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.

schadenfreude wrote:WS is not used in grenade attacks, thus the walker doesn't have a useable ws against melta bombs.

Where does the WTN, or even the grenade rules, mention 'a useable WS against grenades/melta bombs'?
And WS is used in some grenade attacks. Also, WTN says 'all close combat attacks'.

So...
1) Are you in close combat?
a) Yes: Continue to 2.
b) No: WTN doesn't work.

2) Are you fighting something with a WS?
a) Yes: Continue to 3.
b) No: WTN doesn't work.

4) Congrats! You hit on a 3+ against that target.

If the grenade rolls didn't say 'hit', then you would be right, but for example:

"..will only score a hit with a grenade against a walker on a roll of 6" is overruled by the fact that you always hit on a 3+ now.

WTN:
"One who has triumphed in one of the contests of might held at the Fang may be awarded a WTN in recognition of his martial excellence and athletic prowess. In close combat, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits on a roll of 3+ regardless of comparative Weapon Skills."
Page 62 – Wolftooth Necklace
Replace the last sentence with “Against models with a WS
value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in
close combat on the roll of a 3+.

So it will now read:

"One who has triumphed in one of the contests of might held at the Fang may be awarded a WTN in recognition of his martial excellence and athletic prowess. “Against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+."

I just wanted to repost the actual text before this goes in any directions that are not productive... Both side of the argument thus far have been good, and I haven't really seen conformations as to which has more grounds to be correct.

Mainly if I were to go to 'Ard Boyz, could I rely on WTN giving me the opportunity to eat walkers?

Burntbeard wrote:
Mainly if I were to go to 'Ard Boyz, could I rely on WTN giving me the opportunity to eat walkers?

Ask the TO of the venue you are going to. Best way to know.

pretre wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:WS is not used in grenade attacks, thus the walker doesn't have a useable ws against melta bombs.

Where does the WTN, or even the grenade rules, mention 'a useable WS against grenades/melta bombs'?
And WS is used in some grenade attacks. Also, WTN says 'all close combat attacks'.

So...
1) Are you in close combat?
a) Yes: Continue to 2.
b) No: WTN doesn't work.

2) Are you fighting something with a WS?
a) Yes: Continue to 3.
b) No: WTN doesn't work.

4) Congrats! You hit on a 3+ against that target.

If the grenade rolls didn't say 'hit', then you would be right, but for example:

"..will only score a hit with a grenade against a walker on a roll of 6" is overruled by the fact that you always hit on a 3+ now.

Ws=n/a

The arguement is the walker no longer has an applicable ws, and once ws is not applicable the wolf tooth will no longer work.

schadenfreude wrote:
Ws=n/a

The arguement is the walker no longer has an applicable ws, and once ws is not applicable the wolf tooth will no longer work.

Again, show me where in the rules for either the WTN or the grenade rules, there is anything about 'applicable WS'.

There isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They even made it more clear in the SW Faq by removing comparative WS and such from the whole thing and just saying 'Against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+. '

Pretty clear.

Burntbeard wrote:WTN:
"One who has triumphed in one of the contests of might held at the Fang may be awarded a WTN in recognition of his martial excellence and athletic prowess. In close combat, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits on a roll of 3+ regardless of comparative Weapon Skills."
Page 62 – Wolftooth Necklace
Replace the last sentence with “Against models with a WS
value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in
close combat on the roll of a 3+.

So it will now read:

"One who has triumphed in one of the contests of might held at the Fang may be awarded a WTN in recognition of his martial excellence and athletic prowess. “Against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+."

I just wanted to repost the actual text before this goes in any directions that are not productive... Both side of the argument thus far have been good, and I haven't really seen conformations as to which has more grounds to be correct.

Mainly if I were to go to 'Ard Boyz, could I rely on WTN giving me the opportunity to eat walkers?

You can never depend on a to doing a faq in your favor, and you can't change your list if the faq goes against you. Better have a plan b, and faq it through the to before charging the walker.

