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.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
Credit to FvonSigmaringen over at eefl he found this old ditty:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/350901.page

Found it interesting that the exact same discussion raged on this site in 2011 over the razor standard, with the exact same arguments on both sides. GW eventually released the FAQ (that I posted earlier) for the Razor Standard that supports the armor piercing rule RAW.

I know you guys are going to try and point out that that ruling only applies to the razor standard and that for some magical reason forgefire is different, despite being worded exactly the same way.

All I can say is that anyone else reading this post can now make their own assessment and form their own conclusion.

Play the game your way. But also know that if you ever attend an event that is hosting 8th edition games, know that forgefire and the razor standard will only affect close combat attacks, despite whatever you've houseruled them to be.

You are not the first person to point out that old Dakka thread. It doesn't prove anything. Your argument is based on assumption. The assumption that a one word answer in an FAQ that is on the Razor Banner auto includes all Armour Piercing. Assumption is NOT proof, it doesn't rise to the level of probable cause, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. If GW had ment Armour Piercing to follow your interpretation they would have said so, in the rule book, in an FAQ on Armour Piercing, or the Forgefire itself, but they didn't. The FAQ on the Razor Standard is just that, the Razor Standard only. Just because you want it to be more does not mean it is.

Your personal interpretation of the rule does not make you the defacto guardian of Warhammer lore. If you disagree you are entitled to your opinion and are welcome to drop out of the thread, but it doesn't make you right.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:


You are not the first person to point out that old Dakka thread. It doesn't prove anything. Your argument is based on assumption. The assumption that a one word answer in an FAQ that is on the Razor Banner auto includes all Armour Piercing. Assumption is NOT proof, it doesn't rise to the level of probable cause, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. If GW had ment Armour Piercing to follow your interpretation they would have said so, in the rule book, in an FAQ on Armour Piercing, or the Forgefire itself, but they didn't. The FAQ on the Razor Standard is just that, the Razor Standard only. Just because you want it to be more does not mean it is.

Your personal interpretation of the rule does not make you the defacto guardian of Warhammer lore. If you disagree you are entitled to your opinion and are welcome to drop out of the thread, but it doesn't make you right.

I find it funny that you keep telling me my argument is based on assumption, or that any and all evidence I supply doesn't mean anything, when in fact it's the other way around. I'll even go so far as to quote the rulebook again. (something you have failed to do, all you keep doing is stubbornly sticking to whatever interpretation you think is correct and/or trying REALLY hard to convince me/others that either my sources/interpretations are invalid - even if you're wrong )

from pg 67: "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, in addition to those for Strength. For example, a Strength 4 model with the Armour Piercing special rule would inflict a -2 armour save modifier when striking in close combat, rather than the usual -1. If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing."

from pg 503 Razor Standard: "Models in a unit with the Razor Standard have the Armour Piercing special rule"

from the Dwarf Book, pg 36: "Forgefire: All friendly infantry models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule. Should the Runesmith or Runelord leave the unit or be slain, the unit loses the special rule immediately."

from the BRB Official Update Version 1.9, p. 14:
"Q: If a unit with missile weapons has the Razor Standard, do their shooting attacks have the Armour Piercing special rule? (Reference)
A: No."


If you want to continue to beat this dead horse, by all means do so. The rulebook clearly states that when a rule gives Armour Piercing to a (keyword, if it helps)model, it applies ONLY to it's close combat attacks.

GW went out of their way to clarify this rule with the FAQ on the Razor Standard, due to issues like https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/350901.page popping up all over. Their ruling was 100% in-line with how the rulebook says Armour Piercing works.

The specific example given in the Armour Piercing heading even explicitly states that "... a Strength 4 MODEL with the Armour Piercing special rule would inflict a -2 armour save modifier when striking IN CLOSE COMBAT, rather than the usual -1..."

The wording for Forgefire is exactly the same as the wording for Razor Standard, i.e. MODELS in the respective units receive the Armour Piercing special rule, Ergo, Forgefire only applies to close combat attacks.



You, my friend are the one making assumptions, and like you said, "Assumption is NOT proof, it doesn't rise to the level of probable cause, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt."

