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.

Lobukia wrote:I feel like this is RAW vs RAI. If any player tries to use any USR of SR in a HoW against me, it's going to come to a roll off, as I see this a blatant rule lawyering (that I think is also wrong when looking at RAW). That being said, I really think GW needs to keep the 'nids in mind and make a ruling that SA and USR not given by the weapon be used on HoW attacks.

I agree. They (GW) definetely need to look at this again. I feel like the rule was clearly intended to give bikes, jump packs and etc. a slight advantage on the charge.
(Dawn of War anyone? Don't you just love smashing things by landing on them with Assault Marines?)
But, people are going to try and exploit this rule for what it is written as and the game developers are going to be shaking their heads when they write the next FAQ.

Yeah, using the rules as they're written is a bad thing.

For comparison:

"Thunder hammers release atremendous blast of energy
when they strike,"
Not a marine with a thunderhammer, the actual thunderhammer...

Concussive:A model that suffers one or more unsaved Woundsfrom a weapon with this special
Again, the weapon, not a model with the weapon

Force:, all unsaved Wounds inflicted by the Force weapon that turn have the Instant Death special rule
Again, "by the force weapon", not by the model with a force weapon.

Ignores Cover:Cover savescannot be taken against Wounds caused by weapons with the Ignores Coverspecialrule.
Not by models with that weapon.... by that weapon.


Etc, etc.

Almost all weapons give the benefit when the weapon is being used. Nid weapons are part of the model, you don't have to use them to gain the benefit, all benefits are used in all CC attacks. that is why if you have rending claws, and a lash whip, and a bonesword... they will all work; even if you only get 1 attack.
Yes, they are called CCWs, but they do not operate as standard CCWs, they operate as wargear.

My take on this...it HAS to be a close combat attack otherwise it wouldn't/shouldn't count towards combat resolution. It's basically an attack that turns your body into a weapon which is why you use your models strength and not any modified strength from weapons being held. Which also means no special rules from "weapons", but you should get special rule advantage for wargear that is NOT a CCW that grants you something, such as furious charge or rending.

Basically, to me, you're getting a free "weapon" for that first round of assault and that "Weapon" is your body. So, what rules does your body have?

In the case of the tyranid bonesword, I'm not sure if it's a CCW or not but it should still confer it's bonus since it says "all attacks" and Hammer of Wrath *IS* a close combat attack. It's ridiculous to say it's not when it is resolved as a close combat attack (Fight Sub-Phase) and counts towards close combat resolution.

And ignoring the Nid argument....

Wraiths have Rending innately. There has been no valid argument against it applying to HoW unless it also does not apply to the default CCW - which is all Wraiths will ever use.

There is a valid argument.

Touching base to base is the auto hit. Doing the wounding is delayed to sub-phase init 10.

I don't see how this is debatable. These are not close combat hits. They are hits that happen when a model touches another model during assault.

Resolved is the key word. So it happened but rolls to wound are done at this time.

So no they are not close combat attacks.

Is it a wound Inflicted in close combat?

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, using the rules as they're written is a bad thing.

Unfortunately you are not.

If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.

therefore you may not rend.


a more interesting question is does furious charge apply to HoW.

Dozer Blades wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, using the rules as they're written is a bad thing.

Unfortunately you are not.

You've proven nothing like that.

In fact, you've failed to address a very I portent question when asked multiple times.
You've failed to prove your assertion.
It'd be great if you could answer it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.

therefore you may not rend.


a more interesting question is does furious charge apply to HoW.

The default CCW is STR:User and AP: -. Is it allowed to Rend?

MJThurston wrote:There is a valid argument.

Touching base to base is the auto hit. Doing the wounding is delayed to sub-phase init 10.

I don't see how this is debatable. These are not close combat hits. They are hits that happen when a model touches another model during assault.

Resolved is the key word. So it happened but rolls to wound are done at this time.

So no they are not close combat attacks.

What? And, you realize it is the "fight" sub-phase, which is the second phase (I think) to an assault, which is the phase where ALL close combat attacks are taken and received by initiative order. They don't "happen when a model touches another model" it is an additional attack that specific unit types get to make when they use specific movement to get into assault, it just happens to have a stipulation that only models in B2B get to make the attack.

By all definitions and by order of operations, they are close combat attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.

therefore you may not rend.


a more interesting question is does furious charge apply to HoW.

Yes to both. A wraiths CCW are set to "STR:X AP -" but all close combat attacks from a wraith having the rending special rule and rending states it is AP 2, which overrides this value. Hammer of wrath attacks aren't a "set value" like whip coils do to initiative, it is an attack with a profile as detailed in the book but it's not "set". No more so than any other attack with a profile, anyway.

Snap shots have nothing to do with this, the wording is different and the circumstances are different.

