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.

Does Pedro Kantor's Dorn's Arrow benefit from Bolter Drill. Its italicized text says it is a Storm Bolter, but nothing else really indicates that it should actually count as a Storm Bolter.

Yes, but prepare for an argument sometimes.

Fluff does equal rules when the rules and/or fluff call for it. This has been the case since 5th edition.

Dorn's arrow is a storm bolter, just a relic one.

Just like the primarchs wrath is a boltgun and benefits from bolter drill in an if:ct marine force where it is taken. I mean it does not matter that it is effected due to master crafted, but that is not the point.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes, but prepare for an argument sometimes.

Fluff does equal rules when the rules and/or fluff call for it. This has been the case since 5th edition.

Dorn's arrow is a storm bolter, just a relic one.

Just like the primarchs wrath is a boltgun and benefits from bolter drill in an if:ct marine force where it is taken. I mean it does not matter that it is effected due to master crafted, but that is not the point.

I was actually trying to find another example of a weapon where this would come into effect, but Dorn's Arrow is the only IF relic that doesn't have MC. I will run with it as a Storm Bolter. Most of my opponents are pretty reasonable.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yes, but prepare for an argument sometimes.

...

Just like the primarchs wrath is a boltgun and benefits from bolter drill in an if:ct marine force where it is taken. I mean it does not matter that it is effected due to master crafted, but that is not the point.

I'll make that argument then: Bolter Drill works for: "bolt pistols, boltguns, storm bolters, heavy bolters and combi-weapons that are firing as boltguns"

Now obviously from a fluff perspective, it would make sense for the Primarch's Wrath and Dorn's Arrow to benefit from Bolter Drill (as they are specifically described as being archeotech bolters). But from a rules perspective, there's nothing in that suggests that these two weapons are in the same class as the other bolters - they don't have "bolter" in their name, their profiles are quite different, etc. What RAW argument could you make in favor of applying the Bolter Drill rules that wouldn't also apply to, for example, a Space Marine Shotgun?

Not a huge deal, but it is the difference between hitting on 2's and hitting on 2's with a re-roll (effectively BS10). I would allow it anyhow, since Pedro is a pretty cool dude and not particularly OP.

That would be my second paragraph.

The plasma siphon works on plasma weapons, and it includes tau pulse weapons per the only faq that addressed what that means; and pulse weapons are only plasma in the fluff(they are under the heading "pulse weapons" in the tau dex).

I will re-edit when i get home but the current gk codex also has a fluff reliant bit of rules iirc.

Kommissar Kel,
You may want to review the Errata again, it was changed to limit the syphon to 'Plasma Weapons as defined by the Warhammer 40k Rulebook' over a year ago. This is still an obsolete piece of Errata as it still talks about assassins and inquisitors as if they where part of the Gray Knight Codex, and I don't think this war-gear even exists any more, but it is worth noting. The deliberate act of changing it from 'everything with Plasma in it's fluff' to only things found under the Plasma section shows the Authors decided the previously far-reaching answer was incorrect.

It does still exist in the inquisition dex. And in that dex it was changed to the current(out of date) gk errata.

So that is a bad example.

Will have to look at that Codex some time, but I am curious if you found the 'fluffy-Rule' from the Gray Knights Codex that you where thinking on?

They changed that one too.

It was tha daemonbane special rule on nemesis force weapons. It used to effecr possesed and obliterators. Now it is simply models with the daemon special rule.

It looks like gw are mostly moving back towards fluff not equaling rules.

They also changed teleport homers to simply units entirely equipped with terminator armor.

