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.

A question for my fellow Dwarf players. I have only played my stunties a handful of times in 8th, they were more my main army in 6th & 7th. When I read or watch 8th battle reports I only see Rune Smith's in combat units. Has anyone thought of, or tried, putting them in crossbows? Range 30 Armour Piercing crossbows is nothing to laugh at. Has anyone seen or used this to any good effect? Seems like a good way to handle any tanky or cavalry based list.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
A question for my fellow Dwarf players. I have only played my stunties a handful of times in 8th, they were more my main army in 6th & 7th. When I read or watch 8th battle reports I only see Rune Smith's in combat units. Has anyone thought of, or tried, putting them in crossbows or Thunderers? Range 30 Armour Piercing crossbows is nothing to laugh at, nor are Dwarf handguns with -3 to armour save. Has anyone seen or used this to any good effect? Seems like a good way to handle any tanky or cavalry based list.

Doesn't work. Runesmith gives AP to the unit, so it works for cc only.

In order for it to work with the missile weapons it would have to grant AP to the weapon.

jouso wrote:

Doesn't work. Runesmith gives AP to the unit, so it works for cc only.

In order for it to work with the missile weapons it would have to grant AP to the weapon.

I don't think that is the correct interpretation. Page 67 of the rulebook states that

"If a model has a weapon with the armour Piercing rule, only attacks or shots fired with that weapon are armour Piercing"


Page 36 of the Dwarf book under the Runesmith says

"All friendly models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule."

The Runesmith gives the rule to the model not the weapon so any attack or shot made by the model would benefit. There was no official FAQ for the Dwarf book and Armour Piercing wasn't covered in the main rulebook FAQ. There is no basis for assuming that it would only apply to close combat.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

jouso wrote:

Doesn't work. Runesmith gives AP to the unit, so it works for cc only.

In order for it to work with the missile weapons it would have to grant AP to the weapon.

I don't think that is the correct interpretation. Page 67 of the rulebook states that

"If a model has a weapon with the armour Piercing rule, only attacks or shots fired with that weapon are armour Piercing"


Page 36 of the Dwarf book under the Runesmith says

"All friendly models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule."

The Runesmith gives the rule to the model not the weapon so any attack or shot made by the model would benefit. There was no official FAQ for the Dwarf book and Armour Piercing wasn't covered in the main rulebook FAQ. There is no basis for assuming that it would only apply to close combat.

You said it yourself. Runesmith gives AP to the model, and in order for a shooting weapon to benefit AP must be on the weapon, not just the model.

Just granting it on the model doesn't mean it transfer to a shooting weapon (it works on cc though).

That's how it's always been ruled (GW at the time stopped issuing FAQs, but Swedish, ETC, Bugman's brewery FAQ questions, etc. held on to that).

That is not what that sentence says.

All that sentence says is that if a model has a weapon with the armour piercing special rule, only attacks using that weapon benefit from it.

That says nothing about shooting attacks not benefiting from armour piercing if the model has the special rule. It is merely stating that if you had an armour piercing sword, it would not mean that you can use the armour piercing rule from that sword on any other weapon.

If you interpret that sentence to mean that the armour piercing rule has to be on a weapon to be of any benefit, then neither shooting nor close combat attacks will gain it due to the runesmith special rule. Do you have a rule reference for ranged weaponry not benefiting from armour piercing unless it is a special rule inherent to the ranged weapon?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
That is not what that sentence says.

All that sentence says is that if a model has a weapon with the armour piercing special rule, only attacks using that weapon benefit from it.

That says nothing about shooting attacks not benefiting from armour piercing if the model has the special rule. It is merely stating that if you had an armour piercing sword, it would not mean that you can use the armour piercing rule from that sword on any other weapon.

This exactly how I see it. This is the same interpretation the rule book gives for Flaming Attacks. If you have a Flaming sword only those attacks are Flaming, but if the model has Flaming attacks it is applied to both close combat and shooting. Why would it be any different for armour Piercing?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
That is not what that sentence says.

All that sentence says is that if a model has a weapon with the armour piercing special rule, only attacks using that weapon benefit from it.

That says nothing about shooting attacks not benefiting from armour piercing if the model has the special rule. It is merely stating that if you had an armour piercing sword, it would not mean that you can use the armour piercing rule from that sword on any other weapon.