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:

I find it funny that you keep telling me my argument is based on assumption, when in fact it's the other way around. I'll even go so far as to quote the rulebook again. (something you have failed to do, all you keep doing is stubbornly sticking to whatever interpretation you think is correct and/or trying REALLY hard to convince me/others that either my sources/interpretations are invalid - even if you're wrong )

If you bothered to read the first page of this thread rather than jumping into the end you would have seen my stance. The paragraph on page 67 you keep pointing out is an example of how Armour Piercing effects the armour save, it is not a clarification of of the difference between a model with armour Piercing and a weapon with armour Piercing. Again you can keep harping on that meaningless FAQ for the Razor Standard, but that is all it covers. If GQ had ment it to cover all Armour Piercing they would have said so. I am not keeping you here, for the 3rd time, if you disagree then leave the thread. No one is keeping you here except a childish desire to have the last word. If you don't want to beat your horse, take it somewhere else and bury it

I'll even go one step further, seeing as this is what you seem to be hung up on:

from the brb, pg 4:

"In addition to it's characteristics profile, each model will have a troop type, such as infantry or cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 80. 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)..."

GW goes out of their way to specify that a MODEL may be carrying one or more weapons. Let that sink in... MODELS carry WEAPONS. They are separate and distinct. A rule that gives something to a model does NOT necessarily give it to the weapon that the model is carrying. I mean ffs the wording in the Armour Piercing rule itself says if a MODEL is attacking with a WEAPON that has this rule. How much clearer does it have to be!?!

Here are some other special rules that pertain to MODELS and WEAPONS:

Flaming Attacks: (brb, pg 69)

"Unless otherwise stated, a model with this special rule has both Flaming shooting and close combat attacks..." - they go out of their way to address that this works for both shooting, and close combat. They could just have easily done this with Armour Piercing if they wanted to. That they didn't tells me (at least, and again, speculation) that RAI - Armour Piercing was meant to apply only to close combat attacks.

Poisoned Attacks: (brb, page 73)

"Unless otherwise stated, a model with this special rule has both Poisoned shooting and close combat attacks..." - see above comment about RAI.

Quick to fire: (brb, page 73)

"Quick to fire weapons do not suffer the usual..." - the fact that the rulebook writer(s) is capable of singling out weapons as carrying a rule tells me that..again...MODELS carry WEAPONS and that the wording MODELS was deliberate.


By all means, continue to tell me that you know better than literally THOUSANDS of tournament/event goers and organizers, FAQ writers, and even the game devs themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:

I find it funny that you keep telling me my argument is based on assumption, when in fact it's the other way around. I'll even go so far as to quote the rulebook again. (something you have failed to do, all you keep doing is stubbornly sticking to whatever interpretation you think is correct and/or trying REALLY hard to convince me/others that either my sources/interpretations are invalid - even if you're wrong )

If you bothered to read the first page of this thread rather than jumping into the end you would have seen my stance. The paragraph on page 67 you keep pointing out is an example of how Armour Piercing effects the armour save, it is not a clarification of of the difference between a model with armour Piercing and a weapon with armour Piercing. Again you can keep harping on that meaningless FAQ for the Razor Standard, but that is all it covers. If GQ had ment it to cover all Armour Piercing they would have said so. I am not keeping you here, for the 3rd time, if you disagree then leave the thread. No one is keeping you here except a childish desire to have the last word. If you don't want to beat your horse, take it somewhere else and bury it

Now you're just deliberately trolling...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

jouso wrote:

Doesn't work. Runesmith gives AP to the unit, so it works for cc only.

In order for it to work with the missile weapons it would have to grant AP to the weapon.

I don't think that is the correct interpretation. Page 67 of the rulebook states that

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


Page 36 of the Dwarf book under the Runesmith says

"All friendly models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule."

The Runesmith gives the rule to the model not the weapon so any attack or shot made by the model would benefit. There was no official FAQ for the Dwarf book and Armour Piercing wasn't covered in the main rulebook FAQ. There is no basis for assuming that it would only apply to close combat.

you mean this one? The one where you deliberately state that because the Runesmith gives it to the model it pertains to shooting as well??

Because that's what I'm trying to address...

