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.

Hi all,

The new 'Blade of the Relentless' from the CS Supplement:
"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."

It does not state that you count models killed by the Blade, only by the wielders close combat attacks. To that end:
- Can I use a Power Fist to score some kills, and then switch to the Blade when it is nicely powered up?
- Do Hammer of Wrath kills count?
- Do kills only count when the model is actively using the Blade, or is carrying it enough to qualify as 'the wielder'?

Comes down to what your definition of "wield" means from a rules perspective.

I take it to mean "is attacking with" rather than simply having the gear, but I can see some people arguing the other way.

I'd say yes, you can use different Weapons as you are still wielding it.

Yes you get the benefit from all CC attacks including Hammer of Wrath. Think of it this way you are still wielding the blade. If you've got say a power axe the blade is giving you +1 attack for duel wielding. Or if you prefer whether or not you are using the blade at that time you are still the wielder of the blade.

There are a few other ones like this, is there not?

Wonder if someone can name one or two so I can go and compare the wording.

The only one I can think of is the Grey Knight NemisisDaemonKnight-walker-thing, with it's sword that gives you the benefit when using the power fists.

The wording on that is "A model with..."

The proper definition of wield is 'To hold and use'.

That being the case I would assume you have to actually use it.

So not very useful.

Well I flicked through the book a little but it is not really clear on what the defined terminology of wield is. It is a term used mostly throughout the fluffy text and in three or four Special Rules in which it follows the same format above. It is not used in the body of any rule that would be relevant to the question at hand, would of been so nice if the One Weapon Only rule stated to choose which weapon to wield. I personally side towards the answer of it not applying, just through the general use of the way the word wield is used in the fluff and the way it is defined outside of the Rule book, and hope someone with better eyes catches the word being used in a way that sets up some precedent.

Is a baker a baker when not baking? If I use the weapon in CC would I get the benefit from HoW? Trying to tie the benefit of the soul siphon rule to use of the weapon through wielder creates all sorts of problems and inconsistencies. Just play it as is says count up the CC kills the guy with it has.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Is a baker a baker when not baking?

Are you in the act of baking just because you own the tools to bake?

I don't see how saying "kills as a direct result of rolls made because of the blade" creates problems and inconsistencies.

Because say you've made him I10 and has HoW at I step 10 he is undoubtedly wielding the weapon and the HoW kill was undoubtedly done in combat. So how can you claim the rule wouldn't apply even under your very narrow reading of it?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Because say you've made him I10

I would very, very much like to know how to do this.

But, let's go ahead and roll with your theory-only based argument for the sake of argument.

The Hammer of Wrath hit resolves with a different AP value and should be rolled seperately. Rolling it on it's own even while simultaneously resolving wounds caused from the sword is very easy to do, and it's not like we don't have precedence for having to do this already with a model that actually does have I10 and Hammer of Wrath in the Avatar of Khaine.

As wounds are technically allocated one by one, the person with the Crimson Slaughter lord can easily say "alright first take your armor save vs. the Hammer of Wrath hit," making sure their somehow-initiative-10-even-though-that's-not-possible lord's sword swings landed the killing blow.

and has HoW at I step 10 he is undoubtedly wielding the weapon and the HoW kill was undoubtedly done in combat. So how can you claim the rule wouldn't apply even under your very narrow reading of it?

Same reason I can claim the S6 plasma shot from a Crisis Suit doesn't have Instant Death for being double the toughness of my T4 marine, even though he's hit at the same time as the Fusion Blaster from the same Crisis Suit.

You know where the source of the wounds come from.

So lets say he's Slaanesh is a Daemon and is in a unit of possessed with attached Slaanesh herald giving +5 Initiative. That would make him what initiative.

You've then gone off on a weird tangent talking about knowing where the wounds come from. The weapon never states the wounds must be caused by it only that they are kills in close combat by the wielder. So at I10 is he wielding the weapon? Did HoW cause a kill from him in close combat?

You need to prove one of those 2 questions are a no or the kill counts.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So lets say he's Slaanesh is a Daemon and is in a unit of possessed with attached Slaanesh herald giving +5 Initiative. That would make him what initiative.

You've then gone off on a weird tangent talking about knowing where the wounds come from. The weapon never states the wounds must be caused by it only that they are kills in close combat by the wielder. So at I10 is he wielding the weapon? Did HoW cause a kill from him in close combat?

You need to prove one of those 2 questions are a no or the kill counts.

Luckily Heralds of Slaanesh may never join units of CSM. They may be daemonic, but they are not unstable.

Got a rules quote for that? I know a CSM character can't join a Daemon unit I see prohibition in the other direction.

Seeing as you're pulling situations that literally cannot happen, I see no reason to even bother discussing things with you.

Honestly my interpretation is all kills in close combat count as that's the only stipulation put forth by the weapon's rules. It doesn't say "all kills in close combat made with this weapon" so I look at it less restrictively.

So there is no way for that to happen despite me giving an example or here's another a Slaanesh Sorcerer gets +1 initiative from the chaos boon table twice then casts warp speed on himself.

So there are definitely current ways to get to I10 and have HoW more may become possible in the future. So under your reading of wielder only whilst he is wielding the weapon is he considered the wielder. Then in this instance even in your narrow reading of wielder you would count kills caused by HoW. Which kind of highlights how weird a reading it is. What about HoW when you are not I10? You are still wielding the weapon in that combat. It just becomes a whole mess where you have to create a whole raft of rules. Rather than just take wielder as the guy who wields the weapon and follow what is written...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Got a rules quote for that? I know a CSM character can't join a Daemon unit I see prohibition in the other direction.

