Space Wolves Q: Jaws of the World Wolf and Arjac's Ranged Thunderhammer attack

[dagonis]

A friend and I are having a rules debate and I would like to get some feed back on this.

Arjac can toss his thunder hammer 6" for a Str10 Ap1 Assault 1 attack. Normally in close combat, a thunder hammer would reduce the target's initiative to 1 assuming they survived the attack. The discussion is about the nature of the ranged attack.

His argument is that the target is reduced to I1 immediately by the ranged attack (since it is a thunder hammer) and thus a Rune Priest could cast Jaws and force the character to have to roll 1 or be removed from play instantly. This would obviously wreck many multiwound high I characters (Greater Deamon of Slaanesh, Abbadon, et al.).

My argument is that there is no mention of the thunder hammer effect in the ranged attack profile. If the designers meant for this to be the case I assume it would read:
"str 10 ap 1 assault 1, thunder hammer"
If my Keeper of Secrets gets hit by it, I believe he still goes at I10 in CC.

Thoughts?

[Gotthammer]

I am in agreance with you, for the same reason you put. While it makes sense from a background point of view, the rules and background do not always marry up, unfortunately.

[Herald of Nurgle]

Though honestly it would make sense in a RAI argument, I think that via RAW you should NOT reduce the initiative. And regardless, doesn't it say that they STRIKE IN CC at I 1. Casting JotWW isn't initiating a CC, so the effects do not stack anyway.

Be sure to come to an agreement when the game/tournament begins.

[dagonis]

The thunder hammer section from the BRB is:

Thunder hammers:
Thunder hammers release a tremendous blast of energy when they strike. A thunder hammer uses the same rules as a power fist. In addition, all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player’s turn. Against vehicles with no Initiative value, whenever a thunder hammer inflicts any damage result it also inflicts a crew shaken result.

I am curious about that initiative modification. Is it an actual changing of the stat or is it a pseudo-modification of the stat (e.g. St6 vs. str4(8) via a PF)? I would assume it is possible for the initiative value to technically read I4(1) for the purposes of that turn as it is a temporary change. For actual characteristic tests the character would possibly then still use their stated I value as a biker marine still has to take a T test at T4 even though their profile is T4(5).

I digress as this is a discussion about the interaction of Arjac's Ranged attack and Jaws, not about the nature of thunderhammers.

[Lerra]

JotWW uses the model's base initiative, not its initiative in close combat. For example, a space marine with a powerfist will take the init test using his base init of 4, not the modified init of 1.

[DarkLink]

JotWW uses the model's base initiative, not its initiative in close combat. For example, a space marine with a powerfist will take the init test using his base init of 4, not the modified init of 1.

Right. The Thunderhammer does not permanately make the model Initiative 1. It simply causes the model to attack at initiative 1, despite the model's normal initiative.

[RogueGarou]

Since he is throwing the hammer, it is given a new profile. The new profile (ranged) does not have the Thunder Hammer rule included in its profile so I do not think it would get the same abilities, just what is included in the ranged profile. Conceptually, imagine that the bearer has to put his weight behind the hammer in close combat to resist the recoil of the hammer when the field generator goes off and transmits its energy into the target. When thrown, the hammer would probably be tossed aside when it discharges as there is no muscle behind the hammer to push the weapon into the target.

[SeattleDV8]

I agree , the thrown weapons profile does not mention the stunning attack.
It should have no effect besides wounding and possible Instant Death.
Though if a model was in CC and was hit and survived the TH attack their Int would be lowered to 1.
I believe the JotWW test would be against Int 1 in that case as it reduces their Int until the end of the next players turn.

[dagonis]

I agree , the thrown weapons profile does not mention the stunning attack.
It should have no effect besides wounding and possible Instant Death.
Though if a model was in CC and was hit and survived the TH attack their Int would be lowered to 1.
I believe the JotWW test would be against Int 1 in that case as it reduces their Int until the end of the next players turn.

I would be willing to take the I test at 1 if took an unsaved TH wound in the previous CC phase.

[mkerr]

My reading allows it (I even talk about it on my JotWW Tactica (http://www.chainfist.com/2009/10/using-jaws-of-world-wolf.html) on Chainfist).

Here's the skinny:

1. He throws his Thunder Hammer. It never stops being a Thunder Hammer and it's a Thunder Hammer that hits you (i.e., as opposed to being a beam that shoots out of it or a summoned strike of lightning).

2. "Thunder Hammer" isn't an Additional Weapon Characteristic, like Gets Hot! or Sniper. It's not something that would appear in the statline -- it comes from the fact that it's a Thunder Hammer.

3. The Thunder Hammer entry in the rulebook doesn't restrict the wounding to wounds caused in close combat. It says "all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling".

So, by my reading, Arjac's thrown attack is still a Thunder Hammer and still causes the Thunder Hammer effect.

-- mkerr

[Dingareth]

And as you can read over on mkerr's blog, I disagree with him, as the Foehammer profile never states that there's any additional benefits beyond just the profile listed.

[mkerr]

And as you can read over on mkerr's blog, I disagree with him, as the Foehammer profile never states that there's any additional benefits beyond just the profile listed.

Of course it wouldn't be listed in the weapon profile, it's not an "Additional Weapon Characteristics".

It's a Thunder Hammer.

[DarkLink]

While I question your interpretation, I'll grant that there is enough grey area to get away with that argument. On one hand, the Foehammer is given a specific profile that does not include the stunning effect. On the other, it doesn't say whether or not the Foehammer looses the Thunderhammer effect when Arjac goes all Wulfgar on his opponent.

Something to cover in the SW FAQ.

[Sam]

A thunder hammer is a close combat weapon, so it has no ranged effects. The Foehammer allows Arjac to use it as a ranged attack with the profile stated in the codex. It does not say that this ranged attack gains any benefit from being made by a thunder hammer. If it did, then it would, since it doesn't, it doesn't.

[Sam]

Also, why is a strength 10 ap 1 attack that hits on a 2+ not enough? Trying to make it reduce the target's initiative in order to make JotWW more effective is looking for cheese that isn't there.

[Vince]

If it doesnt list it in the rules on the entry in the codex i dont see how you can try to grey logic it into the game. If it was intended to lower int it would spell it out.

[AirHorse]

Kind of in slight agreement with mkerr here, the description of a thunderhammer doesnt limit its effects to close combat, just to when you suffer a wound from a thunderhammer, and foehammer is still a thunderhammer when it is thrown.

It is a pretty big grey area though, I dont think they even considered this(which is dumb considering there is a nasty spell in the same codex that it gives a great bonus to) and maybe they didnt want it to happen, but there is nothing in the rules that says a weapon has to have its special ability written into the profile.

[DarkLink]

It's one of those things that seems like it only works in the fluff and not in the rules, until you think about it a little. Mkerr's argument actually makes more and more sense as I think about it. I just had some initial skepticism.

[Kanaellars]

Actually, I dont think its a grey area at all.

Does the Foehammer reduce the initiative at which a model acts in CC? Yes? No? Maybe.

It doesnt matter.

JOTWW Doesnt care when you act in CC... it cares about your initiative. The TH doesnt change that.

It basically makes the targets initiative 4(1)

CC works off the ()

JOTWW works on the main number.

[Nabterayl]

Well, fair enough, but it certainly matters in other situations. For instance, if Arjac throws his hammer at you, successfully wounds you, and then charges you in CC ... what's your Initiative?

I'm with mkerr on this one, though. Thunder Hammer is never listed as a weapon attribute, like Rending is. It's just what the weapon is. Page 42 doesn't say "models that suffer an unsaved wound from a weapon with the thunder hammer attribute reduce their Initiative to 1 until the end of the next player's turn." It says "models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer ... reduc[e] their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn." The rule doesn't ask us to look at a weapon's profile. It asks us to look at whether or not the wound came from a thunder hammer.

[Kanaellars]

Well, fair enough, but it certainly matters in other situations. For instance, if Arjac throws his hammer at you, successfully wounds you, and then charges you in CC ... what's your Initiative?

I'm with mkerr on this one, though. Thunder Hammer is never listed as a weapon attribute, like Rending is. It's just what the weapon is. Page 42 doesn't say "models that suffer an unsaved wound from a weapon with the thunder hammer attribute reduce their Initiative to 1 until the end of the next player's turn." It says "models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer ... reduc[e] their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn." The rule doesn't ask us to look at a weapon's profile. It asks us to look at whether or not the wound came from a thunder hammer.


In that situation, you attack at 1.

[Nabterayl]

In that situation, you attack at 1.
Anybody else disagree with this?

@Kanaellars - okay, so if you agree that far, how do you get from "reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn" to "JOTWW Doesnt care when you act in CC... it cares about your initiative. The TH doesnt change that."?

It's true that some Initiative tests, such as those for a Sweeping Advance, are made without modifiers (page 40). But there's no general principal that Initiative tests are made without modifiers, and JotWW only tells us to take an Initiative test.

[Kanaellars]

Exactly. JOTWW gives us a initiative test. A test of the initiative characteristic.

The TH does not change that characteristic, it simply changes how it is used in close combat.

So hit with a TH, you are a 1 for actions in close combat, but still init 4.

[Nabterayl]

The TH does not change that characteristic, it simply changes how it is used in close combat.
That's my question. The TH rules say, "all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn" (emphasis added).

You seem to be reading the italicized language as referring to Initiative for purposes of close combat striking order only. I don't see how you're getting that reading.

[SeattleDV8]

I agree, the Thunder hammer reduces your Int, it does not say something like 'for the purposes of CC' only.

[dagonis]

I can't help but feel that is GW wanted the ranged attack to knock the target to I1 they would have said something in the entry.

The SW codex reads
The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:
6" Str10 Ap 1 Assault 1

I am not sure that this is clear enough to state one way or another if it is a ranged thunder hammer attack as that is not the way the rule reads.

Their rules for ranged attacks are very clear when there are additional attributes involved

Sniper
Melta
Flamer
etc.

The Melta Profile doesn't read
Meltagun Rng 12" Str 8 AP 1 Assault 1
and then let the player assume it is melta because it is in fact a melta, they make sure that they spell it out explicitly.

Another interesting portion of the SW codex:

Thunder Hammer
Thunder hammers release a terrific burst of energy when they strike an opponent, their impact as loud as a thunderclap. In the unlikely event that a thunder hammer does not dispatch its target with the first blow, this tremendous discharge of energy will often stun an opponent long enough for a second blow to finish them off. See the Assault Phase chapter of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook for the rules that apply to thunder hammers.

I could see this one of two ways, either they are simply identifying where in the BRB the thunder hammer rules are or they are stating that thunder hammers only affect close combat. This logic might be a bit tenuous, but it is something to think about.

Does anyone know of any other characters in 40k that toss their CC weapons? It might help shed some light on this topic.

