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.

So the bow has the armour piercing rule (because it is part of the model, and we know the ENTIRE model, and ALL of its components, has the rule) yet it cannot use it

Invalid concllusion based on an invalid assumption that the rule is detailing an exception for ranged weapons. It isnt

The bow has the AP rule because, and I will say this slowly: the entire model has it.

Just likea mount gains Frenzy because it is PART of the model, a BOW is PART of the model and so gains AP

It is ludicrously simple.

Kirbinator wrote:This is an invalid connection, though.

I was simply asking you to keep in mind that there are extremely few combat or shooting attaks that don't involve a weapon, I wasn't really trying to make a connection, valid or otherwise Per RAW, I actually do think that you're correct. Per RAI, I think it's clear that Nos and those allowing a quite expensive banner to give AP shooting are correct. It's also much simpler to treat AP in the same manner that GeeDub more clearly treats Poison and Flaming (IMO including the restrictions on magic and magic weapons, but that's lacking in the AP entry as well), but that isn't technically the case.

Anyway, you think they'll cover this in the next rulebook FAQ? Might be worth e-mailing something to someone, assuming they're listening to us now.

- Salvage

nosferatu1001 wrote:So the bow has the armour piercing rule (because it is part of the model, and we know the ENTIRE model, and ALL of its components, has the rule) yet it cannot use it.

This is not what I said. The model is granted Armour Piercing. Per the rule, a model with Armour Piercing gains the benefit to wounds caused during close combat. Any wounds caused during Close Comabt by the model with AP would then have the effect added to it. Any wounds caused by a model with AP outside of close combat do not have the effect added to it unless the weapon profile itself includes Armour Piercing. A model having the Armour Piercing special rule DOES NOT give the weapon profile Armour Piercing. It DOES make wounds caused during close combat to take an additional -1 armor modifier. Changing the weapon profile is not written in the rule at all, and I'm not sure from what basis you are insisting it is.

A Bret Knight in a unit with the Razor Standard is not suddenly imbued with an Armor Piercing Lance. Rather, all wounds caused by this Bret Knight during close combat inflict an additional -1 to armor, and he happens to use a lance as his weapon. If this Bret Knight for whatever reason had a longbow, this bow would not be an Armor Piercing Bow; it would still be a longbow. Wounds caused by it happen to be outside of close combat, and do not inflict an additional -1 to armor.

It's ludicrously simple. See? I can add statements that imply "I'm right, you're wrong, why can't you see that?" in a rather condescending tone. Could we avoid those for future banter?

Boss Salvage wrote:It's also much simpler to treat AP in the same manner that GeeDub more clearly treats Poison and Flaming (IMO including the restrictions on magic and magic weapons, but that's lacking in the AP entry as well), but that isn't technically the case.

It may be simpler, but that's not how it's written. If GW wanted it to affect both ranged and close combat attacks they could have easily written it as they did the other two rules, or written it as they did the Metal spell. Given how the exceptions to the rule are written (and how Flaming/Poison are written), I don't think it's against RaI to not allow ranged attacks to benefit from the Razor Standard. I agree the Razor Standard is expensive and is probably a little more worth its points if allowed to affect ranged attacks that normally would not benefit from it; that's certainly a house rule that people could take into consideration.

"If a model has the weapon with the Armour Piercing rule...."

The model has the AP rule
The bow, as you were told every part of the model gains AP, has AP

The bow thus, according to the rule above, gains the use of AP.

No mention of the word "profile" is used. Again, you are adding in words to the rules that do not exist, which negates your arguments validity.

You are now reduced to proving the bow does not have the AP rule, and I've already mentioned the problems you wil have with that.

I refer back to my Bret Knight example. He is not imbued with an Armor Piercing Lance. It is a normal lance, and due to his own Armor Piercing qualities he gets the benefit with wounds caused during close combat. He is not imbued with an Armor Piercing longbow. If (somehow) the longbow could cause wounds during the close combat phase then those wounds would get the benefit. This is not the case. I have no problem asserting this; this is correct.

