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.

Evil_Lamp_6 wrote:And we don't KNOW that St. Celestine isn't throwing the Ardent Blade or some other form of gun shooting sword thing. She WAS projecting magic fire from it in the 3rd Ed. Codex. Now, it is not so clear what the shooting effect is or is not. I agree the shooting profile is very clear for the Ardent Blade's shooting attack, but then again so was the Foehammer's. But the latter was FAQ'd to carry over effects from the CC attack into the shooting attack for the same weapon, is it entirely unreasonable to say that the same could not happen for the Ardent Blade?

So you think that she throws her sword and it travels in a teardrop shaped pattern that simulates a gout of fluid and breaks through cover to strike at her enemies? You're going to stand behind that?

It's unreasonable because the FAQ is clarifying the behavior of a unique item. You can't extrapolate Foehammer's attributes becuase Foehammer is special. What we know is that Foehammer has these properties and nothing else. And again (I think this is the 3rd time I've said this) if you extrapolate that the special rules for Foehammer's CC attacks work in the shooting phase to mean that all CC weapons with shooting attacks have their special rules work in the shooting phase, then the Ardent Blade should ignore armor since it's a power weapon.

Ray Age wrote:If you think it's a Power Weapon, when shooting, why is it AP 4?

Just saying...

Getting to that, see below.

Amerikon wrote:

Evil_Lamp_6 wrote:And we don't KNOW that St. Celestine isn't throwing the Ardent Blade or some other form of gun shooting sword thing. She WAS projecting magic fire from it in the 3rd Ed. Codex. Now, it is not so clear what the shooting effect is or is not. I agree the shooting profile is very clear for the Ardent Blade's shooting attack, but then again so was the Foehammer's. But the latter was FAQ'd to carry over effects from the CC attack into the shooting attack for the same weapon, is it entirely unreasonable to say that the same could not happen for the Ardent Blade?

So you think that she throws her sword and it travels in a teardrop shaped pattern that simulates a gout of fluid and breaks through cover to strike at her enemies? You're going to stand behind that?

Sure, why not? Now that it is not specifically stated as shooting a H. Flamer, why not imagine that St. Celestine is doing just that?

Amerikon wrote:
It's unreasonable because the FAQ is clarifying the behavior of a unique item. You can't extrapolate Foehammer's attributes becuase Foehammer is special. What we know is that Foehammer has these properties and nothing else. And again (I think this is the 3rd time I've said this) if you extrapolate that the special rules for Foehammer's CC attacks work in the shooting phase to mean that all CC weapons with shooting attacks have their special rules work in the shooting phase, then the Ardent Blade should ignore armor since it's a power weapon.

All right, I thought I was clear about why the whole Power Weapon thing wouldn't carry over to the shooting attack, but I guess I wasn't, so I'll go ahead and quote the BRB on this one:

BRB Page 42 wrote: Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armour saves.

So according to the BRB, only CC attacks by models with a power weapon ignore armor saves. That is why the shooting attacks of a power weapon doesn't ignore armor saves. Also, for the relevant part for thunder hammers:

BRB Page 42 wrote: In addition, all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player’s turn.

The thunder hammer's reduction of Init is not specially for an unsaved wound in CC, just an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer, which is probably why GW went with that ruling for the Foehammer, as it is a wound caused by a (specific) thunder hammer, the Foehammer. So why shouldn't St. Celestine's Ardent Blade's always wounds on a 4+ apply for the shooting attack of said Ardent Blade despite not being listed in the shooting profile for the weapon, yet is part of the special rules for the weapon and not specifically stated to be applicable only in CC?

Necrosis wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The comma does not matter, as it tells you to use a specific profile for the shooting part.

Same thing with the space wolf throwing his thunder hammer as a range attack. No where in the range profile does it say you are reduce to initiative 1, yet according to the FAQ you still are.

But only because they FAQed it. Got an FAQ for the Ardent Blade? Didn't think so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:And after staring heavily in to my screen and then at my WD and then everything else; there is a period after it there for i am incorrect.

Other wise i would still argue, point is conceded

Thank the Emperor!!

don_mondo wrote:

Necrosis wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The comma does not matter, as it tells you to use a specific profile for the shooting part.

Same thing with the space wolf throwing his thunder hammer as a range attack. No where in the range profile does it say you are reduce to initiative 1, yet according to the FAQ you still are.

But only because they FAQed it. Got an FAQ for the Ardent Blade? Didn't think so.

It is my contention that they didn't need to FAQ the Foehammer to work that way as pointed out in my first post on this thread, but added it to clarify that issue. The reduction of Init is not tied at all to wounding in CC. The same can be said for the Ardent's Blade's +4 to wound...