A rules quote forbidding a Herald from joining a CSM squad?

Simple, page 26 of the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemonic Alignment, first sentence.

I think you need to read that sentence again it is absolutely permission for a Herald to join a CSM unit as long as it is composed entirely of daemons with the sane alignment (i.e. the example I gave of a Possessed unit with Possessed character all mark of Slaanesh joined by a Herald of Slaanesh).

Mark of =/= Daemon of.

Also, you ignore results on the Chaos Boons table if you've already got that one before. I'll go look up the specific wording when I get home.

Not to derail my own thread, but the Reference at the end of the Daemon book clears this up beyond any ambiguity.
"Daemonic Instability: Cannot join (or be joined by) models without this special rule;,,,,"

This is really a question then of what exactly is meant by the term 'wielder'. Is a model 'wielding' a blade when it's in his off-hand to grant +1 Attack? Is he 'wielding' it before he strikes at Initiative, and so benefits from his Hammer hits?

Mozzamanx wrote:
Not to derail my own thread, but the Reference at the end of the Daemon book clears this up beyond any ambiguity.
"Daemonic Instability: Cannot join (or be joined by) models without this special rule;,,,,"

This is really a question then of what exactly is meant by the term 'wielder'. Is a model 'wielding' a blade when it's in his off-hand to grant +1 Attack? Is he 'wielding' it before he strikes at Initiative, and so benefits from his Hammer hits?

That's not what the rule states but is in the quick reference. However as the reference is a condensed version of the rule it does not over rule the full rule.

It asks only if you are the wielder not if you are wielding the weapon and certainly not that the damage is caused by the weapon no matter how much certain people want it to. It has 2 requirements 1) are you the wielder of the weapon? 2) Have you killed someone in close combat?

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think you need to read that sentence again it is absolutely permission for a Herald to join a CSM unit as long as it is composed entirely of daemons with the sane alignment (i.e. the example I gave of a Possessed unit with Possessed character all mark of Slaanesh joined by a Herald of Slaanesh).

I think you need to read that rule again. What are the four alignments as defined by the Daemon rulebook, and which one do you think the Possessed have as a rule? Because Daemon + Mark of Slaanesh is very much not the same thing as Daemon of Slaanesh.

Mozzamanx wrote:
This is really a question then of what exactly is meant by the term 'wielder'. Is a model 'wielding' a blade when it's in his off-hand to grant +1 Attack? Is he 'wielding' it before he strikes at Initiative, and so benefits from his Hammer hits?

Honestly I don't think it matters what "wield" means in this context because the weapon's rules don't state that the wounds need to be caused by the weapon itself (unlike most weapon related rules which specify such things), just that they are done in close combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Black Mace's Cursed for instance says "If the model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace...."

From the wording of the rule, all close combat attacks work just fine.

Hammer of wrath is somewhat iffy though, as to whether or not it's a close combat attack. I know you get it when you charge into close combat, but for example a model with the smash special rule's close combat attacks are all AP2 - but hammer of wrath isn't. A model making close combat attacks uses their WS vs the WS of the target. Hammer of wrath auto-hits. Etc. etc.


I know it's somewhat unrelated, but for example in Fantasy, some models can stomp - it's an attack they make in close combat, but it's not a close combat attack and therefore models can't make a parry save against it (no parrying a stomp, really...).

 Spellbound wrote:
From the wording of the rule, all close combat attacks work just fine.

Hammer of wrath is somewhat iffy though, as to whether or not it's a close combat attack. I know you get it when you charge into close combat, but for example a model with the smash special rule's close combat attacks are all AP2 - but hammer of wrath isn't. A model making close combat attacks uses their WS vs the WS of the target. Hammer of wrath auto-hits. Etc. etc.


I know it's somewhat unrelated, but for example in Fantasy, some models can stomp - it's an attack they make in close combat, but it's not a close combat attack and therefore models can't make a parry save against it (no parrying a stomp, really...).

Well..... Hammer of Wrath occurs during the Fight Sub-phase at I10, which means it is an close-combat attack, it's just one you don't have to roll to hit with. The only other way to treat it is as a shooting attack, and those allocate differently.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Spellbound wrote:
From the wording of the rule, all close combat attacks work just fine.

Hammer of wrath is somewhat iffy though, as to whether or not it's a close combat attack. I know you get it when you charge into close combat, but for example a model with the smash special rule's close combat attacks are all AP2 - but hammer of wrath isn't. A model making close combat attacks uses their WS vs the WS of the target. Hammer of wrath auto-hits. Etc. etc.


I know it's somewhat unrelated, but for example in Fantasy, some models can stomp - it's an attack they make in close combat, but it's not a close combat attack and therefore models can't make a parry save against it (no parrying a stomp, really...).

Well..... Hammer of Wrath occurs during the Fight Sub-phase at I10, which means it is an close-combat attack, it's just one you don't have to roll to hit with. The only other way to treat it is as a shooting attack, and those allocate differently.

I see it more akin to Vector Strike which is neither a shooting or close combat attack.

No, it's more akin to a close combat attack you don't have to roll to hit with.
It just has special rules associated with it - like the fact that no special rules apply, not can you use weapons.

Are Tyranid tail attacks not close combat attacks because Smash doesn't apply?

rigeld2 wrote:
No, it's more akin to a close combat attack you don't have to roll to hit with.
It just has special rules associated with it - like the fact that no special rules apply, not can you use weapons.

Are Tyranid tail attacks not close combat attacks because Smash doesn't apply?

Sorry, you are correct. It is a close combat attack. I had forgotten that HoW specifically calls itself an Attack.