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 am surprised that no one has pointed out that you use you normal initiative not your modified initiative for Ability Checks

Anpu42 wrote:I am surprised that no one has pointed out that you use you normal initiative not your modified initiative for Ability Checks

And there you go. End of discussion. Thank you all for coming, you're still asshats

I think the guys at BOLS smoke crack seriously most of the time it seems their talking out of their ass.

Anpu42 wrote:I am surprised that no one has pointed out that you use you normal initiative not your modified initiative for Ability Checks

Because then there wouldn't be anything to argue and where would dakka be without a good ol debate?

Because it doesnt say that? See page 8

The only stipulation is that a 6 fails despite any modifiers, and conversely a 1 always passes despite any modifiers.

By its nature this is allowing for modifiers, including to your stat line, to be used. However Sweeping Advance *always* ignores modifiers, which is probably where this misconception comes from.

If something is reduced to I1 an initiative check that *isn't* sweeping advance will use the value of 1, Sweeping Advance uses the profile value

Demogerg wrote:yea, just to let you know, it was NOT debunked, the people involved in the debate reached an Impasse, and those on one side of the arguement (these people above) all seemed to agree with each other that they agree with each other, and not with those who they could not convince that RAW even thought it "Is a thunderhammer" it does not follow rules for being a thunderhammer

While what I'm about to say is far from RAW proof that you are wrong, it does give an impression of how we're meant to use the Special Close Combat Weapon rules. Consider the rules for Lightning Claws:

"A lightning claw is a power weapon and it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound." -BGB, p42.

Does that mean that you can re-roll failed rolls to wound with shooting just by having a Lightning Claw?

I think it's pretty clear that the rules for Special Close Combat Weapons are only applied to close combat.

Cheexsta wrote:

Demogerg wrote:yea, just to let you know, it was NOT debunked, the people involved in the debate reached an Impasse, and those on one side of the arguement (these people above) all seemed to agree with each other that they agree with each other, and not with those who they could not convince that RAW even thought it "Is a thunderhammer" it does not follow rules for being a thunderhammer

While what I'm about to say is far from RAW proof that you are wrong, it does give an impression of how we're meant to use the Special Close Combat Weapon rules. Consider the rules for Lightning Claws:

"A lightning claw is a power weapon and it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound." -BGB, p42.

Does that mean that you can re-roll failed rolls to wound with shooting just by having a Lightning Claw?

I think it's pretty clear that the rules for Special Close Combat Weapons are only applied to close combat.

Well are you throwing your lightning claw? Arjac is throwing his hammer.. next point please..

You didn't debunk my point at all. Throwing the Lightning Claw or not has no bearing at all - the fact is, you have a lightning claw. Merely having a lighting claw allows you to re-roll any failed To Wound roll.

Next point, please...

Cheexsta wrote:You didn't debunk my point at all. Throwing the Lightning Claw or not has no bearing at all - the fact is, you have a lightning claw. Merely having a lighting claw allows you to re-roll any failed To Wound roll.

Next point, please...

The point is the hammer is thrown and it IS a TH so that is where arjac's is debated. Trying to be smart and bring in your lightning claw has no bearing over bolter shooting. So unless you are "shooting" you LC you are completely off base.

My point is that the rulebook never states that you can use a Special Close Combat Weapon's abilities when shooting. At no point in the shooting rules does it say that you can apply the rules for special close combat attacks, whereas this rule does exist for the assault phase.

Show me a rule that says you can apply a close combat weapon's rules to the shooting phase and you will have disproven my point.

Cheexsta wrote:My point is that the rulebook never states that you can use a Special Close Combat Weapon's abilities when shooting. At no point in the shooting rules does it say that you can apply the rules for special close combat attacks, whereas this rule does exist for the assault phase.

Show me a rule that says you can apply a close combat weapon's rules to the shooting phase and you will have disproven my point.

Find me a a character that throws a TH and can't apply it. This is the same arguement with implied vs speculative. The same debate going on with GoI, JotWW etc.

Though personally I am against using the th effect when thrown for the same reason you are describing. But I can see where the other side is coming from so unless there is more evidence both sides can be relevant.

I'm inclined to agree - I can see where the argument comes from (and was even trying to show that argument elsewhere on a forum before I managed to prove myself wrong...heh), but I think it's debunked simply by the fact that there are no rules allowing the effects of special close combat weapons to apply to the shooting phase. After all, the only reason why they work in close combat is because the close combat rules say so (BGB, p35, first paragraph under the bullet points), while there is no such rule for shooting.

Cheexsta wrote:I'm inclined to agree - I can see where the argument comes from (and was even trying to show that argument elsewhere on a forum before I managed to prove myself wrong...heh), but I think it's debunked simply by the fact that there are no rules allowing the effects of special close combat weapons to apply to the shooting phase. After all, the only reason why they work in close combat is because the close combat rules say so (BGB, p35, first paragraph under the bullet points), while there is no such rule for shooting.

Well a problem with refering to the bgb is gw has stated that a codex ruling out weighs the bgb. In the codexes they describe speacial rules for characters but not great ways to explain the unique rules.

@Scott: Show me where you can Shoot at I1. You cannot pick and choose rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarmasterScott wrote:Well a problem with refering to the bgb is gw has stated that a codex ruling out weighs the bgb. In the codexes they describe speacial rules for characters but not great ways to explain the unique rules.

Wrong Wrong Wrong! Read the Sweeping Advance Rules for an example.

By this logic, Saint Celestine's sword can shoot a Str4 AP5 flame template that is also a power weapon! SWEET! No armor saves for you, heretic!

Or, attributes of melee weapons do not apply to their shooting profiles unless included in the shooting profile. Yea... that's probably it.

Gwar! wrote:@Scott: Show me where you can Shoot at I1. You cannot pick and choose rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarmasterScott wrote:Well a problem with refering to the bgb is gw has stated that a codex ruling out weighs the bgb. In the codexes they describe speacial rules for characters but not great ways to explain the unique rules.

Wrong Wrong Wrong! Read the Sweeping Advance Rules for an example.

I am truly convinced you read only some of what I ever say. I said earlier that I don't agree to use the th effect in a thrown weapon. So Read Read Read! Quite jumping in and using one statement from an entire debate.

i dont have my book handy but last time i read it for TH it says "will not strike blows until" it does not say, the model has an "I1".

so the model would still have its normal I value, and a special rule that it cant strike blows until later.

Although I agree that Arjac's TH shouldn't be treated as a thunder hammer with ranged effects for the reasons stated so clearly here (although there are examples of ranged attacks that don't have their special abilities listed in the Ranged Attributes) I think this will be FAQ'd to reflect that the it does indeed have TH abilities on the throw. I'm usually wrong, though. :>


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lixulana wrote:i dont have my book handy but last time i read it for TH it says "will not strike blows until" it does not say, the model has an "I1".

so the model would still have its normal I value, and a special rule that it cant strike blows until later.

I believe that's how it's stated in the Daemonhunter's codex. In the BRB it says TH's "reduces their initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn". The Characteristic Test section says you must score "equal to or lower than the value of the characteristic involved". Sounds pretty cut and dry to me that if a fig get wounded by a Thunderhammer, survive and get hit by JOTWW you're in a world of hurt.

A ranged thunder hammer with a specic stat line that does not specificly say it reduces to I 1 is like a melta bomb just because it says melta does not mean it is Ap 1; like a melta gun...

I agree with Gwar!, whose new avatar both threw me off and disturbed me.