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.

If a model has the AP rule all his CC attacks have it, not his ranged attacks

The rule does not actually state that. It only mentions the close combat attacks, it does not de facto deny the model having ranged AP attacks (it just doesnt consider it at all)

The only way for his ranged attacks to have AP is for his weapon to have the AP rule

Again not strictly true. There is no "only" in the AP rule.

The point I was making is that, by giving the *entire* model the AP rule, you are giving it to *every* part of the model - as you are repeatedly told, many many many times GW realy do mean "the whole of the model, including all the bits on it" when they state "the model" (see ALL the different types of mounts rules, for example) - and by giving it to every part of th model you do, in fact, give it to the Bow (or other ranged weapon) and it DOES modify the Bow to now say "Bow, AP" (same as a magical lance with AP can be written as "Lance, AP")

As only "extra attacks" stacks this is a valid expansion, as you stgill only have a single instance of AP for the whole model.

Im not looking to get dragged into this, but here we go...

If a model has the AP rule his attacks in CC have it to. This is clearly stated. It does not state that his ranged attacks get it as well.

If a model has the AP rule, which means his CC attacks benefit but his ranged do not, then how is the Standard different?

So this means that if my unit has the AP rule and bows I can not use AP shooting, so long as the AP rule is in my unit entry in the Armybook.

However, if I purchase the banner for a unit without the AP rule, they now gain it on their ranged attacks.

This is the logic that I'm getting from you. I could be wrong in what I think your saying.

Yeah, this is definately not as cut-and-dry as one would assume.

From what I've gathered, the arguments are:

1. The standard gives the model the special rule. The special rule only applies in close combat, unless the special rule is on a ranged weapon, in which case it works with that weapon.

2. The standard gives the model the special rule. The model includes all of its equipment, so each of its weapons has this special rule as well.

There is one point I'm a little confused on: AP works on wounds caused in close combat. Nosferatu says this doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't work on ranged combat.
Nosferatu, do I understand you correctly? I feel like this falls outside a permissive system.
Not that you really need that point in this argument, though. If a warrior's and all of his weapons' profiles gain AP...

So, in conclusion thus far: If the first argument is correct, this standard puts "Armour Piercing" on a warrior's profile. This would basically mean the standard sucks.

If the second argument is correct, the standard puts "Armour Piercing" on the warrior's and his weapons' profiles. Assuming that AP only works in close combat, this means that the standard is better than having the rule to begin with.

Warpsolution wrote:So, in conclusion thus far: If the first argument is correct, this standard puts "Armour Piercing" on a warrior's profile. This would basically mean the standard sucks.

Considering this is EXACTLY what the Razor Standard says it does, yes, the Razor Standard is fairly expensive for only a moderately decent upgrade in combat prowess that is often better spent on other 45pt or less banners. GW put an item in the game that is about fifteen points more than it's worth. Fairly par for the course. Heck, Dark Elves already had one at 25 points.

Warpsolution wrote:If the second argument is correct, the standard puts "Armour Piercing" on the warrior's and his weapons' profiles. Assuming that AP only works in close combat, this means that the standard is better than having the rule to begin with.

I don't understand how you can say "Alright, so if this Warrior comes standard with Armour Piercing, it only works in close combat because the rule states it only works in close combat. HOWEVER, if you use this banner that says it gives this Warrior Armour Piercing, it now applies to ranged wounds too." If this were the case, then the warrior would have AP bonus to ALL attacks to begin with since he is inherently imbuing them with this capability. Further, if this were the case, why would GW need to specify that ALL wounds dealt while using Metal 2 spell gain AP? Because it is an exception, that's why.

nosferatu1001 wrote:and by giving it to every part of th model you do, in fact, give it to the Bow (or other ranged weapon) and it DOES modify the Bow to now say "Bow, AP" (same as a magical lance with AP can be written as "Lance, AP")

