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.

Modquisition on GBF lets play nice. Everyone lets remember Rule #1.

Arschbombe wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Sternguard have a special rule, yes, but that special rule applies to the unit and the weapons they are firing, none of the weapon profiles listed on page 63 include the "special issue ammunition" rule, or anything to that effect, and thus cannot be associated with said special rule unless you agree that special rules can apply, and not be listed in thier shooting attack profile.

Again, no. You're hung up on the fluff. This is a discussion about rules. You want the rules to reflect fluff. Unfortunately they don't much of the time. Look at the unit entry in the codex:

(copied from GW site)
Unit Composition: 1 Space Marine Sergeant; 4-9 Veterans
Unit Type: Infantry
War Gear: Power armour; Boltgun; Bolt pistol; Special issue ammunition; Frag and krak grenades
Transport: May select a Drop Pod, Rhino or a Razorback.

Special Issue Ammunition is wargear. It is not a special rule that modfies the bolter profile. It is a special that allows for 3 kinds of shooting attacks instead of the bolter profile. What you want it seems to be:

Unit Composition: 1 Space Marine Sergeant; 4-9 Veterans
Unit Type: Infantry
War Gear: Power armour; Boltgun*; Bolt pistol; Frag and krak grenades
Transport: May select a Drop Pod, Rhino or a Razorback.
*may fire special ammunition. see page #...

But as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, them's not the rules.

To paraphrase a line from a famous film: "luke, let go of the fluff, use the rules.".

I am not reading into fluff, the rules are that they have special issue ammunition, the weapon profiles listed on page 63 are not actually noted as being special issue ammunition, they are merely implied to be related to the special rules associated with "Special Issue Ammunition" special rules.

Special Rules not listed on the weapon profile, but apply to the weapon. That is what this entire arguement is about, and no one has yet to disprove that there is a precedent for its existance. To crack jokes as an aside is to distract from the rules discussion at hand.

We can argue about this for another 20 pages and minds are not going to change. There have been some good arguements from both sides and it does not look like the parties involved will be changing their minds anytime soon.

This is going to be something that hopefully will be covered by the SW FAQ whenever it comes out. In the meantime we may as well make sure to talk about it pre-game with our opponents and come up with a solution suited to the game at hand.

augustus5 wrote:We can argue about this for another 20 pages and minds are not going to change. There have been some good arguements from both sides and it does not look like the parties involved will be changing their minds anytime soon.

This is going to be something that hopefully will be covered by the SW FAQ whenever it comes out. In the meantime we may as well make sure to talk about it pre-game with our opponents and come up with a solution suited to the game at hand.

I'll admit, HWIPI will be that it does not. However, IMO RAW it does. The FAQ will most likely support the oposite position to the one I have described, however as we all know, FAQs are not hard rules, and only an Errata will change the RAW in this case.

augustus5 wrote:This is going to be something that hopefully will be covered by the SW FAQ whenever it comes out.

Oh, Hai -Waves-


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eidolon wrote:This debate is just space wolf players digging around for an easy button.

Excuse me, I am a 10 year SW player, and I am saying it doesn't.

Don't generalize please.

Demogerg wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Demogerk if you don't understand that +1 on the AP table equates to the same as AP1 I think that explains a lot in regards to the fallacies you present here.

G

They do the same thing, they are not the same rule, I think you have failed to perceive what I wrote.

Do not insult me over semantics.

Frazz I did not mean this to come across as mean spirited, rude, insolent or just plain outright nasty. I was just saying...



G

Coolio GBF

Yah! Rockfist sounds like someone who spanked it then fell asleep before they cleaned up. Hurrrrrr!

G

Gwar! wrote:

augustus5 wrote:This is going to be something that hopefully will be covered by the SW FAQ whenever it comes out.

Oh, Hai -Waves-


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eidolon wrote:This debate is just space wolf players digging around for an easy button.

Excuse me, I am a 10 year SW player, and I am saying it doesn't.

Don't generalize please.

Yus, it was a broad sweeping generalization, I apologize.

Demogerg wrote:
I am not reading into fluff, the rules are that they have special issue ammunition, the weapon profiles listed on page 63 are not actually noted as being special issue ammunition, they are merely implied to be related to the special rules associated with "Special Issue Ammunition" special rules.

Special Rules not listed on the weapon profile, but apply to the weapon. That is what this entire arguement is about, and no one has yet to disprove that there is a precedent for its existance. To crack jokes as an aside is to distract from the rules discussion at hand.

You are mixing in the fluff because you continue to conflate the bolter with the special ammunition rules. They are two completely separate things. Only in the fluff description do the bolter and the special ammo have a connection. The rules have no relationship. Special Issue Ammuntion is not a special rule that modifies the bolter profile. It is wargear that the sternguard carry in addition to their bolters. This is shown in the codex entry that I posted and by the SM codex summary page which has a separate profile for each special ammunition type: hellfire, kraken, vengeance etc.

