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.

Alrighty, I think both sides can be done now. Nos can play with Khorne Warriors and their Frenzied Shields vs. Black Guard and their ASF Heavy Armor as much as he likes, it is an open game for all to enjoy. Let's not require a mod to lock a thread to put this one to rest, shall we?

Kirbinator wrote:Alrighty, I think both sides can be done now. Nos can play with Khorne Warriors and their Frenzied Shields vs. Black Guard and their ASF Heavy Armor as much as he likes, it is an open game for all to enjoy. Let's not require a mod to lock a thread to put this one to rest, shall we?

Was that really called for? I could equally mock you for your bows that arent actually part of your model, despite being an integral part of it - which is your eventual argument. It doesnt actually help matters, especially when I attempted to end this discussion civilly.

I don't think it was uncivil, as that is basically what you are doing- extending a rule to apply to things that are not mentioned in the rule.

It's a fair comment, and not uncivil... and AFAIK Kirbinator wasn't trying to take a jab at you (we've been PM'ing about this issue, as well).

If you really wanted to end the discussion, it would have helped to admit that you are stretching the rules a bit to cover this instance, instead of arguing as if it is the other way around. Your application of the word "model" is broader than the rule's wording allows it to be, and that stance makes it very difficult to discuss the rules based on the actual wording, instead of what you think they are implying.

Okay, so people are going to assume it doesn't from this point. Sure. Whatever.

...but can someone please respond to my last post? If it can't be wrapped up in a few posts, I'll have to start another thread ("Armour Piercing: Never Ranged?", or something like that).

RI - so you're hanging on a rule which functionally has no allowance for AP outside of CC, *ever*?

From the wording, yes- unless the weapon is described to have AP, as in the DE crossbows in the example.

The rule makes no allowance for what happens at range, only in CC

You are assuming it is -1 at range sa well, because that is how it has always been.

Still an assumption on your part.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there, Nos.

Do you think it should not give the -1 AP at range for DE crossbows (or just playing devil's advocate)?

But I would say you are right- I would assume that they would work at range, because it describes them having AP. However, that is not contradicting anything in the rule, only filling in a gap from it's description. The reading that you were espousing sounded to me to be in direct conflict of the wording of the rule, which only allowed for close combat attacks with AP from a "model" possessing AP (not a weapon).

nosferatu1001 wrote:I have yet to see any argument that proves "the model" is different to "the models equipment"

The rulebook does not need to. The rulebook tells you what you CAN do, not what you CAN'T do. If the rulebook says it effects cc, it doesn't mean you can assume it effects ranged unless it says otherwise.

If the rulebook says model, you can't assume it also effect's all of the model's equipment.

Except you can, as I pointed out - I even showed you the logical expansion of what happens when something is given to the "whole" model, and it happens for MoK on cavalry.

English AND the consistent use of "model" throughout the rulebooks shows that claiming "saying the whole model excludes ...." is the *extraordinary* claim to make. Again, I point to cavalry - something that is entirely different to the rider is STILL ONE MODEL. Not two, not a model plus some extra bit, *ONE*model. Suddenly claiming that equipment are NOT part of the model is ludicrous given terminology.

Ri - technically there are no rules covering ranged AP, at all. There is a *huge* gap there. Assuming you get -1 at range is what everyone does, but the rules do not support it.

It is also NOT a contradiction - whcih was the point.

There is no limitation in the initial sentence, i.e. "if the model has AP, it can ONLY ever make CC attacks with AP" (to loosely word the type of restriction i'm talking about to get meaning) it just tells you what happens IF the model has AP. IF the model is carrying ranged weapons then it *also* has ranged AP attacks. So the razor banner giving the whole model AP, which includes its equipment, means:

1) The model has AP, so it can make CC attacks with an extra -1
2) It carries ranged weapons with the AP special rule, so we assume this means ranged attacks are at -1 (because the rules dont ACTUALLY say tht)

Claiming that model /= whole of the model is an extraordinary claim to make. As I said - hold a model up. If you can claim, TRULY claim, that the bow that is integral to the model is NOT part of the model, then you have won part of the argument. I'd love to see anyone try it.

I think Nosferatu has a good point there, and no one's said anything about it: a model's equipment is obviously part of the model. Whether you mean model as in "plastic bit" or "dude guy", he's still got a (model) sword and a (model) suit of chain mail.

Now, the issue I'll have next is threefold:

- a model gains an ability. We've had the Mark of Khorne on knights for a long-long-long-standing example. And there's no problem here; the equipment's profiles don't have an Attack section, which means that there's no place for that +1 from Frenzy to go. It doesn't go from 0 to 1, it goes from - to -. Right?

