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.

While HoW states that you don't apply the Ap of your weapons special rules and use your unmodified Strength, you can still use rules as PE or Shred.

But thats another topic.

Also something interesting is that the rule only mentions "models you killed", and not "non-vehicle models".

Destroy a Dread, a rhino or a Skimmer does then count into the Killcount.

No you cannot. HoW cannot use ANY SPECIAL RULES - no shred.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No you cannot. HoW cannot use ANY SPECIAL RULES - no shred.

Don't see why it wouldn't. It'd have to be the MODEL with Shred, though, and not a weapon with it. If we're saying Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack, and Shred lets you reroll failed wounds of close combat attacks, shred would apply.

HoW is a close combat attack. Kills caused by it count. Unless you're claim HoW doesn't count to Epidemius' tally?

 SRSFACE wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No you cannot. HoW cannot use ANY SPECIAL RULES - no shred.

Don't see why it wouldn't. It'd have to be the MODEL with Shred, though, and not a weapon with it. If we're saying Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack, and Shred lets you reroll failed wounds of close combat attacks, shred would apply.

Because the FAQ says otherwise:

Q: When a model makes a Vector Strike or Hammer of Wrath,
do these attacks benefit from any special rules (such as Furious
Charge, Poisoned or Rending), or any weapons or other wargear
it is equipped with? (p37/43)
A: No.

Yes it doesn't work with stuffs thzt modify the model Strength, because the rule says "with the models unmodified strength".

but shred or PE doesn't modify the Strength, it allows for rerolls.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Yes it doesn't work with stuffs thzt modify the model Strength, because the rule says "with the models unmodified strength".

but shred or PE doesn't modify the Strength, it allows for rerolls.

Doesn't matter. Poison does not modify Strength. Rending does not modify Strength. The FAQ is very clear. No special rules, wargear or weapons.

 Happyjew wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No you cannot. HoW cannot use ANY SPECIAL RULES - no shred.

Don't see why it wouldn't. It'd have to be the MODEL with Shred, though, and not a weapon with it. If we're saying Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack, and Shred lets you reroll failed wounds of close combat attacks, shred would apply.

Because the FAQ says otherwise:

Q: When a model makes a Vector Strike or Hammer of Wrath,
do these attacks benefit from any special rules (such as Furious
Charge, Poisoned or Rending), or any weapons or other wargear
it is equipped with? (p37/43)
A: No.

However HoW is not benefiting from this rule the rule is benefiting from HoW and nothing prevents that.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No you cannot. HoW cannot use ANY SPECIAL RULES - no shred.

Don't see why it wouldn't. It'd have to be the MODEL with Shred, though, and not a weapon with it. If we're saying Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack, and Shred lets you reroll failed wounds of close combat attacks, shred would apply.

Because the FAQ says otherwise:

Q: When a model makes a Vector Strike or Hammer of Wrath,
do these attacks benefit from any special rules (such as Furious
Charge, Poisoned or Rending), or any weapons or other wargear
it is equipped with? (p37/43)
A: No.

However HoW is not benefiting from this rule the rule is benefiting from HoW and nothing prevents that.

I'm confused. Are you arguing that kills caused by HoW count for the weapon special rule, if so I agree the weapon benefits. Or are you arguing that a model with Shred or PE benefits when performing HoW, because again the FAQ makes it clear you do not.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Yes it doesn't work with stuffs thzt modify the model Strength, because the rule says "with the models unmodified strength".

but shred or PE doesn't modify the Strength, it allows for rerolls.

The FAQ does not require you to be modifying strength. You CANNOT have HoW benefit from ANY special rules, weapons or other wargear.

ANY

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No you cannot. HoW cannot use ANY SPECIAL RULES - no shred.

Don't see why it wouldn't. It'd have to be the MODEL with Shred, though, and not a weapon with it. If we're saying Hammer of Wrath is a close combat attack, and Shred lets you reroll failed wounds of close combat attacks, shred would apply.

Because the FAQ says otherwise:

Q: When a model makes a Vector Strike or Hammer of Wrath,
do these attacks benefit from any special rules (such as Furious
Charge, Poisoned or Rending), or any weapons or other wargear
it is equipped with? (p37/43)
A: No.

However HoW is not benefiting from this rule the rule is benefiting from HoW and nothing prevents that.

