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.

Nids don't have CC weapons. They are hitting using themselves just like MC's.

Necron scarabs are unarmed, and can still attack anyway and wound you.

Necron destroyers/heavy destroyers have no cc weapon (they are beating you with the gun barrel, which is part of their body).

Many daemons have no CC weapon and can still eat you/beat you down.


Face it. A CC attack is using the models Str. There is no hard and fast distinction between weapon and model wielding it that applies equally across all armies.

The model and the weapon he carries are funtionally one in close combat. If the model is carrying a weapon that augments his strength (+2 Str powerweapon, for example) the weapon's base strength will be whatever the model's strength is.

Except for Dreadknights, which can wield several different weapons

Also Wraithlords and Hive Tyrants (one of the few nids that actally do use CC weapons.. sortof)

Ascalam - rifle butts are a CCW, 2 handed.

Your conclusion that weapon and wielder are functionally the same does not have any support. The base strength of a powerfist is 2S, altering S does not alter the calculation of the weapons strength.

Yes, they are.

Care to show me where the scarab swarms mount their rifle? I'm not seeing one. Not all models get 'rifle butts' because not all models have rifles, or anything analogous.

It does. A powerfist doubles the users base strength and then adds modifyers because that is how the game works. The powerfist has no inherent strength of it's own, but confers double the base strength of the person wearing it on that person.

It is the user's stat that is used to make the attack. A powerfist doubles the user's strength, and makes him attack last, but it is the user doing the attacking. The powerfist is the weapon he is beating on you with, but ruleswise what it is doing is amping his strength, not having an inherent strength of it's own.

'A powerfist is a power weapon, and also doubles the USER's strength.. ' emphasis mine.

A similar example would be the Tankhammer. It isn't a S10 weapon. It is a weapon that confers S10 on the user.

No, the weapon is being used in the attack. See page 42, you pick which weapon to USE.

I have already covered that a powerfist is 2S, and no matter what S is the Strength definition of a powerfist can never be modified, as it is a variable strength.

Which is why they work against monoliths.

I have no issue with it working in liths.

You have already stated that the powerfist's inherent S is 2S. I have shown you chapter and verse where you are incorrect. It CONFERS double strength on the wielder. You USE it do give yourself double str, at the expense of your I.

If you choose to use a powerweapon it confers to you the ability to ignore armour with your CC attacks, even those granted by having a non-power weapon in the other hand etc.

As you can't seem to grasp this extrordinarily simple premise i'll agree to disagree.

Functionally, however, your attacks will resolve in the same way - the user attacks at double his str plus mods,ignoring armour, at I 1.

Most of the argument in this thread is irrelevant, including any definition/delineation of 'modifiers' and 'unaugmented strength', and whether wielder or weapon are different. The newest version of the codex is very clear about what Living Metal affects.

"Attacks which count the target's Armour Value as less than it really is (such as bright lances and blasters) do not do so against the Monolith. Similarly, weapons that get additional Armour Penetration dice (such as chainfists, monstrous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the Monolith. Ordnance weapons still roll 2d6 for Armour Penetration and select the highest score."

The only mention in the FAQ is that Power Fists, etc. work normally against Monoliths. That's it.

Summary:

- Ignores Lance special rule
- Maximum 1d6 penetration (except for Ordnance 2d6/take highest rule)

Nothing about Tank Hunters. Nothing about 'unaugmented strength'. Nothing about ignoring special rules on weapons.

Autocannons with Psybolt Ammo are S8 against Monoliths, as they are S8 against everything else.

Then you dont have the most recent version of the codex.

The final sentence of the LM rule states:

"In practice, any weapon attacking the monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unautmented strength and s single D6 no matter what"

so fabious bile's enhanced warriors?

assuming of course that they have a powerfist on the champ

If its a powerfist, all is good. You would strike at S9, as their +1S is a modifier.

Same as furious charge.

