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.

And three calls asking the same question are quite likely to get three different trolls and three different answers.

After how hard its been made to do an assault list I would have no problem allowing them to have rage furious charge or hammer plus it seems that is indeed the clearest interpretation.

 MarshalMathis wrote:
After how hard its been made to do an assault list I would have no problem allowing them to have rage furious charge or hammer plus it seems that is indeed the clearest interpretation.

Furious Charge is not in question.
HOW is debatable.
How do you justify retaining Rage, ie +2 A when charging instead of the normal +1 (beyond "I play Black Templars and would really like to get +2 A when charging")?

Is HoW listed on pg 24?

Lets see, is HoW a Special Rule that confers an extra attack?

Cheers

Andrew

Fragile wrote:
Is HoW listed on pg 24?

I do not believe that page 24 is a complete and exhaustive list of all "bonus attacks" in the game.
I believe it is a list of "bonus attacks" that apply in the basic game rules. I would say that further types/kinds of "bonus attacks" can be added to the list by the advanced rules (such as Rage or Hammer of Wrath) or codexes (such as Mogul Kamirs Cyber-steed).


BTW. Does anybody else have any examples of codex-specific rules that add attacks when charging (and only when charging)?

EDIT. Damn. I am an idiot!

The answer to the question; "Is HoW listed on page 24?" is of course "Yes. Yes, it is".

Thanks AndrewC for the eye-opener.



...

 AndrewC wrote:
Lets see, is HoW a Special Rule that confers an extra attack?

Cheers

Andrew

Again you confuse "Bonus Attacks in Combat" with "Bonus attack from Charging."

Charging is the first bullet point on that list named +1 Charge Bonus? Do you see HoW there ? Bullet points 2 and 3 do not apply to this conversation.

Sorry Fragile, are you seriously saying that HoW is a bonus attack in combat and not a bonus attack from charging?

Cheers

Andrew

HoW. BrB. P37

If a model with this special rule charges and ends its move in base contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional Attack...

Page 37, is not pg 24. Since grenades only remove the bonus attack from charging that is listed on pg 24, you have proved the point.

Fragile wrote:
Page 37, is not pg 24. Since grenades only remove the bonus attack from charging that is listed on pg 24, you have proved the point.

Incorrect. Defensive Grenades remove any bonus attacks from charging. There is no mention of page number. If it's a bonus attack received from charging it is negated.

So you fully admit that HoW is a special rule that grants an extra attack as a result of charging, but that it is not applicable because it's not listed on P24.

Is that the summation of your argument?

Cheers

Andrew

 Abandon wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Page 37, is not pg 24. Since grenades only remove the bonus attack from charging that is listed on pg 24, you have proved the point.

Incorrect. Defensive Grenades remove any bonus attacks from charging. There is no mention of page number. If it's a bonus attack received from charging it is negated.

Perhaps you should reread the rule in question.

So you fully admit that HoW is a special rule that grants an extra attack as a result of charging, but that it is not applicable because it's not listed on P24.

In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Fragile wrote:
In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Almost there, you are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel bonus Attacks from charging. Please note the plural. P24 lists three possible sources of bonus attacks, the last of which has a caveat that bonus attacks can be gained from Special Rules. Ergo, Special Rules that grant bonus attacks are also cancelled by the defensive grenades where the bonus attacks are listed as a result of charging, and HoW is.

I think that I have went as far as I can in explaining this to you, most of the other posters seem to understand this argument, so I would suggest that you play the game your way, and I play the game my way and hope that we can both enjoy our respective games.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

Fragile wrote:
In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Almost there, you are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel bonus Attacks from charging. Please note the plural. P24 lists three possible sources of bonus attacks, the last of which has a caveat that bonus attacks can be gained from Special Rules. Ergo, Special Rules that grant bonus attacks are also cancelled by the defensive grenades where the bonus attacks are listed as a result of charging, and HoW is.

I think that I have went as far as I can in explaining this to you, most of the other posters seem to understand this argument, so I would suggest that you play the game your way, and I play the game my way and hope that we can both enjoy our respective games.

Cheers

Andrew

Actually it says models do not get the bonus attacks from charging. It is proper grammar. From GW. Who knew?

Not quite, it would also be the correct grammar to say that Models do not receive the bonus attack, when referring to a singular bonus. By referring to bonus attacks, a plural bonus, then you look at the GW definition of bonus attacks, and there they are on P24.

Which contains the caveat for any special rules.

Cheers

Andrew

 Happyjew wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

Fragile wrote:
In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Almost there, you are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel bonus Attacks from charging. Please note the plural. P24 lists three possible sources of bonus attacks, the last of which has a caveat that bonus attacks can be gained from Special Rules. Ergo, Special Rules that grant bonus attacks are also cancelled by the defensive grenades where the bonus attacks are listed as a result of charging, and HoW is.

I think that I have went as far as I can in explaining this to you, most of the other posters seem to understand this argument, so I would suggest that you play the game your way, and I play the game my way and hope that we can both enjoy our respective games.

Cheers

Andrew

Actually it says models do not get the bonus attacks from charging. It is proper grammar. From GW. Who knew?

For what it's worth, it appears that in translations ( I've been told of the French one at least) it's spelled out as "losing the +1 attack bonus for charging".
that's not worth much I'm afraid though, as I remember the German version lead to think Feel no pain worked differently ...

I didn't expect this much discussion from asking such a question.

As another has suggested, I emailed GW to see what they say. As the stickies say, this is relatively moot for spoofing and inconsistent replies; however, I'll still reply with their response on the matter once I get the reply.