[dagonis]

Another very important portion of this argument is "Does the int characteristic change from Ix to I1 or does it change to Ix(1)?"

My example is a dreadnought close combat weapon, it modified (doubles) the dreadnought's str and is represented on the stat line as 6(10). It doesn't change this to Str10 because the attribute is actually 6 but is modified to 10. Similar situation with a power fist. Would you let a power fist marine make a str test at str 8 because that is his modified str? Bikes can't take T test at T5 due to their bike, they follow their base characteristic (T4).

More intrigue from the BRB
"In order to take the (characteristic) test, roll a D6. To succeed, you must score equal to or lower than the value of the characteristic involved. Note that if a 6 is rolled, then the model automatically fails the test regardless of the characteristic’s value or any other modifier that might apply, and conversely a 1 is always a success."

Compared to

"...Modifiers may apply to the Leadership characteristic in particularly trying circumstances – for example, -1 if the unit suffered wounds from an Ordnance barrage weapon, as described later."

This may (emphasis on may) imply that you always make a characteristic on the base stat with out modifiers because it states outright that one characteristic can be modified, but it doesn't not state this for the other characteristics. I believe this then confers an implicit "deny all" for non-LD characteristic test unless explicitly stated. A thunder hammer hit is a modifier thus I believe that the stat reads Ix(1) and so you take the test on x. The thunder hammer rule even states the I modification is a temporary change.

If you have a Space Marine Cpt w/ a powerfist fail a CC and take a thunder hammer wound what I does he take his sweeping advance test at? 4 because the BRB states:

"Both the unit falling back and the winning unit roll a D6 and add their Initiative value to the result. Always count the Initiative value from the model’s profile without any modifiers."

If the falling back unit is panicked and running and gets to ignore the I modification of a thunder hammer, I imagine that an Ix(1) unit would get a similar sense of panic from seeing the ground open up underneath him. This is a tenuous argument though as it gets in to the realm of fluff justification, which can not be used in matters of rules disputes.

From a fluff perspective I would say that yes the wounded model is I1 and would take further tests at I1, but this should then also apply to the wielder of the thunder hammer because the hammer is heavy, unwieldy, and hinders Arjac's ability to dodge Jotww. From a fluff perspective could a lone penal legion troop kill a space marine chapter master in CC? No, but the rules allow it. The rules allow it because fluff doesn't always make for the best game play. Even though the I1 argument makes lore sense, the rules simply do not back it up.

Are there another other situations where a unit has to take an implicitly modified characteristic test compared to an explicitly modified characteristic test?

After all my rambling I have come to the conclusion we actually need to answer two questions:
"Does the range attack modify the target's I?"
and
"If so, does this matter when taking a test on the I characteristic for Jotww?"

[mkerr]

The SW codex reads
The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:
6" Str10 Ap 1 Assault 1

I am not sure that this is clear enough to state one way or another if it is a ranged thunder hammer attack as that is not the way the rule reads.

It's pretty clear that Foehammer doesn't stop being a thunder hammer when it gets thrown. It is "a thunder hammer that can be used as a range weapon". That means that it's a ranged thunder hammer.


Their rules for ranged attacks are very clear when there are additional attributes involved

Sniper
Melta
Flamer
etc.

Yes, those are called Additional Weapon Characteristics. There's a section in the BBB that lists them all. Skim through them and you'll notice that there's no entry for "stunning" or "thunderclap" or "knocked reeling". That means that there's no "Additional Weapon Characteristic" that covers the effect of a thunder hammer.

You get the "knocked reeling" effect when you get hit by a thunder hammer, it doesn't require an Additional Weapon Characteristic to work.


See the Assault Phase chapter of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook for the rules that apply to thunder hammers.

Yes, the rules for the thunder hammer are in the Assault Phase chapter of the BBB. Why? Because the thunder hammer is a close combat weapon. For some unknown reason, GW decided to make this close combat weapon one that could also be thrown.

But, fundamentally, it doesn't stop being a thunder hammer when you throw it. And since the thunder hammer "knocked reeling" rules don't specify that the unsaved wounds have to be caused in close combat, if I ever cause an unsaved wound with a thunder hammer then you are reduced to I1. It doesn't matter WHEN the unsaved wounds are caused -- it only matters that they were caused by a thunder hammer.

[RogueGarou]

I don't think this piece of wargear is still around but I think it was a similar situation, the Brazier of Holy Flame was the name if I recall correctly. It was a close combat weapon that could be used as a flamer once per game. Depending on whether it was used in close or ranged combat, it had a different profile and the rules for each did not carry over to the other. I think if you imagine the Foehammer as a combi-weapon it might make it more clear. It is two weapons. You may use either weapon each turn. You may use the combined weapon in any appropriate phase of the player turn. The ranged combat profile may be used whenever the model is allowed to use a ranged weapon to make an attack on an enemy model. The close combat profile may be used whenever the model is allowed to make an attack on an enemy model. The weapon has a profile with abilities listed for close combat. The weapon has a profile with abilities listed for ranged combat. The two are mutually exclusive.

You would not say that a combi-melta is a Strength 8, AP1, rapid-fire weapon or a Strength 4, AP 5, Melta weapon. I do not think the Foehammer can claim the Thunder Hammer properties when it is using a different profile. The Thunder Hammer is a close combat weapon with special properties as listed in the main rulebook. When it is FAQ'ed to state that the weapon has the Thunder Hammer properties when thrown, I will play it as such. Until then, I will play it as printed in the Codex with the profile listed. Thunder Hammer in close combat, ranged weapon profile when thrown.

[AirHorse]

Thats a pretty duff example there though, a combi-weapon has two seperate profiles, and you are saying that one profile borrows rules from the other when they dont, you use the profile of the mode you are firing. A thunderhammers special rules are not part of a profile, it is an innate property of being a thunderhammer, wether or not you are using it in close combat or using a ranged profile.

If you want a comparison think of chaplain cassius' mastercrafted combi-flamer. The master crafted rule is not part of any profile, it is an innate property of the weapon. Just because you must use either the bolter or flamer profiles when you fire it does not mean that it loses this ability because its not written into the profile.

[mkerr]

If you want a comparison think of chaplain cassius' mastercrafted combi-flamer. The master crafted rule is not part of any profile, it is an innate property of the weapon. Just because you must use either the bolter or flamer profiles when you fire it does not mean that it loses this ability because its not written into the profile.

Awesome example!

[Denzark]

I think I must agree with Mkerr here. And, if I can express myself properly without confusing the issue, Bike toughness tells you when to take modified and when to take unmodified (ie instakills). Whereas testing a characterisitc neither implies or states explicitly that it is base characterisitc. And also the thunderhammer doesn't modifiy you intitiative - it reads to me as your base characterisitc becomes one until the end of the turn or whatever.

[MVBrandt]

Guys, you cannot apply rules for Special Close Combat Weapons to other aspects of the game.

Arjac's hammer has a specific shooting profile, and even though the FLUFF states that he is throwing it, the practical RAW application is that Arjac has a 6" shooting weapon.

You might as well claim that guardsmen can't fire out of a Chimera top hatch with meltaguns or anything, b/c the very rule that says how many firepoints refers to them firing the hull-mounted lasguns. Analogs exist everywhere, and so do the rules as they are put forth.

Unless the rulebook explicitly tells you to, you do not apply special close combat weapon rules to ranged attacks made by the wielder.

Let me provide an example:

Lightning claws are not written as if you are allowed to re-roll to wound in close combat. It doesn't say that, just as the Thunder Hammer rule doesn't say you are I1 in close combat.

It is in fact written as such:

Lightning claws are commonly used as matched pairs and consist of a number of blades, each a mini-power weapon, normally mounted on the back of the hand. A lightning claw is a power weapon and (not which) it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound (not any failed roll to wound in close combat, for instance).

Using the same logic being used by Mkerr and others here for the Arjac weapon, a space marine captain with a bolt pistol and lightning claw would be able to re-roll to wound with his pistol. That it is a different weapon than the lightning claw is irrelevant - the logic used for Arjac is (I sincerely hope) not that his fluff says he throws a thunder hammer, but that he is equipped with a thunder hammer, and can "shoot" it as a firing weapon as well, and thunder hammers confer an effect based on the special rule for them. The same would apply if this were legitimate to lightning claws, since they do not state "all attacks made in close combat by the lightning claw re-roll to wound," they simply say they are a power weapon *AND* that they allow the wielder to re-roll ANY failed roll to wound. I think we can all agree that's certainly not legitimate.

You cannot apply special rules conferred under the Special Close Combat Weapons section of the rulebook to shooting attacks. The mere notion of it is absurd.

Some of the weapons in that section of the rulebook utilize words that explicitly state for close combat attacks, and some don't. Unless you want to start seeing people with lightning claws re-rolling their failed rolls to wound with whatever OTHER weapons they carry, you really can't go down this road. The RAW don't support it.

[AirHorse]

Your example is once again a bad one, in your example you are applying special rules from one piece of wargear to another completely seperate one. Arjacs thunderhammer is the ranged weapon and it is not borrowing rules from any other piece of wargear. It is a thunderhammer and the rules apply regardless of which way you use it, unless the rules for that method of use tell you that you cannot use the innate rules for thunderhammers.

If for, arguements sake, some model had a set of lightning claws that he could also use to shoot lightning with using a given ranged profile, unless it otherwise said it was disallowed, then using the weapon to shoot with would also allow you to reroll wounds because it is the lightning claws that are being used and therefore use the rules laid out for lightning claws.

[MVBrandt]

Incorrect. "Once Again" - I'm not sure where that's coming from ... that was my first ever BOLS lounge post!

The Thunder Hammer close combat weapon special rule does not specify close combat attacks benefitting from the ability only, nor does it say that the "I" is only modified in close combat.

If you'll re-read my above commentary, the Lightning Claw rules do not state that they affect only close combat attacks made by them, or even close combat attacks in general. They simply state that the wielder may re-roll any roll to wound. I'm not unfairly applying the special rules of the lightning claw to another weapon. I'm simply allowing their rules very specifically as written to apply to the shooting phase as well as the close combat phase, to shooting attacks as well as close combat attacks.

IF special close combat weapons can EVER function for the purposes of shooting, then instantly lightning claws enable other weapons used to shoot by the wielder of the lightning claws to re-roll to wound, RAW. What I'm saying is - if Arjac's Thunder Hammer reduces shooting victims to I1, then anyone with a lightning claw can re-roll to wound for ANY shooting attacks, even ones not made by their lightning claws. That's the if, then. I think you read me as arguing it the other way around.

I'm stating you can NEVER apply Special Close Combat Weapon rulesets (that's the section the Thunder Hammer rules are in) to shooting in the first place, and backing that up by pointing out what the implication of such an application would be, in the case of lightning claws.