No mention of the word "profile" is used. Again, you are adding in words to the rules that do not exist, which negates your arguments validity.

I have added no words, though. You are adding extra meaning to "If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule". The model does not have a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule. The model has a longbow. Look at the description of a longbow, there is no mention of Armour Piercing. Look at the description of a DE Crossbow, there is Armour Piercing.

As pointed out at the very beginning, there are two situations in this rule:
1. The model has Armor Piercing, thus wounds caused by the model during close combat deal -1 to armor.
2. The model is using a weapon that has armor piercing. Wounds caused by this weapon deal -1 to armor.

The Razor Standard grants the model Armour Piercing. Per rule, a model with armor piercing gets this bonus added to wounds dealt in close combat. It does not give him an Armour Piercing weapon. These are two separate entities. See the Lance vs. Armour Piercing Lance above.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"If a model has the weapon with the Armour Piercing rule...."

The model has the AP rule
The bow, as you were told every part of the model gains AP, has AP

The bow thus, according to the rule above, gains the use of AP.

No mention of the word "profile" is used. Again, you are adding in words to the rules that do not exist, which negates your arguments validity.

You are now reduced to proving the bow does not have the AP rule, and I've already mentioned the problems you wil have with that.

I think it's faulty logic to apply the rider/mount rules to a model/weapon situation.
If you take that approach it becomes messy pretty quick: Khorne warriors with extra hand weapons should get 5 extra attacks each; 4 for frenzy: 1 for the model, 1 for the hand weapon, 1 for the extra hand weapon, and 1 for the shield, then another for fighting with 2 weapons.. Yay for 7 attacks!

I do think that the intent was to make the 45 point banner give shooting AP, but I think RAW says no.
I believe that the basic rules for AP rules were written with dark elf crossbows in mind (to not give AP in melee just because you've got an xbow).
Outside of daemonettes, heralds of slaanesh, and the new goblin slittas, does any model start with the AP rule, applied to the model and not a weapon?

On a very related topic, does the AP granted by the lore of metal augment including shooting? It does say +1 to hit and magical, then states "All Attacks" are also AP.

Somebody kick GW in the nuts for me.

-Matt

I will say this again: the longbow is part of the model. the ENTIRE model has been granted the AP rule. This includes the longbow

So, if you were to write out the longbows profile, it would have the "AP" rule appended to it, because that is what the razor standard has done.

This is different to a model which inherently has armour piercing, hence the distinction made in the rule.

To give you another example:

Cavalry model, unit is given MoK whcih gives every mdoel "Frenzy"

So you now have:

Chaos Knight: .... , Frenzy
Warhorse: ...., Frenzy

They did not appear on their profile before, yet they are there now because of the special rule.

The Razor Standard is the exact same thing. Please, come up with an argument that actually addresses this point, as you have so far failed to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt - "Frenzy" does not stack, so no, it would not gain those extra attacks

Thought I would post all the relevant rules while I have the BRB in front of me.

p3 - Models & Units
"Each Model is an individual playing piece with its own skills and capabilities. To reflect all the differences between such warriors, each model has its own characteristics profile."

p89 - Weapon profiles
"Each 'special' weapon confers a number of abilities onto the warrior wielding it. This will sometimes be a bonus to their characteristic profile (normally strength) or perhaps grant the wielder one or more special rules, detailed n the weapons section. In order to keep a weapons abilities nice and clear, we give each a characteristic profile much as we do a warrior."

I include these two basic rules to show that a "model" and a "weapon" are indeed two separate entities so in theory the rule Razor Standard should read "gives every model and weapon the armour piercing special rule" however the Razor Standard wording can be found below

p503 - Magic Standards
"Models in a unit with the Razor Standard have the armour piercing special rule"

So as previously discussed (and my initial interpretation) the Razor Standard give the rules to the model not the weapon and as the rules above the model and weapon are two separate entities .

now onto the Armour piercing rule itself (in its entirety)
p67 - Special Rules
Armour Piercing
"wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier, in addition to those for strength.