This is an old discussion, which you can review for example here:

http://www.bugmansbrewery.com/topic/43483-runesmiths-armour-piercing/

tl;dr: BRB p.67

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier, in addition to those for Strength."

So if a model has the AP rule, all his cc attacks (doesn't matter with which weapon) will benefit from AP. If a model does not have the AP but uses a weapon which has it (cc or shooting) it will have AP. If a model has AP, but the uses a shooting weapon without AP it will not have it.

jouso wrote:


tl;dr: BRB p.67

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier, in addition to those for Strength."

So if a model has the AP rule, all his cc attacks (doesn't matter with which weapon) will benefit from AP. If a model does not have the AP but uses a weapon which has it (cc or shooting) it will have AP. If a model has AP, but the uses a shooting weapon without AP it will not have it.

That proves nothing and the quote is partially taken out of context. The next sentence says

"For example, a strength 4 model with the armour piercing special rule would inflict a -2 armour save modifier when striking in close combat, rather than the usual -1."

All it is doing is explaining what Armour Piercing does, it is not explaining what does and does not get the rule. Nice try but no dice. Armour Piercing would follow the same rules as Poison or Flaming Attacks, if it is granted to the weapon only that weapon has it, if granted to the model than it effects close combat and shooting. The Runesmith grants it to the model, not their weapons.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

jouso wrote:


tl;dr: BRB p.67

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier, in addition to those for Strength."

So if a model has the AP rule, all his cc attacks (doesn't matter with which weapon) will benefit from AP. If a model does not have the AP but uses a weapon which has it (cc or shooting) it will have AP. If a model has AP, but the uses a shooting weapon without AP it will not have it.

That proves nothing and the quote is partially taken out of context. The next sentence says

"For example, a strength 4 model with the armour piercing special rule would inflict a -2 armour save modifier when striking in close combat, rather than the usual -1."

All it is doing is explaining what Armour Piercing does, it is not explaining what does and does not get the rule. Nice try but no dice. Armour Piercing would follow the same rules as Poison or Flaming Attacks, if it is granted to the weapon only that weapon has it, if granted to the model than it effects close combat and shooting. The Runesmith grants it to the model, not their weapons.

Hey, all I'm doing is pointing you at the overwhelming consensus on how the rule was played back then. Bugman's brewery, Warseer, ETC and Swedish FAQs, etc. are a simple google search away (as well as the lengthy discussions to get there).

Here's one from this very forum (regarding razor banner, but the issue with AP is exactly the same).

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/350901.page

Of course you can play the rule as you like (those are your games after all) but it's not how it was played back when the game was supported.

Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier, in addition to those for Strength

So, the rune priest gives the unit armour piercing special rule.

The unit now has the special rule, meaning that its attacks in close combat now have a -1 to save modifier. Thats it, it doesn't benefit ranged weapons in any way.

The rune priest doesn't say anything about giving a specific weapon the special rule.

additionally as per the FAQ:

Page 66 – Special Rules, What Special Rules Does It Have.
Change “[...]the effects of multiple special rules[...]” to “[...]
the effects of different special rules[...]”Add “However, unless
otherwise stated, a model gains no additional benefit from
having the same special rule multiple times.” to the end of the
first paragraph.

Multiples of special rules don't stack. So you would never gain -3 armour piercing handguns. They max out at -2 unless you managed to increase their strength somehow.

jouso wrote:


Hey, all I'm doing is pointing you at the overwhelming consensus on how the rule was played back then. Bugman's brewery, Warseer, ETC and Swedish FAQs, etc. are a simple google search away (as well as the lengthy discussions to get there).

Here's one from this very forum (regarding razor banner, but the issue with AP is exactly the same).

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/350901.page

Of course you can play the rule as you like (those are your games after all) but it's not how it was played back when the game was supported.

Just because the ETC ruled that way doesn't mean it was right. The ETC is well known for trimming things that they deemed OP, doesn't make them right or any type of authority. Yes I am free to play any way I like, however it is a bit of hyperbole to claim your view was the "overwhelming consensus. That Bugman's thread you linked had about 3 comments on Armour Piercing itself, the rest of the thread was on the Rune of Flight. The Dakka thread was 4 pages of back and forth on the same issues we have been discussing, hardly an "overwhelming consensus".




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier, in addition to those for Strength

So, the rune priest gives the unit armour piercing special rule.

The unit now has the special rule, meaning that its attacks in close combat now have a -1 to save modifier. Thats it, it doesn't benefit ranged weapons in any way.