Please take the time to read what I've written, and understand the point, before disagreeing with me based on a point I never attempted to make in the first place. (To clarify for you, I'm not attempting to say that Arjac's shooting attack is not utilizing his hammer. I'm attempting to say that rules for Special Close Combat Weapons don't work for shooting attacks, ever, at all).

Thanks!

[AirHorse]

No but they do say the weilder and if you are attacking with a different weapon you arent weilding the lightning claws against the target. Only one weapon can ever be used at once in 40k(extra weapons in close combat are never actually used, they only give a bonus attack to the weapon that is used).

And no need to attack anyone who is argueing an opposite point, I read everything you said. The once again was a reference to the fact that my last post was pointing out the flaws in someones example.

[MVBrandt]

Let me make it clear that I am not attacking you. I am quite sure I said nothing of the sort above. I am only attempting to clarify what my argument is to you. That the lightning claw is not the same as a shooting weapon fired by someone - and Arjac's hammer is the same as his thunder hammer - is not relevant to the point I am making.

If you are wielding a sword and a dagger, you do not cease to be a wielder of a sword just because you are striking with a dagger.

I reiterate: if the rules for Special Close Combat Weapons are allowed to be applied to SHOOTING attacks, then the rules as written immediately render anyone WIELDING a lightning claw capable of re-rolling to wound with shooting attacks if they happen to be ALSO wielding a shooting weapon.

I think it is anything but reasonable to claim that the rules enunciated under the heading Special Close Combat Weapons can or even would ever be applied to shooting.

[AirHorse]

Why is that unreasonable? Its a rare occasion a melee weapon is used to shoot with so why would is it unreasonable for an oddity to have its rules in a slightly weird place?

[MVBrandt]

I think that I've answered it, and I don't want this to be a back and forth for us.

In short, it's unreasonable for two major reasons:

1) If it functions that way, it immediately - IMMEDIATELY - renders lightning claws to have the same effect I've illustrated above, namely that if they function for shooting attacks AT ALL, the RAW for lightning claws is as I have shown.
2) A Special Close Combat Weapon rule ... is not a Special Weapon Rule. The entire section covering the rules there is covering rules for close combat attacks ... you don't get to stretch it outside of their just because it would be "cool" or "fluffy" in notion.

Please, I do believe I've clearly enunciated the answer to your "why?" I would ask you to at least consider reading what I've written with an open mind. Again, I certainly mean no attack whatsoever in saying this! The internet is toneless, and I encourage you to read what I am writing via a considerate tone over a glass of beer.

[LEGION]

It is "a thunder hammer that can be used as a range weapon". That means that it's a ranged thunder hammer.

That is purely an inference and not fact. You are adding rules into the game where there are none. Looking purely at RAW There is NO SUCH THING as a ranged thunderhammer! There is only Foehammer - A close combat weapon that behaves like a thunderhammer and ALSO has a ranged attack with the characteristics R6 S10 AP1 and nothing else.

Using supreme court statutory rules as follows:
Plain Language Cannon “But our problem is to construe what Congress has written. After all, Congress expresses its purpose by words. It is for us to ascertain-neither to add nor to subtract, neither to delete nor to distort."
See the RAW above.

Specific VS. General Cannon “a more specific statute will be given precedence over a more general one”
The more specific ruling of the Foehammer MUST take precedence over the general ruling of thunderhammer.

Avoidance of Conflicts Cannon "(rule A) cannot prudently be read to create a conflict with (Rule B) because reading (rule a) that way would create conflicts with so many other rules that the subsection cannot possibly be given its literal scope.
A ranged attack with Thunderhammer like properties conflicts with far more rules than simply using the written and clearly identified characteristics.

Occam's Razor Cannon “All construction is the ascertainment of meaning. And literalness may strangle meaning. But in construing a definite procedural provision we do well to stick close to the text and not import argumentative qualifications from broad, unexpressed claims of policy.”
Your inference that the Foehammer is a ranged thunderhammer where there clearly is no such weapon listed is importing an argumentative qualification.

The Models' Rights Canon "“Ambiguities in statutory language should not be resolved so as to imperil a substantial right which has been granted.”
The ambiguities you introduce with your ranged thunderhammer argument substantially imperil a model's right to use its given Initiative value. Therefor the decision should fall on the side of the concrete and not the argumentative.

The Inclusion Exclusion Canon "“Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”
We must assume that the the ranged attack of the Foehammer intentionally left out the effects of a thunderhammer until such time that GW explicitly includes them.

The Permissive Ruleset Canon “We accept the proposition that when a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes a negative of any other mode.”
The rule of a thunderhammer affecting Initiative come into play ONLY when it is used as a thunderhammer, NOT when it is used in a shooting attack.

If this were an actual court case, the verdict would be the foehammer does NOT affect Initiative when used as a ranged weapon. Court is adjourned.

[AirHorse]

Em what half of what you wrote you dont even follow the rules for evaluation that you yourself have decided to use.

You say RAW there is no such thing as a ranged thunderhammer, where does it say there is no such thing as a ranged thunderhammer? Infact, if you read the spacewolf codex it infact says "foehammer is a thunderhammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" which makes it pretty clear there is such thing as a ranged thunderhammer. I cant even be bothered to go into all these nonexistant conflicts, but most of your assumptions seem to be that there is no such thing in the rules, but you seem to forget that codices ADD to the rules they dont just tell you which rules you get to use.

And before you say oh but its a thunderhammer and a seperate ranged weapon read it again, the thunderhammer is still being used as a ranged weapon, the addition of a profile gives it the additional rules required over a normal thunderhammer to function as a ranged weapon. This does not exclude it from being a thunderhammer and therefore the rules for thunderhammers still apply to it, read what it says- "In addition, all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn."

Said this lots now and I am losing interest in saying it again so Im gonna finish my contribution to this thread by saying that any arguements of RAW cannot argue against foehammer having the thunderhammers abilities, that is EXACTLY how it is written.The arguement here really is if this is what gw intended since they also included another majorly powerful ability in the same codex that gains an awful lot from this and so comes down to RAI, and I whole heartedly agree that it probaly wasnt intended as it seems a tad hax to be sniping carifex and the like with your foehammer-jotww combos.

But you have to read the writting as its written, I thought this was rediculous until I read both sections myself, that is the way its written so you cant argue against it.

[Sam]

Thats a pretty duff example there though, a combi-weapon has two seperate profiles, and you are saying that one profile borrows rules from the other when they dont, you use the profile of the mode you are firing. A thunderhammers special rules are not part of a profile, it is an innate property of being a thunderhammer, wether or not you are using it in close combat or using a ranged profile.

If you want a comparison think of chaplain cassius' mastercrafted combi-flamer. The master crafted rule is not part of any profile, it is an innate property of the weapon. Just because you must use either the bolter or flamer profiles when you fire it does not mean that it loses this ability because its not written into the profile.


Awesome example!

No, it isn't. In this case a RANGED weapon was cited that uses two different RANGED profiles, but is still the same weapon. A better example would be if the mastercrafted combi-flamer allowed you to re-roll a failed to hit roll in close combat. Here's the kicker: IT DOESN'T. Its ranged abilities have no bearing on its assault capabilities, just as having a thunder hammer (which is by definition a close combat weapon) with a ranged ability does not cause said thunder hammer to confer its capabilities as a close combat weapon to its ranged attacks.

[dagonis]

AirHorse makes a great point, this is obviously not intended.

The profile including AP1 is an interesting choice as that gives it +1 on the vehicle damage chart. A thunder hammer doesn't have this attribute. GW could have added AP2 and kept the same effect as a thunder hammer. I personally believe that the inclusion of the AP1 makes it not act like a thunder hammer, thus no I1.

If you believe Foehammer is a ranged thunder hammer does it shaken a vehicle as well? Its profile is no different from a Tau rail gun (save for range) and that doesn't cause insta-shaken.

The wording of the Foehammer rule is abysmal.

"foehammer is a thunderhammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile"

I honestly believe that if GW wanted this to knock a target's I to 1 it would read

"Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with the following profile:"

I don't feel that the issue of the lightning claws has been resolved either.

Quick recap (correct me if I am wrong):
From the BRB "A lightning claw is a power weapon and it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound."
MVBrandt - This would read that a model (like Lucas for instance) would get to re-roll failed wounds because he has a lightning claw and the LC rules say nothing about failed wounds in CC, just failed wounds.
AirHorse - This is not the case because you are not wielding the LC against the victim of the shooting.
MVBrandt - Just because you don't shoot with the LC doesn't mean your cease to wield it.

"If you are wielding a sword and a dagger, you do not cease to be a wielder of a sword just because you are striking with a dagger."

I think that is a compelling argument. Close combat rules apply to close combat weapons, ranged rules apply to ranged weapons.

Power weapons aren't described as AP2, they say they ignore armor saves. I can find no reason they wouldn't be called AP2 as there is absolutely no difference between the two (that I am aware of).

BRB reads:
"blah blah blah... Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armour saves."

but it could just as easily read

"blah blah blah... Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon treat the wound as AP2."

[MVBrandt]

The long and short here is that the rules as written for Foehammer specifically state that it is treated as a ranged weapon with the following profile. The rule does not say "is a thunder hammer that can be thrown at range, and has the following profile." You may treat it as a ranged weapon, not as a "thunder hammer with range."

Beyond that, above examples about implications of applying special close combat weapon rules to all types of attacks, and not just close combat, breaks the game on a couple of obvious levels (i.e. lightning claws).

Foehammer certainly does not cause thunder hammer effects at range. It doesn't do it RAW, and it doesn't do it by the standards of special close combat weapons in general. I still, by the way, see the proponents replying to these comments with defenses that have nothing to do with the arguments against using it that way, also.

Replying to an argument that was never made doesn't make for correctness, it just makes you the most recent poster. I recognize that can count for a lot on a forum, but come on.

[entendre_entendre]

"foehammer is a thunderhammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile"

my translation: foehammer is a thunderhammer in CC and has the following stats as a ranged attack. the "with the following profile" bit replaces any previous rules of the weapon may have had (ie. down to I1 when wounded/ shaking vehicles). if GW had wanted Foehammer to give the thunderhammer rule for the ranged attack, they would have written: "foehammer is a thunderhammer in close combat, and has the following ranged attack: (stats here). In addition, if the target is wounded by the ranged attack, they are at I1 for the rest of the turn. vehicles suffer crew shaken in addition to any other effects."

the weapons change of stats for the RA (namely the already mentioned AP1) are also interesting. am i mistaken or does Arjac have S5? if he doesn't (and if i am wrong here, please disregard this), then the RA for foehammer wouldn't be functioning as a thunderhammer in the first place, as it would more than double his strength, thus defeating any rules pertaining to TH's.

besides, you're transplanting rules from one section (which is sealed off BTW in the CLOSE COMBAT section of the MRB, not the shooting section) into a different one. this would make the LC example theoretically possible as well, and that possibility has been already argued about here, but does follow the same line of logic.