HoW doesnt specify you can use weapons, wargear or other special rules.



it specifically states what the initiative attack and ap of the attack are. There is no mention to modify it or permission to modify it based on the models other USRs, wargear, etc. There is also no mention that it works or counts as standard close combat attack.

blaktoof wrote:specifically states what the initiative attack and ap of the attack are. There is no mention to modify it or permission to modify it based on the models other USRs, wargear, etc. There is also no mention that it works or counts as standard close combat attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.
therefore you may not rend.
a more interesting question is does furious charge apply to HoW.

The default CCW is STR:User and AP: -. Is it allowed to Rend?

It'd be great if you could answer that question. Or this one - what is the difference between the HoW profile and the default CCW profile on page 51? (might be wrong with the page number - book is at home)

blaktoof wrote:HoW doesnt specify you can use weapons, wargear or other special rules.



it specifically states what the initiative attack and ap of the attack are. There is no mention to modify it or permission to modify it based on the models other USRs, wargear, etc. There is also no mention that it works or counts as standard close combat attack.

The profile for a CCW specifically state what the S and AP of attacks made with it are. So, by your logic, CCWs can't benefit from innate abilites possessed by the model?

Actually, there are many things which indicate it is a close combat Attack.

Firstly, in the rule entry, it describes it as an "Attack" (notice capitalisation, this refers to a Proper Noun in English. I.E, a Close Combat Attack.)

Secondly, it happens in the Fight! Sub-phase. close combat attacks are resolved in this phase.

Lastly, it has an initiative, strength and AP value - what would it be if not an Attack?

Iranna.

nothing which oddly doesnt matter, because many things in the game have similar basic rules. but answer this, why list the values instead of saying may make 1 attack at initiative 10?

if you can explain that for me that would be great.

I am guessing the fact they listed rules for the values means those are the rules you are given permission to use for a HoW attack.

normal close combat attacks are given further permission to use the models wargear/weapons/USRs however HoW is not given that, nor does it state make 1 attack using the models normal rules, USRs, Weapons, etc at initiative 10. It gives a set profile the attack uses.

MJThurston wrote:There is a valid argument.


So no they are not close combat attacks.

Okay, then please answer these questions:

Do you get a cover save against HoW?

Do the wounds affect Combat Resolution?

How do you allocate wounds from HoW?

Can a character use LOS from wounds caused by HoW?


I, and others, have asked these questions a number of times... could you please explain how they should be played?

Dozer Blades wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, using the rules as they're written is a bad thing.

Unfortunately you are not.

So, you still cannot answer the question?

Well done at conceding you dont have a rules argument, bravo.

blaktoof wrote:If HoW attacks are set at I:10 str of attacker and ap -

then if the attack is allowed to rend it would not follow the rules because a rending hit is ap 2, however HoW is specifically set at ap - just like snap shot is specifically set at BS1.

therefore you may not rend.

A close combat weapon has the specific rules of AP-, setting the close combat weapon to AP2 would not follow the rules, therefore you may not rend.

That is your argument. You have just made Rending not ignore armour saves, bravo!

Or you could use specific > general. A Jump unit with inate Rending is the more specific rule.

MJThurston wrote:There is a valid argument.

ooh this could be good!

MJThurston wrote:Touching base to base is the auto hit. Doing the wounding is delayed to sub-phase init 10.

Nope, started badly. Have you yet read the rulebook, 6th edition, on Assaults? there is no "sub phase init 10" that the "hit' is delayed to. HoW triggers in the Fight! sub phase, at init 10.

You have yet to use any rules

MJThurston wrote:I don't see how this is debatable. These are not close combat hits. They are hits that happen when a model touches another model during assault.

Wrong. So wrong. You have been shown why, and you still continue to ignore the actual rules in favour of your made up stuff. I wont repeat tehm as you keep ignoring them, and are just now trolling.

MJThurston wrote:Resolved is the key word. So it happened but rolls to wound are done at this time.

No, it tells you when in the Fight! sub phase the auto hit occurs. It is a Close Comabt Attack because that is what an "Attack", noting the capitilsation you ignore / dont understand the importance of, IS.

HoW is a Close Combat Attack
HoW is a Close Combat Attack

If you disagree, provide some rules. Just for once.

MJThurston wrote:So no they are not close combat attacks.

Thats your house rule, that has no relation to reality

blaktoof wrote:nothing which oddly doesnt matter, because many things in the game have similar basic rules. but answer this, why list the values instead of saying may make 1 attack at initiative 10?

if you can explain that for me that would be great.

Easily. They wanted Hammer of Wrath to exclude any type of weapons and weapon properties. With that premise, I give a question back to you. What profile would you use if the attack uses no weapons?

I am not sure how you think rending is more specific than hammer of wrath, they both seem like USRs and would both have the same specificity, no where in the rulebook is there a prioritizing of which USR is more specific than the rest, so not sure where you get that information from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SCvodimier wrote:

blaktoof wrote:nothing which oddly doesnt matter, because many things in the game have similar basic rules. but answer this, why list the values instead of saying may make 1 attack at initiative 10?

if you can explain that for me that would be great.

