is my opinion, just that it could be a rationale for pluralisation in the rule.

An interesting thought indeed. But why word a basic rule to take account of an advanced rule? Shouldn't it be written the other way round?

And while HoW grants an attack out of profile/initiative, it is still a bonus attack granted to the model is it not?

Cheers

Andrew

Mythal wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

@helotaxi, if, as you argue, that the only attack lost is from charging, why is it written in the plural rather than the singular?

Playing Devil's Advocate, Rage explicitly pluralises the charging bonus, so it might be written in the plural as a reference to the fact it is possible for units to have +2A from charging. Note that this is different to HoW, which grants an attack that is out of profile - that is, the attack does not occur at the model's initiative step, and is not made using the model's weapons.

Not saying that is my opinion, just that it could be a rationale for pluralisation in the rule.

Or, more likely because the sentence in question begins with the word "Models" and models (plural) gain attacks (plural) from charging.

So I just got the Space Wolf Codex to make my Guard a bit more interesting and have to ask... do defensive grenades affect Berserk Charge the same way as Rage?

Just glancing through this post, and just wanted to have my say on the + 1 for 2 close combat weapons debate.

When playing warhammer, its very much a game bsaed on war and a very distant reality (take out the orks, nids, tau and so on). But if we look at a real life battle, say between an assault squad on a tactical squad with defensive grenades, can you explain to me how the tact squads defensive grenades would prevent them from holding on to both of their close comabt weapons? therefore making them forfeit there + 1 for 2 close combat weapons? because if you take them off for the initial charge, then clearly you should take them off for the entire assault? Its not as if they are going to drop 1 of their weapons through the initial charge. Baring in mind they will lose their attack bonus for charging because they are stopping and taking cover, thus keeping themselves alive for the close combat that ensues

This is just my opinion, I am not taking sides and even my opinion is debatable, but I am just trying to see the realistic side of things. If a unit charges another unit that is throwing grenades at them, unless they are completely suicidle, I highly doubt they would keep up there charge without ducking for cover in the process, whilst keeping hold of there 2 close combat weapons but negating the + 1 for charge, as they are ducking for cover, aswell as there rage. I hope I am making sense here?

With regards to the HoW, again I feel this would still stand, because the creatures, bikes, or jump packs that are doing this, we are assuming they either don't give a s**t that grenades are being thrown at them, I.E monstrous creatures, or they are merely too quick to hit them, I.E bikes, or jump pack squads.

I would be interested to see what you guys think.

 mikeyboy69x wrote:
Just glancing through this post, and just wanted to have my say on the + 1 for 2 close combat weapons debate.

I don't believe losing the +1 A for having 2 Close Combat Weapons to Defensive Grenades is really being discussed anymore.

When playing warhammer, its very much a game bsaed on war and a very distant reality (take out the orks, nids, tau and so on). But if we look at a real life battle.....

And then I stopped reading. The "reality" of Warhammer 40K is defined by the rules presented to us, not by the real-world physics of planet Earth anno 2013.
Appeals to common sense and real-world physics is actually less than helpful in rules discussions, and usually just muddies the waters, at best, or poisons the well, at worst.

This is just my opinion, I am not taking sides and even my opinion is debatable, but I am just trying to see the realistic side of things.....

This is where I stopped reading that paragraph. See above.

With regards to the HoW, again I feel this would still stand, because the creatures, bikes, or jump packs that are doing this, we are assuming they either don't give a s**t that grenades are being thrown at them, I.E monstrous creatures, or they are merely too quick to hit them, I.E bikes, or jump pack squads.

Sigh. I would say that HOW is an additional attack gained upon and dependent on performing an assault (as you don't receive it when being assaulted).
This could also be stated as; "HOW is a bonus attack from charging", and as such is lost when charging a unit with Defensive Grenades.
That argument, while reflecting my personal opinion as well, at least references the rules and not appeals to anything else.

I would be interested to see what you guys think.

There you go.

Thank you for your input Steel

Again D. grenades specify, much more than usual for GW, exactly what they effect: bonus attacks from charging as described on p. 24. Because of the specificity you cannot justify extrapolating to cover additional attacks covered elsewhere even if they do only occur when charging.

It amazes me how some people here want to apply the narrowest reading possible on vague language in the rules but when the rules are actually very specific want to use the broad brush approach and read it as covering things well outside the the very specific application of the rule as written.

Why not just call GW and ask a rules troll?

Gomericus wrote:
Why not just call GW and ask a rules troll?

Because the reply is not documentable in an official and publicly accessable manner, such as an officially published FAQ.

SJ

And three calls asking the same question are quite likely to get three different trolls and three different answers.

After how hard its been made to do an assault list I would have no problem allowing them to have rage furious charge or hammer plus it seems that is indeed the clearest interpretation.

 MarshalMathis wrote:
After how hard its been made to do an assault list I would have no problem allowing them to have rage furious charge or hammer plus it seems that is indeed the clearest interpretation.

Furious Charge is not in question.
HOW is debatable.
How do you justify retaining Rage, ie +2 A when charging instead of the normal +1 (beyond "I play Black Templars and would really like to get +2 A when charging")?

Is HoW listed on pg 24?

Lets see, is HoW a Special Rule that confers an extra attack?

Cheers

Andrew

Fragile wrote:
Is HoW listed on pg 24?

I do not believe that page 24 is a complete and exhaustive list of all "bonus attacks" in the game.
I believe it is a list of "bonus attacks" that apply in the basic game rules. I would say that further types/kinds of "bonus attacks" can be added to the list by the advanced rules (such as Rage or Hammer of Wrath) or codexes (such as Mogul Kamirs Cyber-steed).