The rune priest doesn't say anything about giving a specific weapon the special rule.

additionally as per the FAQ:

Page 66 – Special Rules, What Special Rules Does It Have.
Change “[...]the effects of multiple special rules[...]” to “[...]
the effects of different special rules[...]”Add “However, unless
otherwise stated, a model gains no additional benefit from
having the same special rule multiple times.” to the end of the
first paragraph.

Multiples of special rules don't stack. So you would never gain -3 armour piercing handguns. They max out at -2 unless you managed to increase their strength somehow.

The Rulebook doesn't say he has to give it to a specific weapon, he gives it to the unit. Therefore any weapon they use would have it. Just as if a whole unit is given poison or flaming, armour piercing is no different. You are taking an paragraph that is explaining how the rule applies to the armour save and applying it to the weapon. It is an example not a statement that it only works in close combat.

No, read the first sentence.

It says “wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule” full stop.

For the ranged weapon to gain armour piercing, the rune priests rule would have to say specifically “gives all the weapons in this unit armour piercing” which it does not.

There’s no other interpretation of this. And if you play it that way, it’s cheating.

I’m sorry, you’re reaching here.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

jouso wrote:


Hey, all I'm doing is pointing you at the overwhelming consensus on how the rule was played back then. Bugman's brewery, Warseer, ETC and Swedish FAQs, etc. are a simple google search away (as well as the lengthy discussions to get there).

Here's one from this very forum (regarding razor banner, but the issue with AP is exactly the same).

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/350901.page

Of course you can play the rule as you like (those are your games after all) but it's not how it was played back when the game was supported.

Just because the ETC ruled that way doesn't mean it was right. The ETC is well known for trimming things that they deemed OP, doesn't make them right or any type of authority. Yes I am free to play any way I like, however it is a bit of hyperbole to claim your view was the "overwhelming consensus. That Bugman's thread you linked had about 3 comments on Armour Piercing itself, the rest of the thread was on the Rune of Flight. The Dakka thread was 4 pages of back and forth on the same issues we have been discussing, hardly an "overwhelming consensus".

There was an official FAQ for the razor banner, which has exactly the same wording as the runepriest. And it's not the ETC, it was 99% of events and people.

Seriously, there's no need to revisit old discussions. Play it the way you and your opponent like it, but at this stage the rules lawyering is already a bit past its day.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
No, read the first sentence.

It says “wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule” full stop.

For the ranged weapon to gain armour piercing, the rune priests rule would have to say specifically “gives all the weapons in this unit armour piercing” which it does not.

There’s no other interpretation of this. And if you play it that way, it’s cheating.

Poisoned special rule also doesn’t apply to ranged weapons for the record. The weapon itself must have the special rule.

I’m sorry, you’re reaching here.

Hmmm well maybe not. If we refer back to the section on "The Characteristics Profile, Other Important Information" we have:-

"In addition to its characteristic profile, each model will have a troop type, such as infantry or cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 80. It might also have a save of some kind, representing any armour or magical protection it might have, and it could be carrying one or more shooting or close combat weapons (see page 88) or might have one or more special rules (see page 66). Don't worry about any of this for now (lol) - for the moment it's enough that you know about these aspects of the model."

So in principle the above statement states that any weapons included are considered an aspect of the model that being the weapon is part of the model. Hence it can be interpreted that if a rule applies to a model then it includes all it's weapons as it is an aspect of the model (hence crossbow, pet Pidgeon and so forth). So it doesn't need to say specifically that the weapons are given AP because they are done automatically by being part of the model.

I honestly don't know how you understood that from that sentence.

That is not at all what it's saying.

Just because it's an aspect of the model doesn't mean it suddenly gains more rules that what apply.

Does a high elf on a dragon give Always Strikes First to the dragon? No. Does a magical weapon that gives the rider Armour Piercing apply to the dragon? No. Etc.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
No, read the first sentence.

It says “wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule” full stop.

For the ranged weapon to gain armour piercing, the rune priests rule would have to say specifically “gives all the weapons in this unit armour piercing” which it does not.

There’s no other interpretation of this. And if you play it that way, it’s cheating.

I’m sorry, you’re reaching here.

