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 think Gwar's reading is correct.

As to RAI, to me it look like the furious charge is already factored in to the first charge and the lances are adding +1 STR and +1 INIT above that.

It seems a bit loopholy but there is an alternative theory that could work...

(cut and pasting from the OP)

IG codex page 44 wrote:Hunting Lance: Rough Riders are armed with a long hunting lance tipped with a shaped explosive charge that can tear through even the toughest armour.
Rough Riders use their hunting lances the first time they charge into close combat, after which they cannot be used again. When they charge into close combat, a unit armed with hunting lances counts as being armed with power weapons that strike at Strength and Initiative 5. Models using a hunting lance cannot gain an extra attack from having an additional close combat weapon.

It could be argued that since the models armed with this weapon are still striking with strength and inititative 5, its their characteristic for the purposes of making their attacks with this weapon. Because if that could be said to be the case then the bonuses from furious charge would work as normal.

I'll happily admit that I'm doing little but mudding the waters at this point and can't find anything more conclusive to either prove or disprove a case either for or against but I think they is a decent element of doubt there. In such an example I think its reasonable to allow the Rough Riders to acutally use the skill they have, (the abilty to use it on a second charge isn't much of an argument to being able to use it since we all know that RR are a once use weapon and are at best unlikely to get a second oppotunity to charge something).

Arschbombe wrote:As to RAI, to me it look like the furious charge is already factored in to the first charge and the lances are adding +1 STR and +1 INIT above that.

If you really believe thats the case then perhaps you could explain exactly why they gave the rough rider special character furious charge for him an his squad if its about as useful to him as a chocolate teapot? Perhaps its best to leave RAI or "Rules as I really want them to be since I have no idea what the designers intended" on the doorstep for this discussion.

Hymirl wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:As to RAI, to me it look like the furious charge is already factored in to the first charge and the lances are adding +1 STR and +1 INIT above that.

If you really believe thats the case then perhaps you could explain exactly why they gave the rough rider special character furious charge for him an his squad if its about as useful to him as a chocolate teapot? Perhaps its best to leave RAI or "Rules as I really want them to be since I have no idea what the designers intended" on the doorstep for this discussion.

Please stop saying that! The Furious Charge is used in every subsequent charge, just not the first one! He is not as useless as a chocolate teapot because of that.

He is as useless as a chocolate teapot because he gives Fearless and Rage.

Hymirl wrote:
If you really believe thats the case then perhaps you could explain exactly why they gave the rough rider special character furious charge for him an his squad if its about as useful to him as a chocolate teapot?

Ah, forgot that the furious charge was dependent on the character. Somewhere in this thread I got the impression that the riders themselves had that USR.

Alpharius wrote:Sheesh Ghaz, we get the point!

Let's see you try and post on Dakka from a Blackberry You can't start a thread, you can only reply to threads using the 'Quick Reply' feature and you can't edit your posts either. The only way I could take care of it was to notify the mods. Worst of all, it thinks I'm in Canada when I post on my Blackberry

Gwar! wrote:Because Common Sense and GW DO NOT MIX IN ANY FORM!

This is crazy. If we're faced with an ambiguous situation, why intentionally avoid using common sense?

There are two ways to play this:

1) The lance modifies the Rough Rider's characteristics on the charge.
2) The lance does not modify the Rough Rider's characteristics on the charge.

If we choose option #2, then the Rough Riders do not benefit from Furious Charge. They also don't benefit from Strength 5 on the charge, since the "Rolling to Wound" rules that I have quoted only allow bonuses that modify a model's characteristics to factor into combat.

Gwar! wrote:The rules say (paraphrased) "the Hunting Lance Strikes at S5 and I5 the first time they charge into combat."

Exactly! I content that the reason they strike at S5 I5 is because the lance modifies the characteristics of the Rough Rider. If you want to contend that it does not modify the Rider's characteristics, but that they nevertheless still strike at S5 I5, then you need to invent some new rules out of thin air, because page 35 is pretty clear.

Gwar! wrote:The models Profile is S3 I3.

And a power first-wielding Space Marine has S4. But the power first modifies his profile. I contend that the Lance also modifies the profile during the first round of close combat.

If the Lance doesn't modify the profile for the purpose of close combat, how does the Rough Rider get to strike at Strength 5?

The problem is that the wording of the lance's rules does not modify the model's profile but replaces it. If it modified it, it would be worded as it was in the previous codex:

A model using a hunting lance... adds +2 to its Strength and Intiative...

