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've used it as such without argument with the rulings on tyranid bioplasma, Kharn's 2+, and to a lesser extent Intercept as backup.

Always hits on X will work on skimmers as long as the rule does not require the target to have a WS.

What is the line of argument from a RAW perspective that:
"always hits on 3+ in close combat regardless of other factors" does not apply to skimmers?

Codex being older than the BGB is irrelevant, as there are a number of rules that are newer than the BGB with the same effect and very similar wording.

Specific overrides the general, and with the following example I will let you judge which is which.

To hit a vehicle in close combat chart:
Immobilized : autohit
Moved under 6" : 4+ to hit
Moved over 6" : 6 to hit
Skimmers always count as moving over 6"

Goblet of spite: "always hits on 3+ in close combat, regardless of other factors"

don_mondo wrote:Ask yourself this question, are you in "HTH" (as it was defined in 3rd ed when the codex was written) with the vehicle? Each of the others that Moz mentions is worded differently (and written for 4th ed rules, as well) so they are not valid examples.

HtH is never mentioned in the 4th ed rules, even in the descriptions of any of the assault rules. If your implication is that Goblet of Spite doesn't do anything in 4th ed, I consider that to be a bit of a stretch.

Additional edit: Hits on 3+ in close combat only with things that have a WS was already acknowledged as preferred enemy at the time. See Codex Witch hunters : Celestians if you want to see how this rule would have looked if it did not work on vehicles, from a release around the same time.

As a completely undefined term, HTH cannot be used in any RAW argument in 4th ed is more the point.

Alright, and for my obvious rebuttal: We aren't playing 3rd edition. Not applicable in the slightest.

As far as I read the BGB never uses the phrase 'hand to hand'.
So my position is that hand to hand translates to close combat, and his is that hand to hand translates to locked.

Fair enough impasse since there's no definition of it at all. I'm poking around for any other current references to hand to hand, but haven't found anything yet.

-And the point of bringing up celestians was to deflate the earlier intent argument. Had the idea been to keep GoS only working in combat with targets that have a WS, it could've been written just as the celestians 'Holy hatred'.

Anyways. Do we have any other odd uses of 'Hand to Hand' out there?