Furious Charge + Power Fist = I2?

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.

**Praxiss**

Ok, i never use a powerfist in my Berzerkers. Mostly because i didn't have any when i built them. but i am lookign to hack his arm off and chuck a P.Fist on the champ for use in the future.

My question is (and this may well be a stupid question but please be gentle):

If a model has Furious Charge and a Power Fists, do they hti at I2 on the charge? Or does the I1 of the Fist over-rule everything else?

Does Wargear trump USR?

**Hellstorm**

you would still be Init 1

**Praxiss**

Fair enough. Thanks.

**bagtagger**

In this case it does, a powerfist strikes at I1 and Furious charge affects the users base I but that becomes irrelevant because the fist always strikes at I1 regardless of users base I. I hope that makes sense

**Akroma06**

That is not the way something trumping something else works. Its specific over general. In this case it would be 1 over +1. As a decent rule of thumb anytime you have a given value that is what you go with. Such as relic blades making you strength 6 or a power fist making you initative 1.

**bagtagger**

I got ninja'd

**omerakk**

If you have a powerfist, you always strike at I1 no matter what. And don't forget that the furious charge bonus applies after then pf bonus, so you would be strength 4 x 2 = 8 + 1 = str9

as opposed to hammerhanding grey knights who get strength 10

**bagtagger**

Akroma06 wrote:That is not the way something trumping something else works. Its specific over general. In this case it would be 1 over +1. As a decent rule of thumb anytime you have a given value that is what you go with. Such as relic blades making you strength 6 or a power fist making you initative 1.

That's what I tried and failed to say. A good example is the nemesis halberd strikes at +2In and that relates to the user's base In which in the case of most marines makes theirs 6. The force halberd would stack with furious charge and make it In 7 (base 4 +2 +1). However, if it said the halberd strikes at In 6, it would not stack with furious charge because furious charge increases the users In but the weapon's rules state a very specific In that it strikes at that is independent of the user's In. A powerfist works the same way, it strikes at In 1 and that is regardless of what the base In is of the user.

**Akroma06**

bagtagger wrote:
Akroma06 wrote:That is not the way something trumping something else works. Its specific over general. In this case it would be 1 over +1. As a decent rule of thumb anytime you have a given value that is what you go with. Such as relic blades making you strength 6 or a power fist making you initative 1.

That's what I tried and failed to say. A good example is the nemesis halberd strikes at +2In and that relates to the user's base In which in the case of most marines makes theirs 6. The force halberd would stack with furious charge and make it In 7 (base 4 +2 +1). However, if it said the halberd strikes at In 6, it would not stack with furious charge because furious charge increases the users In but the weapon's rules state a very specific In that it strikes at that is independent of the user's In. A powerfist works the same way, it strikes at In 1 and that is regardless of what the base In is of the user.

Yeah we agreed you sneaky little

**Small, Far Away**

Yeah, they FAQed this, it's I1.

**herodotus**

If you charge into cover with Furious Charge, do you go to I2?

**nosferatu1001**

No, as again cover reduces your init to 1 without any modifiers allowed

**Kharrak**

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, as again cover reduces your init to 1 without any modifiers allowed

UNLESS the unit you are assaulting has already been locked into combat from the previous turn. In which case, if you are assaulting through cover/terrain, you still strike at normal initiative.

Handy little tidbit, that.

**nosferatu1001**

..or you have assault grenades. There are lots of "unless" in 40k, trying to encompass all cases is a tiresome way to post ;0

**GoDz BuZzSaW**

UNLESS you have a banshee mask and therefore strike at I10

**somerandomdude**

UNLESS it's a unit of Harlequins, who ignore difficult terrain.

**xlEternitylx**

UNLESS you ignore the rules and play however you want.

Point is, I1. Always.

**nosferatu1001**

GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:UNLESS you have a banshee mask and therefore strike at I10

Bzzzt, wrong. Banshee mask negates the bonuses accrued to a unit from you assaulting through cover. Your initiative dropping to 1 is NOT a bonus.