- Now, here's the second issue: what about bonuses that the warrior and his equipment can both benefit from? The only one I can think of is Strength, in terms of weapons. If I give an orc model +1S (...such as, it's the first round of combat), and this logic is to be followed, then this would be the case:

orc's S = 3+1, weapon's strength = (wielder's strength=3+1)+1 = 5

This isn't a problem with grammar. It's just showing a trend toward silliness due to some poorly written stuff.

- finally, this is what everyone else seems so keen on: the cavalry section is very similar to this situation, but it is not the same. The rules don't give us an explicit way to deal with this sort of thing.
If we keep following cavalry as an example, we'll inevitably get to the section on special rules, and how they don't effect the mount (or, if we're to keep the comparison going, the equipment).

Doing so would result in an assumption. But so would assuming that the rules pass on to equipment- even though it is obvious that it's all the same model, we're never told such, so it's still, technically, an assumption.

Therefore, I move that we all assume weapons don't get special rules when the models do, like cavalry, because we're not told (directly) one way or the other, it gets silly otherwise, and that's also the way it was intended.

...oh. And we can assume that ranged attacks allow AP to work. No logical arguments for that, though. I just don't feel like being that mean. GW messed up. Whatever. Spirit of the game. Blah blah blah.


El fin.

Warpsolution wrote:I think Nosferatu has a good point there, and no one's said anything about it: a model's equipment is obviously part of the model. Whether you mean model as in "plastic bit" or "dude guy", he's still got a (model) sword and a (model) suit of chain mail.

Actually, a page or two ago, two rules were quoted where gear isn't part of a models intrinsic abilities.

-Matt

I could only find this:

p3 - Models & Units
"Each Model is an individual playing piece with its own skills and capabilities. To reflect all the differences between such warriors, each model has its own characteristics profile."

p89 - Weapon profiles
"Each 'special' weapon confers a number of abilities onto the warrior wielding it. This will sometimes be a bonus to their characteristic profile (normally strength) or perhaps grant the wielder one or more special rules, detailed n the weapons section. In order to keep a weapons abilities nice and clear, we give each a characteristic profile much as we do a warrior."

And this proves that equipment is separate from a model's abilities. But that doesn't make it not part of the model. Like a dragon; it has its own profile (like a sword) and is separate from the model's abilities, but it's part of the same model.

...unless you were referring to something else that I missed in my cursory glance backwards in time. In which case, you may disregard the above.

The points above were what I was getting at: nothing tells you that that-part-of-the-model (the equipment) isnt actually part of the model. In fact, every time something is explicitly mentioned - it IS part of the model.

It's a stretch in the same way that using ranged AP to any effect is a stretch. Sloppy rules writing FTW

Wow this is a really sticky one. I would tend to go with Nos on this until they release an errata on the Razor Banner. I think both arguments are valid though. I just personally wouldn't deny my opponent the ranged AP when it is so poorly written, and can be argued either way so equally.

I wouldn't claim the bonus myself, but at 45 points, I would deny my opponent the bonus if he claimed it.
I would say this is the moral high ground to take; giving the advantage without taking.

The biggest issue is, we don't have a model in the game that the model has the armor piercing rule, and a ranged attack. We just don't have a single point of reference.

-Matt

I'd certainly give my opponent the bonus. But at 45pts, I'd double-check with my opponent, to make sure he's okay with giving me the bonus.

How is this still up for interpretation? The ranged attacks don't get it.

And nosferatu's "the model includes it's gear and special rules give it to the whole model" argument is invalid.

LOOK at the description of the characteristics of a "model". Nowhere does it state the equipment are part of a model's characteristics.
and then look at the description for SPECIAL RULES. It affects the model. and weapons are not part of the model characterstic. period.
You cannot just assume they are. The rules say what you can do. they don't state every single thing you can't do. otherwise we'd have 2000 page rule books.
If it doesn't say you can do it, it means you can't do it.

The only way to cause armour piercing ranged attacks is if it is already in the weapon's profile.
Special rules or buffs given to a model do not transfer to their weapons profile.

Does a spell giving a model a +X to strength give it to their equipment too? so can I have +3 strength from lore of beasts buff on my character and just carry that over onto my ranged weapons profile too?
WHY NOT? OMFGX0RZ IT'S PART OF THE MODEL!!! AND WEAPONS CAN HAVE A STRENGTH PROFILE. MY CROSSBOW IS NOW S7

Your weapon isn't armour piercing unless it's already got it in the weapon profile.
Get over it.

Marlo wrote:How is this still up for interpretation? The ranged attacks don't get it.

And nosferatu's "the model includes it's gear and special rules give it to the whole model" argument is invalid.

LOOK at the description of the characteristics of a "model". Nowhere does it state the equipment are part of a model's characteristics.
and then look at the description for SPECIAL RULES. It affects the model. and weapons are not part of the model characterstic. period.
You cannot just assume they are. The rules say what you can do. they don't state every single thing you can't do. otherwise we'd have 2000 page rule books.
If it doesn't say you can do it, it means you can't do it.