And for the record...I have read the whole thread; I did forget that you initially quoted the rules though.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
I'll even go one step further, seeing as this is what you seem to be hung up on:

from the brb, pg 4:

"In addition to it's characteristics profile, each model will have a troop type, such as infantry or cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 80. 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)..."

All that states is that a model can carry weapons and have special rules. It doesn't state that the special rules only apply to specific weapons. By your interpretation a model could have a special rule and not be able to use it unless the weapon has the rule.

Look at page 73 of the O&G book.

"Sneaky Stabbin is an augment spell with with range 12". The target unit's close combat attacks have the Armour Piercing special rule until the start of the caster's next magic phase."


The author has gone out of his way to specify that the armour piercing only applies to close combat and no other attacks. If your interpretation is correct and the rule only applies to close combat, why wouldn't the author state "the unit has the armour piercing special rule" and leave it at that?

By the way this is the same author, Jeremy Vetock, who wrote the Dwarf book. In one book he goes above to point out that a model is only getting the rule for close combat and the other he is not. That is because there is a distinction between the model having the rule and the weapon. If the model has the rule, it applies to both combat and shooting unless otherwise stated, RAW from the same guy.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:


Look at page 73 of the O&G book.

"Sneaky Stabbin is an augment spell with with range 12". The target unit's close combat attacks have the Armour Piercing special rule until the start of the caster's next magic phase."


The author has gone out of his way to specify that the armour piercing only applies to close combat and no other attacks. If your interpretation is correct and the rule only applies to close combat, why wouldn't the author state "the unit has the armour piercing special rule" and leave it at that?

He probably worded it that way to prevent 3-4 page arguments about how the rule should work

But by your own logic, the rules for the spell is inadmissible as the wording and any subsequent rulings would apply only to that spell. (see what I did there? ) [just like the Razor Standard]

It's a good example of better rule writing I feel, but it in no way impacts the discussion about the Forgefire - rather than explicitly telling you that AP applies to close combat it just refers you to the main rules, which tell you how AP is supposed to work.

I really do feel like I'll just have to agree to disagree here. At least from my side there's nothing more to really say about the issue.

RAW/RAI aside I personally don't feel like giving a unit of Thunders (EDIT: Quarrelers!! I feel so ashamed) armor piercing is that big of a deal as it means those great weapon warriors or Longbeards aren't getting it. Unless you're playing a game large enough that every unit gets a Runesmith (YOU get a Runesmith...and YOU get a Runesmith!) I'd allow it as a houserule if my opponent was dead set on it.

Best of luck to you in your games! Despite its flaws 8th was my favorite edition. Happy to see others still enjoying it too!

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
I'll even go one step further, seeing as this is what you seem to be hung up on:

from the brb, pg 4:

"In addition to it's characteristics profile, each model will have a troop type, such as infantry or cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 80. 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)..."

All that states is that a model can carry weapons and have special rules. It doesn't state that the special rules only apply to specific weapons. By your interpretation a model could have a special rule and not be able to use it unless the weapon has the rule.

Look at page 73 of the O&G book.

"Sneaky Stabbin is an augment spell with with range 12". The target unit's close combat attacks have the Armour Piercing special rule until the start of the caster's next magic phase."


The author has gone out of his way to specify that the armour piercing only applies to close combat and no other attacks. If your interpretation is correct and the rule only applies to close combat, why wouldn't the author state "the unit has the armour piercing special rule" and leave it at that?

The authors also went out of their way to mention that flaming and poison attacks would work on both shooting and cc unless otherwise mentioned. Or the lore of metal spell that specifies "all their attacks" gain armour piercing and thus works for shooting.

But as far as consensus goes, you have:

Bugman's (multiple times)
http://www.bugmansbrewery.com/topic/42685-forgefire/
http://www.bugmansbrewery.com/topic/44538-runesmith-quarrelers-armour-piercing/
http://www.bugmansbrewery.com/topic/42782-question-re-forgefire/

BoLS
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/11/whfb-tactics-dwarfs-heroes.html

Miniwargaming
http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112484

Lustria (on a tactics vs dwarves thread)
http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/lizardmen-vs-new-dwarves.14017/

Besides EEFL and others already mentioned.

Sadly places like warseer, the warhammer forum etc. are gone but you'd see exactly the same consensus there.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:

I really do feel like I'll just have to agree to disagree here.

