Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And Korvessa knocks it out of the ball park.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:


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.

Wood Elves are a problem. However if facing 30" fire from anything else its from basic S4 and your missile dawi should have heavy armour and shields. Take a step forward, then the advantage is very much yours. Dawi have better things to do than shoot Empire handgunners/crossbowmen though. Thankfully Organ Guns are 30" in 8th which is a very big boost, as these are the mainstay of your artillery line and have a clear range advantage over other factions high volume artillery (with exception of spear chukka spam) means sitting at 30" against dawi is not very healthy.
It all depends on the list though, both ways. Mismatch insurance is hard to chase and not really desirable anyway outside a varsity theme as your list loses focus. With two organ guns in a list though I do not fear range 30" campers, even if I have few to no crossbows.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:


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.

First, smoke 'em if you got 'em. Ironbreakers are not as good in 8th, but are still a servicable elite. They do see table time, and are favourites to some. The shine of Hammerers in 8th doesnt take that away.

Yes they are an anvil unit, Hammerers are you know a hammer unit. They are not mutually exclusive and while offense is higher prized than defence in general you can do a lot with Ironbreakers. If you want to play with a tank thane and oath stone Ironbreakers are your go-to unit, with a nod to Longbeards. S4 is not weak, it's fairly good actually and servicable for infantry attrition, -2 to saves really helps though and is frankly as much armour piercing as you need vs most infantry. Infantry saves higher than 4+ being very rare. As you don't want to 'waste' the banner slot on armour piercing a Runesmith helps here too. Finally your Runesmith is your 'dispel caddy' with the dispel rune Runesmith at 85pts being an autoinclude/baseline in most builds. You get pretty good protection for him in an anvil unit.

Besides, Ironbreakers get beard armour. Beard. Armour.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

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.

I told you to google for it. I challenge you to find a thread at bugman's brewery (which was and is the main discussion board for dwarves) from back in the day that agrees with your position.

Or a list or battle report that includes a runesmith on quarrellers, for that matter.

Please learn how to use the quotes function, and edit down quotes of quotes into something manageable.
This is so confusing, I don't know who is saying what or which side of arguments people are on.

 Just Tony wrote:
And Korvessa knocks it out of the ball park.

Thanks!

 Korvessa wrote:

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.

I think that says it best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
And Korvessa knocks it out of the ball park.

2nd that!

jouso wrote:

 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.

This forum is for discussing legacy WHFB including its rules, if you do not like that then feel free to not partake.

 Orlanth wrote:

With two organ guns in a list though I do not fear range 30" campers, even if I have few to no crossbows.

In a tournaments or games above 3K I don't have an issue using 2 Organ guns. However in friendly games you don't want to be "that guy" every game, you need to change it up some times. Theme can also be a factor. Such as with one of my Dwarf armies is themed to be old fashioned and use no black power weapons. This depends a lot on what you are playing, tournament play and friendly play are vastly different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

Besides, Ironbreakers get beard armour. Beard. Armour.

Ok, there is no denying beard armour

Don't get me wrong, I like my Ironbreakers. Though I think that Ironbreakers should have been a few points cheaper or be given a 2nd attack. Compared to Chaos Warriors who are the same points and a core choice the Ironbreakers are disappointing.

In an ideal world, I wouldn't have minded that both Hammerers and Ironbreakers be 15pts each but have 2 attacks and both have Gromil Armour. 2 attacks would help the Ironbreakers win combat. Gromil would help the Hammerers live to see combat, they can be too easily shot up.

The Dwarf book as a whole feels a bit rushed to me. It suffers from the fact that it was released towards the end if 8th and it was written by Jeremy Vetock, a nice enough guy but his books tend to be off sometimes and not very well play tested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ingtaer wrote:

This forum is for discussing legacy WHFB including its rules, if you do not like that then feel free to not partake.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Besides, Ironbreakers get beard armour. Beard. Armour.

Ok, there is no denying beard armour

You will be a believer yet.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I like my Ironbreakers. Though I think that Ironbreakers should have been a few points cheaper or be given a 2nd attack. Compared to Chaos Warriors who are the same points and a core choice the Ironbreakers are disappointing.

You are missing something though. 3+/5++ is damn good, any player would be fairly satisfied with that level of protection for any character that is not a general, let alone rank and file infantry. A second attack wouldn't help, it would only effect the front rank in what is obviously meant to be a deep ranked unit, and would have to be paid for.This is a unit fit to go toe to toe with pretty much anything and live long enough for the characters within to perform, or just hold until a heavy flank attack can be arranged. Certain broken deathstar combos from badly thought through army books, *cough* Daemons, *cough* *cough* High Elves should be avoided, but that is just about it. You do get what you pay for at the points and rules given, but they are not designed as a solo win button, but a quality component in a dawi army defensive line. Ironbreakers aren't intended to be clearly superior, dawi battle lines are intended to be clearly superior, they are slow but squaring off against dwarfs line to line on their terms is intended to be a bad idea.
The Dwarf army book was better than given credit for.