Conclusion: the weapon has two completely separate statlines. stop trying to take advantage of some wording that actually has no pertinence to the argument.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Let us forget Foehammer and the is it isn't it? circle. It is ambiguous enough that either side could be right. When the FAQ is written the "winners" will do a jig and say "I told you so, I told you so, I am so clever you should have listened to me because I am so clever, wasn't it obvious?". We are supposed to be mates, right? That was not supposed to be rude but I think we are getting carried away.

Anyway.

If someone survives a TH hit, they are reduced to i1 until the end of next player's turn. This IS clear even if it was not intended, as in for them to be picked out by a nifty shooting attack.

JotWW will remove them against an i1 dice roll.

The wound allocation is clear even if it is silly.
SCENARIO 1:
3 normal wounds + 2 PW wounds against 4 bolter marines and 1 flamer marine. 2 marines die & 3 saving throws are taken.
4 normal wounds + 2 PW wounds against 4 bolter marines and 1 flamer marine. The flamer marine dies "twice" and the 4 saving throws are taken.

It is clear even if it is silly.

TH explicitly lower i to 1. This is not ambiguous, even if you don't like it or it was not intended.

Preferred enemy usage is clear even if it is silly.
SCENARIO 2:
In cc each model attacks whole-heartedly with all attacks. Even if they will kill the Firewarriors and be drilled by the Tau gunline next turn. The intention is no pulling punches for your benefit.
Preferred enemy allows the attacker to re-roll to hit dice. Hits can be re-rolled. The Tau can be killed more slowly by accepting misses and taking re-rolls on the hits. This was not the intention but it is clear it is legitimate.

The preferred enemy usage is not ambiguous, even if you don't like it or it was not intended.

[dagonis]

I just want to say I have no malice toward any posters in this thread, I just like to argue the rules a bit.

I don't think that even if it knocks I down to 1 that is it totally game breaking, but it is cheese. I think that we can all agree with that.

Arjac is Str5, so the Str 10 hit makes sense, but the AP1 portion doesn't fit with the TH rules.

Any pro-ranged TH posters want to address that?

[MVBrandt]

You cannot apply special close combat weapon rules to ranged attacks.
The thunder hammer is not used at range, it is used "as a ranged weapon," with a set profile, by the very wording of the rule.

Using special close combat weapon rules with ranged attacks would also break lightning claws.

These are all true.

Continuing to argue points that have nothing to do with those 3 issues (like saying utterly pointless things such as READ THE THUNDER HAMMER RULE SEE IT DOESN'T SAY CLOSE COMBAT) is pointless.

I certainly will not play with nor allow in my tourneys/events it to be played that Arjac's ranged attacks can do this, it's not RAW or sensible.


To wit, as explanation, here is what I am attempting to say:

I and others have made points that acknowledge a couple of key things:

Arjac is throwing a thunder hammer.
Arjac's ranged attack is being made with a thunder hammer.
Thunder hammers do not specify "close combat" in their specific subentry in the Special Close Combat Weapons section of the BRB.

We then go on to make arguments stating that Arjac's thunder hammer does not apply its I reduction when used at range ANYWAY.

The responses so far, and in the tactica on the bols frontpage as well by Mkerr, are ....

BUT HE'S THROWING A THUNDER HAMMER
BUT THE RANGED ATTACK IS BEING MADE WITH A THUNDER HAMMER
BUT THE THUNDER HAMMERS DON'T SPECIFY CLOSE COMBAT IN THEIR SUBENTRY
RE-READ THE THUNDER HAMMER RULE

caps used to delineate, not to "internet shout"

As such, the responses to at least my argument are simply arguing with me about things I'm OPENLY CONCEDING. It's shadow boxing. Stop it, turn around, I'm right behind you.

Here is an analogy for what is happening:

Bad Arguer: THIS MAN AS KILLED BY A SHOTGUN!
MVBrandt: This man was definitely killed by a gun, you're totally right that a shotgun is a gun, but it cannot have been a shotgun, the caliber is not right!
Bad Arguer: BUT A SHOTGUN IS A GUN, DUDE. SEE, I'M RIGHT.
MVBrandt: /Facepalm

[Javin]

I would certainly not agree that the Foehammer gets free bonus abilities like reducing Initiative.

If used it the thrown hammer has an entirely different profile. Its no longer a Thunder hammer but another weapon entirely with new abilities (ap1).

I use RAW as my back up. If the weapon is thrown it has X abilities if it is used as a TH then it has X abilities.

But in the end about 9 years from now (when the new squats codex comes out, long before the DE one :) GW will FAQ it and all be revealed.

[The Mystic]

Thunder hammers do not specify "close combat" in their specific subentry in the Special Close Combat Weapons section of the BRB.

You are absolutly correct in this and to further support your arguement the is something that is stated in the Thunderhanmmer CC rules.

It states " A thunder hammer uses the same rules as a powerfist."

So lets have a look at the Powerfist CC rules. It states " A power fist is a power weapon, and also doubles the user's Strength.".

So when broken down the reason why it is not specified is because it is specified in the power weapons CC rules as a Thunder hammer is, RAW, a power weapon with additional rules applied during CC. The same is applied to lightning claws as they are power weapons with additional rules.

Hope that makes sense.....

[webron]

My take is that either interpretation are adding rules that are not there. The entry for thunderhammer does not limit the stun effect to wounds caused in CC and the power weapon rule does, this is most likely poor writing. the foe hammer rule says that it is a thunderhammer that has a shooting profile, regardless of what the profile is, it is a thunderhammer and the rule for thunderhammer says all unsaved wounds cause the stun effect. To say it clearly does not apply you have to change the thunderhammer rule to say it only applies to CC, to say it does apply you have to say that the thunderhammer stun rule is takes effect even though it does not say it in the ranged profile. It is unclear because the same sentence that gives it the shoot attack states it is a thunderhammer, which at the least very strongly implies the stun rule applies to the ranged attack.

I don't think it is clear one way or the other. the shooting rules do not say explicitly that if a weapon does not have additional rules identified in the stats then they don't apply. there are some instances of weapons having characteristics that are not identified. Ie flamer and melta weapons in relation to their effect on the avatar, there is not a flamer rule, but all flamer weapons don't effect the avatar. not the same thing, but it shows that there are additional characteristics not identified in the weapon profile.

My thought is that it is really unclear and it should not be used until the FAQ. No one can say it is or is not the intended rule other then GW. I think the guy is a little overpriced without it, but i have not tried him yet. I think the advantage of the stun effect in shooting is to hit a MC with the ranged attack and then when it is at Int 1, finish it off on the charge. If that is the intent, then I don't feel it is overpowered.

[mkerr]

Okay, I've been dealing with the endless argument in the JotWW thread (as well as my own blog), so I haven't spent at as much time this thread as I'd like. I'll try to address some of the comments and will try to be brief.


If you'll re-read my above commentary, the Lightning Claw rules do not state that they affect only close combat attacks made by them, or even close combat attacks in general. They simply state that the wielder may re-roll any roll to wound.

If a character was able to use his Lightning Claw as a ranged weapon then he would be able to re-roll wounds with that ranged attack. But since it is a power weapon, it would not gain the ability to ingore armor saves (that only works in close combat).

However, that re-roll would only apply to attacks made with the Lightning Claw (ranged or otherwise) and would not "roll-over" to a completely separate weapon.


I'm attempting to say that rules for Special Close Combat Weapons don't work for shooting attacks, ever, at all).

Of course the thunder hammer rules appear in the close combat section -- a thunder hammer is a close combat weapon. But its's location doesn't change the content of the rule. In other words, it doesn't matter *where* a rule appears in the rulebook; it matters *what* the rule says. There are tons of rules that are defined in one location but used throughout the game.

Instant Death is a great example. It's defined in the Shooting Phase section and it is never mentioned at all in the Assault Phase section. Should we infer that Instant Death only works in the shooting phase because that's where the rule is? No. We have to read the content of the rule to understand how to apply it. That may mean that it gets applied in other areas of the game.


Looking purely at RAW There is NO SUCH THING as a ranged thunderhammer! There is only Foehammer - A close combat weapon that behaves like a thunderhammer and ALSO has a ranged attack with the characteristics R6 S10 AP1 and nothing else.

Actually, by RAW, you are 100% incorrect. Here's the text for Foehammer: "The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile".

It doesn't behave like a thunder hammer. It is a thunder hammer. That's what the word "is" means. And even though it has a ranged profile, nothing in the weapon's description (or anything anywhere else in the rules) tells us that it stops being a thunder hammer.

Finally, nothing in the thunder hammer rules implies that a thunder hammer would lose its "knocked reeling" effect if it were used as a ranged attack.


The profile including AP1 is an interesting choice as that gives it +1 on the vehicle damage chart. A thunder hammer doesn't have this attribute.

Of course, it doesn't. Why? Because Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used a ranged weapon. Even if things like AP applied in close combat, Foehammer wouldn't gain them in close combat because they are not part of the thunder hammer rules.


If you believe Foehammer is a ranged thunder hammer does it shaken a vehicle as well? Its profile is no different from a Tau rail gun (save for range) and that doesn't cause insta-shaken.

Of course Foehammer shakes vehicles with no Initiative value. Why? Because it's a thunder hammer and that's what thunder hammer's do when they inflict any damage result.


"If you are wielding a sword and a dagger, you do not cease to be a wielder of a sword just because you are striking with a dagger."

I don't get this analogy at all. I don't see how it applies to Foehammer. Arjac isn't armed with a thunder hammer and a 6" range, S10 AP1 weapon. He's armed with a single weapon that can be used in close combat and as a ranged attack.


You cannot apply special close combat weapon rules to ranged attacks.
The thunder hammer is not used at range, it is used "as a ranged weapon," with a set profile, by the very wording of the rule.

I have a couple of comments here:

1. A ranged weapon can have characteristics that don't appear on the weapon's profile. A master-crafted combi-flamer doesn't have "master-crafted" in its profile. We get that information by looking up the description of the weapon (in this case looking at the description of a thunder hammer in the rules).

2. Why? What tells me that Foehammer ceases to be a thunder hammer when I use it at range?

I feel like you are just trying to will this to not be true. There are tons of wonky rules in the game and this is just one of them. Hopefullly they'll clarify it in the SW FAQ, but until then we have to work with the rules that we have. And in this case, the rules support that Foehammer is both a ranged weapon and a thunder hammer at the same time.



Here is an analogy for what is happening:

Bad Arguer: THIS MAN AS KILLED BY A SHOTGUN!
MVBrandt: This man was definitely killed by a gun, you're totally right that a shotgun is a gun, but it cannot have been a shotgun, the caliber is not right!
Bad Arguer: BUT A SHOTGUN IS A GUN, DUDE. SEE, I'M RIGHT.
MVBrandt: /Facepalm

Analogies are fun. Here's mine:

Mkerr: This man was beaten to death with this rifle.
Bad Arguer: I don't see any bullet holes, so the wound can't be caused by a rifle. Perhaps he was hit with this baseball bat.
Mkerr: There's blood all over this rifle's butt and there's a ton of witnesses that claim that they saw him beaten with it.
Bad Arguer: It can't be the rifle because it says in my Junior Detective Manual that rifle shots cause large holes and I don't see a large hole in the victim. This baseball bat is defined as a bludgeoning weapon, so it has to be this club.