It does not. The book clearly dictates what Armour Piercing does, it adds the effect of -1 to armour saves due to wounds caused in close combat. It does not state that it gives attacks made with any weapon this effect and in fact does not mention affecting the weapons of the model with Armour Piercing at all. It clearly specifies that models with this special rule get a bonus to wounds caused in close combat. It goes on to state that weapons that have this special rule get the bonus to wounds caused by that weapon. Outside of using a weapon that already has the special rule, or the Metal 2 spell, Armour Piercing does not affect wounds caused outside of the close combat phase. The Razor Standard does not grant the exception written into the Metal 2 spell, it grants standard Armour Piercing. Much like Mark of Khorne does not give you a Frenzied Sword and a Frenzied Shield, it just gives you a Frenzied model. Armour Piercing gives you an AP model. By your own statement, a model that has AP on its profile gets a close combat bonus, nothing further.

Kirbi - so, yet again, you ignore that every part of the model is "the model", and ignore the very clear expansion i laid out.

Selective quoting of a small partr of an argument doesnt help your argument. Not one iota.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kirbi - so, yet again, you ignore that every part of the model is "the model",

Show us where it says this explicitly in the BRB.

Until then, Kirbinator's argument is better supported than yours, IMO.

just to let you guys know, i also thought for a long time that MoK got applied to the whole model, and that my horsey got an extra attack, this sadly is not the case. There is actually a paragraph in the book that points out that only the element with frenzy gets the +1 attack not he whole model. ill put this in a new thread as the bow issue is what needs to be discussed.

"If either the rider or the mount have frenzy then the whole model is subject to beserker rage, but only the element with the Frenzy rule gains the extra attack." pg 82

Even though i agree with Kirb on this matter, if i had to fight a WE player id let them have it, i just feel kinda bad for them. If it did apply to the weapons think of all the cool things we could do.

Flaming armour piercing Template weapons....

Flaming armour piercing Impact hits (they do count as CC attacks so this actually works)....

To name a few. In ard boyz or a tourney i might argue it, but in a friendly game i don't care.

Platuan4th wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kirbi - so, yet again, you ignore that every part of the model is "the model",

Show us where it says this explicitly in the BRB.

Until then, Kirbinator's argument is better supported than yours, IMO.

Read the cavalry section. Note that the mount is part of the model. In every section about mounts, in fact.

Look at a model. If you can say, with a straight face, that the Bow that is part of the model is not, in fact, part of the model, then well done. That level of doublethink is classic.

Magus - you're wrong on MoK, been through this. Read the cavalry section, note that "THE MODEL" includes both the mount AND the rider. By saying "the model gets Frenzy" then both the mount and the rider have Frenzy.

There's a difference between "the model" as sold by GW and "the model" as that model is treated by the rules. "The model" in the latter case is more akin to "the statline" or "the profile" than the physical item on the table representing the various rules that we agree that it represents in order to play a game. As far as the latter is concerned, there may well be a distinction between the equipment of the model and the profile of the model. There is, in fact: you can destroy or nullify the effects of various magical items, and the rules of magical weapons often don't apply when they're not being attacked with.

Which isn't to say one way or the other that the razor standard gives armour piercing to the weapons of the model. I don't think it does. It just wouldn't suprise me to find that GW had badly worded a rule.

Magus Nebula wrote:just to let you guys know, i also thought for a long time that MoK got applied to the whole model, and that my horsey got an extra attack, this sadly is not the case. There is actually a paragraph in the book that points out that only the element with frenzy gets the +1 attack not he whole model.

Look earlier in the thread where I go over the Mark of Khorne and why it is applied to both the rider and the mount. In this case Nos and I are in complete agreement, though he goes to apply the same logic to equipment where I do not. Because of the cavalry rules, both the horse and the rider receive the Mark and thus both gain frenzy. You wind up with a frenzied rider on a frenzied horse, quite the angry pair!

Edit: Just for further clarification, this is also why my Bret Knight with Armor Piercing gets the bonus on horse wounds caused in close combat. It's not because the horse has Armour Piercing hooves, it's because the horse with AP has dealt wounds in close combat.