From the v 1.9 FAQ (aka, the last one made by GW):

Q: If a unit with missile weapons has the Razor Standard, do
their shooting attacks have the Armour Piercing special rule?
(Reference)
A: No.

Razor Standard: "MODELS in a unit with the Razor Standard have the Armour Piercing special rule". (emphasis mine)

From the Dwarf Runesmith entry:
“Forgefire: All friendly infantry MODELS in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule.” (emphasis mine)

Korvessa ALMOST had it right...he just failed to take into account the GW ruling on the Razor Standard, and he just assumed that the author didn't already know this when creating unit descriptions.
- armour piercing special rule applied to a MODEL only applies to close combat attacks.

jouso is correct.

EDIT1: Phrasing
EDIT2: If you truly want closure on this issue all the die-hard 8th guys wandered here: eefl.freeforums.net - if you still have doubts ask your question there and those guys ABSOLUTELY will steer you in the right direction.
EDIT3: Placement
EDIT4: Phrasing again

Problem is that is a FAQ reply and GW doesnt necessarily think those through, and was specific to Razor Banner.

Umm...FAQs were official. Argue all you want but these were the final rulings that the game devs released in OFFICIAL, published sources (well...online on their website anyway)

I don't know if you've ever heard this thing called PRECEDENT, but the ruling on the razor standard sets the precedent for any and all other similar rulings. They don't have to release a specific ruling on Runesmiths because we know that in another EXACT SAME WORDING/SITUATION it's been ruled a specific way.

Armour piercing applied to a MODEL applies to only it's close combat attacks.

For further reference the main rulebook: "Wounds caused in CLOSE COMBAT by a MODEL with this special rule...If a MODEL has a WEAPON with the Armour Piercing special rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the WEAPON are Armour Piercing" (emphasis mine)

Correct, I was unaware of the FAQ.
But I'll say this, if that is the interpretation, it is an extremely poorly written rule for reasons I outlined earlier.

It undoubtedly caused more problems than it answered.

Because with a precedent like that, you can now question every "general rule."

Close combat has so much more impact on the game why they wouldn't allow armour piercing to apply to shooting attacks as well is beyond me.

They must have imagined some weird scenario where an army like Tomb Kings with their 70 skeleton archer unit having poisoned AND armor piercing attacks and thought "nope".

But it's okay for a horde of witch elves to have poisoned, rerolling, armor piercing attacks...

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
Close combat has so much more impact on the game why they wouldn't allow armour piercing to apply to shooting attacks as well is beyond me.

For whatever reason the devs phrased armour piercing deliberately with a different wording than, say, flaming attacks. Maybe they thought shooting would play a different role than it ultimately did. But they could have errata'ed at any point and choose not to.

In any case there's nothing wrong with playing with house rules. Talk it up with your opponent if you feel it gives your army extra depth and is not OP.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
Close combat has so much more impact on the game why they wouldn't allow armour piercing to apply to shooting attacks as well is beyond me.

They must have imagined some weird scenario where an army like Tomb Kings with their 70 skeleton archer unit having poisoned AND armor piercing attacks and thought "nope".

But it's okay for a horde of witch elves to have poisoned, rerolling, armor piercing attacks...

Which is why its relevant to the Razor Banner. Volley fire allows a very large volume of attacks wheras in previous editions with exception of various times of Bretonnians and high elves shooting was always restricted to a single rank outside of specific positional play.

Trouble is we have seen specific FAQ entries not provide precedent but restrict their ruling to only the circumstancers described. To attempt to argue otherwise opens up a large contradictory can o' worms..

If you say so. Play the "8th homebrew" game however you want it's your table and your rules - at the end of the day we'll never play on the same table so...who cares.

Just know that every OFFICIAL 8th edition table played armour piercing as close combat only. That is what the rules say.


EDIT: And until GW comes out explicitly saying that the Runesmith allows armor piercing shooting attacks, the precedent set by the Razor Standard holds.

Just to reiterate:

The rule differentiates between the model and the weapon:
1. The model has AP: all CC attacks are affected
2. A CC weapon has AP: only CC attacks made by the weapon are affected
3. A missile weapon has AP: only missile attacks made by the weapon are affected.


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.

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.

If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing.


This is confirmed by the FAQ regarding the egarding the Razor Standard:

BRB p. 503: Models in a unit with the Razor Standard have the Armour Piercing special rule.

