Hellfire rounds

[Somofrates]

Hello.

I have a problem with hellfire ammo.

In Space Marines FAQ you can read "Page 66, 100, 144. The profile of Hellfire Rounds and Hellfire Shells should be changed by replacing ‘Strength X’ with ‘Strength 1’".

Now, on Warhammer 40000 rulebook, page 19, under the "to wound chart" it says "Note the N on the chart means the hit has no effect. A target with the Toughness indicated cannot be harmed by a hit of such punny strength".

Does this means hellfire rounds only can wound (on 2+ rolls) just toughness 1, 2, 3 or 4 models?

No more carnifex/nightbringer/daemon prince slaughtering?

Instead of sniper weapons (Warhammer 40000 rulebook, page 31: "Sniper hits wound on a roll of 4+, regardless of the victim's toughness"), hellfire rounds and shells just state "poisoned 2+".

Can any of you throw some light here?

Thanks!

[gwensdad]

Hello.

I have a problem with hellfire ammo.

In Space Marines FAQ you can read "Page 66, 100, 144. The profile of Hellfire Rounds and Hellfire Shells should be changed by replacing ‘Strength X’ with ‘Strength 1’".

Now, on Warhammer 40000 rulebook, page 19, under the "to wound chart" it says "Note the N on the chart means the hit has no effect. A target with the Toughness indicated cannot be harmed by a hit of such punny strength".

Does this means hellfire rounds only can wound (on 2+ rolls) just toughness 1, 2, 3 or 4 models?

No more carnifex/nightbringer/daemon prince slaughtering?

Instead of sniper weapons (Warhammer 40000 rulebook, page 31: "Sniper hits wound on a roll of 4+, regardless of the victim's toughness"), hellfire rounds and shells just state "poisoned 2+".

Can any of you throw some light here?

Thanks!

I think the intention is "wounds anything on a 2+" but against vehicles it's counted as S:1

[Somofrates]

Players on my club have their own intentions...

I just need that "anything" clearly stated on any oficial GW thing.

[Old_Paladin]

They can wound any enemy regardless of toughness, because they are poison weapons; you ignore the strength vs. toughness chart for this aspect.


The FAQ note was important because poison weapons can reroll wounds if the strength is equal to or greater then toughness (and strength X always means strength equals toughness); it was also important to give a strength against vehicles.

[Nabterayl]

Instead of sniper weapons (Warhammer 40000 rulebook, page 31: "Sniper hits wound on a roll of 4+, regardless of the victim's toughness"), hellfire rounds and shells just state "poisoned 2+".
Remember that sniper weapons are not poisoned, and always count as Strength 3 against vehicles. That resolves all the potential problems. If a weapon is poisoned, you already know it can wound any woundable model regardless of Toughness (go back and read the actual wording of the Poisoned rule), but you don't know how it behaves against vehicles and you don't know if it gets a Strength-based reroll. The FAQ answers those two questions, but it doesn't change the fact that poisoned weapons can, simply by virtue of being poisoned, wound any Toughness on a 4+, 3+, or 2+.

[Somofrates]

"go back and read the actual wording of the Poisoned rule"

Where?

Book? Page?

[Crevab]

Page 42 of the Rule Book. It completely answers your initial question



Old_Paladin: "The FAQ note was important because poison weapons can reroll wounds if the strength is equal to or greater then toughness (and strength X always means strength equals toughness)"

Not really, you only get re-rolls in CC and Hellfire rounds are shootan

[gwensdad]

"go back and read the actual wording of the Poisoned rule"

Where?

Book? Page?

That's what I think is the strange part. The only place the rulebook talks about poison is in the Close Combat Weapons part (pg 42 in my AoBR copy)

[Somofrates]

That's something. But, indeed, is under "close combat special weapons" section.

I'm affraid it won't be enough of an argument for a lawful-evil player...

[Somofrates]

If you take rending weapons as an example, they are described as ranged weapons (p31) and melee weapons (p42).

