Do defensive grenades remove furious charge or hammer of wrath?

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.

**rigeld2**

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...

Right, you still don't understand how bulleted lists work. It's not a requirement in life, but the misunderstanding renders your entire position incorrect in this discussion.

**Banbaji**

Mythal wrote:
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.

This is an excellent summary, and in my opinion, the list clearly indicates that extra attacks from special rules and wargear are not bonuses from charging. They have trigger conditions that may include charging, but it is the USR itself that provides the attack (rage being the exception as it specifically modifies the +1 bonus attack from charging).

To put it another way, if you charge, you always get the +1 attack for charging (except when this attack is specifically denied); however, you only get the HoW attack if you have HoW, which means that is what provides the bonus attack. Being in base contact is also a prerequisite for HoW, but I do not think anyone would say you get the bonus attack from being in base contact. Charging and base contact are simply the conditions that trigger the special rule, which provides the extra attack.

**Lord Krungharr**

After reading the rules and the thread, I conclude that Defensive Grenades DO negate Rage, as Rage simply changes the +1 bonus attack from charging to be +2, and Def-nades apply to the bonus attacks that any model gains from the usual charge.

But Hammer of Wrath says the model makes 1 additional attack at I10. It does not say bonus attack. This extra attack takes place only when the model with it charges of course; however the words are different, so I'd treat them differently.

Thus it's unclear if the additional and bonus are synonymous and interchangeable. I don't think GW stands for Great Writers

**DeathReaper**

rigeld2 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

Right, you still don't understand how bulleted lists work. It's not a requirement in life, but the misunderstanding renders your entire position incorrect in this discussion.

I do understand how bulleted lists work...

Bonus is different from bonus, GW does this all the time as you know, like the difference between Attack and attack...

**Happyjew**

DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

Right, you still don't understand how bulleted lists work. It's not a requirement in life, but the misunderstanding renders your entire position incorrect in this discussion.

I do understand how bulleted lists work...

Bonus is different from bonus, GW does this all the time as you know, like the difference between Attack and attack...

Right, and defensive grenades refer to bonus attacks, not Bonus attacks.

**rigeld2**

DeathReaper wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Only one is listed as a Bonus (This is what Dgrenades refer to) The others are bonus...

Right, you still don't understand how bulleted lists work. It's not a requirement in life, but the misunderstanding renders your entire position incorrect in this discussion.

I do understand how bulleted lists work...

Bonus is different from bonus, GW does this all the time as you know, like the difference between Attack and attack...

Actual rules (not DR40k) page 62 wrote:Models charging units equipped with defensive grenades do not gain bonus Attacks from charging (seepage 24).

The bolded, italicized, underlined (to make sure you don't miss what I'm pointing out) don't agree. Perhaps you'd like to revise your statement?

edit: The correct argument would be that DGren refer to Attacks (meaning the stat line). HoW is not a bonus Attack in any way.

**DeathReaper**

Yes my initial error is clear Dgrenades do refer to bonus Attacks, not Bonus Attacks.

However as I have said HoW is not a bonus Attack.

**clively**

I think HoW is impacted by def grenades.

First, the HoW calls it an "additional Attack" .. when the model charges. (pg. 37)

Second, Def grenades say attackers do not gain "bonus Attacks from charging (see page 24)" (pg 62)

So far the only difference is the word "bonus" vs "additional" which would normally be enough to say they aren't the same. However, when we get to page 24 we see the following:

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks"

The meaning is that all three bullet points are considered to be bonus Attacks.

Going then to the third bullet point we have:"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks"

Boiling it down, the third bullet point says that Attacks granted by special rules are to be considered bonus Attacks.

Therefore HoW is a special rule granting a bonus Attack. It only occurs when charging (and in base contact). So it meets the def grenades criteria ( caused by charging and is a bonus) in order to be negated by def grenades.

I'm not sure what all the hoopla is about concerning "B" vs "b" and "A" vs "a". All of the relevant rules were very consistent in using a lower case "b" for bonus and upper case "A" for Attacks.