The only way to cause armour piercing ranged attacks is if it is already in the weapon's profile.
Special rules or buffs given to a model do not transfer to their weapons profile.

Does a spell giving a model a +X to strength give it to their equipment too? so can I have +3 strength from lore of beasts buff on my character and just carry that over onto my ranged weapons profile too?
WHY NOT? OMFGX0RZ IT'S PART OF THE MODEL!!! AND WEAPONS CAN HAVE A STRENGTH PROFILE. MY CROSSBOW IS NOW S7

Your weapon isn't armour piercing unless it's already got it in the weapon profile.
Get over it.

So, you're saying the only way to get armour piercing attacks is to attack with your bare hands? Because if you give armour piercing to a unit attacking with halberd, you have now given the special rule to the weapon. see, I can point out stupid technicalities in your argument too.

Well, I'd like an answer to his actual question:

If giving Armor Piercing to a model also gives it to all weapons carried by that model

Then, why does not giving +1 Strength to a model also give it to all weapons carried by that model?


Anyway, the basic rule book states on page 89 that special weapons gives (uses the word 'confers') their special rules to the warrior wielding it. Additional hand weapons gives the model Extra Attack, for example. The weapon itself doesn't have an attack value.

In your example, striking with an Armor Piercing Halberd gives the base attacks Armor Piercing and +1 Strength. Rule wise, you are effectively modifying your hands by using a weapon.

This is (as far as I read the rules) also the case with ranged weapons. When you are shooting with a ranged weapon that has Armor Piercing, you confer the Armor Piercing to the warrior that is shooting.


As far as I can tell, the rules for Armor Piercing are incorrectly written because taking them literally, you can't use Armor Piercing for ranged weapons ever. It's strange that this hasn't been changed in an Errata.

It's also strange that the whole "What is a model?" thing hasn't been cleared up officially yet, but that's GW for you. It would be SO much easier if they just used the word Warrior consistently, instead of using it in just some places but not others.

^^^ yeah I agree the armour piercing is a skill/special buff for the warrior and his attacks, not directly to his weapon. it is written "for wounds caused in close combat" OR "attacking with a weapon with the special rule"
the weapon doesn't have the special rule. the character does, and it works for his attacks with whatever sword fist hoof horned head or whatever he fights with, IN CLOSE COMBAT.

Arion wrote:

Marlo wrote:How is this still up for interpretation? The ranged attacks don't get it.

And nosferatu's "the model includes it's gear and special rules give it to the whole model" argument is invalid.

LOOK at the description of the characteristics of a "model". Nowhere does it state the equipment are part of a model's characteristics.
and then look at the description for SPECIAL RULES. It affects the model. and weapons are not part of the model characterstic. period.
You cannot just assume they are. The rules say what you can do. they don't state every single thing you can't do. otherwise we'd have 2000 page rule books.
If it doesn't say you can do it, it means you can't do it.

The only way to cause armour piercing ranged attacks is if it is already in the weapon's profile.
Special rules or buffs given to a model do not transfer to their weapons profile.

Does a spell giving a model a +X to strength give it to their equipment too? so can I have +3 strength from lore of beasts buff on my character and just carry that over onto my ranged weapons profile too?
WHY NOT? OMFGX0RZ IT'S PART OF THE MODEL!!! AND WEAPONS CAN HAVE A STRENGTH PROFILE. MY CROSSBOW IS NOW S7

Your weapon isn't armour piercing unless it's already got it in the weapon profile.
Get over it.

So, you're saying the only way to get armour piercing attacks is to attack with your bare hands? Because if you give armour piercing to a unit attacking with halberd, you have now given the special rule to the weapon. see, I can point out stupid technicalities in your argument too.

No, don't be a moron. Did you not read the part where it gives the model a special ability. a characteristic for the model, have you read page 3 of the rule book as to what that means?, regardless of what weapons he uses, he has armour pericing. BUT, the rule for armour piercing says in close combat.

With the argument of transferring it into a weapon profile, then following the same logic, can buff my crossbowmen with the cauldron to have killing blow crossbow shots? Even though killing blow states it is for close combat just like armour piercing. that doesn't matter, because the special ability can transfer to my weapon profile. (WHY NOT? there are a tonne of other weapons with the killing blow special rule, and now, my crossbows have it too!!!!)

Use your common sense people. It says close combat. stop trying to lawyer loopholes around it. even your lawyering fails. just because you can string together half-arsed logic sequences (model gets special ability, weapons are part of model, thus weapons all get special ability)

Whoa, guys. This thread was...a while ago. There's a new one up, though. Check it.

Personnally I agreed with the people saying that you get it in combat as well as shooting, but, after looking through the rulebook after being told otherwise, in the other thread, I believe that the Razor banner only gives cc attacks ap. personnally, I think people could take the moral high ground, and don't take the damn banner, it would solve a lot of issues.