[MVBrandt]

Thank you my friend for utilizing that analogy, you've actually proven the point we've all been attempitng to make.

In the classroom, the Junior Detective Manual states rifles shoot bullets which inflict bullet holes. Therefore, it is "some kind of blunt object" that is used to beat someone to death, not a "rifle." Were Thunder Hammers REAL devices, you could pick one up at the local store, and go prove that it would stun someone if you threw it at them. Since they are NOT real devices, you must follow the rules governing them in the 40k Junior Wargamers Manual.

The rules of the game do not allow you to shoot with close combat weapons, nor do the rules of the game allow you to use shooting weapons in close combat. That Foehammer is a thunder hammer is utterly irrelevant to whether or not the shooting attack whose profile is given (without any special rules whatsoever *'ed on) stuns targets.

As for your rebuttal to the lightning claw scenario, you're not paying attention at all to the argument that we're attempting to make.

I need you to pause, dig deep, and read carefully what's being said.

The argument is not being made:

LIGHTNING CLAWS RE-ROLL TO WOUND AND DON'T SAY CLOSE COMBAT

What is also not being argued:

LIGHTNING CLAWS ALLOW SHOTS TO IGNORE ARMOR SAVES

The argument that is being made:

Lightning claws state ANY roll to wound is re-rolled, and don't say close combat. THEREFORE (the important part of the argument starts now), if Special Close Combat Weapon rules can be applied to ranged weapons, anyone WIELDING a lightning claw can re-roll ANY roll to wound (that's just the RAW), and that does not limit just CC. Therefore, since someone WIELDING both a lightning claw and (for example) storm bolter is still WIELDING a lightning claw, they'd be able to re-roll to wound with the storm bolter shots, since that would be ANY roll to wound.

Do you see, now, Mkerr? Your argument about "It's a thunder hamnmer" is utterly trivial, because nobody is disagreeing with you that Foehammer is a thunder hammer. Nor am I stating that lightning claws can be thrown, nor am I stating that a model wielding a lightning claw ignores armor saves with ranged attacks.

So, stop arguing against points not being made. You lose here, I'm afraid. I'm sure you make excellent points all the time, but you're doing yourself no favors arguing for the sake of arguing, b/c you're not actually responding to the points being made.

As for your Instant Death example, it is again super disingenuous, and here's why.

Instant Death is not a rule covered by a specific weapon. That is to say, there is not a rule under Laserbeamers in the Weapon Types section that says "any unsaved wound cinflicted by laserbeamers causes Instant Death." Instant Death is an effect, certain things cause it. A strength 9 lascannon used in close combat does not inflict Instant Death, because that effect can only be caused by the weapon at range, b/c that is the only time it uses its profile.

The proper analogy to use from weapons would be this:

Under twin-linked, it simply states that you may re-roll the dice to hit if you miss. Since you roll the dice to hit in close combat and range, and since the rule under Twin-Linked does not say "you may re-roll the dice to hit if you miss with any shooting attack" ... you are allowed to re-roll the dice to hit even in close combat. It is identical to what you are attempting to say, and would enable units with twin-linked shooting weapons to re-roll to hit in close combat, IF you could apply the rules for shooting weapon types to close combat, and IF you could apply the rules for close combat weapon types to shooting. You cannot.

Answering arguments that haven't been made, and using disjointed analogies will earn you brownie points with your own ego, and with low brow forum readers, but it will not actually make any valid points.

When you wish to start answering the actual points I and others are making, I will happily start making new ones, or - if you make a point I cannot counter - concede your point. As it stands now, that's not happening, here or on the thread of your BOLS frontpage post.


As an aside, I hope you are not too offended by what I'm saying, but it gets a little frustrating to attempt assistance to someone posting in such a bright limelight as the BOLS frontpage, and to see their reaction be avoidance of any points for the sake of stubbornly holding on to the original position. This is not politics ... your reputation depends on you working with others to acknowledge the TRUTH, not on sticking to your stances with whatever spin can be mustered.

[crazyredpraetorian]

I knew a guy that was hit in the head with a sledge hammer. It didn't stun him, he beat the crap out of the guy. Joe Green was a one tough hombre. :D

[mkerr]

Lightning claws state ANY roll to wound is re-rolled, and don't say close combat. THEREFORE (the important part of the argument starts now), if Special Close Combat Weapon rules can be applied to ranged weapons, anyone WIELDING a lightning claw can re-roll ANY roll to wound (that's just the RAW), and that does not limit just CC. Therefore, since someone WIELDING both a lightning claw and (for example) storm bolter is still WIELDING a lightning claw, they'd be able to re-roll to wound with the storm bolter shots, since that would be ANY roll to wound.

Sorry, but you are talking apples and oranges. A character with a Lightning Claw and a Storm Bolter can't re-roll wounds with the Storm Bolter. Is it because the "re-roll any failed roll to wound" is found in the "Special Close Combat Weapons" section? No, it's because the "re-roll any failed roll to wound" is in the Lightning Claw section. Only the Lightning Claw gets the re-roll.

Foehammer isn't a thunder hammer with a built-in gun (e.g., DCCW with built-in Storm Bolter). Foehammer *is* the gun. Which is why Foehammer retains the stunning ability as a ranged weapon; it's the same weapon.

A model with a Lightning Claw and Storm Bolter is armed with two completely different weapons. Qualities of one weapon doesn't bleed over to the other (which is also why a Dreadnought with an Assault Cannon and Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon doesn't get Rending in close combat).

That's just not the case with Foehammer. Foehammer is a single weapon that can be used as both a close combat weapon and a ranged weapon. When it is used as a ranged weapon, it doesn't cease to be a thunder hammer. The thunder hammer's stunning effect isn't limited to unsaved wounds caused in close combat.


So, stop arguing against points not being made. You lose here, I'm afraid. I'm sure you make excellent points all the time, but you're doing yourself no favors arguing for the sake of arguing, b/c you're not actually responding to the points being made.

Can we skip past this crap? I'm not attacking you and I'm not planning on starting. I've addressed each of your examples (usually quoting them). Just because I don't agree with your assumptions doesn't mean that I'm not responding to them.


Instant Death is not a rule covered by a specific weapon. That is to say, there is not a rule under Laserbeamers in the Weapon Types section that says "any unsaved wound cinflicted by laserbeamers causes Instant Death." Instant Death is an effect, certain things cause it. A strength 9 lascannon used in close combat does not inflict Instant Death, because that effect can only be caused by the weapon at range, b/c that is the only time it uses its profile.

I don't think you understood my argument. Your position, if I can simplify it for space, is that Foehammer doesn't gain the "stunning" quality because the thunder hammer rules appear in the "Close Combat Weapons" section of the rules. If the rules had been introduced in another section, let's say a generic wargear section then Foehammer would have the "tunning" quality because it is a thunder hammer.

Your sole argument against me is the *location* of the thunder hammer rules in the rule book? Is that fair?

If that is the case, then the fact that the Instant Death rules only appear in the Shooting Phase section (and are not referred to at all in the Assault Phase section) seems to apply. If the *location* of the rule (as opposed to the content of the rule), then Instant Death wouldn't work in close combat.


Under twin-linked, it simply states that you may re-roll the dice to hit if you miss. Since you roll the dice to hit in close combat and range, and since the rule under Twin-Linked does not say "you may re-roll the dice to hit if you miss with any shooting attack" ... you are allowed to re-roll the dice to hit even in close combat.

No, you are cherry picking lines from rules and implying that I'm doing the same thing. I'm not. Twin-linked doesn't work with close combat weapons because of the content of the twin-linked rule;

"A set of twin-linked weapons count as a single weapon of that type, but to represent their fusillade of fire you may re-roll the dice to hit if you miss (including twin-linked blast weapons). In other words, twin-linked weapons don't more shots than normal ones, but you get a better chance of hitting with them." ( BBB, 31).

Phrases like "fusillade of fire" and "more shots" clearly indicate that twin-linked only works with shooting weapons. That's not the case with the content of the thunder hammer rules.


It is identical to what you are attempting to say, and would enable units with twin-linked shooting weapons to re-roll to hit in close combat, IF you could apply the rules for shooting weapon types to close combat, and IF you could apply the rules for close combat weapon types to shooting. You cannot.

I'm saying nothing like that. I'm not twisting the wording, cherry-picking or trying to create a new rule here. I'm not moving a quality from one weapon (say a Lightning Claw) to another weapon (say a Storm Bolter). I'm not conveniently leaving out a word here or there to prove my point.

I'm making a very simple argument and I'm only using the words in the rulebook. I'm using all of the rules and I'm not jumping to conclusions at all. This isn't something that I'm trying to prove or disprove. It just *is*.

Here's the argument:
1. "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" (C:SW, p51).
-- Note: This isn't two different weapons. It's a single weapon that can be used as both a thunder hammer and a ranged weapon. One weapon.
2. "In addition, all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling"(BBB, p42).
-- Note: If Foehammer - in ranged form - is a thunder hammer, then unsaved wounds will knock the target reeling.

That's my whole argument.

1. Foehammer is a thunder hammer. -- I think we're all agreed on that.
2. Arjac's thunder hammer can be used as a ranged weapon. -- I think we're all agreed on that.
3. Arjac can caused unsaved wounds with his ranged weapon. -- I think we're all agreed on that.
4. Since Arjac's ranged weapon is Foehammer and Foehammer is a thunder hammer, then it it's reasonable to infer that Arjac's ranged weapon is a thunder hammer and follows the rules for thunder hammers.


Answering arguments that haven't been made, and using disjointed analogies will earn you brownie points with your own ego, and with low brow forum readers, but it will not actually make any valid points.

That's my whole problem with your case. You aren't quoting rules. I am.

You are making bad comparisons (e.g., it's like a model armed with a lightning claw and a storm bolter? it's like a model armed with a close combat weapon and a twin-linked weapon? etc.). You aren't offering anything besides your passionate feeling that my argument is wrong. Quote rules -- give me page numbers.

[MVBrandt]

I will make this brief.

Were you to state that Foehammer stunned things at range because it is covered by the thunder hammer rules, and not go on to explain why, you would be quite the poor rules lawyer.

I made a clear statement regarding the lightning claws that identified, utilizing the actual rules quote, what my argument was. Replying that it does not apply b/c a storm bolter is not a lightning claw is the most absurd, "I didn't read any of your argument MVB" response you could have come up with.