I don't see an inat on the issue...

schadenfreude wrote:

Burntbeard wrote:WTN:
"One who has triumphed in one of the contests of might held at the Fang may be awarded a WTN in recognition of his martial excellence and athletic prowess. In close combat, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits on a roll of 3+ regardless of comparative Weapon Skills."
Page 62 – Wolftooth Necklace
Replace the last sentence with “Against models with a WS
value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in
close combat on the roll of a 3+.

So it will now read:

"One who has triumphed in one of the contests of might held at the Fang may be awarded a WTN in recognition of his martial excellence and athletic prowess. “Against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+."

I just wanted to repost the actual text before this goes in any directions that are not productive... Both side of the argument thus far have been good, and I haven't really seen conformations as to which has more grounds to be correct.

Mainly if I were to go to 'Ard Boyz, could I rely on WTN giving me the opportunity to eat walkers?

You can never depend on a to doing a faq in your favor, and you can't change your list if the faq goes against you. Better have a plan b, and faq it through the to before charging the walker.

I don't see an inat on the issue...

That was not a FAQ, that was ERRATA, meaning a full rewrite of the rules, not a clarification of the rule.

schadenfreude wrote:The arguement is the walker no longer has an applicable ws

That arguement has not applicable as the rules do not ask if the WS is applicable--only that it exists.

Jidmah wrote:Simple. The WTN tells you to always hit on a 3+. As this is in direct contradiction to Grenades always hitting on a 6+, the codex winns out, as it always does when contradicting the BRB.

That's not correct. The actual hierarchy is that the more specific rule trumps the more general rule. In MOST cases this means a codex rule will win, as those usually are more specific, but not always.

Jidmah wrote:Also a wargear rule is always more specific than a common rule, as the common rule applies to all models, while a wargear rule only to those actually wearing the item.-

Right. In this case, let's look at the types of assault attacks and figure out which is a larger (more general) case and which is a smaller (more specific) case. I maintain that it is as such, going from most general to most specific.

1. All attacks in close combat.
2. All attacks made against walkers in close combat.
3. All attacks made against walkers in close combat by a model equipped with a wolf tooth necklace.
4. All attacks made against walkers in close combat by a model equipped with a wolf tooth necklace who chooses to use a grenade in that specific round of combat.

For his attacks IN GENERAL, a model equipped with a WTN gets to hit on a 3+. And when he uses any non-grenade weapon, this works against walkers too. But in the most specific instance, the smallest number of situations, in which he is using a grenade against a walker, the grenade rules are most specific and take precedence.

The WTN is not worded at all to ONLY apply to general attacks (your invention, not mine). It says all hits in close combat, notice no exclusions.

It doesn't matter if the hits are done while hopping in a circle, rubbing his belly, and while patting his head singing yankee doodle dandy. If it is a hit in close combat, then a model with a WTN hits on a 3+.

Seriously the general versus specific and codex versus BRB argument has really run the course of something useful to becoming innane.

Burntbeard wrote:WTN:

Mainly if I were to go to 'Ard Boyz, could I rely on WTN giving me the opportunity to eat walkers?

That's going to probably depend on the TO running that 'Ardboyz event.

How I'd rule at the rounds that I run: No, it doesn't let you hit with grenades on a 3+.

Mannahnin wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Simple. The WTN tells you to always hit on a 3+. As this is in direct contradiction to Grenades always hitting on a 6+, the codex winns out, as it always does when contradicting the BRB.

That's not correct. The actual hierarchy is that the more specific rule trumps the more general rule. In MOST cases this means a codex rule will win, as those usually are more specific, but not always.

Jidmah wrote:Also a wargear rule is always more specific than a common rule, as the common rule applies to all models, while a wargear rule only to those actually wearing the item.-

Right. In this case, let's look at the types of assault attacks and figure out which is a larger (more general) case and which is a smaller (more specific) case. I maintain that it is as such, going from most general to most specific.

1. All attacks in close combat.
2. All attacks made against walkers in close combat.
3. All attacks made against walkers in close combat by a model equipped with a wolf tooth necklace.
4. All attacks made against walkers in close combat by a model equipped with a wolf tooth necklace who chooses to use a grenade in that specific round of combat.

