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.

How are the Rough Rider stat lines affected when Mogul Kamir is joined to the squad? In particular the first time they charge. Their hunting lances count as Strength and Initiative 5, while Kamir grants them Furious Charge. Do they then count as Strength and Initiative 6 on the first charge, or do these abilities not stack (which would then give Str5 & Int5 on the first charge and then Str4 Int4 in all subsequent charges)?

I would reason that they would stack as "hunting lance" is the base (the wargear), which is then modified by the special rule, "Khanasan's Fiercest". I'm just wondering how others have interpreted this situation.

guynamedFleck wrote:Do they then count as Strength and Initiative 6 on the first charge, or do these abilities not stack (which would then give Str5 & Int5 on the first charge and then Str4 Int4 in all subsequent charges)?

No, they do not. The lance does not give bonuses to their strength and initiative, the wargear hits at a Specific Strength, Suddenly Becoming Strength 4 doesn't change that. If the lance said "+2S and +2I then they would stack, but it doesn't so they do not. You have it right there, they are S5 I5 first charge and S4 I4 on every other.

It is mentioned in some threads on here. I think the RAI is that they stack, but the RAW is very flimsy and can be interpreted either way as far as i can tell.

Edit: What Gwar said.

RAW and RAI would both seem to indicate not stacking. You get the lance strike on the charge, and then any surviving riders get to use the Furious Charge rules in subsequent combats.

Just so you know, it is not 100% clear either way. It can be seen to stack, and it can be read to not to.

It all depends on how you (the reader) interpret the word "modify". And I will leave it at that as there was already a lengthy thread on it.

So, talk to your gaming group and get their feelings on it. And in any official/non-official tournament type play just remember this question to ask/e-mail to the Tournament Organizer.

Sorry for the non-response, but so far all the other posters here make it sounds like its cut and dry and it simply is not.

Except it is?

RaW: The Strike is ALWAYS resolved at S5 I5 on the first Charge. End. Adding +1 or +9000 to the Models Strength does not effect the rule that says it hits at S5 I5

RaI (aka T3h Fluff): The Spears have Grenades on the end, is being angry gonna make those grenades suddenly get stronger and faster?


Sorry for the non-response, but so far some of the other posters here make it sounds like its very complicated and ambiguous and it simply is not.

padxion wrote:Just so you know, it is not 100% clear either way... all the other posters here make it sounds like its cut and dry and it simply is not.

Gwar! wrote:Except it is?

No, it's not perfectly clear. If it was clear, then everyone would have agreed with you the last time this issue came up. The fact that they didn't demonstrates that this isn't so cut and dried.

I acknowledge that I may be wrong, but I think the argument in favor of combining Furious Charge with the Lance bonus is a solid argument that cannot be so easily brushed aside. The RAW here is unclear, as the language used is not sufficiently technical to eliminate all ambiguities. I do not believe either side can claim the RAW unambiguously supports them.

Except, I Can!

The rules for lances state "a unit armed with hunting lances count as being armed with power weapons that strike at Strength and Initiative 5."

Nowhere does it state that this is a bonus to he models Strength characteristic. it just Strikes at Strength 5. That's it. Finished. End.

Furious Charge does not help here, because FC states "Models with this skill are known for the wild ferocity of their assaults. In a turn in which they assaulted into combat they add +1 to both their Initiative and Strength characteristics when attacking in close combat." So, the Rough Riders have Strength 4 And Initiative 4 (because their S/I Characterist is 3 normaly) even on the first charge, however, the Special rule over-rides the BRB rules (Codex > Rulebook old chums) and they instead "strike as [if] armed with power weapons that strike at Strength and Initiative 5."

To claim that FC increases a bit of Wargears strength, when the FC rules quite CLEARLY states it only affects the MODELS characteristics, and not that of it's wargear, is plain and utter Wrong.

So that's the RaW standpoint. I already made my RaI Standpoint clear. As your RaW Standpoint is actually incorrect, can you explain to me your RaI standpoint as to why being slightly more angry makes the grenades more explodey?

