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.

I didn't say it made sense to play it that way...

HoW is to represent the massive force you have commanded in your assault. D. grenades aren't meant to strip you of this, just to temporarily confuse you - that's why you can still fight as normal. I would say that HoW wouldn't therefore be affected by something that doesn't daze you enough to remove ALL attacks, and as a USR I think it would go unaffected.

But these are just my thoughts, I would be happy to let the dice decide if it became an unresolved issue.

41_WarGaming wrote:
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.

PLease read the tenets of this forum. TMIR is a poor answer in this forum, as we *aren't* playing a game, so HAVE the time to work out what the rules say.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

41_WarGaming wrote:
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.

PLease read the tenets of this forum. TMIR is a poor answer in this forum, as we *aren't* playing a game, so HAVE the time to work out what the rules say.

nos,

I apologize.

I agree that this forum is to determine what the rules say down to the nitty gritty. I also agree with the fact that an answer has to be found.

My suggestion was for those people, like myself, that just need an answer and not read page upon page of arguments based on GW written rules. Or someone is playing the game, looks it up in the forums.

I see two sides here in concern with the HoW and D-gren. One is the simple version (the one I prefer): D-Grens negate attack (both Rage and HoW) bonuses from charging. The second argument is the complex grammar version (I like the premises that everyone is getting at should it be figured out completely): in which HoW is an attack made only when charging HOWEVER does not get negated because it does not change the attack stat. As I was corrected earlier, HoW is basically an attack made by momentum (considering what units get the HoW). So It comes down to the fact that the HoW attack is literally the unit slamming into the opposite unit. Hence there is no bonus to strength and is made at I10.

But the end of the day, you make da call.

However that suggestion is always there - if you dont care about the rules answer (if a single answer can be found - D6 it.
It doesnt really need saying in the forum is all - hopefully if you can find your way here you have already found TMIR in the rulebook

I prefer the Roshambo method to the d6 method, but whatever works, eh?

Still on the fence about Hammer of Wrath, but leaning towards it being canceled like Rage.

41_WarGaming wrote:
The second argument is the complex grammar version (I like the premises that everyone is getting at should it be figured out completely): in which HoW is an attack made only when charging HOWEVER does not get negated because it does not change the attack stat.

Not really a correct summation of the argument there. HoW is not cancelled because Def Grenades specifically cancel only the +1 Charge Bonus listed on pg 24.

 kronk wrote:
I prefer the Roshambo method to the d6 method, but whatever works, eh?.

I prefer that method as well and I'll usually concede my point, provided I get to go first in the resolution.

Fragile wrote:

41_WarGaming wrote:
The second argument is the complex grammar version (I like the premises that everyone is getting at should it be figured out completely): in which HoW is an attack made only when charging HOWEVER does not get negated because it does not change the attack stat.

Not really a correct summation of the argument there. HoW is not cancelled because Def Grenades specifically cancel only the +1 Charge Bonus listed on pg 24.

yeah that I guess.. at this point I am totally confused... i think ... and I will leave it at that

 mikeyboy69x wrote:

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?

I would not class the Hammer of Wrath special rule as a modifier, it is just an additional attack that the model makes when it charges.

As I read it D. Grenades only affect the +1 Charge bonus specifically noted on page 24, not all bonus attacks a model may have. This extrapolation is only based on the grammatical loophole on page 62 that “Models… bonus Attacks” could be interpreted to mean that it denies multiple attacks from a specific model rather than only denying the singular +1 Charge Bonus attack from each individual model. I would argue that due to the page citation right next to the described effect, the latter interpretation is correct and that the +1 Charge Bonus attack(s), being the only listing on the page referenced (page 24) that specifically deals with a charge, is/are the only bonus attack(s) affected.

41_WarGaming wrote:

I see two sides here in concern with the HoW and D-gren. One is the simple version (the one I prefer): D-Grens negate attack (both Rage and HoW) bonuses from charging. The second argument is the complex grammar version (I like the premises that everyone is getting at should it be figured out completely): in which HoW is an attack made only when charging HOWEVER does not get negated because it does not change the attack stat. As I was corrected earlier, HoW is basically an attack made by momentum (considering what units get the HoW). So It comes down to the fact that the HoW attack is literally the unit slamming into the opposite unit. Hence there is no bonus to strength and is made at I10.

But the end of the day, you make da call.

In my opinion, a narrower reading and application of the effects of D. grenades to only affect the +1 Charge Bonus(es) specifically referenced on page 24 is actually much simpler than expanding the reading to cover all bonus attacks. I think it’s easier just to keep track of the one thing. I would also argue that the grammar is less stretched when you read D. grenades effects on page 62 as “Models…Attacks” rather than “Models’…Attacks”.

But then, that’s my opinion, even if I do feel that I’m right.