For his attacks IN GENERAL, a model equipped with a WTN gets to hit on a 3+. And when he uses any non-grenade weapon, this works against walkers too. But in the most specific instance, the smallest number of situations, in which he is using a grenade against a walker, the grenade rules are most specific and take precedence.

Mann, out of every scenario above that you listed, you fail to realize that they all fall under the umbrella of Close Combat which is all the WTN calls for to work.

That's not right. The rules for grenades and the rules for the WTN are in conflict. So you have to figure out which takes precedence.

Brother Ramses wrote:The WTN is not worded at all to ONLY apply to general attacks (your invention, not mine). It says all hits in close combat, notice no exclusions.

Can you think of something more general than "all"?

Brother Ramses wrote:It doesn't matter if the hits are done while hopping in a circle, rubbing his belly, and while patting his head singing yankee doodle dandy. If it is a hit in close combat, then a model with a WTN hits on a 3+.

Yes, it matters. Which of these two things is a sub-set of the other?

All attacks made by a model equipped with a WTN.
Attacks made using a grenade by a model equipped with a WTN.

Brother Ramses wrote:Seriously the general versus specific and codex versus BRB argument has really run the course of something useful to becoming innane.

It's the foundation of an exception-based ruleset. You have to know and use the hierarchy.

If you're not interested in discussing the rules, I suggest that YMDC might not be a good place to post. If you feel compelled to use the word "inane" in a rules discussion, perhaps you are taking things too seriously, and might want to employ the aid of a cold beer (or whatever similarly-functional adjunct to relaxation you prefer), to help you stick to Rule #1.

I actually overstepped my bounds because all a WTN cares about is Close Combat against an enemy that has a WS.

And all a grenade being used against a walker cares about is that it only hits on a 6.

Yes Specific > General, thats why grenades will hit a walker on a 6, but regular attacks will compare WS and use the chart.

Mannahnin wrote:That's not right. The rules for grenades and the rules for the WTN are in conflict. So you have to figure out which takes precedence.

Brother Ramses wrote:The WTN is not worded at all to ONLY apply to general attacks (your invention, not mine). It says all hits in close combat, notice no exclusions.

Can you think of something more general than "all"?

Brother Ramses wrote:It doesn't matter if the hits are done while hopping in a circle, rubbing his belly, and while patting his head singing yankee doodle dandy. If it is a hit in close combat, then a model with a WTN hits on a 3+.

Yes, it matters. Which of these two things is a sub-set of the other?

All attacks made by a model equipped with a WTN.
Attacks made using a grenade by a model equipped with a WTN.

Brother Ramses wrote:Seriously the general versus specific and codex versus BRB argument has really run the course of something useful to becoming innane.

It's the foundation of an exception-based ruleset. You have to know and use the hierarchy.

If you're not interested in discussing the rules, I suggest that YMDC might not be a good place to post. If you feel compelled to use the word "inane" in a rules discussion, perhaps you are taking things too seriously, and might want to employ the aid of a cold beer (or whatever similarly-functional adjunct to relaxation you prefer), to help you stick to Rule #1.

You are creating subclasses of close combat to fit your argument when the RAW as written fulfills the requirement just fine.

Please show me that an attack made with a grenade against a walker is not close combat.

Please show me where yiu are directed to create a hierarchy of close combat attacks.

The problem you face is that for the first one you can't. It is a close combat attack. For the second one the problem you face is that even with your personally created hierarchy, the WTN still applies to the entire realm of close combat when the enemy has a WS.

I understand your point that walkers dictate how grenades are placed on him in close combat but the WTN necklace dictates how ALL hits are dictated in close combat. If grenades were not considered hits in close combat, and instead were widgets in close combat, you would be fine. However grenades are considered hits in close combats and the WTN dictates how the hits of the wielder land in close combat against a enemy with a WS.

It seems that the main argument is whether or not grenade attacks are "hits" in close combat.

