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.

quick question

do rough riders resolve at 6str if they are given furious charge for one reason or another?

Maybe. It's really unclear.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Maybe. It's really unclear.

We've gone through this before; the first thread was around the time the Codex was released. (Check the search function.)

It's not worth getting into the details, but following the typical rules argument, I believe that most people came down thinking that the Rough Riders would hit at S 6 and I 6. That view is also represented in the INAT FAQ.

Actually it was the other way round.

RR rule gives a specific S and I that they hit at; furious charge modifies the users S and I, howeever much like a relic blade that is irrelevant - you hit at S5/I5 as the profile is not used to determine the S and I values.

Repeat the above two posts about a thousand times, and then insaniak locks the thread.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Maybe. It's really unclear.

This. I personally feel that the Rough Rider special character would be pretty much useless if Furious Charge didn't make them S6, but RAW says that it doesn't work.

Looks like a "discuss with your opponent" issue.

Cheexsta wrote:RAW says that it doesn't work.

I was wondering why your statement annoyed me so much. It turned out that I was involved in the first big debate over this rule back when the Codex came out.

Looking back, I think I misspoke when I summarized the majority position on Dakka as allowing the abilities to stack, but re-reading the thread reinforces my view that denying the combination is somewhat ridiculous. If you're interested in the issue, I think the thread does a decent job of laying out the arguments.

I can see Merits to Both arguments.

For Hunting lances(and Relic Blades) it is the Weapon not the model that has the Str(and Initiative for hunting Lances) at the Set Values; this does not appear to be able to be modified by Furious Charge with adds a bonus to the models characteristic.

Frostblades, Power Fist/Klaws, and Big Choppas, however add a bonus the the Model's Strength characteristic, and therefore Furious Charge bonus can be applied to them. There is a special Note with Power fists/Klaws in that the add to the user's strength(actually they multiply it), but set their initiative values. This sets a precedence(even though the Lance/relic blade doesn't specify no bonus and the PF does)

RAW no bonus because it is the Weapons Str and I, not the models.

As to the Mogul Kamir Issue; the hunting lance is a one-shot weapon, after the first Charge, if the unit survives the combat and gets a chance to Charge again they will get to make those attacks at S4, I4. Also Note that buying Mogul Kamir grant the unit FC, but only while Kamir is alive are they fearless. Also note that 2 Roughriders may exchange their Lance for other weapons, gaining benfit from Furious Charge in the initial round of Charging.

Kommissar Kel wrote:RAW no bonus because it is the Weapons Str and I, not the models.

It's "Silly RAW" IMO. And if it can't go up it can't go down either... I'm sure everyone will be happier if they discuss the thing with the opponent before the game.

It is not Silly RAW at all; once you stop to think about it objectively.

A hunting lance is used as part of a cavalry charge; Being whipped into a frenzy(Furious Charge) is not going to make your mount charge any Faster or allow you to hit any harder with that lance strike(In fact it would make such a strike more difficult to pull off as a lance Strike requires focus and precision aiming)

It does work Both Ways; neither up nor down, the weapon strikes at exactly its Str and I no matter what. Just as FC holds no sway, neither does a thunder hammer hit to the unit the player turn before(thunder hammers reduce the model hit's Initiative to 1)

of Course the thunderhammer would be exceptionally situational anyways as it would require a model with a thunder hammer to assault the roughriders, manage to kill at least 1 model in the rough-rider unit and Die in that round of combat so the Rough riders can then move and charge in their own turn(under the effect of the thunder hammer's initiative reduction) and have not charged yet during that game. Also this could never happen as the roughriders would have to kill the model that strikes them with the thunderhammer, and the thunderhammer itself strikes at Initiative 1 so would die before ever getting to swing.

A better example, Kommissar, would be Lash Whips. INAT's solution is to cancel the effects out.

I am not terribly familiar with the new nid dex so I hadn't even thought of that.

the Inat does not handle this situation at all in the lashwhips effect; The example used in the query is banshee Masks; which alter the model's(banshee's) initiative value, and the lash whip also alters the enemy model's initiative value; hence the to rules are in direct opposition and would cancel each other out.

The lash whip would have no effect on the hunting lance because it is the Lance, not the model that attacks at I5.

But thank you for bringing that up, I was really straining to think of a weapon, power, or in this case biomorph that lowered a model's initiative. that is why I settled for using the thunder hammer as an example even though it was technically impossible to ever have such an effect.

Now one way that the initiative (or strength) of the hunting lance could be modified in any way is if a model had a rule that stated all attacks made against the model are at (insert set initiative/strength). No model currently has such a rule that I am aware of.

Kommissar Kel wrote:I am not terribly familiar with the new nid dex so I hadn't even thought of that.

the Inat does not handle this situation at all in the lashwhips effect; The example used in the query is banshee Masks; which alter the model's(banshee's) initiative value, and the lash whip also alters the enemy model's initiative value; hence the to rules are in direct opposition and would cancel each other out.

The lash whip would have no effect on the hunting lance because it is the Lance, not the model that attacks at I5.

But thank you for bringing that up, I was really straining to think of a weapon, power, or in this case biomorph that lowered a model's initiative. that is why I settled for using the thunder hammer as an example even though it was technically impossible to ever have such an effect.

Now one way that the initiative (or strength) of the hunting lance could be modified in any way is if a model had a rule that stated all attacks made against the model are at (insert set initiative/strength). No model currently has such a rule that I am aware of.

You COULD have a unit of five mixed with 3 LC/2 TH Terminators assault the Rough Riders, the LC could fail to wound at their Init, the Rough Riders kill say 3 of the LC Termis, then have the TH ones only kill one Rough Rider, the Termis take the No Retreat wounds and fail their armor saves. The scenario you described is technically possible, but extremely unlikely to happen.

In short, No, they do not benefit from FC.

FC changes the models strength. Lances Strike at a fixed strength. It's the exact same for Relic Blades and several Blood Angels models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dave47 wrote:

Cheexsta wrote:RAW says that it doesn't work.

I was wondering why your statement annoyed me so much. It turned out that I was involved in the first big debate over this rule back when the Codex came out.

Looking back, I think I misspoke when I summarized the majority position on Dakka as allowing the abilities to stack, but re-reading the thread reinforces my view that denying the combination is somewhat ridiculous. If you're interested in the issue, I think the thread does a decent job of laying out the arguments.

Looks like I was involved too, and my answer then is the same as it is now!