I'm confused. Are you arguing that kills caused by HoW count for the weapon special rule, if so I agree the weapon benefits. Or are you arguing that a model with Shred or PE benefits when performing HoW, because again the FAQ makes it clear you do not.

Sorry yes we are agreed you can't PE Shred etc with HoW, but kills from HoW do count towards the weapons tally.

...assuming they dont mean normal English defintion of "wielder", which requires you to be using the sword. For a HoW you certainly cannot be using it for that attack

wield
wēld/
verb
verb: wield; 3rd person present: wields; past tense: wielded; past participle: wielded; gerund or present participle: wielding

1.
hold and use (a weapon or tool).
"a masked raider wielding a handgun"
synonyms: brandish, flourish, wave, swing; More

It looks like the word "wield" actually means the act of both "holding and using" at the same time, so I would say that you have to also USE the sword in order to fulfill the requirements of "wielding" it...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...assuming they dont mean normal English defintion of "wielder", which requires you to be using the sword. For a HoW you certainly cannot be using it for that attack

Wielder does not mean that you have to be wielding the weapon for that attack or even at that time. Baker is a Baker even when he's asleep in bed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

It looks like the word "wield" actually means the act of both "holding and using" at the same time, so I would say that you have to also USE the sword in order to fulfill the requirements of "wielding" it...

There is no requirement to be wielding the weapon...

Apart from the actual rule of course, quoted by the OP:

""Soul Siphon: Make a note of how many enemy models are removed as a direct result of the wielder's close combat attacks over the course of the battle. At the end of every Assault Phase, compare the current total to the following chart to see if any further effects are applied to the Blade of the Relentless. These effect are cumulative and last for the rest of the game."

You are ONLY the wielder if you have and use the weapon. If you simply have the weapon you are the bearer. Your baker example is horrifically flawed, as was pointed out ot you already

Please concede the point, as you have been proven incorrect

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Apart from the actual rule of course, quoted by the OP:

""Soul Siphon: Make a note of how many enemy models are removed as a direct result of the wielder's close combat attacks over the course of the battle. At the end of every Assault Phase, compare the current total to the following chart to see if any further effects are applied to the Blade of the Relentless. These effect are cumulative and last for the rest of the game."

You are ONLY the wielder if you have and use the weapon. If you simply have the weapon you are the bearer. Your baker example is horrifically flawed, as was pointed out ot you already

Please concede the point, as you have been proven incorrect

The actual rule requires no such thing. In the the actual rule "wielder" is a noun. Posters above keep defining the verb. The noun does not require active use, but that such action is possible. The President is a wielder of executive authority, but there is no requirement that he be doing so currently to be considered such. He is a wielder if he may wield that power when he desires to.

Edit:
The relevant definition:
-er: a : one that does or performs (a specified action)

As stated above a baker is always a baker, a batter is always a batter when he's in the batter's box, a lawyer is always a lawyer.

Angelic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Apart from the actual rule of course, quoted by the OP:

""Soul Siphon: Make a note of how many enemy models are removed as a direct result of the wielder's close combat attacks over the course of the battle. At the end of every Assault Phase, compare the current total to the following chart to see if any further effects are applied to the Blade of the Relentless. These effect are cumulative and last for the rest of the game."

You are ONLY the wielder if you have and use the weapon. If you simply have the weapon you are the bearer. Your baker example is horrifically flawed, as was pointed out ot you already

Please concede the point, as you have been proven incorrect

The actual rule requires no such thing. In the the actual rule "wielder" is a noun. Posters above keep defining the verb. The noun does not require active use, but that such action is possible. The President is a wielder of executive authority, but there is no requirement that he be doing so currently to be considered such. He is a wielder if he may wield that power when he desires to.

Edit:
The relevant definition:
-er: a : one that does or performs (a specified action)

As stated above a baker is always a baker, a batter is always a batter when he's in the batter's box, a lawyer is always a lawyer.

If he never performs the specific action (Wielding that weapon) then can he still be defined as the wielder of it? Can someone who never bakes be a baker? lol.

I'm not sure what they meant for this rule.

Wielder could identify the man swinging the sword, or merely the man who posses the sword.

"wielder (ˈwiːldə)
Definitions
noun

someone carrying, using or brandishing (a weapon)
someone handling or using (a tool)
someone who exerts (power)"

from: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/wielder

Just thought I would throw that one in the mix.