Gwar! wrote:Except, I Can!

The rules for lances state "a unit armed with hunting lances count as being armed with power weapons that strike at Strength and Initiative 5."

Nowhere does it state that this is a bonus to he models Strength characteristic. it just Strikes at Strength 5. That's it. Finished. End.

Furious Charge does not help here, because FC states "Models with this skill are known for the wild ferocity of their assaults. In a turn in which they assaulted into combat they add +1 to both their Initiative and Strength characteristics when attacking in close combat." So, the Rough Riders have Strength 4 And Initiative 4 (because their S/I Characterist is 3 normaly) even on the first charge, however, the Special rule over-rides the BRB rules (Codex > Rulebook old chums) and they instead "strike as [if] armed with power weapons that strike at Strength and Initiative 5."

To claim that FC increases a bit of Wargears strength, when the FC rules quite CLEARLY states it only affects the MODELS characteristics, and not that of it's wargear, is plain and utter Wrong.

So that's the RaW standpoint. I already made my RaI Standpoint clear. As your RaW Standpoint is actually incorrect, can you explain to me your RaI standpoint as to why being slightly more angry makes the grenades more explodey?

You are correct except for one bit.
RAW you always use the strength characteristic of the model when rolling to wound in close combat and the model's (not the weapon's) initiative is used to determine attack order. So RAW Rough Riders would never benefit from their lance as it's a weapon with it's own characteristics.
Here are the quotes from the rulebook:

RB page 36 wrote:In close combat, a model’s Initiative characteristic determines who attacks first.

So RAW the lance would have no effect on the Initiative on the attacks.

RB page 38 wrote:Consult the chart below, cross-referencing the attacker’s Strength characteristic (S) with the defender’s Toughness (T).

So RAW the lance would have no effect on the Strength of the attacks.

As RAW gives the Hunting Lance no effect what so ever in this case you have to take a slight step away from RAW and interpret the Hunting Lance as actually modifying the Strength and Initiative of the model to 5.
In this case you still have to determine if Furious charge modification comes before or after the Hunting Lance modification but as it's not stated the logical assumption would be that you can apply them in any order.
This would mean you get Strength and Initiative 6 when charging with both Hunting Lance and Furious Charge.


BTW: RAI is not the same as fluff. RAI is the determination of what the author really meant when writing the rules. This can differ from the fluff in many cases.

Webbe wrote:~Stuff~

-Clears throat-
CODEX TRUMPS RULEBOOK

Your argument about how you "always use the models strength" and other such rubbish has no meaning, because the Special Rules of the Hunting Lance Tell those rule to sod off because they are more important. Not to mention it means that Relic Blades don't work. Sorry, but you're speaking rubbish and you know it.

What rule in the codex lets the Rough Rider use the weapons strength and initiative instead of his own when fighting close combat?

Errr... the one that says "a unit armed with hunting lances count as being armed with power weapons that strike at Strength and Initiative 5." Nowhere does it say it modifies the models characteristics, unlike other weapons that do, like Big Choppas and Frost Blades.

But then again, if you are going to say that RaW Relic Blades cannot work nor can Hunting Lances, I wont stop you, as I use neither. It just seems odd you would have such a Bizarre (and utterly incorrect) Interpretation of the rules

I said that you can't use RAW as it doesn't work.

RAW the lance have S and I 5 but it does nothing to the model. The codex do not modify the "WHO STRIKES FIRST?" and "ROLLING TO WOUND" rules.

So... you ARE saying that if you were playing someone with a Relic Blade Armed Captain, you would not let them resolve their attacks at Strength 6? Because as you say, RaW does not "work".

What about Rough Riders with or without Furious Charge. You are saying that RaW doesn't work (it does btw) so you would actually tell your opponent with a straight face that you cannot use your SPECIAL RULES which, by definition, trump those of the rulebook, because the rule is not Special Enough?

Well, I know I am a stickler for RaW, but that's just beyond my Comprehension.