As mentioned, the wording in the current codex replaces the model's Strength and Initiative. It does not modify it:

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

Dave47 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The rules say (paraphrased) "the Hunting Lance Strikes at S5 and I5 the first time they charge into combat."

Exactly! I content that the reason they strike at S5 I5 is because the lance modifies the characteristics of the Rough Rider. If you want to contend that it does not modify the Rider's characteristics, but that they nevertheless still strike at S5 I5, then you need to invent some new rules out of thin air, because page 35 is pretty clear.

You can contend all you want, doesn't make you right. The Lance does not modify ANYTHING. It instead replaces the Strength and Initiative with a fixed value. Also Page 35 deals with "who can fight". I don't see anything regarding "To Wound" rolls there at all.

Dave47 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The models Profile is S3 I3.

And a power first-wielding Space Marine has S4. But the power first modifies his profile. I contend that the Lance also modifies the profile during the first round of close combat.

If the Lance doesn't modify the profile for the purpose of close combat, how does the Rough Rider get to strike at Strength 5?

And again you go. The lance does not modify anything. it replaces it with a fixed number. Adding +2 to your strength is a modification. Changing your Strength to 5 is a replacement.

The codex modify the rules found in the rulebook (by it's very definition, otherwise it wouldn't work) and says "Instead of using the models profile at all, use these set statistics on the first time you charge."

This is defiantly a gray area of the rules. While Gwar and others are technically correct in their summation; there are still 2 areas in which their are no rules for in the RB.

1. Weapons do not have characteristics only models (there is no place in the RB that says otherwise). To make matters worse, the guard codex, SM codex, both Inquisition codices state that while holding a certain weapon than you resolve the hits at X value.

2. To continue from (1.) there are no rules in the RB that talk about stats that are 'Replaced'. There are only rules that talk about stats that are 'modified'.

Going by these 2 facts in which many arguers in this thread are basing their stances on, we are defiantly in a gray area of the rules where RAW does not apply, because both those 2 stances have no RAW rules in the RB. And hence there is no 'ground rules' for us to base our arguments on.

This is something in need of a FAQ for sure, maybe Yakface and his ruling council should put this in their INAT FAQ (don't think I ever saw this one in there).

We must ask ourselves knowing these 2 points brought up is: Is not a replacement of a stat also a modification of a stat? According to dictionary.com (modify) a modification is simply a change to a qualifier, is not a replacement a change as well? What I mean is those 2 words are not mutually exclusive. You can replace to modify.

I bring this up because we only have rules for modifying in the RB. And if we are to try to RAW this one out, then we must use what the RB gives us, and that is on page 7.

But at the same time I can sympathize with the arguers against that the codices in question that have weapons that change the stats used in combat with another are straight unmodifiable stats because that is what the codex tells us to use.

EDIT: Please read Weapons without stat lines as CC weapons not shooting weapons which obviously do

padixon wrote:1. Weapons do not have characteristics only models (there is no place in the RB that says otherwise). To make matters worse, the guard codex, SM codex, both Inquisition codices state that while holding a certain weapon than you resolve the hits at X value.

Incorrect. The rules that state "This weapon is Strength Whatever" or "Hits using This Weapon are resolved at Strength Whatever" are a case of Codex Special Rules overriding BRB rules. Instead of using the models characteristic, these weapons use the weapons strength. And CCW can have have a fixed value, even from the BRB. Granted the only BRB example are Witchblades (Strength 9 against Vehicles).

padixon wrote:2. To continue from (1.) there are no rules in the RB that talk about stats that are 'Replaced'. There are only rules that talk about stats that are 'modified'.

No, because it is the codex's that deal with this rare exception. See the tyranid codex for example, there is a Biomorph that gives +1 Initiative. Now normally this wouldnt help in a sweeping advance, because Sweeping Advance is always done from Base initiative, hence the clause in the Codex that it replaces the base stat. It's the same priniciple with weapons that are a fixed strength.

padixon wrote:Going by these 2 facts in which many arguers in this thread are basing their stances on, we are defiantly in a gray area of the rules where RAW does not apply, because both those 2 stances have no RAW rules in the RB. And hence there is no 'ground rules' for us to base our arguments on.

As pointed out, your assumptions are mistaken.

padixon wrote:This is something in need of a FAQ for sure, maybe Yakface and his ruling council should put this in their INAT FAQ (don't think I ever saw this one in there).