BTW. Does anybody else have any examples of codex-specific rules that add attacks when charging (and only when charging)?

EDIT. Damn. I am an idiot!

The answer to the question; "Is HoW listed on page 24?" is of course "Yes. Yes, it is".

Thanks AndrewC for the eye-opener.



...

 AndrewC wrote:
Lets see, is HoW a Special Rule that confers an extra attack?

Cheers

Andrew

Again you confuse "Bonus Attacks in Combat" with "Bonus attack from Charging."

Charging is the first bullet point on that list named +1 Charge Bonus? Do you see HoW there ? Bullet points 2 and 3 do not apply to this conversation.

Sorry Fragile, are you seriously saying that HoW is a bonus attack in combat and not a bonus attack from charging?

Cheers

Andrew

HoW. BrB. P37

If a model with this special rule charges and ends its move in base contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional Attack...

Page 37, is not pg 24. Since grenades only remove the bonus attack from charging that is listed on pg 24, you have proved the point.

Fragile wrote:
Page 37, is not pg 24. Since grenades only remove the bonus attack from charging that is listed on pg 24, you have proved the point.

Incorrect. Defensive Grenades remove any bonus attacks from charging. There is no mention of page number. If it's a bonus attack received from charging it is negated.

So you fully admit that HoW is a special rule that grants an extra attack as a result of charging, but that it is not applicable because it's not listed on P24.

Is that the summation of your argument?

Cheers

Andrew

 Abandon wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Page 37, is not pg 24. Since grenades only remove the bonus attack from charging that is listed on pg 24, you have proved the point.

Incorrect. Defensive Grenades remove any bonus attacks from charging. There is no mention of page number. If it's a bonus attack received from charging it is negated.

Perhaps you should reread the rule in question.

So you fully admit that HoW is a special rule that grants an extra attack as a result of charging, but that it is not applicable because it's not listed on P24.

In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Fragile wrote:
In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Almost there, you are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel bonus Attacks from charging. Please note the plural. P24 lists three possible sources of bonus attacks, the last of which has a caveat that bonus attacks can be gained from Special Rules. Ergo, Special Rules that grant bonus attacks are also cancelled by the defensive grenades where the bonus attacks are listed as a result of charging, and HoW is.

I think that I have went as far as I can in explaining this to you, most of the other posters seem to understand this argument, so I would suggest that you play the game your way, and I play the game my way and hope that we can both enjoy our respective games.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

Fragile wrote:
In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Almost there, you are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel bonus Attacks from charging. Please note the plural. P24 lists three possible sources of bonus attacks, the last of which has a caveat that bonus attacks can be gained from Special Rules. Ergo, Special Rules that grant bonus attacks are also cancelled by the defensive grenades where the bonus attacks are listed as a result of charging, and HoW is.

I think that I have went as far as I can in explaining this to you, most of the other posters seem to understand this argument, so I would suggest that you play the game your way, and I play the game my way and hope that we can both enjoy our respective games.

Cheers

Andrew

Actually it says models do not get the bonus attacks from charging. It is proper grammar. From GW. Who knew?

Not quite, it would also be the correct grammar to say that Models do not receive the bonus attack, when referring to a singular bonus. By referring to bonus attacks, a plural bonus, then you look at the GW definition of bonus attacks, and there they are on P24.

Which contains the caveat for any special rules.

Cheers

Andrew

 Happyjew wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

Fragile wrote:
In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Almost there, you are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel bonus Attacks from charging. Please note the plural. P24 lists three possible sources of bonus attacks, the last of which has a caveat that bonus attacks can be gained from Special Rules. Ergo, Special Rules that grant bonus attacks are also cancelled by the defensive grenades where the bonus attacks are listed as a result of charging, and HoW is.

I think that I have went as far as I can in explaining this to you, most of the other posters seem to understand this argument, so I would suggest that you play the game your way, and I play the game my way and hope that we can both enjoy our respective games.

Cheers

Andrew

Actually it says models do not get the bonus attacks from charging. It is proper grammar. From GW. Who knew?

For what it's worth, it appears that in translations ( I've been told of the French one at least) it's spelled out as "losing the +1 attack bonus for charging".
that's not worth much I'm afraid though, as I remember the German version lead to think Feel no pain worked differently ...

I didn't expect this much discussion from asking such a question.

As another has suggested, I emailed GW to see what they say. As the stickies say, this is relatively moot for spoofing and inconsistent replies; however, I'll still reply with their response on the matter once I get the reply.

At the heart of this debate is really the question of if defensive grenades override certain other special rules. We all agree that the +1 for charging is negated. We are assuming Rage is affected because it stacks on top of the removed +1. So with HoW, it boils down to is it considered a bonus attack or something separate. Hard to interpret at this point.

My take, after reading the discussions here. Defensive Grenades:

1. Deny Rage bonus (I agree that Rage is simply a modification of the +1 bonus from charging)
2. Allow Furious Charge (I can't see any argument against this one, really)
3. I'm on the fence with HoW, but I want to say "denied". It's a bonus attack at I10 that you ONLY get when you charge, correct?

 AndrewC wrote:

Fragile wrote:
In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Almost there, you are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel bonus Attacks from charging. Please note the plural. P24 lists three possible sources of bonus attacks, the last of which has a caveat that bonus attacks can be gained from Special Rules.

Andrew

And here is your disconnect. P24 lists bonus attacks for COMBAT. Only 1 of those discusses charging. You seem to think that Dgrenades cancel ALL bonus attacks, which they do not.

 kronk wrote:

3. I'm on the fence with HoW, but I want to say "denied". It's a bonus attack at I10 that you ONLY get when you charge, correct?

