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.

Fluff /= rules.

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

Maelstrom808 wrote:Fluff /= rules.

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

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

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

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:Fluff /= rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well again, take Wraiths for example:

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

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

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

I thought it was quite cut and dry?

Iranna.

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

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

The attack represents shoulders, knees, elbow and feet.

Fluff argument - irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This of course is not true.

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyranid rules do not affect a special ability.

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

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


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

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

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

Do you want to argue in circles?

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

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

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

Do you want to argue in circles?

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

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

I read the rules to boneswords.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rigeld2

First - You can't use boneswords with HoW.

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

Which part of this don't you understand?

MJThurston wrote:rigeld2

First - You can't use boneswords with HoW.

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

Which part of this don't you understand?

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

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

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

Why is that hard to understand?

Iranna.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it a wound caused in close combat?

If so, the bonesword rules apply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the posts for the last 5 pages.

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

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

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

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

Read the posts for the last 5 pages.

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

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

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

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

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