**rigeld2**

DeathReaper wrote:
Yes my initial error is clear Dgrenades do refer to bonus attacks, noy Bonus attacks.

However as I have said HoW is not a bonus attack.

edit: re-read the rules as I've confused myself.

DGrens work on bonus Attacks.
HoW is an additional Attack.

Since they aren't capitalized they aren't defined by the BRB - bonus == additional.
HoW is removed by DGrens.

**Fragile**

clively wrote:
I think HoW is impacted by def grenades.

First, the HoW calls it an "additional Attack" .. when the model charges. (pg. 37)

Second, Def grenades say attackers do not gain "bonus Attacks from charging (see page 24)" (pg 62)

So far the only difference is the word "bonus" vs "additional" which would normally be enough to say they aren't the same. However, when we get to page 24 we see the following:

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks"

The meaning is that all three bullet points are considered to be bonus Attacks.

Going then to the third bullet point we have:"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks"

Boiling it down, the third bullet point says that Attacks granted by special rules are to be considered bonus Attacks.

Therefore HoW is a special rule granting a bonus Attack. It only occurs when charging (and in base contact). So it meets the def grenades criteria ( caused by charging and is a bonus) in order to be negated by def grenades.

I'm not sure what all the hoopla is about concerning "B" vs "b" and "A" vs "a". All of the relevant rules were very consistent in using a lower case "b" for bonus and upper case "A" for Attacks.

You are correct, all three bullet points are "bonus" attacks. However only 1 is from charging. And it is not Two Weapons or Other Bonuses.

**Banbaji**

clively wrote:
I think HoW is impacted by def grenades.

First, the HoW calls it an "additional Attack" .. when the model charges. (pg. 37)

Second, Def grenades say attackers do not gain "bonus Attacks from charging (see page 24)" (pg 62)

So far the only difference is the word "bonus" vs "additional" which would normally be enough to say they aren't the same. However, when we get to page 24 we see the following:

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks"

The meaning is that all three bullet points are considered to be bonus Attacks.

Going then to the third bullet point we have:"Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks"

Boiling it down, the third bullet point says that Attacks granted by special rules are to be considered bonus Attacks.

Therefore HoW is a special rule granting a bonus Attack. It only occurs when charging (and in base contact). So it meets the def grenades criteria ( caused by charging and is a bonus) in order to be negated by def grenades.

I'm not sure what all the hoopla is about concerning "B" vs "b" and "A" vs "a". All of the relevant rules were very consistent in using a lower case "b" for bonus and upper case "A" for Attacks.

It is a bonus you only get when charging, but it is not a bonus you get from charging. It is a bonus you get from the HoW USR. A rule that is triggered by charging and being in base contact. You can charge with the HoW rule and, if you do not make it into base contact, not get the attack, so how can you argue that the bonus attack comes from charging?

Also, charging is listed as a bonus attack in bullet point 1 on the list. Bonus attacks from special rules are listed under bullet point 3. This would imply that they are considered to come from the special rule, not charging (i.e., charging is a requirement HoW is the source). Gabriel Seth gets a bonus attack (if I recall the wording correctly) at anybody who rolls a 1 when attacking him. This attack does not come from the enemy, it comes from his special rule.

P.S. As your quoate says "Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" , which means it is the USR that confers the attack (or from which the attack comes), not anything else (such as charging). I have now reached my restating my arguments quota, and will now stop until I have something new to say.

**DeathReaper**

rigeld2 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Yes my initial error is clear Dgrenades do refer to bonus attacks, noy Bonus attacks.

However as I have said HoW is not a bonus attack.

edit: re-read the rules as I've confused myself.

DGrens work on bonus Attacks.
HoW is an additional Attack.

Since they aren't capitalized they aren't defined by the BRB - bonus == additional.
HoW is removed by DGrens.

HoW is an additional Attack you only get when charging, but it is not a bonus you get from charging, It is a bonus you get from the HoW USR.

So it does not get negated.

The only bonus Attacks you get from charging are the +1 Charge Bonus

**Lungpickle**

No it does not remove them only the extra attack from charging.