Perhaps it would have been better if they had created a new Sternguard Bolter that listed all the firing profiles with it like they do for missile launchers and whirlwind launchers. But they didn't. The naming of the rule Special Issue Ammunition is unfortunate, but it has no bearing on how the rule plays. A unit does not need a bolter in their wargear list to use the Special Issue Ammunition rule. They only need SIA.

@ Gwar - 5\6? nah, its way less than that.

I will allow it in games against me. I don't play space wolves or plan on doing so. I think this ability would add an interesting twist to games and I have to say again that it really is not a game breaking ability.

Carni's are already hosed by JAWS and DPs, Greater Demons, and maybe the occasional tomb spider are the only things that really can be affected by this and even then it takes a lot of points, a lot of setup, and some luck.

I can certainly understand you would feel that way.

G

When is Foehammer not a thunder hammer? When used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

<INSERT FOEHAMMER RANGED PROFILE HERE>

Permissive ruleset folks. Same argument that was used for 12" bike assaults is trying to be used here. If it doesn't have it in the ranged weapon profile it does not exist.

Brother Ramses wrote:When is Foehammer not a thunder hammer? When used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

<INSERT FOEHAMMER RANGED PROFILE HERE>

Permissive ruleset folks. Same argument that was used for 12" bike assaults is trying to be used here. If it doesn't have it in the ranged weapon profile it does not exist.

Except that the rules for the Foehammer explicitly state that it IS a thunderhammer that can be used at range, and being a thunderhammer you must follow thunderhammer special rules, which include reducing initiative to 1 if a model suffers a wound.

so a Foehammer is Always a thunderhammer untill the rules tell you it is NOT a thunderhammer.

There is a precedent for rules being listed for weapons but not being listed under the weapon profile, and I have presented the Sternguard example above.

So here on my side of the arguement I have:
RAW text
Precedent based on previous assumptions taken as rules.

on that side of the arguement you have:
the assumption that the special rules for a shooting attack start and end with the weapon profile.

Please point out where it says this exact sentance:

Foehammer uses the Thunder Hammer Special Rules in the Shooting Phase.

Oh look, it doesn't!

Demogerg wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:When is Foehammer not a thunder hammer? When used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

<INSERT FOEHAMMER RANGED PROFILE HERE>

Permissive ruleset folks. Same argument that was used for 12" bike assaults is trying to be used here. If it doesn't have it in the ranged weapon profile it does not exist.

Except that the rules for the Foehammer explicitly state that it IS a thunderhammer that can be used at range, and being a thunderhammer you must follow thunderhammer special rules, which include reducing initiative to 1 if a model suffers a wound.

so a Foehammer is Always a thunderhammer untill the rules tell you it is NOT a thunderhammer.

There is a precedent for rules being listed for weapons but not being listed under the weapon profile, and I have presented the Sternguard example above.

So here on my side of the arguement I have:
RAW text
Precedent based on previous assumptions taken as rules.

on that side of the arguement you have:
the assumption that the special rules for a shooting attack start and end with the weapon profile.

The fluff description states that it is a thunder hammer however it gives a very specific and concise weapon profile to follow when used as a ranged weapon. I am not arguing that it is or isn't a thunder hammer in the fluff description. I am pointing out that when used as a ranged weapon, a specific weapon profile is given for Foehammer and it does not include the special rules for a thunder hammer. That is RAW.

The fluff description all says that it is a rune etched weapon. So does it wound demons on 2+ like a rune priest's rune weapon? Or does it add +1str like a BT runic weapon?

Brother Ramses wrote:The fluff description all says that it is a rune etched weapon. So does it wound demons on 2+ like a rune priest's rune weapon? Or does it add +1str like a BT runic weapon?

Does it Blend?

Gwar! wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The fluff description all says that it is a rune etched weapon. So does it wound demons on 2+ like a rune priest's rune weapon? Or does it add +1str like a BT runic weapon?

Does it Blend?

I was joking since the other "camp" wants to use fluff description as a basis for rules debate.

I am calling upon the powers of the MODS to lock this thread. In the words of the immortal Yakface...

Locking now.

Demogerg wrote:
There is a precedent for rules being listed for weapons but not being listed under the weapon profile, and I have presented the Sternguard example above.

Your example is demonstrably wrong, yet for some reason you cling to it. Special Issue Ammunition is wargear that does not need a bolter to work.

So here on my side of the arguement I have:
RAW text
Precedent based on previous assumptions taken as rules.

on that side of the arguement you have:
the assumption that the special rules for a shooting attack start and end with the weapon profile.

No, what you have is wishful thinking and a desire to use a cool combination. The RAW clearly indicates what the foehammer does as a shooting attack. You're making the assumption that effects thunder hammers produce in close combat must also apply to a ranged shooting profile.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I am calling upon the powers of the MODS to lock this thread. In the words of the immortal Yakface...

Locking now.

The Cranky Djinni has been summoned!

Your wish is granted.