BRB Official Update Version 1.9, p. 14:
Q: If a unit with missile weapons has the Razor Standard, do their shooting attacks have the Armour Piercing special rule? (Reference)
A: No.


Since the Forgefire special rule gives AP to models, all CC attacks are affected - but only CC attacks.

Dwarfs AB p. 36:
Forgefire: All friendly infantry models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule. Should the Runesmith or Runelord leave the unit or be slain, the unit loses the special rule immediately.


Read more: http://eefl.freeforums.net/thread/1716/runesmiths-armour-piercing-missile-weapons#ixzz5nvwsoBHN

I play dwarfs and have played numerous tournaments with them in several states ( have moved for work quite a bit). Never have I encountered someone understanding the Runesmith rule to mean to apply to ranged weapons. I think this is one of those where we might wish it applied to something, but it really doesn't.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, if that is the way it is played, then those rules are very poorly written. If that is what was intended, they should have been written like this:

Razor standard: Unit has the Armour Piercing special rule in close combat.

Forgefire: All friendly infantry models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule in close combat.

What people want it to say, or intended for it to say and what it actually says are clearly not the same thing in this instance.

 Korvessa wrote:
At the risk of beating a dead horse, if that is the way it is played, then those rules are very poorly written. If that is what was intended, they should have been written like this:

Razor standard: Unit has the Armour Piercing special rule in close combat.

Forgefire: All friendly infantry models in a unit joined by a Runesmith or Runelord gain the Armour Piercing special rule in close combat.

What people want it to say, or intended for it to say and what it actually says are clearly not the same thing in this instance.

The way the rules are written in this case is consistent.

Flaming standard says: models in a unit with this banner have flaming attacks. Then you flip over to flaming attacks and it says "unless otherwise explained, the model with this special rule will have both shooting and cc flaming attacks". Likewise for poison attacks "unless explicitly mentioned, the unit will have both cc and shooting poison attacks" as for example the goblin spider banner says just "the unit gains poison attacks" and you know going back to the rule it applies to cc and shooting, while the Khalida rule says it's just for shooting attacks.

Razor standard says: models in a unit (...) have armour piercing. Then you flip over to armour piercing and it says: "wounds caused in close combat attacks by a model with this rule (...)" and then it goes on to say that a missile weapon can have armour profile on the weapon profile.

GW has never really had tight rules writing, but there are way worse examples in 8th edition than this one.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
Umm...FAQs were official. Argue all you want but these were the final rulings that the game devs released in OFFICIAL, published sources (well...online on their website anyway)

The one word answer to the Razor Standard doesn't do anything to set a president. FAQs are also more fluid than written rules and themselves change at times. I also know from people on the inside that the authors of the books are not the same people writing the FAQs, so author intent and FAQ are not always in line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korvessa wrote:

What people want it to say, or intended for it to say and what it actually says are clearly not the same thing in this instance.

Very true.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
If you say so. Play the "8th homebrew" game however you want it's your table and your rules - at the end of the day we'll never play on the same table so...who cares.

Just know that every OFFICIAL 8th edition table played armour piercing as close combat only. That is what the rules say.

The argument is that this is not the actual RAW, which is more ambiguous. It's a grey area.

i have never encountered this before as I have never tried to add a Runesmith to Quarrelers. Runesmiths are a must take but Quarrelers don't rank up*, so I built mine as Thunderers, who do rank up, and which already have armour piercing. As for my Runesmith, its there to sit in a Longbeard or Ironbreaker unit; or the reasons given in a previous post. So I have never had my Runesmith rules challenged by GW at the time, it just never came up.



*Did you notice there are no Quarrelers in the army displays in the 8th army book. All the models of this kit were assembled as Thunderers in multiple units.

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
Umm...FAQs were official. Argue all you want but these were the final rulings that the game devs released in OFFICIAL, published sources (well...online on their website anyway)

The one word answer to the Razor Standard doesn't do anything to set a president. FAQs are also more fluid than written rules and themselves change at times. I also know from people on the inside that the authors of the books are not the same people writing the FAQs, so author intent and FAQ are not always in line.

It's not a RAW/RAI discussion or even who wrote what.

Once a FAQ is out it becomes rules. It's an official interpretation just like an errata permanently charges the wording.

jouso wrote:

It's not a RAW/RAI discussion or even who wrote what.

Once a FAQ is out it becomes rules. It's an official interpretation just like an errata permanently charges the wording.

The FAQ, in this situation, is meaningless. It pertains to the Razon Standard and nothing more. As pointed out by Korvessa, you may want it to say more, but it doesn't. If the author of the FAQ wanted it to be all encompassing to all Amour Piercing they would have said so. As it is they did not. There is no FAQ on Armour Piercing or the Dwarf book, so it is to the interpretation of the players or TO, and an interpretation is all it is not a concrete rule.