I'll make no comment on this (I know people get annoyed whenever I remind them that the... OK I'll be nice -Dodges Mod Missle Lvl 20-)

padixon wrote:We must ask ourselves knowing these 2 points brought up is: Is not a replacement of a stat also a modification of a stat? According to dictionary.com (modify) a modification is simply a change to a qualifier, is not a replacement a change as well? What I mean is those 2 words are not mutually exclusive. You can replace to modify.

The definition GW used for modify is quite specific. A replacement is not a modification. If it were, then as said before, the Initiative Biomorph would not work for a sweeping advance, but it does BECAUSE it is a replacement, not a modifier. Since it is the Codex's that deal with replacing an entire stat, not the rulebook, its a simple case of "Codex trumping rulebook or the game breaks"

padixon wrote:I bring this up because we only have rules for modifying in the RB. And if we are to try to RAW this one out, then we must use what the RB gives us, and that is on page 7.

Indeed. That's why Furious Charge doesn't work with the lances on the first charge, because they do not follow the rules for modifying a statistic at all, they instead hit on a specific strength and initiative, and nothing can change that. They still get the Initiative and Strength Bonus, and become S4 I4 for that round, buit the Special rule of the Lance overrides whatever happens on that first charge and makes them S5 I5. In subsequent charges, they are S4 I4, just not for that first charge.

But that's my point, the subject of how to deal with multiple modifiers *is* a RB rule, not a Codex rule. So, how do we use this 'replacement' rule (found in a codex) vs. when dealing with multiple modifiers (found in the RB)?

The point I was trying to make is that there is no rule or subject of a rule that governs this. Which is what makes this a gray area.

And I have to disagree, a replacement *is* a modifier, or at least can be considered one.

And Gwar your RAW is entirely based on Codex rules with no interaction on any main rules.

For example: You stated that when using a weapon the user hits at str X. I have no argument that this is a Codex rule. But, where we fail is in it's interaction with the "multiple modifiers" rule that is found only in the RB. And one can easily say a replacement is a modification to a stat and by the very definition of the word be 100% correct.

A Codex rule is fine and dandy. But when you have a codex rule meet a RB rule, then how do we read this? Both situations (a weapon bearing a Stat line and the ability to replace a stat line) are both only found in Codices. And neither of these rules have any guidelines at all in the main RB (only models have stat lines, and the RB only covers modifiers to stat lines). And when you have a RB rule (multiple modifiers [more specifically furious charge USR]) and these codex wordings interacting the decision is not as black and white as we would like them.

I am not disagreeing with you at all. I am just pointing out that both stances previously discussed do not and are not covered in any way by the RB, yet they are interacting with RB rules (Furious charge USR).

Again, this can be discussed back and forth until the world is a bare rock, and we would never have anything concrete because one does not exist.

However, I do see the merit in saying because the Codex does not use the same wording as the Rulebook (replacement/modify) than we just don't do any multiple modifying. Which is in the very least a safe and fair reading of the situation.

It is dealt with though.

Furious Charge adds +1 S and I.
A Rough Rider Charging with FC is S4 I4.
A Rough Rider Charging for the first time with FC is still S4 I4, but gets to Strike at S5 I5 because of a special Weapon rule.

Simple innit?

Gwar! wrote:It is dealt with though.

Furious Charge adds +1 S and I.
A Rough Rider Charging with FC is S4 I4.
A Rough Rider Charging for the first time with FC is still S4 I4, but gets to Strike at S5 I5 because of a special Weapon rule.

Simple innit?

lol, good enough for me.

The other idea I had, but just didn't type it, is just that, the order of events. But honestly, if someone wanted to argue the other way, there is no concrete thing to make them right *or* wrong. But I do and have always agreed to this reading of it.

Gwar! wrote:And again you go. The lance does not modify anything. it replaces it with a fixed number. Adding +2 to your strength is a modification. Changing your Strength to 5 is a replacement.

And which rules tell us the difference between a modification and a replacement exactly? Or are we back in GWAR!'s magical fairy tale world of made up stories again?

If its being replaced its being modified, by its very nature replacing part of something is a modification. Reference dumb ricer kids who replace the front bumper on their cars with bigger ones and get all excited... they have (just about) modified their cars.

There is no proof at all that the furious charge bonus doesn't apply to models using hunting lances. So far the only counter argument you've provided is talking about how the rules aren't saying something else which is pointless... we aren't intrested in what the rules don't say, we're intrested in what they are.

The lance does say the model using it strikes at strength 5, furious charge does say the model can add one to it's str, which while using the lance is str 5.