**The Shadow**

To chime in here, hopefully on an issue which has not already been resolved, does Hammer of Wrath not state something along the lines of "gives the model an extra attack at base strength and AP - resolved at the Initiative 10 Step".

This is, therefore, an "bonus" attack, so would be removed by charging.

**Fragile**

Bonus attacks are not removed by defensive grenades.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

Fragile wrote:
Bonus attacks are not removed by defensive grenades.

Could've sworn you got +1 bonus attack for charging

**Fragile**

Actually you get a +1 Charge Bonus, for charging.

**rigeld2**

Fragile wrote:
Actually you get a +1 Charge Bonus, for charging.

Which is classified as a ...
(What's the heading for the bulleted list on page 24? You can't separate the two)

DGrens explicitly remove bonus Attacks. Saying otherwise is either a deliberate lie or refusal to read the actual rules.

**Mythal**

rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Actually you get a +1 Charge Bonus, for charging.

Which is classified as a ...
(What's the heading for the bulleted list on page 24? You can't separate the two)

DGrens explicitly remove bonus Attacks. Saying otherwise is either a deliberate lie or refusal to read the actual rules.

That appears to be the point they're debating. As I pointed out, their argument is that the attack granted by HoW is a (potential) additional attack granted by the USR itself, not the act of charging specifically. It's not that they aren't reading the rules, so much as they're arguing that people are inferring causality to extend the purpose of the rule.

Put another way, on the turn in which you charge, you can only claim your HoW attack if you successfully charge. Similarly, on the turn in which you charge, you can only claim your attack for a second CCW if you successfully charge (as, if you don't successfully charge, you can't use said attack, mindful that a second CCW does not increase your Attacks characteristic unless specifically mentioned in the Codex entry; it instead grants a bonus attack under certain circumstances). Their argument is that these statements share the same level of causal inference; their conclusion is that just because you cannot gain the attack without successfully charging does not make it inherently a bonus gained from successfully charging.

Allow me to reiterate that I think that RAW supports your view, but that doesn't mean those arguing the opposing case are liars or unwilling to read the rules.

**Fragile**

rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Actually you get a +1 Charge Bonus, for charging.

Which is classified as a ...
(What's the heading for the bulleted list on page 24? You can't separate the two)

DGrens explicitly remove bonus Attacks. Saying otherwise is either a deliberate lie or refusal to read the actual rules.

There you go with the Ad Hominem. Perhaps you should read the whole sentence unless your going to argue that Dgrens remove 2 weapon attacks as well. DGrens explicity remove bonus Attacks from Charging (see pg 24.) There is only 1 reference to bonus attacks from Charging listed on pg 24. They clearly spelled out the page where the bonus attacks from charging were, unless you refused to read it.

**rigeld2**

Fragile wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Actually you get a +1 Charge Bonus, for charging.

Which is classified as a ...
(What's the heading for the bulleted list on page 24? You can't separate the two)

DGrens explicitly remove bonus Attacks. Saying otherwise is either a deliberate lie or refusal to read the actual rules.

There you go with the Ad Hominem. Perhaps you should read the whole sentence unless your going to argue that Dgrens remove 2 weapon attacks as well. DGrens explicity remove bonus Attacks from Charging (see pg 24.) There is only 1 reference to bonus attacks from Charging listed on pg 24. They clearly spelled out the page where the bonus attacks from charging were, unless you refused to read it.

It wasn't an ad hominem at all - it wasn't directed at anyone, it's a factual statement.

Fragile wrote:Bonus attacks are not removed by defensive grenades.

This statement is demonstrably false. The charge bonus is a bonus attack from charging. Hammer of wrath is a bonus attack from charging.

**OIIIIIIO**

I look at it like this, HoW is an extra attack that requires charging and for the model to have said rule. It is an option that is contingent on the charge.

Just as ID is a FW option that is contingent on having an unsaved wound and a warp charge. It is an option.

It may require you to have the charge but I do not believe it to be a part of the charge just because you have a JP that gives you access to HoW.