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.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

So show me the weapon used for this ability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above statement makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MJThurston wrote:The above statement makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

Page 33 iirc.

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

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

I knew 33 was something about Nid weapons.

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

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

Good catch! Now, read the bonesword rules.

I did - doesn't change a thing.

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

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

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

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

It doesn't?

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

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