Hammer of Wrath and Rending

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.

**Iranna**

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.

Except you're entirely wrong?

Of course you can have something that is more specific than something specific.

For example, saying: "someone from Africa is more specific than saying "Someone from Earth". Then saying "Someone from South Africa" is more specific than saying either.

Saying Jump Infantry have HoW is specific to JI.

Simmilarly, Wraiths are JI. Thus they have HoW.

But they also have Rending, which is more specific amoung JI. Thus, Rending is more Specific, in this instance, than HoW.

Iranna.

**Dozer Blades**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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

You can lead a horse to water as the old saying goes.

**Iranna**

Dozer Blades wrote:

You can lead a horse to water as the old saying goes.

Rebuttals in YMDC work far better when they contain actual rules.

Iranna.

**rigeld2**

Dozer Blades wrote:You can lead a horse to water as the old saying goes.

You haven't done so. You've made assertions with no rules backing.

At this point I have no choice but to accept your concession.

**coredump**

To me the specificity issue isn't relevant in this case.

The two abilities do *not* conflict.

First:

General: All JI have HoW
Specific: Wraiths have Rending

or

General: All Wraith attacks have rending
Specific: Wraith HoW are more specific

But back to my premise, they are not conflicting rules.

What is the Str of a normal Wraith attack? What is its AP?
S:user AP:-

Yet rending says that if you roll a 6, you get to change the AP for that specific wound.

HoW as the same S;user and AP:- as the standard Wraith attack, and rending works the same way.

the rules do not conflict.

HoW says the attack is S:user and AP:- Rending does not change the basic attack, it does the same thing it always does.

**nosferatu1001**

rigeld2 wrote:
Dozer Blades wrote:You can lead a horse to water as the old saying goes.

You haven't done so. You've made assertions with no rules backing.

At this point I have no choice but to accept your concession.

Agreed. Given the "no" side have managed to entirely avoid providing a single rule, their concession on the entire topic is accepted.

**blaktoof**

I saw many people from the No side quote rules from the book, and some not...

saw some people from the yes side quote rules and some just spout off their opinion on how english language pertains to the rules.

not sure how you didn't notice the rules posts since you commented on a few of them, are you just +1ing your post count?

should just type derp on posts at that point.

**nosferatu1001**

The "no" side has no answer to any of the key rules points.

None.

Your concession is accepted, thank you.

**rigeld2**

Iranna wrote:
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.

Except you're entirely wrong?

Of course you can have something that is more specific than something specific.

For example, saying: "someone from Africa is more specific than saying "Someone from Earth". Then saying "Someone from South Africa" is more specific than saying either.

Saying Jump Infantry have HoW is specific to JI.

Simmilarly, Wraiths are JI. Thus they have HoW.

But they also have Rending, which is more specific amoung JI. Thus, Rending is more Specific, in this instance, than HoW.

Iranna.

blaktoof wrote:I saw many people from the No side quote rules from the book, and some not...

saw some people from the yes side quote rules and some just spout off their opinion on how english language pertains to the rules.

not sure how you didn't notice the rules posts since you commented on a few of them, are you just +1ing your post count?

should just type derp on posts at that point.

I quoted the response that proves you wrong (the latest one anyway).
And still, you're not citing rules.

**Kevin949**

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.

Other than it being a close combat attack that WILL benefit from all bonuses and negatives of a model (but none of the models equipped CCW's for this one attack)?

As for you second comment...are you kidding? Honestly, because I don't see how you could reasonably argue that an attack that happens in the fight sub-phase, at an initiative step, that requires you to be in base contact (which you CAN NOT DO outside of assault) and has a close combat weapon profile is not a close combat attack.

Subsequently, what's really going to bust your noodle is if a JI unit assaults some wraiths that are equipped with whip coils does the HoW attack still go at Init 10? (I know the answer, I just want to see your interpretation).

**nosferatu1001**

Especially given that it is a capitalised Attack. That means it is, by definition, a CC attack.

There isnt any way around that, without ignoring the entire section on CC and how Attacks are defined.

The heads in sand - ers have consistently ignored this, hoping that inconvenient facts will go away.

**barnowl**

Kevin949 wrote:
Subsequently, what's really going to bust your noodle is if a JI unit assaults some wraiths that are equipped with whip coils does the HoW attack still go at Init 10? (I know the answer, I just want to see your interpretation).

Good question actually. Both would seem to be set Value attacks.

As for Special rules applying to HoW, as Yakface pointed out, there is precedent for them to apply as the Smash Special Rule is specifically called out and prohibited. So based on that I would say yes Wraiths still get there rend assuming it is special rule for the unit and not a weapon they have. That is very nasty. I want an official FAq on nid's either way becuase if nid ccw special rules transfer to HoW like the y do to other CC attacks Toxin Shrikes with dual Boneswords become broken.

**Janthkin**

I think everyone has had their opportunity to talk here; we're going around in circles now.