No, "its" strength is not 5. The weapons Strength is 5. There are precedents for Weapons with a set strength in the BRB, so it is acceptable in the rules.

And there is also no proof that it does apply to Hunting Lances either if you wanna be pedantic.

The wording for Furious Charge is "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, when charging into CC, a S3 I3 model Becomes S4 I4. However, the Rough Riders happen to have a special rule, saying that the first time they charge into close combat, they instead have S5 and I5 instead of their normal S and I (which would be 4) which is because of a weapon that strikes at a Set Strength and Initiative.

I'll chalk it up to GW trying to be helpful by totalling up numbers in advance instead of writing it up as modifiers. Saying Relic Blades are S6 is just another way of saying the marine carrying it is S6 for wounding stuff in CC. The Power Fist does provide another example of weapons: it specifically says the I1 can't be modified by wargear or special rules. Why should one assume a weapon that doesn't state this isn't affected by FC?

Spetulhu wrote:I'll chalk it up to GW trying to be helpful by totalling up numbers in advance instead of writing it up as modifiers. Saying Relic Blades are S6 is just another way of saying the marine carrying it is S6 for wounding stuff in CC. The Power Fist does provide another example of weapons: it specifically says the I1 can't be modified by wargear or special rules. Why should one assume a weapon that doesn't state this isn't affected by FC?

Because the Power Fist Modifies your base strength. The Lance is a Fixed Strength. Same as the Relic Blade. What GW say and what you want them to say are two different things.

If you like to play Warhammer as opposed to Househammer, you play by the rules.

By the rules, Relic Blades and 1st Charge Lances are at a Fixed Strength that cannot be modified by things that affect your base strength.
If GW wanted them to be affected by Furious Charge, they would have worded it as "The Relic Blade adds +2 S" or "The Hunting Lance on the first charge Adds +2S and +2I"

Edit: Spelling and Grammar

Gwar! wrote:I am not getting why people are stating "Oh but that makes the Rough Rider Special Character useless because it doesn't benefit them" when it does, after the first charge. After the First charge they will be S4 and I4 on the charge, which is a damn sight better than S3 and I3.

I think a lot of people didn't read the Hunting Lance rules very well, and don't realize that it is only the first charge of the game that is affected by it, not the first round of combat every time they charge.

Gwar! wrote:No, "its" strength is not 5. The weapons Strength is 5. There are precedents for Weapons with a set strength in the BRB, so it is acceptable in the rules.

And the weapon strength is used by the model fighting with it... secondly give up with attempting to squeal about relic blades since they're exactly the same and don't prove anything one way or the other. You're only wasting your time and mine.

And there is also no proof that it does apply to Hunting Lances either if you wanna be pedantic.

Exactly, just like I said in my previous post there isn't a clear answer to the question no matter how much you insist to the contary. Since there is no RAW solution provable one way or the other the best solution is to let them use the rule they have (in a useful way I'll clarify before you start whinging about second charges again..)

The wording for Furious Charge is "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, when charging into CC, a S3 I3 model Becomes S4 I4. However, the Rough Riders happen to have a special rule, saying that the first time they charge into close combat, they instead have S5 and I5 instead of their normal S and I (which would be 4) which is because of a weapon that strikes at a Set Strength and Initiative.

And you've just binned your own arguement. Weapons don't kill people, rappers do. Um, or the model in question that is.

If you bothered to read the rules for the lance you'll notice it says "..counts as being armed with power weapons that strike at Strength and Initiative 5" who counts? The model, thats who. Your claims are contary to the rules, its clear you're only repeating your claims for the sake of trolling, as normal.

Well what do you want then? For me to go "oh dear, talk with your opponent before each battle" rather than offering my arguments?

Just to inspire some more hatred and flame, i see this as going 2 ways

Either
Unit has S3 I3, then goes up to S4 I4 because of furious charge, then goes up to S5 I5 because of the lance

or
Unit has S3 I3, then goes up to S5 I5 because of lance, then gets +1S and +1I because of furious charge, and is now S6 I6.


so when do the events occur, does the unit have S5I5 because of the lance first, or S4I4 because of the furious charge first.

i dont have the books, so i cant try and nitpick, but if my opponent asked before the game i would allow it. if it came up mid game i would roll off for it.

Gwar! wrote:Well what do you want then? For me to go "oh dear, talk with your opponent before each battle" rather than offering my arguments?

...