Isn't it a bonus hit, not a bonus attack

Fragile wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

Fragile wrote:
In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Almost there, you are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel bonus Attacks from charging. Please note the plural. P24 lists three possible sources of bonus attacks, the last of which has a caveat that bonus attacks can be gained from Special Rules.

Andrew

And here is your disconnect. P24 lists bonus attacks for COMBAT. Only 1 of those discusses charging. You seem to think that Dgrenades cancel ALL bonus attacks, which they do not.

Your argument has been failing for 3 pages now and you continue to run around in circles without actually addressing any arguments. You'd have better luck claiming an 'extra' attack is not a 'bonus' attack which, though silly, is a much more arguable stance. I'm done with this charade though so good luck in your future endeavors.

 Abandon wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Page 37, is not pg 24. Since grenades only remove the bonus attack from charging that is listed on pg 24, you have proved the point.

Incorrect. Defensive Grenades remove any bonus attacks from charging. There is no mention of page number. If it's a bonus attack received from charging it is negated.

Read the rule. It specifically cites a page (24). You have no valid rules basis for your interpretation.

helotaxi wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Page 37, is not pg 24. Since grenades only remove the bonus attack from charging that is listed on pg 24, you have proved the point.

Incorrect. Defensive Grenades remove any bonus attacks from charging. There is no mention of page number. If it's a bonus attack received from charging it is negated.

Read the rule. It specifically cites a page (24). You have no valid rules basis for your interpretation.

Apologies, it does state the page number.

I will give a dissenting opinion against the apparent majority of conclusions reached on this well-argued topic.

Here is my interpretation and how I apply the Defensive grenades effect:

First I look at pg.62 under the Defensive Grenades' Assault section:
"Models charging units equipped with defensive grenades do not gain bonus Attacks from charging(see page 24)"

At which point I turn to pg.24 and read under the Number of Attacks section the list of "bonus attacks" (notably this is not a "bonus attacks of charging" list)
"+1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn."

This entry is the only one in the list of "bonus attacks" on pg.24 that has to do with charging specifically and therefore the only one to which the defensive grenades' effect applies.

The reason for the pluralization of "Attacks" on page 62 is the "Models" at the beginning of the sentence, in the event of a normal charge each model would get +1 charge bonus attack; therefore, in this instance, the models do not get those attacks.

I am anxious to hear your thoughts on my interpretation,
Adversary

I think that you pretty much summarized my points exactly.

I will also add that D. Grenades would deny the +2 attacks from Rage or any similar rule that specifically modifies the +1 Attack for charging listed on p.24.

helotaxi wrote:
I will also add that D. Grenades would deny the +2 attacks from Rage or any similar rule that specifically modifies the +1 Attack for charging listed on p.24.

I'd have to agree with that; it'd be hard to apply a modifier to a negated attack.


Edited: Broken quote.

 TheAdversary wrote:

helotaxi wrote:
I will also add that D. Grenades would deny the +2 attacks from Rage or any similar rule that specifically modifies the +1 Attack for charging listed on p.24.

I'd have to agree with that; it'd be hard to apply a modifier to a negated attack.


Edited: Broken quote.

Whats your thoughts on the hammer of wrath? Would you class that as a modifier?

Hammer of wrath hits at I10 in the sub phase, but gets the attack because it has hit the enemy hard and fast with either a bike, jump pack or what ever else has this ability, so assuming the hammer of wrath is allowed against a defensive grenade unit, you wouldn't negate the +1 for charging as the enemy has hit the unit with full force?

Hey guys I found a simple solution!!

Roll a D6 for when you have a problem. 1-3 the answer is NAY- Dgrens do not apply to HoW. 4-6 YAY- Dgrens do apply to HoW.

Leave it to chance....

Heck the next FAQ could answer this ridiculous question.

HoW is a USR. D. grenades do not state, at any point, that they remove USRs.

I would suggest that as HoW is a USR, it is treated separately from the bonus attacks from charging, even though the end result is in fact a bonus attack from charging.

It seems like a retorical question, 41_wargaming I do like that idea though, seems the only reasonable answer for now, but this does need resolving.

Hoff again, you are right that the HoW is a USR, but again, to achieve HoW your jumping, riding or what ever, into combat, which means you pretty much bypass all d.nades, surely you can't allow a HoW, then allow the removal of bonus attacks gained from the charging in,.

Unfortunatey there is no definitive answer to this, so i'll go with 41's idea

I didn't say it made sense to play it that way...

HoW is to represent the massive force you have commanded in your assault. D. grenades aren't meant to strip you of this, just to temporarily confuse you - that's why you can still fight as normal. I would say that HoW wouldn't therefore be affected by something that doesn't daze you enough to remove ALL attacks, and as a USR I think it would go unaffected.

But these are just my thoughts, I would be happy to let the dice decide if it became an unresolved issue.

41_WarGaming wrote:
Hey guys I found a simple solution!!

Roll a D6 for when you have a problem. 1-3 the answer is NAY- Dgrens do not apply to HoW. 4-6 YAY- Dgrens do apply to HoW.

Leave it to chance....

Heck the next FAQ could answer this ridiculous question.

PLease read the tenets of this forum. TMIR is a poor answer in this forum, as we *aren't* playing a game, so HAVE the time to work out what the rules say.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

41_WarGaming wrote:
Hey guys I found a simple solution!!