Warboss - yet, repeatedly, you are told there is no difference.

A model which has two entirely distinct parts, a Dragon with HE Lord, with two *entirely* different stat lines, equipment and abilities is *still one model*

So why is the equipment suddenly not part of the model? All signs point to "the equipment is part of the model", in the game and with the actual physical model.

Ok, I think there is a bigger (smaller?) issue here:

GW uses the word "model" in two different, though related, senses.

1: Model = the plastic or metal thing on one base. Cavalry, ridden monsters, infantry etc. all one model. This is Nos's use as well, one thing on one base that if parts came off you would be reaching for glue. Weapons, mounts, etc.

2: Model = Dude Fella, what the model represents. Not so much the sense of plastic man, but rather a functional being who is equipped with stuff. So your model can have this weapon, or that weapon. The model (physical object) has whatever is sculpted on, but the "dude fella" the model represents has various options which change his nature. This is the sense Kirbinator seems to be going for, some soldier/character who is equipped with stuff.

So there are two uses, the first the representation, the second the soldier himself. You might think of it as the second being the naked fellow, and after you add all his stuff and freeze him in carbonite it is the first.

The trouble seems to be that GW doesn't recognize they use the two interchangeably. "You may equip the model" makes for easier cutting and pasting, but really they mean to equip the soldier. (You are not gluing a full size great sword on the thing, but rather a model great sword on a model soldier.)

So we are left with the problem of figuring out which cases use the "plastic thing on a base" usage, and which uses the Dude Fella usage.

Thanks GW.

Hm. Okay. So: tactile versus mathematical. Yes?

So, when GW says that cavalry "counts as one model", they mean that the numbers that represent the horse and the rider counts as one model. Mainly because no one cares what the tactile sense of "model" counts as in this or most other cases.

@Kribinator: here's what I'm trying to say about standard AP versus (razor) standard AP, according to what I think is Nosferatu's argument- the rule "Armour Piercing" follows the rules for itself when it comes up. Okay. But if Nosferatu is correct in thinking that a "model" includes all of the equipment on it, the standard doesn't just give the warrior the AP rule, but gives it to all of his stuff.

@Nosferatu: continuing with the above, I pose this- can you offer evidence that Armour Piercing (in general) grants the extra -1, even with ranged attacks? I might be missing something here, but it seems like the rule says "it does this in close combat", and sense this is a permissive system, blah blah blah.

Okay. So, if this is not the case, and AP works the way Kribinator thinks it does, then, if you're right about what counts as "the model", the razor standard does something slightly different than the basic rule.

All right. If that's true, then I'd wonder about assuming that a model's equipment benefits in the same way that cavalry does. Because I'd normally assume this, but I'd also normally assume that an item that grants a rule just...grants the rule.

So it becomes: which thing is more fundamental?

...did I lose anyone (beyond myself, of course)?

Platuan4th wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kirbi - so, yet again, you ignore that every part of the model is "the model",

Show us where it says this explicitly in the BRB.

Until then, Kirbinator's argument is better supported than yours, IMO.

I really agree with this. Nos, this is your own language, not something from the rulebook. Kirbinator's distinction between the "model" and the "weapon" comes from the AP rule itself.

It's the wording of Flaming and Poisoned that convinces me, as well, since if GW wanted AP to work like that, they could have easily worded it as such. Clearly, they do not, and there is a dinstinction between AP-causing weapons (such as DE crossbows) and AP-possessing models (who can use their AP in close combat only, according to the RAW).

Edit: Also, credit to WombleJim for noticing this earlier! I continue to be impressed by your theoryhammer and grasp of the rules in planning out wood elf tactics (even though it didn't work in this case, it's neat that you noticed it).

I have been thinking what Wehrkind said and can not find a resolution.

I have always read it as nosferatu1001 has stated, but now I understand the counter-point well enough that it makes me sad to look at the banner and think it would be useful.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Warboss - yet, repeatedly, you are told there is no difference.

