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.

For the lore cloak it gives a 2+ ward save against dmg from spells , does this work for miscast dmg as well? Since its the power of the magic and the spell doing the hurt? Prob not? Lol and the razor banner says all attacks gain the armor piercing rule. So if i were to put it in a lothern sea guard would their arrows benefit as well? Thanks

No to the first, since miscast is not technically a spell.
Yes to the second one, armor piercing arrows for you puny elves

Hmm cool thanks. Sea guard with eternal flame banner, armor piercing , lore cloak and sword of ruin spell could be pretty devastating lol

Flaming arrows with a +1 to wound, and a -1 to the enemies armor, that is devastating. But it shows how puny you elves are, the men of Bretonnia don't rely on such methods to kill the enemy, just faith, and a pointy stick.

DukeBadham wrote:Yes to the second one, armor piercing arrows for you puny elves

I think most disagree with that, since the AP rule states it is for close combat for models that include it.

Really, since handguns have armor piercing.
could you quote the rules for the standard, as well as the rules for AP, if you are right, then at least we have taught something (to me as well as the OP)

That is different, weapons with AP have the rule.

Models with AP have AP in CC only.

Read "Armour Piercing" itself again and note that the banner gives the rule to the models.

Edited due to previous post lol

Editing to add:
I would love to be wrong, I play a Tomb Kings army based around Khalida.

Garbage lol my elves arrows would be wayy better . Ohwell lol

Well...I've already had a lengthy conversation about this, but here goes:

NOTE. I think this is stupid. Below is a technicality, and nothing more. You want to play by the RaW, without any communication or compromise with your friends, go ahead. Just know that GW says that's rather silly.

p. 67 of the little BRB- Armour Piercing

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

"If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing"

So...models can have Armour Piercing (wounds caused in close combat by this model...), and so can weapons (wounds caused in close combat by a model using this weapon...). Some ranged weapons have the Armour Piercing rule, but the RaW doesn't actually tell us that this rule has any function outside of close combat.

It's silly, but as it stands, handguns and the like only inflict a further -1 to armour with wounds they cause in close combat. So never.

Warpsolution wrote:Well...I've already had a lengthy conversation about this, but here goes:

NOTE. I think this is stupid. Below is a technicality, and nothing more. You want to play by the RaW, without any communication or compromise with your friends, go ahead. Just know that GW says that's rather silly.

p. 67 of the little BRB- Armour Piercing

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

"If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing"

So...models can have Armour Piercing (wounds caused in close combat by this model...), and so can weapons (wounds caused in close combat by a model using this weapon...). Some ranged weapons have the Armour Piercing rule, but the RaW doesn't actually tell us that this rule has any function outside of close combat.

It's silly, but as it stands, handguns and the like only inflict a further -1 to armour with wounds they cause in close combat. So never.

The rule for AP on a model is CC. The rule for AP on a weapon is CC or shots fired. Handguns get their -1 modifier.

The book seems to (literally) say otherwise. Break down that first sentence:

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

And

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

Furthermore,


"If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing"

Turns into

"If a model has a weapon with which wounds caused in close combat inflict a further -1 armour save modifier, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon..."

All I did was replace the words Armour Piercing with the rule's definition, and add/replace a few words to make the sentence...ya' know, actually a sentence. I know it seems stupid, and I'd never dream of trying to force the issue in a game, but there it is.

Actually, the rules literally say that it applies to shots fired as well. It's not about replacing anything. You've been leaving the part in the parentheses out with your ellipsis, it's this:

"Wounds caused in CC by MODEL with AP (or who is ATTACKING WITH A WEAPON that has this special rule)..." = if a model is granted AP by a banner, it only applies to CC.

"If a model has a WEAPON with the AP rule, only attacks made or shots fired by the weapon..."

So, it says: In CC -or- attacking with a weapon with AP.

It does NOT say: In CC -or- attacking in CC with a weapon with AP.

Hope that helps!

Oh dear God , I was dreading the day this Razor Banner would come back up on the threads.

To save everyone the trouble there was a very long, heated discussion on this very topic a couple of months back, will provide the link to save from another 4-5 page argument ensuing;

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/350901.page

Despite all the quotes and logic being applied I think it is safe to say this is an agree to disagree topic until an official FAQ is done.