Roll a D6 for when you have a problem. 1-3 the answer is NAY- Dgrens do not apply to HoW. 4-6 YAY- Dgrens do apply to HoW.

Leave it to chance....

Heck the next FAQ could answer this ridiculous question.

PLease read the tenets of this forum. TMIR is a poor answer in this forum, as we *aren't* playing a game, so HAVE the time to work out what the rules say.

nos,

I apologize.

I agree that this forum is to determine what the rules say down to the nitty gritty. I also agree with the fact that an answer has to be found.

My suggestion was for those people, like myself, that just need an answer and not read page upon page of arguments based on GW written rules. Or someone is playing the game, looks it up in the forums.

I see two sides here in concern with the HoW and D-gren. One is the simple version (the one I prefer): D-Grens negate attack (both Rage and HoW) bonuses from charging. The second argument is the complex grammar version (I like the premises that everyone is getting at should it be figured out completely): in which HoW is an attack made only when charging HOWEVER does not get negated because it does not change the attack stat. As I was corrected earlier, HoW is basically an attack made by momentum (considering what units get the HoW). So It comes down to the fact that the HoW attack is literally the unit slamming into the opposite unit. Hence there is no bonus to strength and is made at I10.

But the end of the day, you make da call.

However that suggestion is always there - if you dont care about the rules answer (if a single answer can be found - D6 it.
It doesnt really need saying in the forum is all - hopefully if you can find your way here you have already found TMIR in the rulebook

I prefer the Roshambo method to the d6 method, but whatever works, eh?

Still on the fence about Hammer of Wrath, but leaning towards it being canceled like Rage.

41_WarGaming wrote:
The second argument is the complex grammar version (I like the premises that everyone is getting at should it be figured out completely): in which HoW is an attack made only when charging HOWEVER does not get negated because it does not change the attack stat.

Not really a correct summation of the argument there. HoW is not cancelled because Def Grenades specifically cancel only the +1 Charge Bonus listed on pg 24.

 kronk wrote:
I prefer the Roshambo method to the d6 method, but whatever works, eh?.

I prefer that method as well and I'll usually concede my point, provided I get to go first in the resolution.

Fragile wrote:

41_WarGaming wrote:
The second argument is the complex grammar version (I like the premises that everyone is getting at should it be figured out completely): in which HoW is an attack made only when charging HOWEVER does not get negated because it does not change the attack stat.

Not really a correct summation of the argument there. HoW is not cancelled because Def Grenades specifically cancel only the +1 Charge Bonus listed on pg 24.

yeah that I guess.. at this point I am totally confused... i think ... and I will leave it at that

 mikeyboy69x wrote:

Whats your thoughts on the hammer of wrath? Would you class that as a modifier?

Hammer of wrath hits at I10 in the sub phase, but gets the attack because it has hit the enemy hard and fast with either a bike, jump pack or what ever else has this ability, so assuming the hammer of wrath is allowed against a defensive grenade unit, you wouldn't negate the +1 for charging as the enemy has hit the unit with full force?

I would not class the Hammer of Wrath special rule as a modifier, it is just an additional attack that the model makes when it charges.

As I read it D. Grenades only affect the +1 Charge bonus specifically noted on page 24, not all bonus attacks a model may have. This extrapolation is only based on the grammatical loophole on page 62 that “Models… bonus Attacks” could be interpreted to mean that it denies multiple attacks from a specific model rather than only denying the singular +1 Charge Bonus attack from each individual model. I would argue that due to the page citation right next to the described effect, the latter interpretation is correct and that the +1 Charge Bonus attack(s), being the only listing on the page referenced (page 24) that specifically deals with a charge, is/are the only bonus attack(s) affected.

41_WarGaming wrote:

I see two sides here in concern with the HoW and D-gren. One is the simple version (the one I prefer): D-Grens negate attack (both Rage and HoW) bonuses from charging. The second argument is the complex grammar version (I like the premises that everyone is getting at should it be figured out completely): in which HoW is an attack made only when charging HOWEVER does not get negated because it does not change the attack stat. As I was corrected earlier, HoW is basically an attack made by momentum (considering what units get the HoW). So It comes down to the fact that the HoW attack is literally the unit slamming into the opposite unit. Hence there is no bonus to strength and is made at I10.

But the end of the day, you make da call.

In my opinion, a narrower reading and application of the effects of D. grenades to only affect the +1 Charge Bonus(es) specifically referenced on page 24 is actually much simpler than expanding the reading to cover all bonus attacks. I think it’s easier just to keep track of the one thing. I would also argue that the grammar is less stretched when you read D. grenades effects on page 62 as “Models…Attacks” rather than “Models’…Attacks”.

But then, that’s my opinion, even if I do feel that I’m right.

 Exergy wrote:

 kronk wrote:

3. I'm on the fence with HoW, but I want to say "denied". It's a bonus attack at I10 that you ONLY get when you charge, correct?

Isn't it a bonus hit, not a bonus attack

I think this point is being overlooked. I do not have my book in front of me, but isn't HoW an automatic hit, not an extra attack that requires a to hit roll? Does the book say it is an attack that hits automatically or that the model scores an extra hit at I10? If it is the latter, then it wouldn't be an attack, would it?

Banbaji wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

 kronk wrote:

3. I'm on the fence with HoW, but I want to say "denied". It's a bonus attack at I10 that you ONLY get when you charge, correct?

Isn't it a bonus hit, not a bonus attack

I think this point is being overlooked. I do not have my book in front of me, but isn't HoW an automatic hit, not an extra attack that requires a to hit roll? Does the book say it is an attack that hits automatically or that the model scores an extra hit at I10? If it is the latter, then it wouldn't be an attack, would it?