Not the same with poisoned ones, they are just listed as close combat.

[Old_Paladin]

Yes, poison rules are listed under close combat special rules; this is because the rulebook is becoming a little outdated compared to new army codexes.

After the rulebook came out many armies started adding ranged poison weapon (hellfire rounds, chem-cannon, I'm sure 'nids have some, dark eldar will).

Rending used to be like this too, only found in melee rules then got added to ranged weapons.

[Crevab]

GW writes their games under the assumption of two reasonable people trying to have fun, with any rules questions answered over a quick discussion or a die role,

So at this point you can either: agree with your opponent, that Hellfire is S:1, with an additional rule that does nothing; never play him again; or insist that he be reasonable.

Not much else to do in a system not designed to be airtight

[Somofrates]

Quite expensive books for two reasonable people trying to find one simple rule, then...

[Crevab]

Complaining about GW's poor rules writing ability is the bread and butter of warhammer forums :)

[Somofrates]

Since now it's S1 and the codex only says "wounds on 2+" I will give preference to the prevailing rules stated on the shooting chapter of the rulebook and assume it will only damage up to T4 miniatures on a fixed roll of 2+.

I cannot find any statement about hellfire rounds or shells ignoring toughness, or even if they are to be trated as the close combat special weapon.

[Crevab]

The Codex says "Poisoned 2+" under the Hellfire's type. So with your interpretation, that means nothing, not even "wounds on 2+"

Going by this, Hellfire rounds are an alternate ammo that are Strength 1 with nothing else.

Enjoy!

[sebi81]

The codex says poisoned 2+. But the codex doesn't say what this means. So you have to take the rules from the rulebook. The rulebook says poisoned weapons wound always on either 2+ or 4+ no matter what toghness teh enemy model has. It's right that the rules for poisoned weapon are in the cc section. But there are no other rules that fit.

So the only possible ways to think about the problem is, that either there are no rules explaining how the hellfire rounds work, or that poisoned works with shooting the same way as in cc.

For me only the second way is logical. And it seemes to be the way the rles are intendet. why have an option, there are no rules for?

So my conclusion is, that the strentgh doesn't matter for wounding models with toughness, they are always wounded on 2+, as described in the poison weapons section in the rulebook.

[Somofrates]

"The Emperor's holly nuts covered on Sister Repentia's hot chocolate and filled with warp antimatter on a self-propelled shell blessed by Le Soldat Marbo himself so don't look at the light directly to avoid permanent eye damage 2+" could be a precise weapon description with no need to search for further rules..

"Poisoned 2+" will do difficult to be a tournament judge...

Anyway, thanks all for your comments.
I will meditate a bit longer about all this thing.

[Nabterayl]

Okay, so, wall of text incoming, because I hate bad rules lawyering:


That's something. But, indeed, is under "close combat special weapons" section.

I'm affraid it won't be enough of an argument for a lawful-evil player...

Then your lawful evil player needs to prove to you that there's a difference between "close combat weapons" and "ranged weapons." That's a common shorthand but it's not the most accurate way of thinking about the rules. When you need more precision, the scheme the rulebook sets up is this:
There are only weapons.
In order to make a ranged attack, a model must be wielding a weapon that has a Strength, an AP, a maximum range, and a Type, and the attack is made using the weapon's characteristics plus any special rules the weapon may have and any other special rules that apply to the model's shooting attacks.
In order to make a close combat attack, a model must be wielding a weapon, and the attack is made using the model's Strength, plus any special rules the weapon may have, and any other special rules that apply to the model's close combat attacks.
For this reason, there is no distinction between "close combat rules" and "shooting attack rules." The following points ought to be sufficient to demonstrate this to your lawful evil friend:
As pointed out above, there is no distinction between weapons that are ranged weapons and weapons that are close combat weapons, and thus no logical reason to create special categories of ranged-only weapon special rules and close combat-only weapon special rules.
Games Workshop has published, in two separate codices written by two separate authors, weapons with "Poisoned" listed in the section of the shooting attack profile reserved for special rules that apply to shooting attacks. If the only rules that can be given effect in that section are those enumerated on page 29, then the chem cannon and hellfire weapons' Poisoned rule means nothing at all, as Crevab has already pointed out.
Instant Death is found only under the shooting attack section. If Poisoned cannot apply to shooting attacks on the basis of its being found only in the close combat section of the rulebook, then Instant Death cannot apply to close combat attacks on the basis of its being found only in the shooting section of the rulebook. That the latter is not the case can be demonstrated by the example of the force weapon, which tells you to apply the Instant Death rule - unless we are willing to add a third example to the pile of instances in which GW has allegedly published explicit rules that, from the date of their publication, had no effect.
All of this leaves us with the text of the poisoned rule itself:

Poisoned weapons range from blades coated in venom to hypodermic claws. They do not rely on a comparison of Strength and Toughness to wound - they always wound on a fixed number, generally shown in brackets. In most cases this is 4+. Some venoms are so lethal that the merest drop can kill - these may wound on a 3+, or even 2+. In addition, if the Strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat. These weapons confer no advantage against vehicles.
Nowhere in this rule is the Poisoned rule restricted to close combat attacks only (contrast with power weapons, found on the same page, which does specify that it applies only to close combat attacks - yet another reason to believe, incidentally, that the other rules on page 42 apply universally unless otherwise specified). The rule is simply that "they" (i.e., poisoned weapons):
Always wound on a 4+, unless another number is specified in brackets.
Must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat, if the Strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim.
A weapon that includes "Poisoned" in its shooting attack profile is plainly a poisoned weapon. As such, it may apply rule #1 to all its attacks, and rule #2 to its close combat attacks.

[Somofrates]

I agree, and apreciate your effort, Nabterayl.

But I'm gonna master a 40k campaign and nobody wants to close their lists until this hellfire thing gets clear (and players whine on both ways).

Hope we get a more precise ranged poisoned weapons rule with the incoming dark eldar codex :)

[Old_Paladin]

Hope we get a more precise ranged poisoned weapons rule with the incoming dark eldar codex :)

Not to be a pessimist but, you won't. Their poisoned ranged weapons will be written the same as space marines, imperial guard and 'nids (but hopefully they'll be listed as a poison weapon with a strength, not an X, the first time around; so they won't need to do an errata on a typo).

Even if their codex does actually make it clear how poison ranged weapons work; the type of people that make hellfire shells strength 1 with no workable special rules are the same type of people that will say that Dark Eldar poison guns are a codex specific and each codex must use it own rules.



As for the reason for the question:
I'd just say Take Charge, if you're going to be running a campaign don't be wishy-washy (or seem like the 'evil gamers' can control you), be confidant.
Just go with what you think seems best/less complicated/makes the most number of players happy; and let players start building their lists and rolling dice.
It's either:
a) always wounds everything, with a toughness, on a 2+
or
b) wounds things from toughness one through to four, always on a 2+; but cannot wound anything of toughness five or higher, due to the limitations on the strength vs. toughness chart [which seems un-neccessarily complicated to me].

[Tynskel]

you know this is silly.

The rulebook is quite clear on this--- the weapon wounds based on the "x+" x = {4,3,2}.
If your strength characteristic of the weapon is equal to and/or higher than the opponent's toughness, you MUST re-roll to wound.


That's it--- why is there a problem?
GW errata the one problem there was: what strength was the weapon.

Anyone that is having an argument over this rule has not read the rulebook--- it is as clear as a sunny day.

[Somofrates]

Warhammer 40000 rulebook, page 19, under the "to wound chart" it says "Note the N on the chart means the hit has no effect. A target with the Toughness indicated cannot be harmed by a hit of such punny strength".

