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.

This is slightly off topic but may help with the thread. If your model has 3 attacks and you choose to grenade it up do you get 3 nades? Or just the one chance?

So if you get all 3 attacks then I feel since the wtn references attacks against a model with a ws then he should vet his 3+.

However, if the model only get a one shot all or nothing grenade then it should fall under the category of needing the 6+ because at that point its like a completely separate special weapon that follows its own rules instead of basic combat.

How's that?

Regardless of number of attacks, you only get 1 grenade attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pg 63 of the BGB, Grenades box on the right.

Thanks for the pg # and in that case even though I play wolves I gotta side with the enemy on this one 6+ it is!

It truly doesnt matter as its a CC attack vs a model that has a WS so wtn will allow you hit on a 3+

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:It truly doesnt matter as its a CC attack vs a model that has a WS so wtn will allow you hit on a 3+

Except the grenade rules are more specific than the WTN rules, so you use the grenade rules.

If a grenade could benefit from wtn that would make grenades a regular melee attack n if its a regular melee then it should be useable against troops. It is not however so wtn does not apply here

DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:It truly doesnt matter as its a CC attack vs a model that has a WS so wtn will allow you hit on a 3+

Except the grenade rules are more specific than the WTN rules, so you use the grenade rules.

Specific versus general, specific versus general, blah, blah, blah.

This little line of argument is about effective as continously repeating codex trumps BRB. Despite this argument being brought up time and time again, the specific versus general claim has been debunked just as many times as any other argument. For the new people here, just explain your specific versus general argument instead of just exclaiming the catch phrase as if it is the answer.

Okay.
General: Any attacks made with a models Attack Characteristic, no matter what gear that model has.

More Specific: A grenade attack against a vehicle, no matter what gear that model has.

Brother Ramses wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:It truly doesnt matter as its a CC attack vs a model that has a WS so wtn will allow you hit on a 3+

Except the grenade rules are more specific than the WTN rules, so you use the grenade rules.

Specific versus general, specific versus general, blah, blah, blah.

This little line of argument is about effective as continously repeating codex trumps BRB. Despite this argument being brought up time and time again, the specific versus general claim has been debunked just as many times as any other argument. For the new people here, just explain your specific versus general argument instead of just exclaiming the catch phrase as if it is the answer.

Having two different interpretations of which rule is more specific doesn't mean that one of them is "debunked". It could swing either way.

It really can't.

Determining which rule is more specific comes down entirely to what you are trying to do at the time. In this situation, we have a model with a wolf tooth necklace, that is trying to attack a vehicle with a grenade. SO, to bore it down:

We have a model. That model is always the same.
It has a wolf tooth necklace. That piece of wargear is always the same.
It can attack a vehicle with a weapon. That weapon can be a grenade.

So a model with a wolf tooth necklace can attack a vehicle with a weapon, in which case the rules for the necklace will apply.
A model with a wolf tooth necklace can attack a vehicle with a grenade, in which case the grenade rules will apply, because they are rules that apply to an attack with a specific weapon.

'Attacking a vehicle using grenades' is more specific than 'attacking a vehicle'.

remember that grenades fall under "all"

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:remember that grenades fall under "all"

Right. And grenades are a more specific type of attack than "all". If they followed the normal CC rules (just limiting number of attack) it'd work.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:remember that grenades fall under "all"

'All' covers making a close combat attack.

Making a close combat attack with a specific weapon that has it's own rules governing how it works is more specific than 'all'...

insaniak wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:remember that grenades fall under "all"

'All' covers making a close combat attack.

Making a close combat attack with a specific weapon that has it's own rules governing how it works is more specific than 'all'...

Couldn't one argue that "model with WTN attacking walker with grenade" is more specific than "model attacking walker with grenade"? That's the rebuttal I usually see at least.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Couldn't one argue that "model with WTN attacking walker with grenade" is more specific than "model attacking walker with grenade"?

No. I explained why a couple of posts ago.

insaniak wrote:It really can't.

Determining which rule is more specific comes down entirely to what you are trying to do at the time. In this situation, we have a model with a wolf tooth necklace, that is trying to attack a vehicle with a grenade. SO, to bore it down:

We have a model. That model is always the same.
It has a wolf tooth necklace. That piece of wargear is always the same.
It can attack a vehicle with a weapon. That weapon can be a grenade.

So a model with a wolf tooth necklace can attack a vehicle with a weapon, in which case the rules for the necklace will apply.
A model with a wolf tooth necklace can attack a vehicle with a grenade, in which case the grenade rules will apply, because they are rules that apply to an attack with a specific weapon.