Replying that I have not quoted rules or given page numbers is rather absurd, unless you've only joined the argument in my most recent post. I urge you to utilize the BRB right in front of you to validate or invalidate anything I've quoted at any point in time.

As for passion, I'm afraid there's none here. Since I have not been so self-important as to submit articles to BOLS, I have no "dog in the fight." It is simply my $.02, and I have no need to prove or disprove a statement I have made.

I will rest here, knowing that the more observant and/or insightful folks here have come to similarly accurate conclusions. I have no need to win notoriety on the web by participating in endless rules debates with individuals who will answer apples arguments ... heh ... with oranges.

Cheers.

[jason]

How does a Howling Banshee's Triskele work then? Is it a power weapon in close combat only and not a power weapon when thrown? Everything I've read says that it's a thrown power weapon.

This seems more like a Planetstrike Deep Striker question, and the people against it are the same type of people arguing against Terminators/Daemons Deep Strike/Assaulting simply because they didn't explicitly have Deep Strike in their profile, even thought that's what the rules explicitly said.

[Rapture]

I don't have the codex so my opinion is based on what I read on this thread (I read the whole thing, you guys are getting long winded).

It seems like it would effect initiative during that immediate assault phase.

However, I am still on the fence about initiative testing being based on the base value or the modified value. Anyone care to give a concise and civil argument as to what they think?

[DarkLink]

Were you to state that Foehammer stunned things at range because it is covered by the thunder hammer rules, and not go on to explain why, you would be quite the poor rules lawyer.

It seems to me that mkerr has repeatedly and quite clearly stated his line of reasoning, and has been rather consistent in his explanations.



I made a clear statement regarding the lightning claws that identified, utilizing the actual rules quote, what my argument was. Replying that it does not apply b/c a storm bolter is not a lightning claw is the most absurd, "I didn't read any of your argument MVB" response you could have come up with.

Replying that I have not quoted rules or given page numbers is rather absurd, unless you've only joined the argument in my most recent post. I urge you to utilize the BRB right in front of you to validate or invalidate anything I've quoted at any point in time.

Actually, I thought he understood and countered your argument quite well. Unless, of course, you didn't articulate your argument fully, and both mkerr and I totally missed it...



As for passion, I'm afraid there's none here. Since I have not been so self-important as to submit articles to BOLS, I have no "dog in the fight." It is simply my $.02, and I have no need to prove or disprove a statement I have made.

You seem rather passionate. In the quote below this, you openly state that anyone who is intelligent MUST agree with you.



I will rest here, knowing that the more observant and/or insightful folks here have come to similarly accurate conclusions. I have no need to win notoriety on the web by participating in endless rules debates with individuals who will answer apples arguments ... heh ... with oranges.

Cheers.

Ignoring someone else's argument, then implicitly insulting him and claiming that "all the smart people will agree with me" seems rather trollish of you. Not a very good way of winning an argument. Frankly, unless you come up with something productive to add to the argument other than simply proclaiming yourself the victor, I, and most of the people on this forum, will probably not bother paying further attention to you. Cheers.








While at first I though "no, that can't be right," I really can't find any flaw in mkerr's argument. Quite to the contrary, most of the counter arguments I saw had have had major flaws in them. Thinking logically, it really leaves me with no alternative than to back up mkerr on this.


On a side note, I have to say that I'm against the JotWW and Thunderhammer combo, but can see enough grey area to justify either argument. So, here's to getting a SW FAQ soon :rolleyes:.

[dagonis]

Wording from the Eldar dex

"Tiskele: Blah blah... It can be used as a power weapon. It can also be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

R 12" S: 3 AP: 2 Assault 3"

Unfortunately the power weapon doesn't have any other special things about it that we can discuss, but it is AP2 which is basically the same thing.

[dagonis]

However, I am still on the fence about initiative testing being based on the base value or the modified value. Anyone care to give a concise and civil argument as to what they think?


I ranted about this a few pages back and I would like to get some people's opinions about this as well.

[Bikeninja]

Intense is a word that falls a little short for that discussion.

Mkerr, I would like to thank you for opening this debate. This has been a fun read and I think you are correct on your interpretation of the rules.

I would just like to say that this is a game and for the most part we grown, smart, responsible men and women who enjoy playing this game. Arguing the point the bringing responsible discussion about an issue is and should be sought out in any genre.

Some here have taken the above to an extreme that has no place in gaming. I felt like I was in court hearing a case. This seemed end on a negative note and I hate that. Everyone here contributed good discussion for the most part. Much better than some of the other forums.

Keep this up. But remember, it is just a game.

Thanks again to all.

[jason]

I ranted about this a few pages back and I would like to get some people's opinions about this as well.

No. The initiative becomes 1 for a turn. It's rolled against this. The rules don't mention anything about using the base I. It's a characteristics test which talks about using the Characteristic. Not the Base Characteristic.

Consider the reverse: anything that increased the init would also be invalidated.

You might be confusing certain things that reduce init for combat only. This is not what the TH does.

I'm still quite impressed by the number of people who are against using the thrown thunder hammer. I think the intent is quite clear. The thing is, I've never seen a weapon profile with Thunder Hammer in it. Granted, these same people were probably arguing when PS first came out that if Deep Strike wasn't in the profile, you couldn't assault. So, things like Terminators, couldn't assault. Daemon's couldnt' assault.

So sad.

[DarkLink]

No. The initiative becomes 1 for a turn. It's rolled against this. The rules don't mention anything about using the base I. It's a characteristics test which talks about using the Characteristic. Not the Base Characteristic.

Consider the reverse: anything that increased the init would also be invalidated.

You might be confusing certain things that reduce init for combat only. This is not what the TH does.

I'm still quite impressed by the number of people who are against using the thrown thunder hammer. I think the intent is quite clear. The thing is, I've never seen a weapon profile with Thunder Hammer in it. Granted, these same people were probably arguing when PS first came out that if Deep Strike wasn't in the profile, you couldn't assault. So, things like Terminators, couldn't assault. Daemon's couldnt' assault.

So sad.

I think a lot of people don't like the idea of Foehammer auto-stunning, so even though the rules seem to support it many are adamant about finding an alternative, thinking "that must be wrong, it just has to be".


Yeah, the Characteristic test mentions something about "including modifiers". Thunderhammers also "reduce initiative until the end of the next assault phase", so it is in effect when JotWW is used. I will say that I think this is an unintended consequence that GW didn't foresee. Who know, though.

[S0ULDU5T]

Kudos to Mkerr, whom in my opinion has been nothing short of a white knight for his repeated delivery of the truth under the duress of ignorace and misguided souls. Much respect.

[dagonis]

I think that ignorance is a bit of a strong word to describe those of us who believe the TH ranged attack doesn't stun.

My biggest issue with it:
The weapon profile being Str:10 Ap:1 indicates to me that the behavior of the thunder hammer has been fundamentally altered because a thunder hammer doesn't cause +1 on the damage chart. AP2 would have achieved the same thing as a thunder hammer (no armor, no FNP, etc.)

Also, there is no baseline set for thing kind of thing. The eldar thrown weapon behaves exactly as it would in CC, but no one will disagree that Foehammer thrown and Foehammer CC are different. Before you rage on this remember ranged FH is AP1 and CC FH is not.

It has been stated a few times from both camps that this doesn't seem to be intended, so I see no harm in debating the RAW merits of this.

I did a bit more digging and I do concede that if a model is reduced to I1 then it will take it's I test at I1 for the purposes of Jotww

"In order to take the (characteristic) test, roll a D6. To succeed, you must score equal to or lower than the value of the characteristic involved. Note that if a 6 is rolled, then the model automatically fails the test regardless of the characteristic’s value or any other modifier that might apply, and conversely a 1 is always a success."

I misread the part about "any other modifier" which would indicate that base stats can be modified and tested against.

I say we add an extra layer to this and post what armies we play and what we believe. It would be interesting to see how many SW players vs. Non-SW players are for/against this.

I'll start:

dagonis - Salamanders, Daemons, and IG.
I am against the ranged FH stunning due to the AP1 portion of the weapon modifying a TH's default behavior.

[S0ULDU5T]

I think that ignorance is a bit of a strong word to describe those of us who believe the TH ranged attack doesn't stun.



Your right for the most part in that applies to some but not all, so I apologize. I was just trying to be colorful and in my defense, definatly does apply to some. I'm sorry.

I think favoritism is an interesting point but will prove nothing of how the rule is actually read or played. For your point however, I play (currently) Space Wolves and Orks; and am in complete agreement with Mkerr.

[DarkLink]

My biggest issue with it:
The weapon profile being Str:10 Ap:1 indicates to me that the behavior of the thunder hammer has been fundamentally altered because a thunder hammer doesn't cause +1 on the damage chart. AP2 would have achieved the same thing as a thunder hammer (no armor, no FNP, etc.)

Granting additional characteristics, or to be more precise defining additional characteristics, does not remove previously existing characteristics. In order to give the Foehammer a ranged attack, GW needed to give it a profile. This profile doesn't stop it from being a Thunderhammer, or to loose any characteristics of a Thunderhammer. It only gives the Foehammer additional characteristics on top of being a Thunderhammer.



Also, there is no baseline set for thing kind of thing. The eldar thrown weapon behaves exactly as it would in CC, but no one will disagree that Foehammer thrown and Foehammer CC are different. Before you rage on this remember ranged FH is AP1 and CC FH is not.

CC Foehammer doesn't have an AP, because CC attacks do not use the AP system. When GW wrote the rules for Foehammer, they needed to give the Foehammer an AP value, and they chose to give it AP1. This does not remove previously existing characteristics of the Foehammer, it merely grants the Foehammer an additional characteristic on top of what it already has.


The problem with your argument is that nothing you argue actually denies the Foehammer the stunning effect. The thrown weapon stuff only grants the Foehammer additional characteristics on top of being a Thunderhammer, it never removes any of the characteristics of the Thunderhammer from the Foehammer rules.

Grey Knights, Agree with mkerr

[jason]

My biggest issue with it:
The weapon profile being Str:10 Ap:1 indicates to me that the behavior of the thunder hammer has been fundamentally altered because a thunder hammer doesn't cause +1 on the damage chart. AP2 would have achieved the same thing as a thunder hammer (no armor, no FNP, etc.)

Also, there is no baseline set for thing kind of thing. The eldar thrown weapon behaves exactly as it would in CC, but no one will disagree that Foehammer thrown and Foehammer CC are different. Before you rage on this remember ranged FH is AP1 and CC FH is not.

It doesn't matter if the stat line is slightly altered. Anything not altered remains the same. Abaddon's Daemon Sword Drach'nyen isn't a normal Daemon Sword. It counts as a Daemon Weapon that does things differently from a normal Daemon Weapon. Does this mean the things it doesn't change don't count?

I'd argue that if Foehammer doesn't stun, Drach'nyen doesn't suffer a downside on a roll of 1 for attacks like other Daemon Weapons.