I am sorry, but Hunting Lances count as a Str 5 weapon, to suddenly claim that they don't because you use the models str to wound is asinine. The weapons profile replaces the models.

InquisitorFabius wrote: The weapons profile replaces the models.

It doesn't though. If it did, there would be no argument. As it is, it does not replace the models profile, but allows the model to make its attacks at S5 I5 for that one round only because of a special rule. The Model, when coupled with furious Charge, Will be S4 I4, but the Lances Special Rules state that you instead strike at S5 I5 for that round only, regardless of your profile.

I just woke up like you need to just go to sleep. On the charge the rolls to wound are worked out at Str 5 and at I 5. The Furious charge of the model is ignored as the models Str is not being used.

InquisitorFabius wrote:I just woke up like you need to just go to sleep. On the charge the rolls to wound are worked out at Str 5 and at I 5. The Furious charge of the model is ignored as the models Str is not being used.

Which is exactly what I am saying I am right sometimes you know

I was in agreement with you, you sodded git.

InquisitorFabius wrote:I was in agreement with you, you sodded git.

My my such British Language. One would almost think you were from the Upper Echelons of Britannia's society, rather than some Colonial Plebeian.

a unit armed with hunting lances count as being armed with power weapons that strike at Strength and Initiative 5

So... they count as being S5 (notice tha lack of "always" in there) on the charge, and FC is a +1 to S on the charge....I don't see how that doesn't add up to 6.

The Relic Blade is worded exactly like the Hunting Lance, are you guys saying that it doesn't receive any bonus S from FC?

Sadly, they are. Hence why I never add to a Relic Blade either.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:The Relic Blade is worded exactly like the Hunting Lance, are you guys saying that it doesn't receive any bonus S from FC?

Yes. I thought that was pretty clear? As I said, they count as "armed with hunting lances count as being armed with power weapons that strike at Strength and Initiative 5." In this case, the wargear has a specific rule locking it at a specific Strength when used. This is an exception to the wounding rules which state you use the models strength. Furious Charge only affects the Models Characteristics, not that of its wargear. if they had wanted it to be able to be modified, they would have either worded it to be "Gets +2 to S and Init" which I am assuming they did NOT use because they did not want it to stack with FC (not to mention the hilarity of assuming grenades on the end of sticks get more explody if the person holding said stick is a little angry).

See, not so perfectly clear either way. This is certainly a gray area of the rule.

Again, clear with your gaming group how they prefer both rules be treated.

padixon wrote:See, not so perfectly clear either way. This is certainly a gray area of the rule.

Again, clear with your gaming group how they prefer both rules be treated.

How is it not clear? I cannot fathom why you think it is unclear. Seriously, I am not being snarky. The rules say they strike at "Strength 5". it is THAT simple. it is not "+2 Strength" or "Strength 5 replaces the models strength" or "Strength 5 + Any Modifiers", but just Plain and Simple "Strength 5".

Wow, 24 posts in about 11 hours and 11 of those are Gwar restating the same point with no new information.

How is it not clear? I cannot fathom why you think it is unclear. Seriously, I am not being snarky. The rules say they strike at "Strength 5". it is THAT simple. it is not "+2 Strength" or "Strength 5 replaces the models strength" or "Strength 5 + Any Modifiers", but just Plain and Simple "Strength 5".

I'd say the point becomes unclear once one references the RAW.
'Special Close Combat Weapons: These include more complex and powerful weapons that enhance the wielder's combat skills and confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to the models using them'. p42 BrB

Go figure, this entry is sub-headed with the power weapon rules as well.
This would state RAW, That hunting lance (special CCW) grants power weapon, S5 & I5 to the model (albeit for only the first charge) which is then further enhanced by FC. Granting a power weapon, S6 & I6 on the first charge.

can you explain to me your RaI standpoint as to why being slightly more angry makes the grenades more explodey?