That is not what the rulebook says. If the model has flaming or poison it applies to both shooting and close combat, there is not reason that Armour Piercing should be any different, they are all similar rules. It is not cheating to have a different interpretation than you. Clearly there is can be different interpretations otherwise this discussion would not have gone on as long as it has. Your comment is both inflammatory and childish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:


Just because it's an aspect of the model doesn't mean it suddenly gains more rules that what apply.

Does a high elf on a dragon give Always Strikes First to the dragon? No. Does a magical weapon that gives the rider Armour Piercing apply to the dragon? No. Etc.

A hero on a dragon or other monster have separate profiles, there is no justification that one would pass on to the other and that is not what we are saying. For models with combined profiles their unit entries usually specify when it applies to the whole model. Such as the entire model for a Cold One Knight is affected by stupidity and a Plague Drone specifies that only the rider has poison attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Hmmm well maybe not. If we refer back to the section on "The Characteristics Profile, Other Important Information" we have:-

"In addition to its characteristic profile, each model will have a troop type, such as infantry or cavalry, which we discuss in more depth on page 80. It might also have a save of some kind, representing any armour or magical protection it might have, and it could be carrying one or more shooting or close combat weapons (see page 88) or might have one or more special rules (see page 66). Don't worry about any of this for now (lol) - for the moment it's enough that you know about these aspects of the model."

So in principle the above statement states that any weapons included are considered an aspect of the model that being the weapon is part of the model. Hence it can be interpreted that if a rule applies to a model then it includes all it's weapons as it is an aspect of the model (hence crossbow, pet Pidgeon and so forth). So it doesn't need to say specifically that the weapons are given AP because they are done automatically by being part of the model.

This is a makes a lot of sense and leads to a logical conclusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

There was an official FAQ for the razor banner, which has exactly the same wording as the runepriest. And it's not the ETC, it was 99% of events and people.

Seriously, there's no need to revisit old discussions. Play it the way you and your opponent like it, but at this stage the rules lawyering is already a bit past its day.

I have seen that FAQ and it was a very late entry, when GW stopped caring about the game. It also offers not explanation or elaboration, simply one word "No". I would want a more detailed explanation before I applied it to any other rule interpretation. For all we know there was wording left out of the Razor Standard. There is simply not enough information to extent that to other rules, it follows not president or logical path.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I honestly don't know how you understood that from that sentence.

That is not at all what it's saying.

Just because it's an aspect of the model doesn't mean it suddenly gains more rules that what apply.

Does a high elf on a dragon give Always Strikes First to the dragon? No. Does a magical weapon that gives the rider Armour Piercing apply to the dragon? No. Etc.

I would argue this is incorrect application. If we consider a generic Prince then ASF applies to the Prince because it states it is a Special Rule for the Prince. The Dragon is an upgrade to the Prince not vice versa, the rules do not state that the model gets the ASF rule - only the Prince. The dragon is an upgrade to the model and hence doesn't gets any transferable abilities. In addition the rules specifically state on page 105 that "We assume that special rules that apply to a ridden monster do not normally apply to a character riding it and vice versa (with the same exceptions that apply to cavalry models, which are listed on page 82). Likewise, ridden monsters are still monsters, and benefit from the rules for monsters as well". Hence there is a specific and ruled exception that the ASF wouldn't apply to the Dragon. On certain combined models Dragon Mage of Caledor for example it specifically breaks down the rules for each element of the model.

If we refer to cavalry then we have "Unless otherwise noted, special rules that apply to the mount do not normally also apply to the rider and vice versa..." . Again a specific ruling that a special rule does not apply generically across the rider and mount.

With regards magic weapons most reference "wielder", "bearer", "Close combat attacks made with this sword" etc. As such they are specifically refering to the wielder or the holder of or made by the weapon. If it had stated "gives +1S to the model" then yes it would apply to both the mount and the rider.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:


I have seen that FAQ and it was a very late entry, when GW stopped caring about the game. It also offers not explanation or elaboration, simply one word "No". I would want a more detailed explanation before I applied it to any other rule interpretation. For all we know there was wording left out of the Razor Standard. There is simply not enough information to extent that to other rules, it follows not president or logical path.

Nope. It's literally the first FAQ ever released for 8th edition, since the razor banner was an item on the BRB. There's no explanation needed because AP makes it very clear it applies to CC only.

But again, play it the way you want. If it feels right for you for balance or fluff or just because you like dwarves. Just don't pretend this is the way it was played when 8th was current.