If it isn't, then it'll hit on 6+.

If it is, then any argument against WTN not affecting grenades is null. Why? Because as long as you have a WS value, the wolf hits on 3+.

Personally I think wolves are cheesy enough as is so I'll say 6+ which I think is what a lot of people are doing in this thread.

EDIT: got semi ninja'd but still up for in the air because no where does it say that grenade attacks ARE close combat hits. All it says is that you make make an attack against vehicles with blah blah blah armor penetration and that it always hits walkers on a 6+.

Brother Ramses wrote:You are creating subclasses of close combat to fit your argument when the RAW as written fulfills the requirement just fine.

We are not "creating subclasses of close combat" we are showing you what is the more specific rule, since Specific trumps general.

Then by all means answer the question,

Is placing a grenade on a walker considered close combat?

That is my point. In this instance the specific versus general argument is not only not needed but just misdirection when you answer the above question.

Brother Ramses wrote:Then by all means answer the question,

Is placing a grenade on a walker considered close combat?

That is my point. In this instance the specific versus general argument is not only not needed but just misdirection when you answer the above question.

You totally just want kraks and meltabombs to hit on 3+

Brother Ramses wrote:Then by all means answer the question,

Is placing a grenade on a walker considered close combat?

I already did. If you were participating in the discussion in good faith, you wouldn't ask this question. It's a purely rhetorical question.

Brother Ramses wrote:That is my point. In this instance the specific versus general argument is not only not needed but just misdirection when you answer the above question.

One rule says you hit on a 3+.
One rule says you only hit on a 6.

Conflict.

In warhammer 40k, if two rules conflict, the more specific takes precedence.

This is no different from the rules for saves telling you that you get an armor save before you die, and the power weapon rules saying they deny armor saves. Those two rules conflict, but power weapons are more specific, so they take precedence. "Wounds inflicted by power weapons" is a smaller, more specific sub-set of the larger category "wounds inflicted". Just as "attacks made with a grenade by a model equipped with a wolf tooth necklace" is a smaller, more specific sub-set of the larger category "attacks made by a model equipped with a wolf tooth necklace."

The idea that proving a grenade attack is a CC attack makes the WTN work is a straw man argument (one that is unrelated to the actual topic but easy to prove true). Mannahnim is exactly right in this, specific rules override general rules when there is a conflict.

The burden is on you to show a hierarchy in which your argument is more specific.

terranarc wrote:
You totally just want kraks and meltabombs to hit on 3+

Can Wolf Scouts have a WTN?
Can Grey Hunters have a WTN?
Long Fangs?
Blood Claws?
even Wolf Guard?

no.. no.. no.. no.. and no...!

So why is everyone getting so upset about a couple of Space Wolf HQ's being able to stick a melta-bomb to some large walking machine (as if that would be hard for a champion of russ to do in the first place?)

I think people should be more worried about Dreadknights (that TO's will probably allow to go into a Stormraven) and lets not forget the Red Stormraven buzzing around with a constant 5+ cover save...

We're all so terrified of the Space Wolves that we're going to cower behind how "Bob" perceives what rule is more important, and just because "Billy" agrees with "Bob" we're going to lynch the WTN ability. I'm not mad at anyone, I just wish (and I'm sure you all do) that some of the rules could be more concrete, thats all...

- Burnt

No one is upset, Burntbeard, though I must confess I'm a little annoyed that you're imputing dishonest, selfish ulterior motives on me. I really wish you wouldn't do that. It's rude, and insulting.

--------

On a side note, no TO in his right mind will allow a DK to get on a SR.

Mannahnin wrote:No one is upset, Burntbeard, though I must confess I'm a little annoyed that you're imputing dishonest, selfish ulterior motives on me. I really wish you wouldn't do that. It's rude, and insulting.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, I'm just saying that there are always leaders and followers... For example, a lot of people that prefer to play RAW really like to hear Gwar's opinion because he breaks things down Barney style and has been doing it long enough for those who don't quite understand that its sounds like good wisdom...
It seems like this particular conversation is 1 vs. 1 and everyone else is just repeating what those two are saying. Hence, counter productive, and I apologize for wording my previous post poorly... more or less me ranting about a 50-50 debate and not finding an answer than anything...