A model which has two entirely distinct parts, a Dragon with HE Lord, with two *entirely* different stat lines, equipment and abilities is *still one model*

I would argue that it is two models which are treated as being one model while the two are still alive (except for certain things like shooting and such), given that you can kill either the griffin or the HE lord and have the survivor remain on the table.

Unless that's something that didn't carry over from 7th, and I've actually been playing it horribly wrong this whole time.

I would argue that it is two models which are treated as being one model while the two are still alive (except for certain things like shooting and such), given that you can kill either the griffin or the HE lord and have the survivor remain on the table.

Unless that's something that didn't carry over from 7th, and I've actually been playing it horribly wrong this whole time.

Actually they are considered one model for all gaming purposes. There are references to this in terms of how war machines interact with these types of models, as well as spells. If one part of the "model" dies, it will still be just one model (only without the dragon / rider). Although I do not have my book at hand, and so cannot quote any pages exactly.

I can think of one example.... If the model is forced to take a characteristic test, it only tests once, on the best score it possesses.

I don't mean to derail the thread though.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I would argue that it is two models which are treated as being one model.

Enjoy you'r argument that is in total contradiction of the rule on page 104 where it says a character and his mount are "treated as a single model for all rules purpoces, exept as noted below..." and then proceeds to give the exceptions for the various mount types.

HoverBoy wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I would argue that it is two models which are treated as being one model.

Enjoy you'r argument that is in total contradiction of the rule on page 104 where it says a character and his mount are "treated as a single model for all rules purpoces, exept as noted below..." and then proceeds to give the exceptions for the various mount types.

How is that contradicting my post? I said very nearly the same thing. Two models (because you can kill one and the other lives) treated as one model.

Here's something I thought about:

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

- Not sure if I have this right, but couldn't you rearrange this phrase like so:

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

So...this phrase seems to claim that ranged weapons can never benefit from this rule.

"... in addition to those for Strength...If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing."

- This sentence doesn't seem to clear anything up. But it does mention shots fired. When it says the attacks or shots are Armour Piercing, we should be able to insert the definition of the term (and my rearranged one) in its place, right?

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

Now: convince me one way or the other!

Oh dear..... really didn't want back into this but oh well

Again I quote from the rulebook in an effort to support my reasoning that in game mechanics the model is seperate from the weapons and armour that bestow bonus properties to said model.

p4 - Other Important Information
"In addition to its characteristic profile each model will have a troop type, such as infantry or cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on p80. It might also have a save of some kind, representing any armour or magical protection it might have, and it could be carrying one or more shooting or close combat weapons (see page 88) or might have one or more special rules (see page 66)"

Ok now dissecting the english in this shows that the "model can have special rules" and can carry weapons (two seprate things in game mechanics), now as quoted before the Razor standard affects the model (which can have special rules) and there is no mention of the standard bestowing it armour piercing on a weapon, again the armour piercing special rules can be quoted as saying "If a model has a weapon with the armour piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing.

This will be my final comment for a few days as am heading down South, when I am back at the weekend I fully expect this thread to be on page 10
@RiTides, thank you for the compliment, lets hope theory works in practice when I get to the table end of the month

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:How is that contradicting my post? I said very nearly the same thing. Two models (because you can kill one and the other lives) treated as one model.

Because it clearly says they're one modelm, nowhere in the ridden monsters rule does it say they aren't. Being able to die separately may sound like a logical reason to declare them as separate models but it has no basis in the rules.

In fact all we have to go on RAW-wise is an FAQ ruling that mentions models with different "locations":

Q: Can spells that pick out individual models, even if they are in a
unit, choose what is hit when targeting a model with multiple
locations? For example The Fate of Bjuna is cast at an Orc Warboss
on a Wyvern, the caster can choose to target the Warboss or the
Wyvern and it will be resolved against the Toughness of the target.
(Reference)
A: Yes.

Womble - again, that does not state that the model is separate from the equipment.