Google threads from whatever warhammer forum you choose, it was a recurring topic and the answer was always the same.

jouso wrote:

Nope. It's literally the first FAQ ever released for 8th edition, since the razor banner was an item on the BRB. There's no explanation needed because AP makes it very clear it applies to CC only.

I think it has been shown that it isn't that clear at all and that there is an interpretation that it applies to all weapons because of the wording that it applies to the whole model.

The only thing that can be said is that the razor banner with similar wording was FAQ'd to ensure it only applied to close combat attacks. That however, might have simply been to control potential ramifications across multiple armies with unknown implications as more books were released.
To assume that the same interpretation applies across all non-FAQ'd rules is incorrect thinking because it assumes that when writing the Dwarf Army book (which happened later) the AP rule was deliberately designed to duplicate the effect of the Razor Banner. There is no evidence of this.
It could be argued that if the FAQ was early then the designers *knew* about the limitations of the Razor banner and the query yet when they came to write the Dwarf book they deliberately did not update the rule. That would suggest positive action not to "correct" the interpretation for the Dwarf book - hence implying that it was intended to apply to ranged weapons.

Because the, largely, tournament community determined a specific interpretation (and became the norm) that doesn't mean the interpretation is correct.

What we can say is:-

Weapons count as part of a model
The Dwarf book indicates the AP applies to a model
Hence a fair interpretation is that the AP would apply to both ranged and any hth weapons being part of the model
The razor standard with a similar rule had previously been FAQ'd to only apply to hth weapons.
That the community interpreted that the same ruling should apply to the Dwarfs (without any information from GW).

 Whirlwind wrote:

What we can say is:-

Weapons count as part of a model
The Dwarf book indicates the AP applies to a model
Hence a fair interpretation is that the AP would apply to both ranged and any hth weapons being part of the model
The razor standard with a similar rule had previously been FAQ'd to only apply to hth weapons.
That the community interpreted that the same ruling should apply to the Dwarfs (without any information from GW).

well said

 Whirlwind wrote:

Weapons count as part of a model
The Dwarf book indicates the AP applies to a model
Hence a fair interpretation is that the AP would apply to both ranged and any hth weapons being part of the model
The razor standard with a similar rule had previously been FAQ'd to only apply to hth weapons.
That the community interpreted that the same ruling should apply to the Dwarfs (without any information from GW

The bolded part is the leap of faith. In warhammer weapons aren't part of anything. They're just equipment. Special rules don't transfer from one to the other.

Think about it, a dwarf unit has a runesmith on it granting AP. Your logic is that since it's part of the unit the crossbows or handguns get an extra pip of AP because weapons, being part of the model have an entity on their own.

So a unit with GW would be getting two instances of AP right? (one per the model, one per the weapon), which both go into effect because AP is a cumulative rule.

This discussion probably had some merit in 2014. Right now just play it the way you want, just don't be surprised if your opponent challenges you on it.

jouso wrote:


Think about it, a dwarf unit has a runesmith on it granting AP. Your logic is that since it's part of the unit the crossbows or handguns get an extra pip of AP because weapons, being part of the model have an entity on their own.

As already pointed out by someone above special rules do not stack, so multiple sources of AP wouldn't do anything. However there are other instances when granting a special rule to the model effects both shooting and combat. Both Poison and Flaming state that if granted to the model then it effects both shooting and combat, AP shouldn't be any different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

This discussion probably had some merit in 2014. Right now just play it the way you want, just don't be surprised if your opponent challenges you on it.

Probably but this is a forum for dead games so any discussion on them is relevant here. If you do not wish to participate then don't. If our interpretation offends you so much then don't contribute. However this discussion has been the most lively thing on this subforum in months. Even reading differing opinions is way better than endless posts on the flavor of the day someone comes up with for 9th Age.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
Both Poison and Flaming state that if granted to the model then it effects both shooting and combat, AP shouldn't be any different.

Duh. It is, that's why it specifically says "wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule" and not the same wording as, say, flaming attacks.

This is beyond RAW vs RAI. It's rules as I think they should be. But feel free to disagree with 99% of those who actually played 8th back in the day. Once it hits your table it's your game.

If there's anything I don't miss from WH is the wonky rules writing and pointless beating the same old horse sometime someone thought he figured out a new trick no one else before him had. Good luck with your opponent. You will need it.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

However this discussion has been the most lively thing on this subforum in months. Even reading differing opinions is way better than endless posts on the flavor of the day someone comes up with for 9th Age.