That is for sure.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:

Despite its flaws 8th was my favorite edition.

Now this is something we can agree on


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

But as far as consensus goes, you have:...

Those old links don't show a consensus, only that people have been debating the same issue for years now. And don't put too much stock in a following a consensus, lemmings have a consensus too.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:


Those old links don't show a consensus, only that people have been debating the same issue for years now. And don't put too much stock in a following a consensus, lemmings have a consensus too.

If you want to play anyone else besides your buddy next door consensus is a must.

The main concensus is not to be a dick gamer. Its not an unfair or unreasonable request for someone with a Runesmith to interpret the rules plainly and have global armour piercing.

If playing AGAINST the Dwarfs I would be happy to accommodate it as good friendly gameplay. If playing AS Dwarfs I would only forward it if it fit my theme to have Runesmiths in Quarrelers, otherwise I would be reluctant to make a fuss.

No matter what some say, its plainly is at least in part a grey area because of the literal RAW. I would be too ashamed to try and ruleslawyer away anyone who tried this combo, its not a cheesy option, there is no volley fire for mass aplication like Razor Banner has, there is a similar alternative in Thunderers.

 Orlanth wrote:
The main concensus is not to be a dick gamer. Its not an unfair or unreasonable request for someone with a Runesmith to interpret the rules plainly and have global armour piercing.

If playing AGAINST the Dwarfs I would be happy to accommodate it as good friendly gameplay.

So would I, and I would also point it out immediately afterwards to make sure he fully understands how GW rules are written and is up to date with the latest FAQ so as not to make the same mistake again (especially if his intention is to play an event at some point).

jouso wrote:

So would I, and I would also point it out immediately afterwards to make sure he fully understands how GW rules are written and is up to date with the latest FAQ so as not to make the same mistake again (especially if his intention is to play an event at some point).

Except that there is no official GW FAQ on Armour Piercing, the Razor Standard is it's own thing. Interpretation would be up to the individual players or TO for an event.

ignore please

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

jouso wrote:

So would I, and I would also point it out immediately afterwards to make sure he fully understands how GW rules are written and is up to date with the latest FAQ so as not to make the same mistake again (especially if his intention is to play an event at some point).

Except that there is no official GW FAQ on Armour Piercing, the Razor Standard is it's own thing. Interpretation would be up to the individual players or TO for an event.

So you mean the character which has the exact same wording as the banner?

Clutching at straws there.

*sigh*

let it go jouso.

Mat Ward himself could weigh in on the issue and Baldrick would still claim to be right; he's just that kind of person.

He's very much like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSlfttDnurw

just...let it go.

jouso wrote:

So you mean the character which has the exact same wording as the banner?

Clutching at straws there.

The FAQ for the Razor Standard is a 1 word answer that gives no explanation as to its context. That is clutching at straws when the same author has shown us that he uses an entirely different phrasing when he intends for AP to apply to combat only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSlfttDnurw

That you get a for. 4 beans will always = some beans.

jouso wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The main concensus is not to be a dick gamer. Its not an unfair or unreasonable request for someone with a Runesmith to interpret the rules plainly and have global armour piercing.

If playing AGAINST the Dwarfs I would be happy to accommodate it as good friendly gameplay.

So would I, and I would also point it out immediately afterwards to make sure he fully understands how GW rules are written and is up to date with the latest FAQ so as not to make the same mistake again (especially if his intention is to play an event at some point).

Nevertheless you insist on error. The RAW is as it is, the FAQ specifically is limited to the Razor Banner, if it wasn't it would say otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
*sigh*

let it go jouso.

Mat Ward himself could weigh in on the issue and Baldrick would still claim to be right; he's just that kind of person.

That insultingly patronising. If Mat Ward had weighed in on the issue or anyone else in an official capacity then the matter would be settled. Here is the rub: they did not.
However much you want to you cannot make up extensions , well you can but that just yet another house rule. The RAW is. If the RAW is FAQed and the ambiguities remain you still have to work with the RAW.
The only lesson from this is that GW were and are sloppy games writers.

I realize no one is going to convince anyone of anything at this point – all of which convinces me more than ever that if it was intended to mean “only in melee” it is a very poorly written rule. Personally, I give the writer more credit than that.