I digress, I can just ask TO's in the area about the question and tell them that I have asked on dakkadakka and the community is more or less split decision. I don't want anyone else to get carried away like myself so if you wanna close the topic, I got the best answers I could.

Thank you
Mannahnin
Calypso2ts
Brother Ramses
Death Reaper
and everyone else for your input, we may have not come to a majority decision that stands out amongst the latter but it was appreciated none-the-less!

- Burnt

Burntbeard wrote:
Mainly if I were to go to 'Ard Boyz, could I rely on WTN giving me the opportunity to eat walkers?

The TO of the 'Ard boyz you go to can end up making the same call using the same logic that anybody in this thread has used. It's a bad idea to focus any battleplans on a FAQ that might not go your way.

Ways to deal with it.

Confirm with TO before the tournament starts*note that may not work at larger tournaments with multiple people in charge as a previous decision might get overturned*

Have a backup plan

Or just give the character in question a power fist instead. Against AV12 a single meltabomb hitting on a 3+ isn't that much of an improvement over 3 or 4 power fist attacks hitting on a 3+. When dealing with the AV12 that most walkers are Math hammer actually favors 3 hits at S8 than 1 hit at S8 with 2D6 pen.

schadenfreude wrote:
Have a backup plan

Or just give the character in question a power fist instead. Against AV12 a single meltabomb hitting on a 3+ isn't that much of an improvement over 3 or 4 power fist attacks hitting on a 3+. When dealing with the AV12 that most walkers are Math hammer actually favors 3 hits at S8 than 1 hit at S8 with 2D6 pen.

I was only weighing the option, of how valuable a WTN can be... and was considering the value it could have against nearly anything in assault... and not just your regular jo's I agree that a PF is better against a walker, but...... 3+ with PW and 3+ w/ melta > PF w/ ws 5... if there was a landslide of opinions to one side

Mannahnin wrote:1. All attacks in close combat.
2. All attacks made against walkers in close combat.
3. All attacks made against walkers in close combat by a model equipped with a wolf tooth necklace.
4. All attacks made against walkers in close combat by a model equipped with a wolf tooth necklace who chooses to use a grenade in that specific round of combat.

Meh. Too much posting.

I'd still like to pick up this post, as it demonstrates the conflict perfectly. Do you realize that you could switch 3. and 4. around for the exact opposite argument?

1. All attacks in close combat.
2. All attacks made against walkers in close combat
3. All attacks made against walkers in close combat by a model who chooses to use a grenade in that specific round of combat.
4. All attacks made against walkers in close combat by a model who chooses to use a grenade in that specific round of combat, equipped with a wolf tooth necklace.

So far, I'd say each of the rule is as specific as the other, but: WTN is a piece of wargear found only in the current space wolf codex, only for certain units, and is even optional on many of those, while genades are found in every single army of WH40k. That's why WTN is more specific than the genade rule.

Burntbeard wrote:

So why is everyone getting so upset about a couple of Space Wolf HQ's being able to stick a melta-bomb to some large walking machine (as if that would be hard for a champion of russ to do in the first place?)

I think people should be more worried about Dreadknights (that TO's will probably allow to go into a Stormraven) and lets not forget the Red Stormraven buzzing around with a constant 5+ cover save...

We're all so terrified of the Space Wolves that we're going to cower behind how "Bob" perceives what rule is more important, and just because "Billy" agrees with "Bob" we're going to lynch the WTN ability. I'm not mad at anyone, I just wish (and I'm sure you all do) that some of the rules could be more concrete, thats all...

- Burnt

If you're resorting to this sort of arguement, then the discussion is pretty much over. Dreadknights, red stormravens, Bob, or Billy, have absolutely nothing to do with the interpretation of a rule. You're basically saying "Throw me a bone because all you other guys have broken codices". That's really not rules discussion by any stretch of the imagination.