For example, a strength 4 model with the armour piercing special rule would inflict a -2 armour save modifier when striking in close combat, rather than the usual -1.

If a Model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing"

The rule makes note to mention the model and the weapon individually and so unless the wording on the Razor Standard changes only the model not the weapon is affected (I agree with Salvage this is just silly but hey its GW)

Now as I mentioned the guys at my local GW store are with nosferatu1001 on this and say shooting is included in the armour piercing special rule, since this is where I will play most my games I am going to roll with it until I know the guys better as I don't want to walk in and say "Oi, you guys are wrong" that's just rude and I like the guys there.

I feel though that I agree with Kirbinator and all his arguments and that as RAW Razor standard does not grant a Unit armour piercing shooting.

I know this will not settle the debate so I am going to curl up in a corner and cry

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, if you were to write out the longbows profile, it would have the "AP" rule appended to it, because that is what the razor standard has done.

Where are you coming up with this? There is nothing in the description of the Razor Banner that states you do anything at all to the weapon's description. Literally, nothing. Because there is nothing in the rule that changes the weapon's description you cannot make the leap from "This model has Armour Piercing" to "All attacks made by this model have Armour Piercing". If this was the case, it would have been worded exactly as the Metal spell already is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:To give you another example:

Cavalry model, unit is given MoK whcih gives every mdoel "Frenzy"

So you now have:

Chaos Knight: .... , Frenzy
Warhorse: ...., Frenzy

They did not appear on their profile before, yet they are there now because of the special rule.

This is correct, the Mark of Khorne specifically states that you change the profile of the model to give it Frenzy. Now you have a Frenzied Knight on a Frenzied Mount. Frenzy gives them each +1A. If the Mark of Khorne stated that it only gave the rider Frenzy, and specifically not the horse, then only the rider would gain +1A. Again, though, this is an entirely different subject because it specifically alters the profile of the model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The Razor Standard is the exact same thing.

No it isn't! There is nothing that changes the weapon's description at all. Lance vs. Armour Piercing Lance. The Knight is NOT given an Armour Piercing weapon. Because the Knight has been given Armour Piercing, the effect of wounds caused during close combat has been altered. Wounds caused during any other phase have not been altered. The lance has not been altered. The longbows have not been altered. The only thing that granting a model Armour Piercing does is alter the wounds caused during the close combat phase.

Wrong, there is no mention of "profile" there, not at all.

"A model with the MoK is subject to Frenzy"

It does not alter the profile in the way you say it does, however it works in exactly the same way as Razor standard.

Every. Single. part. Of. the. Model. Has. Armour. Piercing. You have yet to find a way to avoid this.

The Bow has armour piercing because the razor standard gives it to every, single, little part of the model

Your error filled argument leads to Khorne knights not giving their horses frenzy. which is wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong, there is no mention of "profile" there, not at all.

"A model with the MoK is subject to Frenzy"

It does not alter the profile in the way you say it does, however it works in exactly the same way as Razor standard.

Every. Single. part. Of. the. Model. Has. Armour. Piercing. You have yet to find a way to avoid this.

The Bow has armour piercing because the razor standard gives it to every, single, little part of the model

Your error filled argument leads to Khorne knights not giving their horses frenzy. which is wrong.

Ok sorry to say nos but did you just ignore my entire post that the model and weapon are separate entities?

On the frenzy Ruling I haven't had much dealings with WoC so I am making an educated guess, both mount and rider are one and same model wise hence the term cavalry model.

And please keep this agument at least civil and less of the patronising tones

They are separate components of the same model

Same as horse and rider are separate components of the same model

When you are explicitly told "the model" gains something, ALL parts of the model benefit

So, all parts of a Chaos Knight model gains Frenzy. ALL parts of a bowman gain AP

nosferatu wrote:Wrong, there is no mention of "profile" there, not at all. "A model with the MoK is subject to Frenzy"

Mark of Khorne: Model becomes frenzied. Cavalry: Rider and Mount have separate profiles, but are the same model. Rider becomes Frenzied, Mount becomes Frenzied. We're in agreement.