Without quoting the book word for word, it is an extra Attack that hits automatically.

Fair enough.

You can't ignore context. Defensive grenades go out of their way to point out which bonus attack they are talking about by cting page 24. Is HoW on p24?
Given such specificity by the GW writers (an often rare thing), I see no good justification for denying HoW.
Rage is clearly negated as is is an "instead of X, do Y" sort of rule where X is being denied.

Defensive grenades say models do not get the bonus attacks from charging (page 24).
On page 24 are listed three bonus attacks:
1. Charging (which can be modified by Rage or other special rules) these get negated, no question.
2. Two weapons - this is not a bonus attack from charging and as such would not get negated.
3. Other bonuses.

People are claiming that HoW is not on page 24 and as such is not affected. However, I think people can at least agree that HoW falls under group 3 (Other bonuses) which is on page 24. Since HoW is only granted by a charging model, it is IMHO that HoW would be lost.

On a side note, if you look at Disordered Charge it specifically calls out the Charging bonus (Rage adds itself to it).

The Bonus attacks from charging are specifically 1. Charging If you take the context into account.

The others are not affected as they are not, in context, bonus attacks for charging.

DR, two questions -
1. Is Hammer of Wrath a bonus Attack?
2. Do you get Hammer of Wrath any time other than charging?

If the answers are yes and no, then how is HoW not a bonus attack from charging?

Personally I think, that this is the difference between Defensive Grenades and Disordered Charge. One says no bonus attacks from charging while the other says you do not get the +1 Charge bonus.

1 No
2 No

HoW is not a bonus attack from charging it is a special rule that grants one additional Attack, the bonus attack from charging is listed on P.24 (It is a +1)

Rage solidifies what counts as the bonus attacks from charging

Rage URS Page 41 wrote:In a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it gains +2 Attacks for charging, rather than + 1.

Page 24 lists 1 of the three bullet points that is a bonus attack from charging.

"+1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn." There is the bonus attacks from charging.

The third bullet point on P. 24 does not list it as bonus attacks it says extra attacks, so these are not included.

"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks"

Please explain how HoW is not a bonus Attack (not worried about the charging bit, just the Bonus Attack bit).

 Happyjew wrote:
Please explain how HoW is not a bonus Attack (not worried about the charging bit, just the Bonus Attack bit).

Because it is one additional Attack, not a bonus attack.

"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 that" (37 BRB)

Emphasis mine.

The bonus attack is the +1 charge bonus as noted on P. 24

"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" Page 24 Note how these are not bonus attacks instead are extra attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Please explain how HoW is not a bonus Attack (not worried about the charging bit, just the Bonus Attack bit).

Because it is one additional Attack, not a bonus attack.

"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 that" (37 BRB)

Emphasis mine.

The bonus attack is the +1 charge bonus as noted on P. 24

"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" Page 24 Note how these are not bonus attacks instead are extra attacks.

Actually they are bonus attacks - "Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks as indicated on its characteristic profile, plus the following bonus Attacks:"

 Happyjew wrote:
Defensive grenades say models do not get the bonus attacks from charging (page 24).
On page 24 are listed three bonus attacks:
1. Charging (which can be modified by Rage or other special rules) these get negated, no question.
2. Two weapons - this is not a bonus attack from charging and as such would not get negated.
3. Other bonuses.

People are claiming that HoW is not on page 24 and as such is not affected. However, I think people can at least agree that HoW falls under group 3 (Other bonuses) which is on page 24. Since HoW is only granted by a charging model, it is IMHO that HoW would be lost.

On a side note, if you look at Disordered Charge it specifically calls out the Charging bonus (Rage adds itself to it).

If Defensive Grenades said "Bonus attacks from charging." , without giving the context of pg 24, I would agree with you. However on pg 24, only #1 is a bonus attack from charging. #2 and 3 are completely unrelated to charging. In fact you wont find charging anywhere on that page other than the first point.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Please explain how HoW is not a bonus Attack (not worried about the charging bit, just the Bonus Attack bit).

Because it is one additional Attack, not a bonus attack.

"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 that" (37 BRB)

Emphasis mine.

The bonus attack is the +1 charge bonus as noted on P. 24

"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" Page 24 Note how these are not bonus attacks instead are extra attacks.

Actually they are bonus attacks - "Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks as indicated on its characteristic profile, plus the following bonus Attacks:"

Yet only 1 bullet point mentions bonus. The other two bullet points say extra.

Therefore only the +1 Charge bonus is a bonus attack, the other two are extra attacks.

Well it appears we will have to agree to disagree (until GW releases an FAQ about this). Fortunately for me, I don't play an army that has access to defensive grenades so if anything my way hurts me and not my opponents.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Yet only 1 bullet point mentions bonus. The other two bullet points say extra.

Therefore only the +1 Charge bonus is a bonus attack, the other two are extra attacks.

The sentence before the bullet points demonstrates what the bullet points are about.
I know you don't get that little bit of English (based on the IC in allied transport discussion) but that's fine, you don't have to.
That doesn't change what the actual rules are.

First, I still disagree that Hammer of Wrath should be at issue when discussing the effects of D. grenades because I contend that the negation only applies to the +1 Charge Bonus; which is the only listing specifically charge-related on the cited page(page 24).

I also disagree with the argument that HoW would be included amongst the negated attacks.

HoW is a special rule in the model or unit's description. The model or unit already has the special rule and makes an extra attack in the event of a charge to represent the weight, speed etc. of the assault.