At the heart of this debate is really the question of if defensive grenades override certain other special rules. We all agree that the +1 for charging is negated. We are assuming Rage is affected because it stacks on top of the removed +1. So with HoW, it boils down to is it considered a bonus attack or something separate. Hard to interpret at this point.

My take, after reading the discussions here. Defensive Grenades:

1. Deny Rage bonus (I agree that Rage is simply a modification of the +1 bonus from charging)
2. Allow Furious Charge (I can't see any argument against this one, really)
3. I'm on the fence with HoW, but I want to say "denied". It's a bonus attack at I10 that you ONLY get when you charge, correct?

 AndrewC wrote:

Fragile wrote:
In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Almost there, you are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel bonus Attacks from charging. Please note the plural. P24 lists three possible sources of bonus attacks, the last of which has a caveat that bonus attacks can be gained from Special Rules.

Andrew

And here is your disconnect. P24 lists bonus attacks for COMBAT. Only 1 of those discusses charging. You seem to think that Dgrenades cancel ALL bonus attacks, which they do not.

 kronk wrote:

3. I'm on the fence with HoW, but I want to say "denied". It's a bonus attack at I10 that you ONLY get when you charge, correct?

Isn't it a bonus hit, not a bonus attack

Fragile wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

Fragile wrote:
In the simplest of terms, sure. You are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel the bonus attack for charging listed on pg 24. You have no permission to apply it to anything else.

Almost there, you are expressly told that defensive grenades cancel bonus Attacks from charging. Please note the plural. P24 lists three possible sources of bonus attacks, the last of which has a caveat that bonus attacks can be gained from Special Rules.

Andrew

And here is your disconnect. P24 lists bonus attacks for COMBAT. Only 1 of those discusses charging. You seem to think that Dgrenades cancel ALL bonus attacks, which they do not.

Your argument has been failing for 3 pages now and you continue to run around in circles without actually addressing any arguments. You'd have better luck claiming an 'extra' attack is not a 'bonus' attack which, though silly, is a much more arguable stance. I'm done with this charade though so good luck in your future endeavors.

 Abandon wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Page 37, is not pg 24. Since grenades only remove the bonus attack from charging that is listed on pg 24, you have proved the point.

Incorrect. Defensive Grenades remove any bonus attacks from charging. There is no mention of page number. If it's a bonus attack received from charging it is negated.

Read the rule. It specifically cites a page (24). You have no valid rules basis for your interpretation.

helotaxi wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Page 37, is not pg 24. Since grenades only remove the bonus attack from charging that is listed on pg 24, you have proved the point.

Incorrect. Defensive Grenades remove any bonus attacks from charging. There is no mention of page number. If it's a bonus attack received from charging it is negated.

Read the rule. It specifically cites a page (24). You have no valid rules basis for your interpretation.

Apologies, it does state the page number.

I will give a dissenting opinion against the apparent majority of conclusions reached on this well-argued topic.

Here is my interpretation and how I apply the Defensive grenades effect:

First I look at pg.62 under the Defensive Grenades' Assault section:
"Models charging units equipped with defensive grenades do not gain bonus Attacks from charging(see page 24)"

At which point I turn to pg.24 and read under the Number of Attacks section the list of "bonus attacks" (notably this is not a "bonus attacks of charging" list)
"+1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn."

This entry is the only one in the list of "bonus attacks" on pg.24 that has to do with charging specifically and therefore the only one to which the defensive grenades' effect applies.

The reason for the pluralization of "Attacks" on page 62 is the "Models" at the beginning of the sentence, in the event of a normal charge each model would get +1 charge bonus attack; therefore, in this instance, the models do not get those attacks.

I am anxious to hear your thoughts on my interpretation,
Adversary

I think that you pretty much summarized my points exactly.

I will also add that D. Grenades would deny the +2 attacks from Rage or any similar rule that specifically modifies the +1 Attack for charging listed on p.24.

helotaxi wrote:
I will also add that D. Grenades would deny the +2 attacks from Rage or any similar rule that specifically modifies the +1 Attack for charging listed on p.24.

I'd have to agree with that; it'd be hard to apply a modifier to a negated attack.


Edited: Broken quote.

 TheAdversary wrote:

helotaxi wrote:
I will also add that D. Grenades would deny the +2 attacks from Rage or any similar rule that specifically modifies the +1 Attack for charging listed on p.24.

I'd have to agree with that; it'd be hard to apply a modifier to a negated attack.


Edited: Broken quote.

Whats your thoughts on the hammer of wrath? Would you class that as a modifier?

Hammer of wrath hits at I10 in the sub phase, but gets the attack because it has hit the enemy hard and fast with either a bike, jump pack or what ever else has this ability, so assuming the hammer of wrath is allowed against a defensive grenade unit, you wouldn't negate the +1 for charging as the enemy has hit the unit with full force?

Hey guys I found a simple solution!!

Roll a D6 for when you have a problem. 1-3 the answer is NAY- Dgrens do not apply to HoW. 4-6 YAY- Dgrens do apply to HoW.

Leave it to chance....

Heck the next FAQ could answer this ridiculous question.

HoW is a USR. D. grenades do not state, at any point, that they remove USRs.

I would suggest that as HoW is a USR, it is treated separately from the bonus attacks from charging, even though the end result is in fact a bonus attack from charging.

It seems like a retorical question, 41_wargaming I do like that idea though, seems the only reasonable answer for now, but this does need resolving.

Hoff again, you are right that the HoW is a USR, but again, to achieve HoW your jumping, riding or what ever, into combat, which means you pretty much bypass all d.nades, surely you can't allow a HoW, then allow the removal of bonus attacks gained from the charging in,.

Unfortunatey there is no definitive answer to this, so i'll go with 41's idea