Frenzy states that the subject is granted two special rules: Extra Attack and ItP. The rider gains Extra Attack and ItP. The mount gains Extra Attack and ItP (not that that part matters).

Extra attack states to give the model +1A. Attack is a profile number that you have increased by one. Yes, there is a clear (though admittedly indirect) mention of profile and direct instruction to alter it.

There is nothing in the Armour Piercing rule that dictates you alter anything on the model itself. Quite literally, nothing on or about the model is altered when you grant it Armour Piercing. The ONLY thing that is altered is the effect of close combat wounds caused by this model. It does not change the weapons (Lance vs. AP Lance, Longbow vs. AP Longbow). You are insisting that it does change the weapon the model is wielding. As you have said repeatedly, there is nothing in the rule about changing the profile or description of the weapon.

In any case, I've certainly presented my view of the topic and how I would "Make Da Call" so I believe I will bow out from here. Happy gaming!

I am glad this came up, I never noticed the issue.

Thanks again for the perspectives.

nosferatu1001 wrote:They are separate components of the same model

Same as horse and rider are separate components of the same model

When you are explicitly told "the model" gains something, ALL parts of the model benefit

So, all parts of a Chaos Knight model gains Frenzy. ALL parts of a bowman gain AP

Aesthetically I agree that the Bow and wielder are part of the same model but this is not true in terms of the game mechanics where the weapon and model are separate with separate profiles and special rules, unless you can quote me a page number and the rule that states "a model includes the warrior and all equipment carried by it" then I will have to disagree with your point nos.

I get the feeling that we will just have to end this agreeing to disagree and await a FAQ to clear the matter up officially, like Kribinator I am going to bow out having put my point across with everything that I can think of being argued and referenced.

Would just like to quote one more thing from the rulebook though;
p3 Spirit of the Game
"You'll realise soon that Warhammer is different to any other game you have played. It is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game. Winning at any cost is less important than making sure both players - not just the victor - have a good time."


Happy gaming folks

So the "model" doesnt actually include everything on the model?

That interpretation causes more issues than you would realise. For example if you arbitrarily remove weapons from the list of things included when you talk about "the model" then you should be consistent, and consider armour to also not be included - meaning models cannot take armour saves, as the rules always refer to the models armour.

It doesnt need a page number because English tells you the answer - if something refers to "the model" it inherently MUST apply to every part of the model, as you have not restricted it in any way. To remove items the model has, such as a Horse or a weapon et al, you would need to provide an alternative definition

Essentially my point is one of consistency - both Razor Standard and MoK deal with units of models and models directly, and both apply to all parts of the model

nosferatu1001 wrote: For example if you arbitrarily remove weapons from the list of things included when you talk about "the model" then you should be consistent, and consider armour to also not be included - meaning models cannot take armour saves, as the rules always refer to the models armour.

Ok this really is going to be final response on this and I again will quote from the rulebook.

p43 - Armour Saves
"The value of the model's armour save is determined by the equipment it carries,"

So again this separates the terminology of armour(equipment) and the model, the model does not have an inherent save (unless provided by a special rule i.e. scaley skin) and armour weapons etc are the game mechanics that provides benefits to the that model, be it a save, an extra attack or armour piercing.

I agree that consistancy is not GWs strong point (hence the constant updated FAQs) and I agree that armour piercing should work in the same way as poison and flaming attacks but as it stands RAW the benefit of the Razor Standard does not grant armour piercing to shooting attacks, This is the belief I hold after dissecting the rules and have presented my arguments with all the supporting evidence from the rulebook.

As before I think this is a agree to disagree moment and I say play with your interpretation of the rule so long as you continue to have fun.

like I say this will be my final comment on this debate so would like to thank you nos for the lively debate and would shake your hand if I could

To be honest i never expected things to get so heated and ugly so fast. As far as i can tell it appears that opinions are split on the issue and i am afraid that it may continue to be the case in regards to players my my local gamestore as well. I am really just tempted to call GW and see if i can talk to one of the game developers about the rule to hopefully solve it however until then what am i to do about the Ard Boyz tournamnet? What if one location says you can and the other says you cannot?