So I still have a book full of sunny days...

[Somofrates]

And, I know, even if the poison under the special close combat weapons says that over the clouds the sun is shining and blah, blah, blah...

[Nabterayl]

Warhammer 40000 rulebook, page 19, under the "to wound chart" it says "Note the N on the chart means the hit has no effect. A target with the Toughness indicated cannot be harmed by a hit of such punny strength".

So I still have a book full of sunny days...
Wait, you mean to tell me you have people reading, "They do not rely on a comparison of Strength and Toughness to wound," and then pointing at the page 19 chart that compares Strength and Toughness for purposes of wounding, and going, "Look! This is relevant!"

You're kidding, right?

[gwensdad]

Wait, you mean to tell me you have people reading, "They do not rely on a comparison of Strength and Toughness to wound," and then pointing at the page 19 chart that compares Strength and Toughness for purposes of wounding, and going, "Look! This is relevant!"

You're kidding, right?

I think there are people that will say "that's only CC weapons, not shooting" and then go all rules-lawyer on him.

[Nabterayl]

I think there are people that will say "that's only CC weapons, not shooting" and then go all rules-lawyer on him.
Meh, see post 19 (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=97286&postcount=19) for why that's bad rules-lawyering. You want to rules-lawyer, do it right :p

[synack]

That's something. But, indeed, is under "close combat special weapons" section.

I'm affraid it won't be enough of an argument for a lawful-evil player...

Stop playing him

[Tynskel]

And, I know, even if the poison under the special close combat weapons says that over the clouds the sun is shining and blah, blah, blah...

As I said, you haven't read the rulebook.
There is a hierarchy of rules built within the rulebook. It is a very clear hierarchy too--- right as day and sunshine.
Read Nab's post "number 19", because there is no reason for me to repeat it or paraphrase it.




This is also an example of how people will quote the rulebook out of context. I have stated this many times before, but I will repeat this again.

You cannot just quote a word, phrase, or single sentence. A proper quotation contains the context from which is being quoted---
Somofrates quoted 'Warhammer 40000 rulebook, page 19, under the "to wound chart" it says "Note the N on the chart means the hit has no effect. A target with the Toughness indicated cannot be harmed by a hit of such punny strength".'
This left out the relevant rule that Poison Weapons have: Ignoring the Wound Chart!

Somofrates then quotes 'And, I know, even if the poison under the special close combat weapons says that over the clouds the sun is shining and blah, blah, blah...'
This leaves out the context that the weapon that it is being applied to is specifically a ranged weapon. And this leaves out how the rules fit together within the rulebook.

It is important to learn how to use quotations properly--- because you don't want Nab to tear you apart, or even worse, for me to start a Flame War.

Both of us will win these arguments-- we have done our homework.

[ArchonPhelps]

True "N" means you can not wound the target.

That is why with poison it is a "X" which means it does not matter what the toughness is wounds on a 4+,3+,2+.

Plus Codex over rides Rulebook

[DarkLink]

Warhammer 40000 rulebook, page 19, under the "to wound chart" it says "Note the N on the chart means the hit has no effect. A target with the Toughness indicated cannot be harmed by a hit of such punny strength".

So I still have a book full of sunny days...

Specific rules override general rules. "Always wounds on a X+" is a specific rule, "the hit has no effect" is a general rule.

Problem solved.


you know this is silly.

The rulebook is quite clear on this--- the weapon wounds based on the "x+" x = {4,3,2}.
If your strength characteristic of the weapon is equal to and/or higher than the opponent's toughness, you MUST re-roll to wound.


That's it--- why is there a problem?
GW errata the one problem there was: what strength was the weapon.

Anyone that is having an argument over this rule has not read the rulebook--- it is as clear as a sunny day.

Right. It's not even like it's an unclear area where you can try and rules-lawyer stuff, or anything. The BRB and codices specifically and explicitly state "these weapons always wound on an x+". Sounds simple to me.