 Exergy wrote:

 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

I think this point is being overlooked. I do not have my book in front of me, but isn't HoW an automatic hit, not an extra attack that requires a to hit roll? Does the book say it is an attack that hits automatically or that the model scores an extra hit at I10? If it is the latter, then it wouldn't be an attack, would it?

Banbaji wrote:

 Exergy wrote:

 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

I think this point is being overlooked. I do not have my book in front of me, but isn't HoW an automatic hit, not an extra attack that requires a to hit roll? Does the book say it is an attack that hits automatically or that the model scores an extra hit at I10? If it is the latter, then it wouldn't be an attack, would it?

Without quoting the book word for word, it is an extra Attack that hits automatically.

Fair enough.

You can't ignore context. Defensive grenades go out of their way to point out which bonus attack they are talking about by cting page 24. Is HoW on p24?
Given such specificity by the GW writers (an often rare thing), I see no good justification for denying HoW.
Rage is clearly negated as is is an "instead of X, do Y" sort of rule where X is being denied.

Defensive grenades say models do not get the bonus attacks from charging (page 24).
On page 24 are listed three bonus attacks:
1. Charging (which can be modified by Rage or other special rules) these get negated, no question.
2. Two weapons - this is not a bonus attack from charging and as such would not get negated.
3. Other bonuses.

People are claiming that HoW is not on page 24 and as such is not affected. However, I think people can at least agree that HoW falls under group 3 (Other bonuses) which is on page 24. Since HoW is only granted by a charging model, it is IMHO that HoW would be lost.

On a side note, if you look at Disordered Charge it specifically calls out the Charging bonus (Rage adds itself to it).

The Bonus attacks from charging are specifically 1. Charging If you take the context into account.

The others are not affected as they are not, in context, bonus attacks for charging.

DR, two questions -
1. Is Hammer of Wrath a bonus Attack?
2. Do you get Hammer of Wrath any time other than charging?

If the answers are yes and no, then how is HoW not a bonus attack from charging?

Personally I think, that this is the difference between Defensive Grenades and Disordered Charge. One says no bonus attacks from charging while the other says you do not get the +1 Charge bonus.

1 No
2 No

HoW is not a bonus attack from charging it is a special rule that grants one additional Attack, the bonus attack from charging is listed on P.24 (It is a +1)

Rage solidifies what counts as the bonus attacks from charging

Rage URS Page 41 wrote:In a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it gains +2 Attacks for charging, rather than + 1.

Page 24 lists 1 of the three bullet points that is a bonus attack from charging.

"+1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn." There is the bonus attacks from charging.

The third bullet point on P. 24 does not list it as bonus attacks it says extra attacks, so these are not included.

"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks"

Please explain how HoW is not a bonus Attack (not worried about the charging bit, just the Bonus Attack bit).

 Happyjew wrote:
Please explain how HoW is not a bonus Attack (not worried about the charging bit, just the Bonus Attack bit).

Because it is one additional Attack, not a bonus attack.

"If a model with this special rule charges and ends its charge move in base contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional Attack that" (37 BRB)

Emphasis mine.

The bonus attack is the +1 charge bonus as noted on P. 24

"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" Page 24 Note how these are not bonus attacks instead are extra attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Please explain how HoW is not a bonus Attack (not worried about the charging bit, just the Bonus Attack bit).

Because it is one additional Attack, not a bonus attack.

"If a model with this special rule charges and ends its charge move in base contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional Attack that" (37 BRB)

Emphasis mine.

The bonus attack is the +1 charge bonus as noted on P. 24

"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" Page 24 Note how these are not bonus attacks instead are extra attacks.

Actually they are bonus attacks - "Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks as indicated on its characteristic profile, plus the following bonus Attacks:"

 Happyjew wrote:
Defensive grenades say models do not get the bonus attacks from charging (page 24).
On page 24 are listed three bonus attacks:
1. Charging (which can be modified by Rage or other special rules) these get negated, no question.
2. Two weapons - this is not a bonus attack from charging and as such would not get negated.
3. Other bonuses.

People are claiming that HoW is not on page 24 and as such is not affected. However, I think people can at least agree that HoW falls under group 3 (Other bonuses) which is on page 24. Since HoW is only granted by a charging model, it is IMHO that HoW would be lost.

On a side note, if you look at Disordered Charge it specifically calls out the Charging bonus (Rage adds itself to it).

If Defensive Grenades said "Bonus attacks from charging." , without giving the context of pg 24, I would agree with you. However on pg 24, only #1 is a bonus attack from charging. #2 and 3 are completely unrelated to charging. In fact you wont find charging anywhere on that page other than the first point.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Please explain how HoW is not a bonus Attack (not worried about the charging bit, just the Bonus Attack bit).

Because it is one additional Attack, not a bonus attack.

"If a model with this special rule charges and ends its charge move in base contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional Attack that" (37 BRB)

Emphasis mine.

The bonus attack is the +1 charge bonus as noted on P. 24

"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" Page 24 Note how these are not bonus attacks instead are extra attacks.