'Attacking a vehicle using grenades' is more specific than 'attacking a vehicle'.

And then you can just turn it around that ANYONE attacking a walker with a grenade needs a 6+ to place and ONLY a model with a WTN can do it on a 3+.

This is in addition to what I posted earlier in that the WTN is based off a completely different close combat mechanic that was introduced with the errata.

Prior to the FAQ the wording of the WTN still referenced the comparison of WS mechanic which did not support placing grenades on dreads with a 3+. However the errata introduced a specific close combat mechanic to the WTN, in that it was no longer a WS comparison but a WS check. In addition they removed any reference to the previous weapon skill comparison.

Brother Ramses wrote:And then you can just turn it around that ANYONE attacking a walker with a grenade needs a 6+ to place and ONLY a model with a WTN can do it on a 3+.

No. You can't.

'Anyone' is not attacking the walker. The model with the WTN is. The model with the WTN can attack with any weapon, in which case the WTN will apply, or they can attack with a specific type of weapon (in this case a grenade) which has specific rules governing how it works... in which case the more specific rule wins.

just saying i wholeheartedly disagree. again grenades fall under the any category, and yes they have diferent rules for hitting, same as normal hitting in cc.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:just saying i wholeheartedly disagree. again grenades fall under the any category, and yes they have diferent rules for hitting, same as normal hitting in cc.

Rapid Fire weapons are included in the group of 'all ranged weapons'... does that mean that they follow the same rules as all other ranged weapons? Or do they follow their own specific rules?

A rule that applies to 'all' of something is less specific than a rule that applies to one specific thing. The more specific rule wins... otherwise just about every unit-type-specific, unit-specific, or weapon-specific rule in the game suddenly becomes completely useless.

Seems like a poor comparison. lets say a wolfguard w/ pf is swinging against an avatar. I find the rules for CC needing a 5 To hit are more specifc than all. thatd mean wtn does jack.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Seems like a poor comparison. lets say a wolfguard w/ pf is swinging against an avatar. I find the rules for CC needing a 5 To hit are more specifc than all. thatd mean wtn does jack.

That is the basic weapon skill comparison chart used by every model with a weapon skill when fighting any other model with a weapon skill.

How is that more specific than anything, those are the rules everyone uses.

That is the basis of the general rules as it outlines the basic attack rules.

More specific would be Gabriel seths Whirlwind attack, where he hits everyone in base contact, instead of attacking normally.

In this case we have a model with a WTN making his normal attacks following the normal attack sequence being the general rules, and the same model making a single grenade attack which has a specific subset of the attack rules to follow.

sorry the basic tohit seems way more specific. sometimes 3,4,5 etc its very specific and diverse. wtn just says all.

If he hits on a 3+ With attacks, itll work on his nades also.

JD - you are now making deliberately silly arguments, that have been easily disproven.

The to hit chart is less specific than wtn which is less specific than a wtn guy choosing to make a CC attack using grenades against a walker.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:sorry the basic tohit seems way more specific.

The basic to hit rule that varies widely depending on what model is swinging what against who?
That's totally specific.

sometimes 3,4,5 etc its very specific and diverse. wtn just says all.

Correct.

If he hits on a 3+ With attacks, itll work on his nades also.

How does the basic to hit table come in to play when you're throwing grenades?

Just arguing about specific vs general. the basic to hit chart is more specific than wtn, just as nade rules are more specific than wtn. So I suppose wtn doesnt work at all.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote: the basic to hit chart is more specific than wtn, ...

A basic rule that applies to everybody is not more specific than a rule that applies to a model using a specific item, because 'everybody' is a larger group than 'that guy who has a pretty necklace'...

WTN works because 'guy with WTN' is more specific than 'guy'.
Grenades then take precedence over WTN because 'guy with WTN using a weapon with special to hit rules' is more specific than 'guy with WTN using any weapon'...


It's not about how specific the wording of the rule is. It's about how specific a situation it applies to, depending on what you're trying to do at the time. Because you're trying to establish the rules for what you are trying to do at that time, with the model that you are trying to do it with.

Insaniak is that a rule anywhere? I find the whole specific vs general quite confusing from time to time. As I stated above, standard to hit seems way more specific.

It's not a stated rule. It's simply the hierarchy that allows any complex rules system to function.

The basic rules lay out the general way the rules system works. More specific rules then alter those basic rules in specific situations.

Without that hierarchy, no special rule that alters a normal game mechanic can work.

How can something that applies to every model in CC be more specific than something that only applies to certain models with a specific set of wargear? It cannot be more specific

So this is slightly off topic but what about wtn vs a vehicle and/or a vehicle that moved?