The argument here is simple. Foehammer is losing it's stunning ability because it doesn't list it in the altered stat block. It doesn't keep the thunder hammer aspect, so the argument there is that since the stat block doesn't include it, it doesn't have it. After all, the argument goes, it would have Thunder Hammer under the stat block if it was a thunder hammer. But since it doesn't, it loses the thunder hammer aspect. This is important because of the change.

Drach'nyen also goes through a change as well. It's a Daemon Weapon that doubles the strength, adds +D6 attacks, and my re-roll failed wounds. That's all it says. Nothing more. Applying the foehammer logic, since they changed the stats of Drach'nyen, you can only go with the specific entry over the more general one.

So, if you argue that Drach'nyen should suffer on rolls of 1 like a normal Daemon Weapon, despite it not being a normal Daemon Weapon and having it's own special weapons entry, then Foehammer stands as a thrown thunder hammer that can stun.

Listen, I play chaos. So I'm more than happy to say that if the specific entry overrides other more general entries if it doesn't include certain rules. Abaddon will just be that much deadlier.

[dagonis]

Everyone is making very good points.

My idea with Ap1 is that it alters the way the thunder hammer acts. A normal power weapon/pf/th would technically be Ap2. Just not sure if the modification of its behavior would affect the stun aspect of it.

Could someone post the text of Drach'nyen here? I would be interested to see how it reads, and I don't own a copy of the CSM dex.

[DarkLink]

There's not any reason to think that the AP1 alters the way the Thunderhammer works, aside from the +1 to penetrate. It's just an additional effect that GW decided to slap on.


Chaos Codex
"Daemon Sword Drach'nyen and Talon of Horus
...The effect of these two powerful artefacts means that Abaddon counts as equipped with a Daemon Weapon that doubles his Strength (to Strength 8, as shown in his profile) instead of the normal +1, and he may re-roll any failed rolls to wound in close combat."

Who the heck spells artifact as artefact? Frickin' British English:p.

[jason]

Everyone is making very good points.

My idea with Ap1 is that it alters the way the thunder hammer acts. A normal power weapon/pf/th would technically be Ap2. Just not sure if the modification of its behavior would affect the stun aspect of it.

Could someone post the text of Drach'nyen here? I would be interested to see how it reads, and I don't own a copy of the CSM dex.

Actually, no. A PW/PF might be AP2 in ranged weapons, but TH have extra effects on things with armor without an Initiative. This is reflected by the AP1, which has additional effects for ranged weapons.

But I still go back to my Abaddon weapon argument.

[dagonis]

What portion of the Drach'nyen rules is ambiguous, it seems fairly straight forward to me that it is a daemon weapon.

It reads "Daemon Weapon that...." compared to the FH desc which is "The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon..." Ranged weapon seems to indicate it is just that, a ranged weapon that has its own unique profile. It doesn't say ranged thunder hammer, thunder hammer ranged attack, ranged attack that acts as a thunder hammer, etc.

Tbh if they meant it to be a ranged thunder hammer they could have just said "Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with a range of 6"." No extra profile would be needed because if the player was supposed to treat it as a thunder hammer they would be able to just extrapolate the rules from the thunder hammer rule (str x2, stun, no arm sav, etc.)

[jason]

What portion of the Drach'nyen rules is ambiguous, it seems fairly straight forward to me that it is a daemon weapon.

It reads "Daemon Weapon that...." compared to the FH desc which is "The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon..." Ranged weapon seems to indicate it is just that, a ranged weapon that has its own unique profile. It doesn't say ranged thunder hammer, thunder hammer ranged attack, ranged attack that acts as a thunder hammer, etc.

Tbh if they meant it to be a ranged thunder hammer they could have just said "Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with a range of 6"." No extra profile would be needed because if the player was supposed to treat it as a thunder hammer they would be able to just extrapolate the rules from the thunder hammer rule (str x2, stun, no arm sav, etc.)

It's not a standard Daemon Weapon. It uses it's own special rules. So it's a Daemon Weapon with different rules. That's fine. But it doesn't use the default rules. Where does it say that it uses the default rules for Daemon Weapons, because all I see is it not.

At least, that's the way I apply the logic Foehammer has applied to it.

"they could have just said "Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with a range of 6"." No extra profile would be needed because if the player was supposed to treat it as a thunder hammer they would be able to just extrapolate the rules from the thunder hammer rule (str x2, stun, no arm sav, etc.)"

First of all, your sample sentence fails. If it read that, we'd be here discussing whether it could be used in close combat. You'd say no. So, your own example fails.

Secondly, it's pretty easy when you read the sentence they have in the book that Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be thrown. Now, explain to me, in the world of GW, how this doesn't mean it's a ranged thunder hammer?

Are you going to argue that a Daemon Prince isn't a Daemon because it doesn't have Daemon in it's profile? Are you going to argue that Terminators can't assault on Deep Strike in a Planetstrike game because Deep Strike isn't in the profile? Heck, they even had to errata this because people, like you, were twisting it's meaning.

""The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon..." Ranged weapon seems to indicate it is just that, a ranged weapon that has its own unique profile."

Sorry, but that's not how english works. Let's work this out piece by piece.
The ranged weapon being discussed is the Foehammer. Right or wrong?
The Foehammer is a Thunder Hammer. Right or wrong?
Thunder Hammers have special rules. Right or wrong?

Now, you are going to say that because the profile doesn't contain Thunder Hammer, it shouldn't act like a Thunder Hammer. Because the profile excludes something that is already apart of the weapon, that aspect of the weapon is removed. Is that what you are saying?

Because, if that's the case, history demonstrates this is not how GW applies it's own rules. Deep Striking in Planetstrike games and Daemon Weapons are evidence of this.

"Tbh if they meant it to be a ranged thunder hammer they could have just said "Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with a range of 6""

They could also have done exactly what they did. And you know what? What they did is more in line with everything else they've ever done. Precedent matters, and in this case, precedent says it's a ranged thunder hammer.

[Bikeninja]

Well Foehammer is Str 10 because Arjacs strength is 5 and the THUNDERHAMMER profile doubles the users strength. More evidence that this is a Thunderhammer in every way with all its bells and whistles plus you get to throw it.

[PhoenixFlame]

I agree , the thrown weapons profile does not mention the stunning attack.
It should have no effect besides wounding and possible Instant Death.
Though if a model was in CC and was hit and survived the TH attack their Int would be lowered to 1.
I believe the JotWW test would be against Int 1 in that case as it reduces their Int until the end of the next players turn.

I agree with the above in principle,
"...reducing their initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next players turn" pretty much means that JotWW would be causing them to take a test against a characteristic of 1.
However since Arjac's thrown thunderhammer doesn't state that it gets this effect at range and JotWW is used in the shooting phase and the thunderhammer effects last "...until the end of the next players turn." it becomes a non-issue with RAW currently. Now if GW ever errata/faq's Arjac to use full thunderhammer effects on the throw... well that's a sad day for Keepers et al :rolleyes: (either way works for me tho as a play both Daemons and Wolves, so it's an even trade :p )
I do see the point others are making about it being a thunderhammer and thus using those rules, but I myself won't be playing it that way without some support (simply because that's my leaning anyway, play RAW if there's a gray area which ever fig/effect is unclear takes the hit... but that's a personal method and may or may not be generally applicable). I wouldn't be willing to go so far as to say it's RAW that all thunderhammer benefits get to be used because the profile also adds AP 1 which is not an effect of the normal thunderhammer nor is it a given of a ranged weapon. Does it make sense in the fluff? Yes. Do I think we'll see a faq stating that thunderhammer effects apply? Probably. But until then I'll play it like they don't.

[mkerr]

Tbh if they meant it to be a ranged thunder hammer they could have just said "Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with a range of 6"."

What they *could* have said doesn't really come into the argument. We have to work with what they actually said.

On a side note, your alternative wording wouldn't work. Your wording would allow armor saves because there's no AP value. If you check the wording of Power Weapon (that's where the details of how a Thunder Hammer / Power Fist work in close combat) it's clear that no saves are allowed by wounds caused in close combat.

It also wouldn't tell us if it was a Assault, Heavy or Rapid-fire weapon. So for your alternative text it would have to say "Foehammer can be used as an ranged thunderhammer with a range of 6", Assault 1 and AP2". That's a lot clunkier than the wording they used.


I do see the point others are making about it being a thunderhammer and thus using those rules, but I myself won't be playing it that way without some support (simply because that's my leaning anyway, play RAW if there's a gray area which ever fig/effect is unclear takes the hit... but that's a personal method and may or may not be generally applicable).

I think that's a fine answer, PhoenixFlame. If you don't agree with the interpretation, then don't play that way. There are several "dirty tricks" that I've written about that we've "house ruled" away in our local gaming group.

Thanks for the posts everyone!

Oh and I play just about every army (except Eldar and Dark Eldar) and I agree with me. :)

[redrio]

Gotta be a big fat NO to that.

Counter question - do all you people who count it as a thunder hammer when thrown and force the decrease to I1 for a survivor also count his hammer as AP1 in CC against vehicles and so give him the +1 on the damage chart?

Smells like cheating to me...

yes, it's still a thunder hammer when he throws it, but the whole situation stinks of abusing the rules for personal gain in an army that's already powerful enough so doesn't need any "help".

Look at Arjac's point cost and profile, then look at how much a WG Battle Leader with TH/SS, TA and saga of the bear would be (yeah I know they can't take it but it's 35pts for WLs). He's already cheaper by 15pts BEFORE you factor in extra strength, rerolling misses against IC/MC, being stubborn and his extra attack bonus from the shield. Do you not think he's good enough without having to worm in this extra ounce of power?

And the TH rules are in the section "Close Combat Weapons". I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but shooting profiles and CC profiles are different even for the same weapon. That's why our plasma pistol toting men don't get S7 AP2 in combat etc.

What's next? Avatars at S8 AP1 in CC because their Wailing Doom has that profile...?

[mkerr]

Counter question - do all you people who count it as a thunder hammer when thrown and force the decrease to I1 for a survivor also count his hammer as AP1 in CC against vehicles and so give him the +1 on the damage chart?

No, there's no AP in close combat. Foehammer a thunder hammer with a ranged profile (as opposed to a ranged weapon with a thunder hammer profile).

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.


Do you not think he's good enough without having to worm in this extra ounce of power?

I honestly think that the "stunning" effect of a thunder hammer doesn't make him any tougher -- there aren't a lot of models that can survive being wounded by a S10 AP1 weapon.


And the TH rules are in the section "Close Combat Weapons". I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but shooting profiles and CC profiles are different even for the same weapon. That's why our plasma pistol toting men don't get S7 AP2 in combat etc.

You don't shoot a plasma pistol in close combat; it simply counts as a close combat weapon. That's why it's not S7 (and it wouldn't be AP2 in close combat because AP is used for shooting attacks).