Gotta agree with this. Those posts are killing any discussion on this forum as its drowned in a sea of posts by the same guy that nobody is interested in

Yazima wrote:

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

However this discussion has been the most lively thing on this subforum in months. Even reading differing opinions is way better than endless posts on the flavor of the day someone comes up with for 9th Age.

Gotta agree with this. Those posts are killing any discussion on this forum as its drowned in a sea of posts by the same guy that nobody is interested in

I'd rather have some original content that a microwaved rules discussion from 2013.

jouso wrote:


I'd rather have some original content that a microwaved rules discussion from 2013.

Age has nothing to do with it. People still discuss Rogue Trader, Star Fleet Battles, and old school D&D. If you don't want to be part of the conversation then but out!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
That is not what that sentence says.

All that sentence says is that if a model has a weapon with the armour piercing special rule, only attacks using that weapon benefit from it.

That says nothing about shooting attacks not benefiting from armour piercing if the model has the special rule. It is merely stating that if you had an armour piercing sword, it would not mean that you can use the armour piercing rule from that sword on any other weapon.

If you interpret that sentence to mean that the armour piercing rule has to be on a weapon to be of any benefit, then neither shooting nor close combat attacks will gain it due to the runesmith special rule. Do you have a rule reference for ranged weaponry not benefiting from armour piercing unless it is a special rule inherent to the ranged weapon?

This is the correct interpretation.
Armour piercing on the model effects the model, armour piercing on a weapon effects only the weapon.

When I read or watch 8th battle reports I only see Rune Smith's in combat units. Has anyone thought of, or tried, putting them in crossbows?

This is not 'wasted' on quarrelers because it is needed for Ironbreakers. On their own Ironbreakers hold well, but you need the unit to do more than tarpit, you need it to kill stuff and a Runesmith helps there. As Ironbreakers are also targets for armour negating magic missiles the magic resistance helps there.

If you need armour piercing shooting it is already there, and the extra range of crossbows makes a difference on one turn of shooting usually. You dont need a Runesmith for that. If you did you will have to calculate that in comparison to his value in dawi. Also armour piercing does not stack with itself.

I strongly challenge whether boosting a missile unit is a valid use of a character, engineers aside. Quarrelers are not game winning units, they are support units. Only rarely does missile fire win battles, and that normally revolves around skirmish shooting and certain warmachines, and often with magic synergy. Dawi have a fighting chance of pulling this off with an artillery line, but missile infantry only supplement this firepower. That being said all dawi are close combat troops, your Quarrelers should always be equipped with either shield or great axe, and do double up as melee troops, however this is again on a secondary role and while the armour piercing is useful it is not necessary, useful, but not necessary outside of small games where your Quarrelers can dominate the battleline. Ironbreakers on the other hand need to win, your elite infantry are your decisive arm, and alongside artillery are your tools for victory. Quarrelers are amongst the units supporting and there to prevent defeat.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

jouso wrote:


I'd rather have some original content that a microwaved rules discussion from 2013.

Age has nothing to do with it. People still discuss Rogue Trader, Star Fleet Battles, and old school D&D. If you don't want to be part of the conversation then but out!

Tactics? all the time.

Rules? No way. There was a wide consensus back then (which was furthermore pinned by an official FAQ). Again, your home your rules but at that point it's rules rewriting.

jouso wrote:


Tactics? all the time.

Rules? No way.

Yes, that is what we were attempting before you semi-hijacked the thread on your interpretation of the rules. Ah yes people discuss old rules all the time.

jouso wrote:

There was a wide consensus back then (which was furthermore pinned by an official FAQ). Again, your home your rules but at that point it's rules rewriting.

You keep saying "wide/overwhelming" consensus with very little proof. All you have provided are two threads that are fairly divided on the subject, an FAQ that is not even on the same subject, and rules for an unofficial European tournament that turned many of the rules on their end to begin with. It actually seems more like a childish attempt to have the last word when you really have nothing else to add to the conversation. It's obvious that you do not agree, and you are entitled to your interpretation. So unless you have something to add to the topic of this thread, just consider your posts ignored. Have a great day




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

This is not 'wasted' on quarrelers because it is needed for Ironbreakers. On their own Ironbreakers hold well, but you need the unit to do more than tarpit, you need it to kill stuff and a Runesmith helps there. As Ironbreakers are also targets for armour negating magic missiles the magic resistance helps there.

