Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hope this clears things up

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

Why are you reading the CC section for Armour Piercing?

Armour piercing most certainly works in shooting.

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

Armour piercing most certainly works in shooting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmmm, I think I am getting your logic nosferatu1001,

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rulebook gives two situations:

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

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

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

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

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

The Razor Standard states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The initial rules quote does not even mention ranged attacks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Salvage

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

You are inserting an "only" where none exists.

This is getting messy quite quickly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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