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 noticed under the rules for the Things-Catcher, that it grants the model Killing Blow. A Master Moulder can have a Things-Catcher and a Tail-Weapon. Would the tail weapon attack benefit from Killing Blow?

I believe Tail-Weapons specifically say that it adds a single mundane attack, but I could be wrong.

Here's the wording of the relevant part;

"It can be used in addition to other attacks including an additional hand weapon, or even a magic weapon, although it gains no magical properties"

A Things-Catcher isn't a magic weapon, so there's no magical properties to gain.

Since it grants the model killing blow, it seems like it should affect all attacks made by that model.

The tail weapon appears to be a separate 'hand' weapon. I'd have to say that attacks made with the tail weapon do not get killing blow.

Yeah, to be safe I'd probably roll the non-Things-Catcher attacks separately.

I imagine there's nothing in the rules either way, though, so you'll get plenty of people who will tell you to go wild on it. Suit yourself either way.

Vengis wrote:A Things-Catcher isn't a magic weapon, so there's no magical properties to gain.

Though the T-C is a two-handed weapon, and I don't think you could convince me that the tail-weapon somehow combines with it for anything. What's the wording on a gw? Could the tail weapon give the MM another attak at S +2?

Ultimately though, despite the cheeky rules push that this is, I don't think I'd mind it too badly. A T-C is wildly overcosted @ 20 pts, so if you took a 58 (61?) point master moulder I'd be too busy applauding you to worry overly about a 3rd KB attak

- Salvage

I probably should have included the rest of the wording for tail weapons. The wording for tail weapons is;

"A model with this additional blade, spike or mace can make an additional S3 attack at the user's WS and I. It can be used in addition to other attacks including an additional hand weapon, or even a magic weapon, although it gains no magical properties"

The relevant wording of a things-catcher is;

"A things-catcher requires two hands to wield and confers the Killing Blow ability. "

The reason this occurred to me is that the t-c confers the KB ability to the model, and it is not an aspect of the weapon itself. So any attacks made by the model should benefit from KB. That's my stance on it anyways.

Vengis wrote:I probably should have included the rest of the wording for tail weapons. The wording for tail weapons is;

"A model with this additional blade, spike or mace can make an additional S3 attack at the user's WS and I. It can be used in addition to other attacks including an additional hand weapon, or even a magic weapon, although it gains no magical properties"

The relevant wording of a things-catcher is;

"A things-catcher requires two hands to wield and confers the Killing Blow ability. "

The reason this occurred to me is that the t-c confers the KB ability to the model, and it is not an aspect of the weapon itself. So any attacks made by the model should benefit from KB. That's my stance on it anyways.

This is another case where rules as written ('confers killing blow ability) and logic (how does a tail weapon gain killing blow just because you have a things-cather in hand?) collide. Play it to taste.

If this model had a thing-catcher and a ranged weapon, would you get killing blow with the ranged weapon?

No, as the book specifically says that Killing Blow working with ranged attacks has to be specified by the relevant army book entry.

Vulcan, you could say that it's the way that the t-c and the tail weapon interact. Maybe the skaven trips the opponent with his tail, and that gives him an opening.

We can push this further: How about KB on the whip that the moulder keeps around? Though RAW he can't actually ride behind the ogres, so no KB whip attak from behind ... Or what about using the whip as an ahw (p.53) to get a 4th KB attak? The catcher just sits on his back and generates all the KB he needs

- Salvage

That's tricky. My first instinct is to cry 'stupid', but reading through it, those are the same as my question.

RAW, I think KB would be applied to all of those. I wouldn't play it that way, personally. I think once he's not even using it, that's when it gets in the way of logic, as Vulcan said.

Vengis wrote:No, as the book specifically says that Killing Blow working with ranged attacks has to be specified by the relevant army book entry.

Vulcan, you could say that it's the way that the t-c and the tail weapon interact. Maybe the skaven trips the opponent with his tail, and that gives him an opening.

Like I said, play to taste.

Vengis wrote:I noticed under the rules for the Things-Catcher, that it grants the model Killing Blow. A Master Moulder can have a Things-Catcher and a Tail-Weapon. Would the tail weapon attack benefit from Killing Blow?

By RAW, it seems that it does. Hopefully Skaven FAQ will clear this up, altough there's so much stuff to be clarified there... It's a similiar situation to chaos sorcerers benefitting from rending sword rerolls with magic missiles and WoC FAQ didn't touch that issue at all, so it may end up for the players/TOs to decide.

I don't think KB would apply at all. The general rule of thumb in WH is that the special abilities of a weapon apply only to that weapon's attacks, not to the model in general. Like folks who try to argue that a weapon which allows the bearer to re-roll wounds lets him also re-roll wounds with his spells or shooting attacks. It's just not so. The wording may be mildly ambiguous, but it's a bad road to start down.

I agree with Mannahnin, and this is how I plan to play it with my skaven.

I figure I take a Master Moulder who has 2 base attacks, he has a thing catch which is a weapon that itself has KB. He himself without it does not. I guy him a daily weapon. I would roll the 2 KB attacks seperate from the tail weapon, and would not apply KB to tail weapon.

It makes sense. I have a knife in my right hand. I swing with that hand, it can stab you. I swing with my fist which is my left hand, my fist cannot stab you. Its a basic analogy, but I think it makes the point.

It's notably different from 40k, though, in which the second weapon just gives you +1A with the first, using all the first's properties.