The FAQ shows that in the instance of the razor standard GW is willing to stick to their rules as written about armor piercing.

That is that MODELS that receive the rule have it affect all close combat attacks; WEAPONS have the rule apply only to attacks made with that weapon.

There’s absolutely no reason to think that an FAQ would rule otherwise in the case of the forgefire special rule that the runesmiths have.

Because jouso and I are correct

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
The FAQ shows that in the instance of the razor standard GW is willing to stick to their rules as written about armor piercing.

That is that MODELS that receive the rule have it affect all close combat attacks; WEAPONS have the rule apply only to attacks made with that weapon.

There’s absolutely no reason to think that an FAQ would rule otherwise in the case of the forgefire special rule that the runesmiths have.

Because jouso and I are correct

Again, just because you interpret it that way, does not make it correct. The wording of the BRB does not support you interpretation and the FAQ is for the Razor Standard not Armour Piercing itself. Again if that is how they wanted it then it would say so or have been addressed in another FAQ and it was not.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
The FAQ shows that in the instance of the razor standard GW is willing to stick to their rules as written about armor piercing.

Stop misrepresenting that. They made NO COMMENT restricting armour piercing rule for the Razor Banner iniaitlly and for the Runesmioth at all. FAQ's become rules but only aplply tyo the subject of the FAQ.
You cant make it up to mean more than it says.

The RAW for Runesmiths give armour piercing universally to the unit in question, until stated otherwise, which never happened. That is the RAW.

Explain to me then why adepticon and Las Vegas open played it the way I’m telling you is correct? Those are the only ones I ever attended but I can tell you with 100% certainty- that’s the way the rules read. If you want to keep twisting them into something they’re not by all means - continue to bully your way into “convincing” everyone you’re right. I can see why no one comes to this forum for 8th edition advice/help though - you guys don’t know one end of even a basic rule from another.

Honestly this is beginning to feel like pig wrestling; I’m the one getting dirty and you guys are the ones enjoying it.

I’m out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:


Stop misrepresenting that. They made NO COMMENT restricting armour piercing rule for the Razor Banner iniaitlly and for the Runesmioth at all. FAQ's become rules but only aplply tyo the subject of the FAQ.
You cant make it up to mean more than it says.

The RAW for Runesmiths give armour piercing universally to the unit in question, until stated otherwise, which never happened. That is the RAW.

You’re absolutely right that the runesmith gives armor piercing to the unit as a whole - I never said otherwise. What I’m saying is that armor piercing works differently depending on whether it’s given to the MODEL, or if the WEAPON has the special rule.

You know...LIKE IT SAYS IN THE RULEBOOK - which I’ve already quoted


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LiveWaaaaagh wrote:
I play dwarfs and have played numerous tournaments with them in several states ( have moved for work quite a bit). Never have I encountered someone understanding the Runesmith rule to mean to apply to ranged weapons. I think this is one of those where we might wish it applied to something, but it really doesn't.

That’s because all of those numerous tournaments you attended were playing the rules correctly!

Love your work btw!

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:


Explain to me then why adepticon and Las Vegas open played it the way I’m telling you is correct?

Adepticon & LV open and not official GW events. The interpretation of the rules is up to the TO. They are free to interpret the rules any way they want, it doesn't make it correct or official.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
hose are the only ones I ever attended but I can tell you with 100% certainty- that’s the way the rules read.

You can state 100% that is how you see it, but that is not how the rule is written.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
f you want to keep twisting them into something they’re not by all means - continue to bully your way into “convincing” everyone you’re right. I can see why no one comes to this forum for 8th edition advice/help though - you guys don’t know one end of even a basic rule from another.

Do not lower yourself to hyperbole. Someone not agreeing with you is hardly bullying. No one is forcing you to join in this discussion, if you don't agree feel free to leave.

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
I’m out.

See ya!

Credit to FvonSigmaringen over at eefl he found this old ditty:

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

Found it interesting that the exact same discussion raged on this site in 2011 over the razor standard, with the exact same arguments on both sides. GW eventually released the FAQ (that I posted earlier) for the Razor Standard that supports the armor piercing rule RAW.

I know you guys are going to try and point out that that ruling only applies to the razor standard and that for some magical reason forgefire is different, despite being worded exactly the same way.

All I can say is that anyone else reading this post can now make their own assessment and form their own conclusion.

Play the game your way. But also know that if you ever attend an event that is hosting 8th edition games, know that forgefire and the razor standard will only affect close combat attacks, despite whatever you've houseruled them to be.