So, while true that HoW only occurs on the charge, the HoW special rule is not a bonus attack that is just gained "from charging"(like the +1 Charge Bonus).

Therefore D. grenades do not prevent HoW as they do the +1 Charge Bonus.

Similarly, units with two ccws get a +1 bonus attack when they charge, but it comes from the two ccws that they have, not "from charging". And we're not discussing taking that away.


The way I read it D. grenades are not a blanket that stops all extra attacks during a charge, just the bonus Attacks specifically from charging, namely the +1 Charge Bonus.
IMO the RAI were to take away the advantage of opposing charging units, but not protect from all manner of extra attacks, like HoW from MCs etc..

The way I see it, HoW is an extra Attack that you only get from charging, therefore it is a bonus attack (from charging) and as such would be negated by D-nades.

Would I enforce my reading? Nope. Heck, if I were to run a tournament I wouldn't even rule it as being lost.

My issue, is that there are two ways to negate bonus attacks from charging - Def. grenades and disordered charge, and only one of those specifically refers to the charging bonus attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Yet only 1 bullet point mentions bonus. The other two bullet points say extra.

Therefore only the +1 Charge bonus is a bonus attack, the other two are extra attacks.

The sentence before the bullet points demonstrates what the bullet points are about.
I know you don't get that little bit of English (based on the IC in allied transport discussion) but that's fine, you don't have to.
That doesn't change what the actual rules are.

I get that bit, it is about bonus attacks, of which it lists specifically one scenario which is a bonus attack. Everything else is an extra attack. Subtle but important difference.

Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

Considering bonus, and extra, are synonyms... I think that point is fairly moo.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Considering bonus, and extra, are synonyms... I think that point is fairly moo.

You can't really make that argument in a RAW vs RAI debate, which is what this seems to have turned into. It seems the debate centres around whether Hammer of Wrath is still in force when fighting Tau. Leaving aside how churlish it is for Tau players to try and further hamstring CC-heavy armies, the point of contention looks to be this:

Does Hammer of Wrath grant a bonus Attack from charging, or does Hammer of Wrath grant an additional (or extra) Attack that just happens to only be considered on a charge? In the former case, it is covered under the defensive grenade rule; in the latter, the argument is that it wouldn't be.

Personally, I think the RAW leans towards the former - though I strongly disagree with the idea that it is RAI. I can understand the other side of the argument, though:

p24 identifies the Charge Bonus, the bonus Attack for two CCWs, and then "Other bonuses" conveyed by "special rules and wargear". The pro-HoW side of this argument feels that the additional Attack is granted by the Hammer of Wrath special rule (potentially via wargear which grants it), rather than the act of charging, in the same way that the 2 CCW additional Attack is granted by wargear (said second CCW). To them, the nature of the HoW special rule (that the additional attack occurs on a successful charge) is immaterial to whether it counts as a bonus Attack from charging; it's an additional Attack from a USR that just happens to require the model to have successfully charged.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Yet only 1 bullet point mentions bonus. The other two bullet points say extra.

Therefore only the +1 Charge bonus is a bonus attack, the other two are extra attacks.

The sentence before the bullet points demonstrates what the bullet points are about.
I know you don't get that little bit of English (based on the IC in allied transport discussion) but that's fine, you don't have to.
That doesn't change what the actual rules are.

I get that bit, it is about bonus attacks, of which it lists specifically one scenario which is a bonus attack. Everything else is an extra attack. Subtle but important difference.

Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

If Dnades said models do not get Bonus Attacks from charging you might have a point. The rules say they do not get bonus attacks from charging. Two weapons (for example) per your own words is a bonus attack and thus could be negated (if it was a bonus attack you only got when charging).

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Yet only 1 bullet point mentions bonus. The other two bullet points say extra.

Therefore only the +1 Charge bonus is a bonus attack, the other two are extra attacks.

The sentence before the bullet points demonstrates what the bullet points are about.
I know you don't get that little bit of English (based on the IC in allied transport discussion) but that's fine, you don't have to.
That doesn't change what the actual rules are.

I get that bit, it is about bonus attacks, of which it lists specifically one scenario which is a bonus attack. Everything else is an extra attack. Subtle but important difference.

Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

Right, you still don't understand how bulleted lists work. It's not a requirement in life, but the misunderstanding renders your entire position incorrect in this discussion.

Mythal wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Considering bonus, and extra, are synonyms... I think that point is fairly moo.

You can't really make that argument in a RAW vs RAI debate, which is what this seems to have turned into. It seems the debate centres around whether Hammer of Wrath is still in force when fighting Tau. Leaving aside how churlish it is for Tau players to try and further hamstring CC-heavy armies, the point of contention looks to be this:

Does Hammer of Wrath grant a bonus Attack from charging, or does Hammer of Wrath grant an additional (or extra) Attack that just happens to only be considered on a charge? In the former case, it is covered under the defensive grenade rule; in the latter, the argument is that it wouldn't be.

Personally, I think the RAW leans towards the former - though I strongly disagree with the idea that it is RAI. I can understand the other side of the argument, though:

p24 identifies the Charge Bonus, the bonus Attack for two CCWs, and then "Other bonuses" conveyed by "special rules and wargear". The pro-HoW side of this argument feels that the additional Attack is granted by the Hammer of Wrath special rule (potentially via wargear which grants it), rather than the act of charging, in the same way that the 2 CCW additional Attack is granted by wargear (said second CCW). To them, the nature of the HoW special rule (that the additional attack occurs on a successful charge) is immaterial to whether it counts as a bonus Attack from charging; it's an additional Attack from a USR that just happens to require the model to have successfully charged.