Womblejim - no, RAW does not say that

Time and again (read the cavalry, monstrous cavalry and monstrous mounts section) it tells you that they always count as one model, despite having two profiles

The consistency is that you have components of a model still being "the model"

That line also does not say what you think it says - the equipment is still part of the model, and not separate from it.

So a chaos lord on a Steed of Slaanesh gains the poisoned attacks of his mount? Or a skaven warlord on a Great Pox Rat?

Do the poisoned attacks of the mount state they affect the entire model?
No

Now, care to name the logical fallacy you just committed?

Hey, I could hope :(

*goes off to actually learn how to read*

Well knowing how GW has treated RAW written the BRB, I think we could procedes in a manner such as this example from page 501 What's in a name?

"The magic weapons listed below often have a name that describes them as specifically being a sword or another particular type of weapon. This doesn't mean that the model has to have a sword to use the 'Ogre Blade'. We can simply assume that his axe, hammer or other suitable hand weapon has the properties and is for example, an 'Ogre Axe'"

Now, by this logic, I think it would be safe (and albeit, assumed by GW) that we could say that, in this case, the 'Razor Standard' could simply be a way of stating that this unit of archers has been trained to not fire as a group, but instead go for quick kill or incapacitating shots between armour plates or some similar thing like that, in fact I find it hard to believe that an army would not train at least one group of archers in such a manner.

However, I do think it slightly disappointing that GW have been a bit ambiguous as to how the term 'equipment' relates to the term 'model'.

gmaleron wrote:what am i to do about the Ard Boyz tournamnet? What if one location says you can and the other says you cannot?

I would contact the TOs and have two separate army lists just in case, better safe then sorry

Wh8ich is generally the best option for tournaments anyway - I've seen too many dodgy rulings whcih are seemingly based on personal preference and not the actual rules.

This is indeed a tough call. The real issue now seems to be:

"Does equipment count as part of the model"?

There isn't anything to state that yes, it does, outright. To my knowledge. But...it feels so obvious, even from a RaW standpoint, that you could just assume. I mean, Nosferatu assumed as much. That says something.

So here's my question, Nos: can you post something definitive that shows equipment counts as part of a model? I mean equipment. Not mounts or anything else. I'm just talkin' RaW- no assumptions from one rule to another or from one term to another, no matter how basic or fundamental.

And please note: I'm just curious. So be cordial.

I've not had a chance to over the weekend (when all books were around!) as I had a house full

From a "RAW" perspective the equipment is part of the model ,as that is just how the "ENglish" understanding for this would go - like we dont need to have a WHFB definition for "the", when you are told "the model" is naturally encompasses the whole of the model (unless told otherwise) - and this IS backed up by the mounts sections, when you are repeatedly told that even something with an entire many-entry stat line is STILL just part of the model.

So while there is nothing directly stating it, there doesnt need to be anything - there would need to be something stating the extraordinary claim that the equipment is NOT part of the model for you to be able to comfortably claim otherwise

WHich is where the anti-side falls down: there is nothing stating the bow is NOT part of the mdoel, and all persuasive evidence indicates that is IS, and therefore it *would* gain AP.

I know I said I'd bow out of this, but I just couldn't resist.

Nos's suggestion is that because a model is granted Armour Piercing, it now has Armour Piercing weapons. The problem is there's nothing at all in the rule stating you alter anything on the model, including the effect and description of the weapon. Nothing on the model is changed! This is why the Mark of Khorne example doesn't work; that Mark specifically directs you to alter the model's profile by adding frenzy (and thus Extra Attack).

By this interpretation and assumed connection to Mark of Khorne, it is being suggested that the Knight now has a Frenzied Sword and is wearing Frenzied Chaos Armor and the mount is wearing Frenzied Barding. Surely this is not the case, but this is exactly what is being suggested. While we all know Frenzy does not stack, other effects do. Do these effects stack for each and every piece of equipment he is wearing? No. Why? Because that would change the equipment description, which is not what those rules tell you to do.