If you need armour piercing shooting it is already there, and the extra range of crossbows makes a difference on one turn of shooting usually. You dont need a Runesmith for that. If you did you will have to calculate that in comparison to his value in dawi. Also armour piercing does not stack with itself.

I strongly challenge whether boosting a missile unit is a valid use of a character, engineers aside. Quarrelers are not game winning units, they are support units. Only rarely does missile fire win battles, and that normally revolves around skirmish shooting and certain warmachines, and often with magic synergy. Dawi have a fighting chance of pulling this off with an artillery line, but missile infantry only supplement this firepower. That being said all dawi are close combat troops, your Quarrelers should always be equipped with either shield or great axe, and do double up as melee troops, however this is again on a secondary role and while the armour piercing is useful it is not necessary, useful, but not necessary outside of small games where your Quarrelers can dominate the battleline. Ironbreakers on the other hand need to win, your elite infantry are your decisive arm, and alongside artillery are your tools for victory. Quarrelers are amongst the units supporting and there to prevent defeat.

This view depends on what you are playing against. Crossbows have a good advantage over handguns depending on the opponent. In plenty of scenarios Wood Elves, Empire/Dwarf gunlines, and Chaos Dwarfs, are going to wait for you to come to them. Dogs of War also have a few units of heavily armed crossbow units that could sit back and pluck away from 30 inches, while your handguns would be out of range.

I see your point on Ironbreakers, but in 8th they are overpriced for what they do. With only strength 4, the armour piercing they would get from a Runesmith isn't doing much if they can't wound the target. They are not a hammer unit, more of an anvil. Their armour will keep them around for a while, but the lack of strength makes them disappointing. They really need a melay character to be more effective. Hammerers are better at punching and with Strength 6 they don't really need the Armour Piercing. It is an old dilemma Hammerers or Ironbreakers, which 8th has tilted slightly in the Hammerers favor. Ironbreakers shined in 6th and 7th but fall short in 8th. 8th really did Ironbreakers a disservice, for the points they should have gotten the 2nd attack like Hammerers. Then again the whole book seems like a bit of a rush job, but that is another thread entirely.

Allow me to join in. Although I am new to the forum, I am not new to Warhammer. I have been playing wargames of various types for several decades.
I have always treated rules as if they were written the same way the law is. That is, if they word things differently in different places, it was intended that they be different. Further, I think there are two kinds of rules: general & specific. I think it is a mistake to assume a general rule only has a specific application when the author has demonstrated he knows how to word a specific rule and the wording is different than a general rule.
Take a wood elf armed with bow, hand weapon & bodkin arrows. All the various arrows are considered armor piercing. But those are specific to missile fire. I wouldn’t give them AP when they are in melee combat with their hand weapon, any more than I would give the AP benefit to an Imperial Handgunner in melee combat.
Conversely, if a different character was armed with a great weapon and a bow, I wouldn’t assume the great weapon’s AP would transfer to the bow.
Here’s another example:
Talisman of Preservation: Grants a 4+ ward save
Dragonbane gem: 2+ ward save v flaming attacks.
Worded differently, meant to be different. Would you assume the Talisman of Protection only applies to melee combat?

Now, take the Razor Standard. It simply says, “Unit has the Armour Piercing special rule.”
It doesn’t say, “Unit has the Armour Piercing special rule in melee combat.”
Nor does it say, “Unit has the Armour Piercing special rule in missile combat.”
By speaking generally, it appears to be meant to apply to the unit in all situations.

Back to the dwarves. The Runesmith rule is worded as a general rule:
“Forgefire: All friendly infantry models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule.”
Now look at some other rules on runes that have being specific in mind:
“If a model is permitted to take a runic weapon, he may choose weapon runes from the following list and apply them to his hand weapon.”
A Dwarf Lord can take a crossbow and a runic (hand) weapon. Thus the author has demonstrated he knows how to make a rule with a very specific application. The rune clearly applies only to the hand weapon, not the crossbow.
But the Forgefire is not written with that level of specificity.
It doesn’t say:
“Forgefire: All friendly infantry models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule in melee combat”
Nor does it say:
“Forgefire: All friendly infantry models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule in missile combat”

Written differently, meant to be different. It the author only wanted it to apply in certain specific situations, instead of generally, he would have said so like he did in numerous other places.