Actually they are bonus attacks - "Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks as indicated on its characteristic profile, plus the following bonus Attacks:"

Yet only 1 bullet point mentions bonus. The other two bullet points say extra.

Therefore only the +1 Charge bonus is a bonus attack, the other two are extra attacks.

Well it appears we will have to agree to disagree (until GW releases an FAQ about this). Fortunately for me, I don't play an army that has access to defensive grenades so if anything my way hurts me and not my opponents.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Yet only 1 bullet point mentions bonus. The other two bullet points say extra.

Therefore only the +1 Charge bonus is a bonus attack, the other two are extra attacks.

The sentence before the bullet points demonstrates what the bullet points are about.
I know you don't get that little bit of English (based on the IC in allied transport discussion) but that's fine, you don't have to.
That doesn't change what the actual rules are.

First, I still disagree that Hammer of Wrath should be at issue when discussing the effects of D. grenades because I contend that the negation only applies to the +1 Charge Bonus; which is the only listing specifically charge-related on the cited page(page 24).

I also disagree with the argument that HoW would be included amongst the negated attacks.

HoW is a special rule in the model or unit's description. The model or unit already has the special rule and makes an extra attack in the event of a charge to represent the weight, speed etc. of the assault.

So, while true that HoW only occurs on the charge, the HoW special rule is not a bonus attack that is just gained "from charging"(like the +1 Charge Bonus).

Therefore D. grenades do not prevent HoW as they do the +1 Charge Bonus.

Similarly, units with two ccws get a +1 bonus attack when they charge, but it comes from the two ccws that they have, not "from charging". And we're not discussing taking that away.


The way I read it D. grenades are not a blanket that stops all extra attacks during a charge, just the bonus Attacks specifically from charging, namely the +1 Charge Bonus.
IMO the RAI were to take away the advantage of opposing charging units, but not protect from all manner of extra attacks, like HoW from MCs etc..

The way I see it, HoW is an extra Attack that you only get from charging, therefore it is a bonus attack (from charging) and as such would be negated by D-nades.

Would I enforce my reading? Nope. Heck, if I were to run a tournament I wouldn't even rule it as being lost.

My issue, is that there are two ways to negate bonus attacks from charging - Def. grenades and disordered charge, and only one of those specifically refers to the charging bonus attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Yet only 1 bullet point mentions bonus. The other two bullet points say extra.

Therefore only the +1 Charge bonus is a bonus attack, the other two are extra attacks.

The sentence before the bullet points demonstrates what the bullet points are about.
I know you don't get that little bit of English (based on the IC in allied transport discussion) but that's fine, you don't have to.
That doesn't change what the actual rules are.

I get that bit, it is about bonus attacks, of which it lists specifically one scenario which is a bonus attack. Everything else is an extra attack. Subtle but important difference.

Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

Considering bonus, and extra, are synonyms... I think that point is fairly moo.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Considering bonus, and extra, are synonyms... I think that point is fairly moo.

You can't really make that argument in a RAW vs RAI debate, which is what this seems to have turned into. It seems the debate centres around whether Hammer of Wrath is still in force when fighting Tau. Leaving aside how churlish it is for Tau players to try and further hamstring CC-heavy armies, the point of contention looks to be this:

Does Hammer of Wrath grant a bonus Attack from charging, or does Hammer of Wrath grant an additional (or extra) Attack that just happens to only be considered on a charge? In the former case, it is covered under the defensive grenade rule; in the latter, the argument is that it wouldn't be.

Personally, I think the RAW leans towards the former - though I strongly disagree with the idea that it is RAI. I can understand the other side of the argument, though:

p24 identifies the Charge Bonus, the bonus Attack for two CCWs, and then "Other bonuses" conveyed by "special rules and wargear". The pro-HoW side of this argument feels that the additional Attack is granted by the Hammer of Wrath special rule (potentially via wargear which grants it), rather than the act of charging, in the same way that the 2 CCW additional Attack is granted by wargear (said second CCW). To them, the nature of the HoW special rule (that the additional attack occurs on a successful charge) is immaterial to whether it counts as a bonus Attack from charging; it's an additional Attack from a USR that just happens to require the model to have successfully charged.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Yet only 1 bullet point mentions bonus. The other two bullet points say extra.

Therefore only the +1 Charge bonus is a bonus attack, the other two are extra attacks.

The sentence before the bullet points demonstrates what the bullet points are about.
I know you don't get that little bit of English (based on the IC in allied transport discussion) but that's fine, you don't have to.
That doesn't change what the actual rules are.

I get that bit, it is about bonus attacks, of which it lists specifically one scenario which is a bonus attack. Everything else is an extra attack. Subtle but important difference.

Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

If Dnades said models do not get Bonus Attacks from charging you might have a point. The rules say they do not get bonus attacks from charging. Two weapons (for example) per your own words is a bonus attack and thus could be negated (if it was a bonus attack you only got when charging).