MOst people have skin, which has certain characteristics entirely different to the other parts of their body (elasticity, permeability, etc) - does that mean your skin is not a part of you?

No.

In the same way your model has equipment with stats - this equipment is STILL part of the model.

The extraordinary claim is that a part of a model is not actually a model. That has so far NOT been backed up by any poster. Assertions have been made that GW view them differently, but not a single rules quote has been given (that actually states a model and the equipment that is part of the model is not actually part of the model)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If a model has the AP rule all his CC attacks have it, not his ranged attacks

The rule does not actually state that. It only mentions the close combat attacks, it does not de facto deny the model having ranged AP attacks (it just doesnt consider it at all)

If a rule says that you gain X for Y situation, you do not additionally gain X for Z situation.

You may not assume to gain Armor Piercing ranged attacks for having the Armor Piercing unit rule.

You may gain Armor Piercing ranged attacks for having a weapon with the Armor Piercing weapon rule.

ph34r - which is my argument: the Banner gives AP to the model, euipment is an inherent part of the model, therefore AP is given to the equipment in the exact same way MoK gives frenzy to a mount as well as the rider.

It's one supported by English, by the actual models (and we all know GW is a mdoelling company first....rules somewhere in the distance) and by their consistent usage of such throughout the rule book.

nosferatu1001 wrote: but not a single rules quote has been given (that actually states a model and the equipment that is part of the model is not actually part of the model)

I would like to say that yourself have not supported your claim that the model includes the playing piece and all equipment it caries with any quote from the rulebook.

I maintain my argument that the model is separate from any equipment that would grant it any additional abilities (poison, AP, flaming etc etc) as it is the mechanic of the equipment (not the model) that allows the model to make such attacks (unless said model has the inherent special rule).

nosferatu1001 wrote:ph34r - which is my argument: the Banner gives AP to the model, euipment is an inherent part of the model, therefore AP is given to the equipment in the exact same way MoK gives frenzy to a mount as well as the rider.

It's one supported by English, by the actual models (and we all know GW is a mdoelling company first....rules somewhere in the distance) and by their consistent usage of such throughout the rule book.

Would you consider an effect that gives a unit +1 strength to give the unit's handguns +1 strength? How about an effect that gave the unit +1 leadership?

Exactly! You simply cannot generalize "model" and apply the effect to the ranged weapon attacks when it is specifically stated that it is for close combat attacks only.

Otherwise, you would run into examples such as ph34r is stating above, and open up a whole can of worms. It is much clearer, and much truer to the RAW, to make a dinstinction between the effect applied to the model and to its weapon, because the rule itself makes this distinction, and explains what is meant.

Nos, I think you're just being stubborn about it at this point, honestly... most people disagree with you, the wording disagrees with you, and all you can point to is a vague thing about "it says model so it affects everything" when there are cases when this isn't true (ph34r's examples) and the dinstinction between the two is made by the rule itself.

Instead of claiming the "the english language" supports your view, you should really use the rule in question, instead... the reason you aren't is that it does not support your view at all, and at this point you just won't admit it.

Sigh.

Nope, not at all. I have used the rule a number of times now. I used the rule repeatedly, especally that part about "the weapon".

How about everyone leaves it, since we're now on the 3rd page of repetition? I have yet to see any argument that proves "the model" is different to "the models equipment" , and the rulebook heavily implies the contrary (ref every section on mounts), meaning nothing can be *proven* , just assumed, on "your" part.

Using the language "assume" for the other side of the argument is silly, as you are quite obviously assuming that the sections referring to mounts apply to weapons, and this is not necessarily the case. The rule we are actually talking about calls them out as separate entities.

And if you are arguing based on implications at this point, you are no longer arguing RAW. The rule in question makes a distinction between the two, so there is a dinstinction- unless you can provide proof (not the other way around) that there is not a distinction.

You keep asking for proof of why the term "model" doesn't apply to the weapon, when the rules calls them out separately. You need to prove that they should be joined, contrary to the wording of the rule, and you haven't done so.