This is an excellent summary, and in my opinion, the list clearly indicates that extra attacks from special rules and wargear are not bonuses from charging. They have trigger conditions that may include charging, but it is the USR itself that provides the attack (rage being the exception as it specifically modifies the +1 bonus attack from charging).

To put it another way, if you charge, you always get the +1 attack for charging (except when this attack is specifically denied); however, you only get the HoW attack if you have HoW, which means that is what provides the bonus attack. Being in base contact is also a prerequisite for HoW, but I do not think anyone would say you get the bonus attack from being in base contact. Charging and base contact are simply the conditions that trigger the special rule, which provides the extra attack.

After reading the rules and the thread, I conclude that Defensive Grenades DO negate Rage, as Rage simply changes the +1 bonus attack from charging to be +2, and Def-nades apply to the bonus attacks that any model gains from the usual charge.

But Hammer of Wrath says the model makes 1 additional attack at I10. It does not say bonus attack. This extra attack takes place only when the model with it charges of course; however the words are different, so I'd treat them differently.

Thus it's unclear if the additional and bonus are synonymous and interchangeable. I don't think GW stands for Great Writers

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

Right, you still don't understand how bulleted lists work. It's not a requirement in life, but the misunderstanding renders your entire position incorrect in this discussion.

I do understand how bulleted lists work...

Bonus is different from bonus, GW does this all the time as you know, like the difference between Attack and attack...

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

Right, you still don't understand how bulleted lists work. It's not a requirement in life, but the misunderstanding renders your entire position incorrect in this discussion.

I do understand how bulleted lists work...

Bonus is different from bonus, GW does this all the time as you know, like the difference between Attack and attack...

Right, and defensive grenades refer to bonus attacks, not Bonus attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

Right, you still don't understand how bulleted lists work. It's not a requirement in life, but the misunderstanding renders your entire position incorrect in this discussion.

I do understand how bulleted lists work...

Bonus is different from bonus, GW does this all the time as you know, like the difference between Attack and attack...

Actual rules (not DR40k) page 62 wrote:Models charging units equipped with defensive grenades do not gain bonus Attacks from charging (seepage 24).

The bolded, italicized, underlined (to make sure you don't miss what I'm pointing out) don't agree. Perhaps you'd like to revise your statement?


edit: The correct argument would be that DGren refer to Attacks (meaning the stat line). HoW is not a bonus Attack in any way.

Yes my initial error is clear Dgrenades do refer to bonus Attacks, not Bonus Attacks.

However as I have said HoW is not a bonus Attack.

I think HoW is impacted by def grenades.

First, the HoW calls it an "additional Attack" .. when the model charges. (pg. 37)

Second, Def grenades say attackers do not gain "bonus Attacks from charging (see page 24)" (pg 62)

So far the only difference is the word "bonus" vs "additional" which would normally be enough to say they aren't the same. However, when we get to page 24 we see the following:

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks"

The meaning is that all three bullet points are considered to be bonus Attacks.

Going then to the third bullet point we have:"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks"

Boiling it down, the third bullet point says that Attacks granted by special rules are to be considered bonus Attacks.

Therefore HoW is a special rule granting a bonus Attack. It only occurs when charging (and in base contact). So it meets the def grenades criteria ( caused by charging and is a bonus) in order to be negated by def grenades.

I'm not sure what all the hoopla is about concerning "B" vs "b" and "A" vs "a". All of the relevant rules were very consistent in using a lower case "b" for bonus and upper case "A" for Attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes my initial error is clear Dgrenades do refer to bonus attacks, noy Bonus attacks.

However as I have said HoW is not a bonus attack.

edit: re-read the rules as I've confused myself.

DGrens work on bonus Attacks.
HoW is an additional Attack.

Since they aren't capitalized they aren't defined by the BRB - bonus == additional.
HoW is removed by DGrens.

clively wrote:
I think HoW is impacted by def grenades.

First, the HoW calls it an "additional Attack" .. when the model charges. (pg. 37)

Second, Def grenades say attackers do not gain "bonus Attacks from charging (see page 24)" (pg 62)

So far the only difference is the word "bonus" vs "additional" which would normally be enough to say they aren't the same. However, when we get to page 24 we see the following:

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks"

The meaning is that all three bullet points are considered to be bonus Attacks.

Going then to the third bullet point we have:"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks"

Boiling it down, the third bullet point says that Attacks granted by special rules are to be considered bonus Attacks.

Therefore HoW is a special rule granting a bonus Attack. It only occurs when charging (and in base contact). So it meets the def grenades criteria ( caused by charging and is a bonus) in order to be negated by def grenades.

I'm not sure what all the hoopla is about concerning "B" vs "b" and "A" vs "a". All of the relevant rules were very consistent in using a lower case "b" for bonus and upper case "A" for Attacks.

You are correct, all three bullet points are "bonus" attacks. However only 1 is from charging. And it is not Two Weapons or Other Bonuses.

clively wrote:
I think HoW is impacted by def grenades.

First, the HoW calls it an "additional Attack" .. when the model charges. (pg. 37)

Second, Def grenades say attackers do not gain "bonus Attacks from charging (see page 24)" (pg 62)

So far the only difference is the word "bonus" vs "additional" which would normally be enough to say they aren't the same. However, when we get to page 24 we see the following:

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks"

The meaning is that all three bullet points are considered to be bonus Attacks.

Going then to the third bullet point we have:"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks"

Boiling it down, the third bullet point says that Attacks granted by special rules are to be considered bonus Attacks.