Easily. They wanted Hammer of Wrath to exclude any type of weapons and weapon properties. With that premise, I give a question back to you. What profile would you use if the attack uses no weapons?

the profile specified by the ability you are using which in this case is HoW?

blaktoof wrote:I am not sure how you think rending is more specific than hammer of wrath, they both seem like USRs and would both have the same specificity, no where in the rulebook is there a prioritizing of which USR is more specific than the rest, so not sure where you get that information from.

Well in the case of Wraiths:

All Jump Infantry have HoW.

Wraiths are Jump Infantry.

However, not all Jump Infantry have Rending.

Wraiths do.

Therefore, the more specific Rending takes precedence over the more general HoW.

Iranna.

And that is why hammer of wrath has a profile. Does it necessarily mean that that profile is immutable?

blaktoof wrote:I am not sure how you think rending is more specific than hammer of wrath, they both seem like USRs and would both have the same specificity, no where in the rulebook is there a prioritizing of which USR is more specific than the rest, so not sure where you get that information from.

JI with Rending is MORE specific than JI.

Iranna wrote:

blaktoof wrote:I am not sure how you think rending is more specific than hammer of wrath, they both seem like USRs and would both have the same specificity, no where in the rulebook is there a prioritizing of which USR is more specific than the rest, so not sure where you get that information from.

Well in the case of Wraiths:

All Jump Infantry have HoW.

Wraiths are Jump Infantry.

However, not all Jump Infantry have Rending.

Wraiths do.

Therefore, the more specific Rending takes precedence over the more general HoW.

Iranna.

I see why you think that makes it more specific, but in actuality they are both just USRs from the main rulebook. Its not like there is more specific class of jump infantry that is rending jump infantry they are two seperate USRs, the fact that some models have more than 1 USR does not mean the combination of the two makes it more specific. Sorry.

if you actually believe being able to combine USRs into one ability like vector strike and poisoned attacks means your more specific and can therefore ignore one of your specific rules because you have 2 specific rules, all i can say to that is...


fascinating.

SCvodimier wrote:And that is why hammer of wrath has a profile. Does it necessarily mean that that profile is immutable?

The profile can't be immutable unless it says so - the default CCW has the same profile which would mean Wraiths don't Rend.

Except that is exactly how it works. The more specific instance wins.

JI with rending are more specific than JI.

You can disagree, it just means you stay incorrect.

blaktoof wrote:

Iranna wrote:

blaktoof wrote:I am not sure how you think rending is more specific than hammer of wrath, they both seem like USRs and would both have the same specificity, no where in the rulebook is there a prioritizing of which USR is more specific than the rest, so not sure where you get that information from.

Well in the case of Wraiths:

All Jump Infantry have HoW.

Wraiths are Jump Infantry.

However, not all Jump Infantry have Rending.

Wraiths do.

Therefore, the more specific Rending takes precedence over the more general HoW.

Iranna.

I see why you think that makes it more specific, but in actuality they are both just USRs from the main rulebook. Its not like there is more specific class of jump infantry that is rending jump infantry they are two seperate USRs, the fact that some models have more than 1 USR does not mean the combination of the two makes it more specific. Sorry.

Yes, these USRs interact with one another during HoW attacks. In order to figure out which takes precedence, we have to use Specific over General.

In GENERAL, all Jump Infantry have HoW.

SPECIFICALLY, Wraiths have Rending.

Therefore, Rending will take precedence, generating a Rending HoW Attack.

Sorry.

Iranna.

rigeld2 wrote:

SCvodimier wrote:And that is why hammer of wrath has a profile. Does it necessarily mean that that profile is immutable?

The profile can't be immutable unless it says so - the default CCW has the same profile which would mean Wraiths don't Rend.

That is what I am trying to get at. People are assuming that the profile was given in the rule because the writers wanted it to have that specific strength and AP, when actually (IMO), they gave the profile because if they wanted to exclude weapons from the attack, there would be no relevant profile to reference.

Entirely RAI, but something to consider when talking to your opponent before the battle.

sorry you are both wrong.

HoW is not a general abiltiy. A general rule is something that every model in the game has access to unless specifically told they do not.

a specific rule is one that certain models are given permission to use.

both rending, and HoW are specific, you cannot have a rule that is more specific than specific, and ignoring one specific rule that sets something because you have another specific rule that does something is not correct. the order of operations says a set value takes precedence.

blaktoof wrote:sorry you are both wrong.

HoW is not a general abiltiy. A general rule is something that every model in the game has access to unless specifically told they do not.

a specific rule is one that certain models are given permission to use.

both rending, and HoW are specific, you cannot have a rule that is more specific than specific, and ignoring one specific rule that sets something because you have another specific rule that does something is not correct. the order of operations says a set value takes precedence.

You've made up this entire post. Please post actual rules.

You can absolutely have a rule that's more specific than another.

There is no set value in this case. Again, making up rules. Post some page numbers that actually agree with you.

please show me in the rulebook where it orders specificity or gives any criteria for doing so?