I am reminded of something our local, and rather eccentric, newspaper editor told me once. If three wolves and two sheep get together for a vote on what’s for dinner, all of a sudden, the sheep aren’t all that enthused with the democratic process.

The supreme & appellate courts overturn laws all the time that show the popular opinion is not the correct interpretation of what the law actually says. The argument of "that's what everyone else thinks" never stands up in court.

Going back to the original question, There are three distinct combat bonuses situations:
1) A rule that is to apply only in close combat
2) A rule that is to apply only in shooting
3) A rule that is to apply in both.
As for me, taking a rule that on its surface appears to have a rather straightforward and general application and say that it is only meant to apply in a specific situation because of an example with limited applications, makes little sense.

Again, here is the rule as written: Forgefire: All friendly infantry models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule.

For those of you who insist that this rule only applies to hand to hand combat, let me ask you this. How would you write a rule (using minimal verbiage) that would cover situation #3 above with any more clarity than the rule already has?

 Korvessa wrote:


For those of you who insist that this rule only applies to hand to hand combat, let me ask you this. How would you write a rule (using minimal verbiage) that would cover situation #3 above with any more clarity than the rule already has?

I would have just written the rule to say: "Forgefire: A model gains the Armour Piercing special rule for both it's shooting and close combat attacks."

Simple. Straightforward. Leaves little room for interpretation as to what the author meant.

I think the crux of the others sides argument (unless I'm way off) hinges on whether a rule given to a "model" extends to any equipment/weapons that the model is carrying.

To my knowledge, no one has been able to show me IN THE RULES where this is the case. They've offered their logical interpretations of WHAT THEY THINK it means when a "model" is given a rule, but have been unable to support that claim with a rule FROM THE RULEBOOK.

I've tried (and possibly failed) to show that the rules writers differentiate between "models", "weapons", "close combat", and "shooting". I'd like to give the rulebook writers some credit as to know how they wanted things to work, but the fact that years later we're still having the same arguments show otherwise.

@Orlanth - I stand by what I said. After what transpired here https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/770459.page I'm convinced that (the fantasy section at least) of dakka is populated by trolls who aren't interested in having fun but just submitting everyone else to their will.

You realize that guy wrote articles for White Dwarf and Citadel Journal, and is the author for the 7th edition Indy GT Chaos Dwarf book right? He was just trying to submit a fun alternative way to use your models and you totally browbeat him away from dakka.

The guy also didn't know the difference between "to" and "too", so there's that.

At any rate, the real issue is GW's lack of clarity at times, and the inability of the gamers to come to a consensus. Take a look back at Chaos Marines 3.5 when it was around. You had the community torn over that one, whether it was overpowered or not, and I think I may have been the only Chaos player saying it was OP.

This rule is no different as people can't come to a consensus on something as simple as wording.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:


@Orlanth - I stand by what I said. After what transpired here https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/770459.page I'm convinced that (the fantasy section at least) of dakka is populated by trolls who aren't interested in having fun but just submitting everyone else to their will.

Speak for yourself.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:

You realize that guy wrote articles for White Dwarf and Citadel Journal, and is the author for the 7th edition Indy GT Chaos Dwarf book right? He was just trying to submit a fun alternative way to use your models and you totally browbeat him away from dakka.

Looking back at the link, all I said was that I agree with Baldricks position, then as now it seems. I didn't browbeat anyone, just said the faction was fleshed out as is in 8th, and the one fix that needed to be made was a non special character Ld8 night goblin general as you could have in 9th Age 9.1.
For that I get called a troll and the OP ragequit.

Somewhat surprised at that level of thin skin, I wonder how this guy handles actual strong critique. Nonetheless I repeat my reply to that to stand here also:

* Blink * OK. Bye.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
.

To my knowledge, no one has been able to show me IN THE RULES where this is the case. They've offered their logical interpretations of WHAT THEY THINK it means when a "model" is given a rule, but have been unable to support that claim with a rule FROM THE RULEBOOK.
.

There isn't so you can keep waiting.

It's not like this rule was particularly disagreed back in the day. The discussions over whether saurus predator worked with supporting attacks now that was some proper rules discussion.