Can't really be sure though as many are still using the fluff as rules for certain dual-profile weapons(guantlets of ultramar and scorpions claw; both of which have a shooting and melee profile with assault shooting weapons that are in fluff an in-built gun of some sort attached to a melee weapon, but in rules are simply weapons with both a ranged and melee profile)

Oh and about an earlier post re: 2+ rerollable to hits; primarchs wrath is master crafted and only available to bs5 or better models to begin with so is always a 2+ rerollable. The only gun that benefits from this way of looking at it is dorns arrow(which probably would be m-c if it wasn't meant to benefit from ct, i guess)

P.s. hiwpi would be to let my opponent benefit from bolter drill on the arrow. I do not own a pedro model and play sons of medusa space marines(iron hands successor; and yes i played them as sons before the last codex, the iron hands ct just gave me even better incentive to keep them that way)

I was curious about the changes to Homers, because they often fiddle with those things, when I noticed something interesting. It takes the time to call out the Cuirass of Sacrifice, ensuring no one can try to state this Relic is somehow except because it isn't being called out by name. Of course, it would be a weak argument because the Cuirass itself has a Rule stating it is Terminator Armour. Interesting, that Rule still takes the time to repeat all the Rules found on Terminator Armour, likely again to prevent people saying it is 'special' and gets around some of the penalties Terminator Armour has. Either way, it is better that Game Workshop is ensuring their fluff is Rule free.

It is just confusing when you mix the two, making it harder to tell just what is Rule and what isn't.

And yet, in typical gw fashion, marneus' armour
Of antilochus is simply said to be terminator armor(in the rules) that can sweeping advance . Go figure.

No, it is not listed under items effected by bolter drill. You dont get the rerolls.

die toten hosen wrote:
No, it is not listed under items effected by bolter drill. You dont get the rerolls.

It's a storm bolter. It should benefit.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
No, it is not listed under items effected by bolter drill. You dont get the rerolls.

It's a storm bolter. It should benefit.

The text doesn't say "A storm bolter with the following profile" does it?

Also keep note that, in the last FAQ, they didn't give him the benefit from IF CT. While last edition, the same logic would apply.

It isn't like he'll likely miss, though rerolling that 1 you get would be nice.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
No, it is not listed under items effected by bolter drill. You dont get the rerolls.

It's a storm bolter. It should benefit.

Thats irrelivent. Its not stated as being covered by bolter drill.

die toten hosen wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
No, it is not listed under items effected by bolter drill. You dont get the rerolls.

It's a storm bolter. It should benefit.

Thats irrelivent. Its not stated as being covered by bolter drill.

Storm bolters are specifically listed; which is the whole point of this conversation.

That is also where we were talking about teleport homers earlier. The sm teleport homer just says all models in terminator armor. Marneus' armor of antilochus is not listed in the teleport homer rules, but its rules specifically state it is terminator armor. So marney in a termi squad can benefit from a teleport homer(old rules for the homer just said "teleport deep strike" which doesn't actually exist as a rule outside of the fluff justification for termi armor deep strike).

The DA teleport homer specifically lists the curiass, which i am not sure if it is specifically called termi armor in its rules or just fluff

It also doesn't specifically state hurricane bolters, but since they are 3 tl boltguns in rules it technically benefits(to no effect since they are already tl, but that is not the point)

It shouldn't matter if it isn't listed in the general rule. The specific rule states it is a storm bolter.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
It shouldn't matter if it isn't listed in the general rule. The specific rule states it is a storm bolter.

The fluff accompanying the rules say that, not the rules themselves.

I think it should benefit, but it doesn't.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
It shouldn't matter if it isn't listed in the general rule. The specific rule states it is a storm bolter.

The fluff accompanying the rules say that, not the rules themselves.

I think it should benefit, but it doesn't.

is there a rule in the BRB that states italicized text does not have any rules effects?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
is there a rule in the BRB that states italicized text does not have any rules effects?

The italicized fluff text for the Black Templars chapter tactics says "they will never back down from a challenge". Does that mean that it's against the rules for a Black Templar model to refuse a challenge?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
It shouldn't matter if it isn't listed in the general rule. The specific rule states it is a storm bolter.

The fluff accompanying the rules say that, not the rules themselves.