Hmm, could it be the extra 'umph' put behind the "explodey" bit by the angry man atop a half ton beast? I'd frankly find it hurts a bit more when that grenade tip lodges itself within my chest before it detonates.

guynamedFleck wrote:Wow, 24 posts in about 11 hours and 11 of those are Gwar restating the same point with no new information.

Umm... it's a rules debate, in case you didn't notice. Why would there be new information?

Umm... it's a rules debate, in case you didn't notice. Why would there be new information?

well... perhaps for your same reasoning. It's a rules debate. Where in the usual protocol would be to prove your argument, without doubt, to be superior to that of your opponent. General strategies tend to include, but are not limited to...
- Questions or challenges not being personal or insulting.
- Don't get mad—get even through use of logic.
-Slang, name-calling or cursing makes you appear unintelligent and ill-prepared.
-Loud is not Logic.
-Take time to read or quote the literature exactly.
- Don't sound patronizing or condescending. It doesn't come across well.
oh, or how about, Don't overuse any single strategy.

What I'm trying to say is, I was looking for the general public opinion on this situation. Gwar raised some good interpretations, but lost focus once challenged (I'd reference any post after the excessively large "Codex Trumps Rulebook"). If a hole gets blown in your logic, either adapt or sit down. Simple as that.

Actually, you will find that the hole is in YOUR logic. Nowhere in the Furious Charge rules does it say it modify the Strength of Wargear, or in fact anything except the Models Characteristic. The hunting Lances CLEARLY state that it is the Power Weapon that strikes at Strength 5, not the model holding it. This is a case of where the Codex overrules the general rules.

If Furious Charge Were to stack, would it not have said "At Strength 5 + Any Modifiers" or "You Strike at your Strength +2"?

Now, I have stated this multiple times, yet you ignore me in favour of trying to bring up issues that I have covered and present them as a hole in my argument. So, you accuse me of ignoring your argument (even though I don't) yet do so to mine? I believe Hypocrite is the word...

If Furious Charge Were to stack, would it not have said "At Strength 5 + Any Modifiers" or "You Strike at your Strength +2"?

No, it would not have to say this. Unless otherwise stated, a models wargear is it's stat line. The rulebook would take presidence, as it sets the basis for the situation. Any exception to this rule (whereby the code would overrule) would have to be stated in the codex, not the rulebook.
i.e.

'Power fists, however, are difficult and cumbersome to use, so attacks with a power fist are always delivered at an initiative 1 (ignore initiative bonuses from special rules, wargear, etc)' p42 BrB

Notice how in the above example, it is the wording of the exception to the rule that covers what isn't included, not the base rule.

The hunting Lances CLEARLY state that it is the Power Weapon that strikes at Strength 5, not the model holding it.

The hunting lance does not CLEARLY do anything but prove GW publisher promote terrible sentence structure and bad syntax. Take for instance this sentence, "The clients home we worked on was very pleased and called me later to make sure I understood that she was thrilled." If my clients house ever calls me and tells me that it is 'pleased', I'm gonna S**t my pants. CLEARLY the power weapon in question doesn't do anything without a rough rider manipulating it.

Now, I have stated this multiple times, yet you ignore me in favour of trying to bring up issues that I have covered and present them as a hole in my argument. So, you accuse me of ignoring your argument (even though I don't) yet do so to mine?

Yes, I addressed you brought this up multiple times, hence my discontentment. I do not ignore your argument. I in fact pointed out the flaws within them. Never were you accused of ignoring my argument, since the original post was asking for other peoples opinions (and this is the first of your posts in rebuttal to my own opinion). I simply stated that you failed to better present you case (not stacking) when others pointed out flaws in your statement.

I believe Hypocrite is the word...

And you would believe incorrectly. A Hypocrite is a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold, in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives. Your complete lack of etiquette coupled with the ability to reduce an honest peer rules interpretation down to nothing more than a petty argument, is exactly my belief and opinion. There is no concealing going on here. If you have any further doubts feel free to PM me and leave this thread clear to those that wish to pass their opinion on the actual topic.
-thanks