Therefore HoW is a special rule granting a bonus Attack. It only occurs when charging (and in base contact). So it meets the def grenades criteria ( caused by charging and is a bonus) in order to be negated by def grenades.

I'm not sure what all the hoopla is about concerning "B" vs "b" and "A" vs "a". All of the relevant rules were very consistent in using a lower case "b" for bonus and upper case "A" for Attacks.

It is a bonus you only get when charging, but it is not a bonus you get from charging. It is a bonus you get from the HoW USR. A rule that is triggered by charging and being in base contact. You can charge with the HoW rule and, if you do not make it into base contact, not get the attack, so how can you argue that the bonus attack comes from charging?

Also, charging is listed as a bonus attack in bullet point 1 on the list. Bonus attacks from special rules are listed under bullet point 3. This would imply that they are considered to come from the special rule, not charging (i.e., charging is a requirement HoW is the source). Gabriel Seth gets a bonus attack (if I recall the wording correctly) at anybody who rolls a 1 when attacking him. This attack does not come from the enemy, it comes from his special rule.

P.S. As your quoate says "Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" , which means it is the USR that confers the attack (or from which the attack comes), not anything else (such as charging). I have now reached my restating my arguments quota, and will now stop until I have something new to say.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes my initial error is clear Dgrenades do refer to bonus attacks, noy Bonus attacks.

However as I have said HoW is not a bonus attack.

edit: re-read the rules as I've confused myself.

DGrens work on bonus Attacks.
HoW is an additional Attack.

Since they aren't capitalized they aren't defined by the BRB - bonus == additional.
HoW is removed by DGrens.

HoW is an additional Attack you only get when charging, but it is not a bonus you get from charging, It is a bonus you get from the HoW USR.

So it does not get negated.

The only bonus Attacks you get from charging are the +1 Charge Bonus

No it does not remove them only the extra attack from charging.

To chime in here, hopefully on an issue which has not already been resolved, does Hammer of Wrath not state something along the lines of "gives the model an extra attack at base strength and AP - resolved at the Initiative 10 Step".

This is, therefore, an "bonus" attack, so would be removed by charging.

Bonus attacks are not removed by defensive grenades.

Fragile wrote:
Bonus attacks are not removed by defensive grenades.

Could've sworn you got +1 bonus attack for charging

Actually you get a +1 Charge Bonus, for charging.

Fragile wrote:
Actually you get a +1 Charge Bonus, for charging.

Which is classified as a ...
(What's the heading for the bulleted list on page 24? You can't separate the two)

DGrens explicitly remove bonus Attacks. Saying otherwise is either a deliberate lie or refusal to read the actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually you get a +1 Charge Bonus, for charging.

Which is classified as a ...
(What's the heading for the bulleted list on page 24? You can't separate the two)

DGrens explicitly remove bonus Attacks. Saying otherwise is either a deliberate lie or refusal to read the actual rules.

That appears to be the point they're debating. As I pointed out, their argument is that the attack granted by HoW is a (potential) additional attack granted by the USR itself, not the act of charging specifically. It's not that they aren't reading the rules, so much as they're arguing that people are inferring causality to extend the purpose of the rule.

Put another way, on the turn in which you charge, you can only claim your HoW attack if you successfully charge. Similarly, on the turn in which you charge, you can only claim your attack for a second CCW if you successfully charge (as, if you don't successfully charge, you can't use said attack, mindful that a second CCW does not increase your Attacks characteristic unless specifically mentioned in the Codex entry; it instead grants a bonus attack under certain circumstances). Their argument is that these statements share the same level of causal inference; their conclusion is that just because you cannot gain the attack without successfully charging does not make it inherently a bonus gained from successfully charging.

Allow me to reiterate that I think that RAW supports your view, but that doesn't mean those arguing the opposing case are liars or unwilling to read the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually you get a +1 Charge Bonus, for charging.

Which is classified as a ...
(What's the heading for the bulleted list on page 24? You can't separate the two)

DGrens explicitly remove bonus Attacks. Saying otherwise is either a deliberate lie or refusal to read the actual rules.

There you go with the Ad Hominem. Perhaps you should read the whole sentence unless your going to argue that Dgrens remove 2 weapon attacks as well. DGrens explicity remove bonus Attacks from Charging (see pg 24.) There is only 1 reference to bonus attacks from Charging listed on pg 24. They clearly spelled out the page where the bonus attacks from charging were, unless you refused to read it.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Actually you get a +1 Charge Bonus, for charging.

Which is classified as a ...
(What's the heading for the bulleted list on page 24? You can't separate the two)

DGrens explicitly remove bonus Attacks. Saying otherwise is either a deliberate lie or refusal to read the actual rules.

There you go with the Ad Hominem. Perhaps you should read the whole sentence unless your going to argue that Dgrens remove 2 weapon attacks as well. DGrens explicity remove bonus Attacks from Charging (see pg 24.) There is only 1 reference to bonus attacks from Charging listed on pg 24. They clearly spelled out the page where the bonus attacks from charging were, unless you refused to read it.

It wasn't an ad hominem at all - it wasn't directed at anyone, it's a factual statement.

Fragile wrote:Bonus attacks are not removed by defensive grenades.

This statement is demonstrably false. The charge bonus is a bonus attack from charging. Hammer of wrath is a bonus attack from charging.

I look at it like this, HoW is an extra attack that requires charging and for the model to have said rule. It is an option that is contingent on the charge.

Just as ID is a FW option that is contingent on having an unsaved wound and a warp charge. It is an option.

It may require you to have the charge but I do not believe it to be a part of the charge just because you have a JP that gives you access to HoW.