I think it should benefit, but it doesn't.

is there a rule in the BRB that states italicized text does not have any rules effects?

Once again, those are not rules, those are fluff. Dorns arrow is not in anyway benefiting from bolter drill. Its statline is different from a stock storm bolter, this removes it from being considered one.

These are rules.

First post; called it. BAM!

You have your answer op: yes, no, maybe.

GW has never said fluff does not equal rules, and at one point they said it does when it actually effects (poorly written) rules. However, they have also been re-writing most of the old rules where fluff mattered for more clarity and removing those rules reliance on fluff to function.

We have no idea if dorns arrow was meant to benefit RAI; it does not by pure RAW. Discuss it with your opponent pregame.

All that said, i am not sure why they even kept the fluff as a storm bolter. When the plasma siphon still effected pulse weapons(and tau empire came out), the burst cannon was removed from the pulse weapons list and list all fluff description as either a pulse-type weapon and firing streams of plasma. On top of that the gauntlets of ultramar also lost the fluff description of having a bolter in each.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
First post; called it. BAM!

You have your answer op: yes, no, maybe.

GW has never said fluff does not equal rules, and at one point they said it does when it actually effects (poorly written) rules. However, they have also been re-writing most of the old rules where fluff mattered for more clarity and removing those rules reliance on fluff to function.

We have no idea if dorns arrow was meant to benefit RAI; it does not by pure RAW. Discuss it with your opponent pregame.

All that said, i am not sure why they even kept the fluff as a storm bolter. When the plasma siphon still effected pulse weapons(and tau empire came out), the burst cannon was removed from the pulse weapons list and list all fluff description as either a pulse-type weapon and firing streams of plasma. On top of that the gauntlets of ultramar also lost the fluff description of having a bolter in each.

Except its not a storm bolter

die toten hosen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
First post; called it. BAM!

You have your answer op: yes, no, maybe.

GW has never said fluff does not equal rules, and at one point they said it does when it actually effects (poorly written) rules. However, they have also been re-writing most of the old rules where fluff mattered for more clarity and removing those rules reliance on fluff to function.

We have no idea if dorns arrow was meant to benefit RAI; it does not by pure RAW. Discuss it with your opponent pregame.

All that said, i am not sure why they even kept the fluff as a storm bolter. When the plasma siphon still effected pulse weapons(and tau empire came out), the burst cannon was removed from the pulse weapons list and list all fluff description as either a pulse-type weapon and firing streams of plasma. On top of that the gauntlets of ultramar also lost the fluff description of having a bolter in each.

Except its not a storm bolter

From Code Space Marines:

Dorn’s Arrow: This ancient and venerated storm bolter has reaped a mighty tally in the Emperor’s name.

Otherwise, you totally missed the point Kommissar Kel was making and that is sometimes the fluff does equal the rules.

 Ghaz wrote:
Otherwise, you totally missed the point Kommissar Kel was making and that is sometimes the fluff does equal the rules.

Fluff is by definition not rules. That's the whole point in differentiation Fluff from Crunch.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Otherwise, you totally missed the point Kommissar Kel was making and that is sometimes the fluff does equal the rules.

Fluff is by definition not rules. That's the whole point in differentiation Fluff from Crunch.

Page and paragraph please, because GW has in the past used fluff as rules as has been noted already in this thread.

And yet the doors do not blow open on their Drop Pod Models....

JinxDragon wrote:
And yet the doors do not blow open on their Drop Pod Models....

And yet the plasma siphon worked on Tau pulse weapons even though they were only considered plasma weapons in the fluff. Hence Kel's 'Yes, No, Maybe' answer that I agree with.

Worked being the key word.
It is not wise to apply old Frequently Asked Questions to an updated Rule-set at the best of times, and even more problematic when those Frequently Asked Questions have been changed to a completely different 'answer!'

And how does that matter? Do we have proof that the fluff can't be the rules just because that particular FAQ is no longer current? If so, I repeat my request for a rules quote to back up that position.