So did we answer the psybolt question? Is it an augmentation? It sounds like it is, but I don't have the grey knight codex

It is a modifier, because it fulfills the criteria for being one according to the BRB

As such LM drops it to S7

nosferatu1001 wrote:If its a powerfist, all is good. You would strike at S9, as their +1S is a modifier.

Same as furious charge.

Wait. Did you mean to say S8 or did you mean to contradict yourself?

No, I didnt contradict myself

It is a modifier to the strength of the user, wqhich is not the strength you use the powerfist at. Meaning you havent "modified" the strength of the fist at all - either by enhanced warrior or furious charge.

Psybolt IS a modifier to thge strength of the weapon, and so is disallowed.

Wow.

So the modification of the user's strength granted by a power fist is somehow different than the modification of the user's strength granted by Bile's rule?

No, he's just talking out of his hat

The rule states that all you get is 1d6 + the unmodified strength of the attack. It even says no matter what.

So what you get is the unmodified strength of the creature swinging at the Lith + 1D6.

ANYTHING else that adds to the user's strength is modifying it. Furious charge modifies your strength when you charge by +1, Toxin Sacs in the old Nid codex granted a +1 to S etc.

Powerfists have been specifically FAQ'd as functioning at double user's base Str. There is no permission for any other modifiers to piggyback on that and somehow function.


(They FAQ'd in Powerfists as working IMO because otherwise the SM players would whine and the Orks would have nothing at all that could kill one. They handwaved that doubling your strength is not modifying it in the specific instance of powerfists)

Ascalam wrote:No, he's just talking out of his hat

The rule states that all you get is 1d6 + the unmodified strength of the attack. It even says no matter what.

No, it doesnt. Youre misrepresenting the rule significantly.

I have ALREADY stated the precise rule you are mangling here. Go back and read it, please.

Ascalam wrote:So what you get is the unmodified strength of the creature swinging at the Lith + 1D6.

Nope, unmodified strength of the weapon. Not creature.

Ascalam wrote:ANYTHING else that adds to the user's strength is modifying it. Furious charge modifies your strength when you charge by +1, Toxin Sacs in the old Nid codex granted a +1 to S etc.

And they have no bearing on the unmodified strength of the weapon. Absolutely none.

Ascalam wrote:Powerfists have been specifically FAQ'd as functioning at double user's base Str. There is no permission for any other modifiers to piggyback on that and somehow function.

They work because, as stated, the monolith rules talk about the strength of the weapon. Stop pretending otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Then you dont have the most recent version of the codex.

The final sentence of the LM rule states:

"In practice, any weapon attacking the monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unautmented strength and s single D6 no matter what"

...which is a summary of the previous rules, and not the introduction of an additional rule.

It was not the best move by GW to include a casual sentence like this ("this is how it's going to most likely be played") in a block of text containing actual rules ("this special rule does X, Y, and Z").

However, if you want to assume that it is RAW and not a summary, it still doesn't apply to Psybolt Ammo. You've already established that Psybolt Ammo is a modifier to the weapon's strength (with the definition of a modifier being clearly defined in the main rulebook), which I agree with. However, the text doesn't say anything about strength modifiers; it mentions 'augmented' strength. There's nothing in Psybolt Ammo or any other rule that states that it is an 'augmentation'. So you've got two options:
1) Assume that the text that you quoted is a statement of casual conversation and not a rule, in which case the LM rule doesn't apply to an Autocannon with Psybolt Ammo (because there's no rule that would cover it)
2) Assume that the text you quoted is a rule and should be taken literally, in which case the LM rule doesn't apply to Psybolt Ammo (because, by RAW, there's nothing 'augmented' about an Autocannon with Psybolt Ammo).

The interpretation that you are arguing, and that most people often try to argue, is that it is a specific rule written in casual, non-specific language. You have to pick one or the other above, however: either it is a rule written with specific wording, or it is a summary using casual language. It doesn't work to argue "Because you need to follow RAW, it is considered a rule. You shouldn't use RAW to determine how the rule works, however."