Warpsolution wrote:The real issue now seems to be: "Does equipment count as part of the model"?

This is not the real issue. Equipment is part of a model, but that does not mean that you alter the equipment a model is wearing. The true question is "Does the rule state to alter the equipment?" In the case of Armour Piercing, the answer is no. In fact, there are very few rules in all of Warhammer that states to alter a piece of equipment's description. The vast majority (including AP) change an interaction with the model.

Let's take a look at Plague of Rust (Metal #1): "The target's armour save is lowered by one". Let's target a Chaos Knight with shield. Does this spell mean the target's armor now only offers a 5+ armor save and its shield offers no benefit at all because these pieces of equipment have been enchanted? By the thought that if a model has been enchanted, its equipment has thus been enchanted, yes! Wow that's a nasty spell! But this is not the case. No, the equipment's description is still the same so it still offers a 3+ armor. The model's armor save (3+) is then reduced by one. The model is being enchanted, not the equipment.

Let's also take a look at The Mark of Tzeentch. This Mark (unlike Khorne's) does not alter a model's profile or grant a special rule. Let's give a model with the MoT the Armor of Fortune (5+ ward). When taking a ward save, what happens? Well, the Armor gives a 5+ Ward. The Mark of Tzeentch does NOT change the armor's description to give a 4+ ward save. The armor still gives a 5+, the item's description has not been changed. The model just gets an additional +1 during the interaction of taking ward saves to get your total of a 4+ save.

Adding Armour Piercing to the model does not give you an Armour Piercing Weapon. Where does it say to do this? There is nothing at all in the rule about giving you an Amour Piercing Weapon. As given above, the Bret Knight is not given an Armour Piercing Lance, he still has a regular Lance. Nos's suggestion is just the opposite, the Knight is indeed given an Armour Piercing Lance.

Yes, I do understand how the connection has been made. The AP effect is being attributed to the weapon rather than the wielder, but it is the wielder that is imbued with an extra close combat prowess. It is not the weapon description that is being changed.

The Mark of Khorne is not a correlating situation because it specifically changes the model's profile. Correlating situations are things that change the effect of an interaction, but not the item or model itself. Plague of Rust, Mark of Tzeentch, etc.

My suggestion works the way anything applied to this game works

Model (Armour piercing) == ALL( Model components (Armour Piercing)) == {Man(AP), HW(AP), Bow(AP), ....}

Given AP does not stack (only extra attacks) this is a valid result and expansion. This is why Warps question is valid, and is one you have sidestepped with a false assumption - that the weapons profile is not modified. I have shown that it *is* modified, have backed it up with a logical expansion of the term "the model gains AP" and shown that yes, when GW state "the model" they really do mean EVERYTHING on that model

Your assumption is that the model does not gain an AP lance, when they do - they *also* gain AP normal attacks, which is a redundancy (you only need one or the other to make AP CC attacks, after all) but that does not make it nonexistant

Your plague of rust example is false, as it specifies "the armour save" - you only have one armour save which is a combination of all applicable saves. If you reduce that by more than 1 in total (by reducing each individual piece by 1) you have broken the rule for the spell.

This is entirely, 100% different to armour piercing, where you are told the model, and by extension all parts of it, have armour piercing. You are *repeatedly* told that all parts of the model are still "the model", whcih is why the question posted by Warp IS valid, as my expansion above shows

I can not believe this has gone on for 2 pages, especially when it was so clearly answered early on page 1.

The AP rules are clear. If a model has the AP rule all his CC attacks have it, not his ranged attacks. The only way for his ranged attacks to have AP is for his weapon to have the AP rule.

So the banner gives the unit AP which means for CC only.

However I must say the standard is poorly written. If the intent was to disallow ranged weapons from having AP, then the wording for the standard could have been so much better to avoid these issues.

Or perhaps GW feels that it is so obvious that it can not be debated? GW does seem enjoy that stance way too often.