Well, Would that a lot worse than picking an answer semi-randomly and blindly arguing for that no matter what until the thread is locked? Although I guess it depends on whether you come to dakka to answer questions correctly or to look for an argument.

There is actually no rules to say it happens either way.
This is gonna need an "official" FAQ which will then be ignored because it isnt errata.

And my answer isnt "semi-Random". As was pointed out by Demogerg there's no way of knowing what effect is applied first untill GW errata it.

Gwar! wrote:And my answer isnt "semi-Random". As was pointed out by Demogerg there's no way of knowing what effect is applied first untill GW errata it.

Thats not what you said in all your previous posts... and ironically Demogerg is saying what I did say in my previous posts.... I'll take that as a tactic admission of error on your part.

I personally think that FC and the Lances stack its like Ork PCs with FC striking at strength 9 or 10. The Codex doesn't say that the strength can't be further modified. I don't recall any instance of a CC weapon unable to modify its strenth futher than what it has listed.

I believe it is perfectly fine to stack to the 2 and see no reason what so ever that denies that you could other than a few people saying ummm maybe thats what they ment. There is no proof or previous examples of this.

Hymirl wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And my answer isnt "semi-Random". As was pointed out by Demogerg there's no way of knowing what effect is applied first untill GW errata it.

Thats not what you said in all your previous posts... and ironically Demogerg is saying what I did say in my previous posts.... I'll take that as a tactic admission of error on your part.

No, I still think that it is locked at S5 and I5 no matter what. I think the Furious Charge is Applied before the Lances Special Rule which overrides everything and makes them S5 I5

@CajunMan550: The reason it stacks is because Power Klaws double a users base strength, while the lance does not modify anything, but rather sets their S and I to a specific number for that charge. And what you believe and what is true are not necessarily the same thing (and likewise what I belive and what is true are not the same thing. if it is officialy clarified that they do become S6 I6 then I will coincide the point). It may be right this time, or it may not. Its highly ambiguous and needs an errata.

Gwar! wrote:As was pointed out by Demogerg there's no way of knowing what effect is applied first untill GW errata it.

Hymirl wrote:...picking an answer semi-randomly and blindly arguing for that no matter what...

Gwar! wrote:No, I still think that it is locked at S5 and I5 no matter what.

Can I haz consistency please?

I said "I think".

As in, it is my opinion that the order the rules are applied is Furious Charge First, then the Lances Special Rules.

The argument for applying the Lance first and then Furious Charge is just as valid.

I concede it is not as clear cut as I had assumed, and I am willing to admit that. I am not willing to say that my view is wrong, because it is no more incorrect than the other.

Ghaz wrote:As mentioned, the wording in the current codex replaces the model's Strength and Initiative. It does not modify it

As padixon has indicated, there's support in the English language for the notion that a replacement is a "modification." There's support for this interpretation in the rulebook for this on pages 6, which talks about "Characteristics" and "modifications" but never mentions "replacements." There's also indirect support for this on pages 8, 36, and 38.

Gwar! wrote:You can contend all you want, doesn't make you right. The Lance does not modify ANYTHING. It instead replaces the Strength and Initiative with a fixed value.

I've never claimed that the RAW clearly supports me. But I think the rule is ambiguous, and I think you're being disingenuous in implying that the RAW is clear. The rules do not define (or mention) "replacement," but they deal with "modifications." The words can be used as synonyms in common English. And, as I have several times stated, treating them as different and unrelated concepts leads to several absurd results that ought to be avoided.

Gwar! wrote:Also Page 35 deals with "who can fight". I don't see anything regarding "To Wound" rolls there at all.

Ok, that's a typo. But I've mentioned the "Rolling to Wound" rules several times, and I correctly cited to them earlier in this thread. They're on Page 38, and I think they're relevant to the discussion. Also relevant to the discussion are the "Who Strikes First?" rules on page 36. The rule quoted by the OP state Riders "counts as being armed with power weapons that strike at Strength and Initiative 5." The mechanics of this are not explicitly explained, probably because GW writes rules loosely. Neither the word "replace" or "modify" appears in the Hunting Lance rules. The rules on page 36 and 38 never use the word "strike," and while both sections allow for modifications to Strength and Initiative, neither section allows for replacements, which I believe lends credence to the notion that the words are synonyms.

Gwar IDK what your thinking but there is an equal chance that either point is right. There really is you can't 100% tell everyone because you think it it is right that is pretty much what your saying. Then telling me because I think it only its not right. Its what you just said.