English is sufficient to show that augmentation and modifier are equivalent in this case.

false dichotomy is false.

...which is a summary of the previous rules, and not the introduction of an additional rule.

That's actually wrong.

You're using an older version of the codex, which also had an older faq released for it which specifically mentioned tank hunter etc saying they didn't get the +1 bonus.

When the newer version was printed, they took that part out of the errata and switched it with the powerfist/thunder hammer section because the "unaugmented strength" line was written in the codex now.

personally it sounds like a very poorly setup rule on the monolith.........Psybolt Ammo's affect would not be changed just cause its being fired at a monolith......however because of the Monolith being made of Living Metal......any successful hits should then be looked at.....best idea for a rule on that is reroll.............Successful hits doing damage on Living Metal should be rerolled

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ascalam wrote:No, he's just talking out of his hat

The rule states that all you get is 1d6 + the unmodified strength of the attack. It even says no matter what.

No, it doesnt. Youre misrepresenting the rule significantly.

I have ALREADY stated the precise rule you are mangling here. Go back and read it, please.

Ascalam wrote:So what you get is the unmodified strength of the creature swinging at the Lith + 1D6.

Nope, unmodified strength of the weapon. Not creature.

Ascalam wrote:ANYTHING else that adds to the user's strength is modifying it. Furious charge modifies your strength when you charge by +1, Toxin Sacs in the old Nid codex granted a +1 to S etc.

And they have no bearing on the unmodified strength of the weapon. Absolutely none.

Ascalam wrote:Powerfists have been specifically FAQ'd as functioning at double user's base Str. There is no permission for any other modifiers to piggyback on that and somehow function.

They work because, as stated, the monolith rules talk about the strength of the weapon. Stop pretending otherwise.

We have already established, and YOU are ignoring, that a creature's attacks are considered to be a weapon. CC attacks are made by the wielder, with the weapon conferring abilities and modifyers in some cases. CC weapons have no inherent strength of their own, but can modify the strength of the wielder.


They work because the FAQ says that they work. They are in fact breaking the rule as written (doubling a str value is modifying it, as is any change to a numerical value), but as they are permitted to do so by an official FAQ they get a free pass.

The monolith rules talk about the strength of the weapon. I have not in any way pretended otherwise. The strength of the weapon in a CC attack is the strength of the wielder, modified by any special rules imparted to the wielder by the weapon. If this were not the case we would have CC weapon profiles like: Powersword: S 4.
The fact that the rules refer to creature attacks as weapons negates your assertion that they are not.

Nope, you are striking with a powerfist. That is how you are using it to strike in close combat.

All models have some form of close combat weapon.

Psybolt ammo is not an augmentation it changes the actual str value. It is +1 str "for all purposes" according the the FAQ. Anything that changes the base str of a weapon durring the game is augmented. Since the actual Str of the weapon is S8 (no longer S7) it will work.

Wrong. Seriously, wrong.

+1 S is the definition of a modifier. Have a look at +1T bikes - they are T5 for everything but ID, because +1T is a modifier.

Augmentation, in this context is equivalent to modifer. You have modified the strength of the cannon.

Normally i'm quite tolerant of hearing the other side of the argument, but the more I read this thread, the more cheesed off I get that some players just choose to ignore what they can read. This isnt a dig at the Power Fist Debate btw, just my original question.

I've re-read my codex and i'm quite happy that augmentation is mentioned. Now you can say whatever you like about it changing the str before or after the game, but the fact is you are shooting an autocannon that is NOT the same as a standard autocannon. Therefore I firmly believe that you shouldn't get the +1 S against the monolith.

If you google "define augmentation", this is the first hit:

1. The action or process of making or becoming greater in size or amount.

Wow, it sure seems to me that making your Autocannon S8 is an augmentation to me!

It is liam, dont worry youve got the right rules there.

+1S is the very definition of a modifier. Its why when MoS CSM sweeping advance they do so at only I4.