Theyre a relic of 4th ed.

**Grakmar**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
GoDz BuZzSaW wrote:UNLESS you have a banshee mask and therefore strike at I10

Bzzzt, wrong. Banshee mask negates the bonuses accrued to a unit from you assaulting through cover. Your initiative dropping to 1 is NOT a bonus.

Theyre a relic of 4th ed.

Nos, while you are technically correct, I've never seen anyone dispute Banshees assaulting through cover going at I10. The intent of the rule is clear.

**nosferatu1001**

What, the intent of a rule written in 4th ed for 4th ed, where the mechanics for going through cover were very differnet?

That intent?

**Mahtamori**

nosferatu1001 wrote:What, the intent of a rule written in 4th ed for 4th ed, where the mechanics for going through cover were very differnet?

That intent?

You are correct in how the rules would be interpreted in their literary meaning. However, bringing that argument to a table will see you being the rules breaker, not the other way around, since the silent consensus has it the other way around. Silent consensus beats rules as written every time, all the time.

**nosferatu1001**

What silent consensus? Not the one at our local FLGS, and not at any of the major tournaments i've been to this year.

**Grakmar**

nosferatu1001 wrote:What silent consensus? Not the one at our local FLGS, and not at any of the major tournaments i've been to this year.

While I hate to break one of the Tenets, I think it's justified here. I'll point out that I'm not arguing from a RAW perspective, but from a "how is it typically played". I agree that nos is correct in a RAW sense.

INAT FAQ:
ELD.31A.02 – Q: Do Banshees benefit from the
Initiative bonus provided by their Banshee Masks on
a turn they assault through cover?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

**nosferatu1001**

And hardly anyone in the UK uses INAT.

It also isnt a "clarification", its a strict change to the rules. There is NO way to argue that 4th eds bonus to defender is the same as the penalty to assaulters in 5th

**Mahtamori**

nosferatu1001 wrote:And hardly anyone in the UK uses INAT.

It also isnt a "clarification", its a strict change to the rules. There is NO way to argue that 4th eds bonus to defender is the same as the penalty to assaulters in 5th

Except for the reasoning and the practical effect - both of which the Banshee Mask specifically states it's meant to counter the effect of assaulting in such a position. Anyone who does this is only out to limit or destroy a codex already disadvantaged by age - the same applies to other stuff as well, such as assault ramps from Black Templars. Now, I personally would never a) use Banshees in the first place since they are such bloody misfits in the codex nor b) participate in a tournament where either Banshees or BT Land Raiders have to suffer from such obvious and easy to correct edition faults.

And as far as consensus is concerned, well, I think you're in for a surprise how few are aware of the actual meaning of the wording concerned.

**Akroma06**

Actually the BT stuff isn't a good example as it all got updated in the recent FAQ that they got.

**omerakk**

That bit about the Black Templar assault ramp is a bad example. Prior to the most recent faq, black templar land raiders weren't assault vehicles; only the crusader versions were. This was intentional at the time of their release and you were playing as intended all the way though 5th edition. This was changed with their update, but it doesn't change the fact that they weren't assault vehicles prior to the update.

**Mahtamori**

My bad. Example's good, but outdated, then. Goes to show there's not even a hint of BTs in my group (not even grey-marines).
It's infuriating how sloppy GW can be with even their clarifications.

**Akroma06**

It was a good example, don't misunderstand me its like you said outdated. I think I'm one of 3 people I know who play BT. In the two cities I play in. I know more DE players than that!

**nosferatu1001**

Mahtamori - the reasoning is bunk, based on altering clear rules in favour of giving a leg up.
The rule has no practical effect in 5th ed. As such you ignore it, as per the rules in the BRB

Do Tau get an advantageous rewrite of the rules for their items that dont work? Why are Eldar special? What about Stealth Suits, who "count as assaulting into cover" whenyou assault them - in 4th they went to I10, in 5th nothing. So where is the "consensus" there?

Bunk changes to rules because of bias in judges in bunk