Personally I take the moral high ground that I would never use the item to benefit my archers but would not forbid any opponent to do so.

I am now going to cry at the thought of this beast of a topic coming back

Thanks for that link, Jim. Though I will say that no one but no one could refute the above statements, silly as they are.

@WarbossFugnutz: Okay, grammar time. A statement in parentheses is a clarifier. It does not modify the sentence in any way, it just adds information. So what I did was, I separated the first sentence into it's primary component (without the clarifier) and the clarifier on its own. This is the one and only way to look at it.

If a weapon has AP, attacks made or shots fired with that weapon inflict a further -1 save on wounds it causes in close combat. Since shots fired causing wounds in close combat makes zero sense, we disregard it. We can't change the rules until they make sense, technically.

There's the first part: "wounds caused in close combat". That's separate from the parentheses. Then there's "a model with AP" and, in parentheses, to add to that, "a weapon with AP". So...yep.

Read that whole big stupid thread. Read what I've got here. And then, if you can, refute this point: the "close combat" part of the rule applies to every aspect of it, according to the English laws of grammar. If you can (I really doubt it), I'll be on your side.

Honestly, though, I'd just give them the AP bows. Honestly, an additional -1 to armour on some arrows, for 45pts. Who cares? Certainly not me. But then again, that might be because I field units of 50 guys.

Lol crap had no idea this was already discussed I've been away from dakka for a few months my bad lol. Um I've used a horde of lothern sea guard with that banner and allowing ap arrows.. it definitely gives it teeth a couple volleys a Stand and shoot and then a mass of spikey spears before the enemy attacks can be very devastating but then your opponents take measures to counter it so meh. Especially against orcs I don't know why maybe the dice gods were with me but I did feel some deja vu in regards to the first battle in lord of the rings against sauron lmao

I think a lot of the effetiveness of the unit was from it being a horde of Sea Guard. The Razor Standard would increase the wounds caused by 16%, unless the target had no armour or a 1+ save.
For 45pts, I'd say thats's fine. I mean, the size of the unit increases the benefit of the item, but that's big units for ya'.

Warpsolution wrote:Thanks for that link, Jim. Though I will say that no one but no one could refute the above statements, silly as they are.

@WarbossFugnutz: Okay, grammar time. A statement in parentheses is a clarifier. It does not modify the sentence in any way, it just adds information.

Okay, correction time. Actually you can use parentheses as clarifications and exceptions when you are defining something.

Okay, logic time. Adding information about something modifies it.

Okay, real world time. There are zero cogent arguments that actually refute what the BRB says right on the page (quotes are on my previous post).

There is no other way to take the rules. AP goes on models and weapons. If on models, it's CC, if on weapons, in CC or shots fired. Any attempt to make it anything other than this is feeble rules-lawyering and obviously originates from TFG's who are trying to get a Dakka-endorsement on their BS so they can spring it on their next opponent. Sorry, no one whose opinion matters bought it in the other thread, and they don't here either.

No one whose opinion...oh my.

The sentence, with or without the parenthesis, must be the same. Otherwise, you shouldn't be using parenthesis.

I see I wasn't clear before. What I mean is, the sentence about Close Combat is separate from the phrase in parentheses, but the phrase in parentheses is dependent on the original statement.
And when I say "modify", I mean more than "make more than", I mean "alter". A statement in parentheses does not alter the meaning of the sentence it is in. It adds information to it, but it doesn't change the information already stated.

The BRB is muddy in that little passage about weapons, because it's not using any actual game terms. "Shots fired" can't impose an additional -1 to armour, because only wounds caused require and modify armour saves. The only place we see that is at the beginning of the definition, where it says, "in close combat". So...shots fired in close combat? No sense.

I certainly don't recall anyone actually being able to refute me last time. Not a one. So we chalked it up to a mistake on GW's part. It's such a minor technicality, no one's going to actually try to pull this. I mean, you can argue the biased nature of the RaI, but I think it's pretty obvious that GW didn't assign abilities to weapons that would have zero effect.

Let's take it easy here. No one's trying to pull anything. No one's trying to insult anyone. Everyone's opinion matters as much as the next; everyone's got the same shot at truth as the next. I'm just pointing out a technicality and its implications, and I've stated numerous times and clearly that these implications do not reflect on my beliefs or manner.