What's next? Avatars at S8 AP1 in CC because their Wailing Doom has that profile...?

I think you are misunderstanding the argument - or my argument anyway. Foehammer gets the thunder hammer stunning ability when used as a ranged weapon. That's the entirety of the argument.

I'm not suggesting that Foehammer somehow gets "AP1" in close combat -- that's not supported by the rules. Even if it was, AP1 is meaningless outside of the shooting phase.

[redrio]

pistols count as CC weapons to represent firing point blank as you charge/fight, which is why I mentioned it here, as it's a crossover where a weapon affects both CC and shooting.

The Avatar thing was tongue in cheek too, to be honest, I am aware it's the opposite of the situation we're discussing.

Seriously though, if you were using this in a game would you keep a straight face? Never mind RAW vs RAI, It just feels wrong. I'd be all for it being allowed the stun if it didn't then leave my opponent's prized model so vulnerable to the JotWW. I appreciate that there's not many guys who can take the wound and fight on, so the situation will arise very rarely, but for a Keeper of Secrets, Hive Tyrant etc it's a big deal. Plus it would kinda steal his glory as he'd then not be able to take out whatever he'd thrown his hammer at in honourable close combat....

I have Arjac in my SW list but I'd feel like I was cheating if I employed this tactic.

This forms the basis of my argument against it: If they had just said "he may throw his thunder hammer at any target up to 6" away" then we'd know it was S10, ignored armour saves, reduced I to 1 for a survivor and caused crew shaken against a vehicle in addition to any other damage, without needing a ranged profile.

Instead they gave it a gun's profile, with specific different effects against vehicles, so is it not reasonable to assume that they intended the effect on infantry to also be different?

When thrown, foehammer is an inherently different weapon to when used in CC.

[mkerr]

pistols count as CC weapons to represent firing point blank as you charge/fight, which is why I mentioned it here, as it's a crossover where a weapon affects both CC and shooting.

Where do you get that idea? The rules don't tell us that pistols are fired in close combat, just that "they are handy enough to allow a trooper to fight in close combat with a combination of a pistol and a sword, axe or other close combat weapon", BBB p29). To me that means that the pistol is used as a bludgeoning or blocking weapon to make your other close combat weapon more effective.

"[A] pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." -- that means it counts as a different weapon. The plasma pistol used in the Shooting phase is different with the one that's used in the Assault phase.Why? Because one is a plasma pistol and the other is a "counts as" close combat weapon.


Seriously though, if you were using this in a game would you keep a straight face? Never mind RAW vs RAI, It just feels wrong.

I think you are missing the point of this exercise. I'm not recommending that you use the tactic; I'm just talking about what is possible within the rules. Sometimes this leads to players using the tactic, sometimes it leads to an FAQ by GW and INAT, but mostly it leads to players being aware of what can happen on the table and thinking about their armies creatively.

Lots of things in the game *feel* wrong, but that doesn't mean that they are illegal or cheating. Now that you know about the possibility of Arjac + JotWW, you are prepared for the combination on the table and have a decent - although incorrect :) - argument for countering it.

I always say it's better to encounter a "dirty trick" on the blog than on the table.


This forms the basis of my argument against it: If they had just said "he may throw his thunder hammer at any target up to 6" away" then we'd know it was S10, ignored armour saves, reduced I to 1 for a survivor and caused crew shaken against a vehicle in addition to any other damage, without needing a ranged profile.

First of all, I'm not arguing the designer's intention and I agree that a clearer wording would be better. I'm arguing what can be inferred from the existing wording.

Secondly, your wording won't work. It needs a ranged profile. Why? It needs "AP" because as a power weapon a thunder hammer only ignores armor in close combat. It also needs a "type" because we wouldn't know if it was an Assault or Heavy ranged weapon.

My belief is that they were trying to make the profile match their vision of what Foehammer being thrown by Arjac would be like.

[Nabterayl]

Where do you get that idea? The rules don't tell us that pistols are fired in close combat, just that "they are handy enough to allow a trooper to fight in close combat with a combination of a pistol and a sword, axe or other close combat weapon", BBB p29). To me that means that the pistol is used as a bludgeoning or blocking weapon to make your other close combat weapon more effective.
Pistols may well be used as a bludgeoning or blocking weapon, as are primary weapons (p. 42), but the rulebook definitely tells us that they are fired in close combat. As the BRB says on page 35, "As well as fighting hand-to-hand, warriors will be firing pistols at point blank range at any target that presents itself." Assaults are not necessarily literally hand-to-hand affairs. Even primary weapons are fired in assaults in at least some circumstances, such as firing at an attacker who is assaulting through cover (p. 36) or assaulting a vehicle with no WS skill (p. 63)

[ShadowDeth]

No, there's no AP in close combat. Foehammer a thunder hammer with a ranged profile (as opposed to a ranged weapon with a thunder hammer profile).


There's no "stun" ability in the shooting phase either.

Any reference to the shooting attack being a thunder-hammer is purely fluff, and honestly I'd like to believe you're just trolling this board.

No one could be that stupid to believe you stun something you shoot, with a close combat property.

[mkerr]

You are confusing colorful descriptions of battle with rules. Under Who Can Fight it says "Close combat is a swirling melee of troops leaping, spinning, hacking and slashing at one another. As well as fighting hand-to-hand, warriors will be firing pistols at point blank range at any target that presents itself." (BBB, p35).

This isn't an indication that pistols use their Shooting profile in close combat (or that models have the ability to leap or spin). The pistol rules a few pages earlier tell us how to use a pistol in close combat (i.e., "In addition a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase").

A pistol isn't fired in close combat -- or if it is, they've chosen to abstract it to become a "counts as close combat weapon". Either way it doesn't apply to the conversation because a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.

Here are your other citations: "...warriors who are assaulting through cover are subject to deadly salvoes of close range fire as they slowly struggle to get to grips with their foe..." and "[t]hey can wreck a vehicle by shooting through vision slits, planting explosives on fuel takes...".

Neither of them are actually rules. They are colorful text designed to convey the flavor of the game. Of course we imagine our heroic models shooting their weapons recklessly in close combat (and as they charge vehicles) but that's just not what we are talking about in this thread. Foehammer is nothing like a pistol because pistols are "counts as close combat weapons" in assault.

[DarkLink]

To be honest, this is one of the most persistent rules threads I've seen that has a clear resolution rules-wise, yet is still being argued over:p.

Very simply, by RAW, Foehammer stuns the model it "shoots" in the same fashion as a Thunderhammer in cc. No one has provided any evidence in the rules to actually contradict this. There has been plenty of counter arguments, but they have all been proven incorrect, or are irrelevant due to being based on fluff.

If anyone wants to prove mkerr's argument wrong, then look at it point by point, and find a rule that actually contradicts one of those points. If no one can do that (which no one has done so far), then you must assume that his argument is correct, by RAW.

[Selorian]

I agree that it lowers an effected models int to 1.

There seems to be some confusion by people classing Arjac's weapon as a Thunderhammer. Arjac's weapon is a Foehammer with Thunderhammer qualities.

[The Mystic]

Let me ask you a question mkerr.

All the weapons and their rules that are classified as under the special close combat weapons catergory are governed by the assualt rules. Yes?

If so, are you saying that weapons that are in this catergory and that are governed by the assualt rules can carry ther abilities into other phases of the game aswell instead of being inclusive of the assualt rules?

If yes, why can I not use a melta gun in assualt? It is not a pistol so does not count as a normal cc weapon. I can't find any rule that says I can't and no rule that says it is inclusive of the shooting rules. It is not catorgorized in any way and is simpley named as a weapon. It's strength is governed by the weapon. not the shot. The AP is governed by the weapon not the shot.

I think you have to draw a line somewhere.

[ShadowDeth]

I agree that it lowers an effected models int to 1.

There seems to be some confusion by people classing Arjac's weapon as a Thunderhammer. Arjac's weapon is a Foehammer with Thunderhammer qualities.

1) It's not a Foehammer. It's named "Foehammer", and it's identical to a thunder-hammer - except he named it.
2) It has strength 10 (which is why I assume everyone thinks it deals CC property damage) just like he does with it.
3) If it lowers Initiative to 1, why not just start letting it ignore cover too? Thunder hammers obviously don't give opponents cover saves, right?
4) Maybe you need 6's to throw it at a vehicle that moved over 12 inches or over? I mean, it is a thunder-hammer afterall.

It's posts like this that show me that the guys running this page aren't special instances of gamers - these are the same kind of random - unskilled people you will find at FLGS's. I guess I sorta assumed someone who would write articles for a page with growing popularity would at least have his rules down.

[Selorian]

Shadowdeth... handbags at dawn lol

The following will hopefully help to explain my view on the rule:

I'm unable to find anything within the Space Wolves Codex which states that Arjac named his Thunderhammer 'Foehammer'.


When the rune-etched weapon know as the Foehammer leaves Arjac's massive fist, it's inbuilt teleport device ensures it will quickly return to his gauntlet ready to be used again.

The above quote suggests that the Foehammer is not a Thunderhammer and if it were, it should read:

"When the rune-etched Thunderhammer known as the Foehammer..."

The fact that Arjac's Thunderhammer is the only Thunderhammer which can be teleported, is further evidence to suggest it isn't technically a Thunderhammer as if it were, all Thunder Hammers would have the same ability.

'inbuilt teleport' is an interesting phrase as it suggests that the hammer is not thrown and instead, teleports for a brief moment into CC. Should that be the case, and should the Foehammer be a Thunderhammer, then it would be natural for the Foehammer to lower int to 1 (providing that the model in question survives a Str 10, AP1 wound).

Without knowing where an enemy is and without a line of sight, Arjac would not be able to teleport the Foehammer to his target. As the weapon teleports, you could argue that cover saves would not apply as it is not being thrown past obstacles to reach his target however, the codex does state that it is a Thunderhammer used as a ranged weapon.

Forgetting 40k rules, common sense tells you that hitting a moving vehicle with a ranged weapon is far easier than with a hand weapon. With a hand weapon, you have one chance to hit it before it passes/runs you over while with a ranged weapon, you may have more than one chance to hit it.

If you were to hit a moving vehicle with a hand weapon, judging it's speed and timing your attack would be more difficult. With the vehicle heading straight for you, it would suggest that you would have to hit and move at the same time.

Taking Call Of Duty as an example, (I have no idea if you play shooters) any Muppet can hit a moving tank with a missile launcher however, running up to or in front of a tank and then planting a grenade is a lot more difficult.

With this in mind, it is natural to presume that teleporting the Foehammer is far easier than jumping in the way of the vehicle to hit it.

It might be wrong for me to relate real circumstances with 40k rules however, should you throw and hit someone in the face with a custard pie or rub a custard pie in someone's face, they are still hit with a custard pie. Throwing a Thunderhammer or clubbing them with a Thunderhammer is still hitting them with a Thunderhammer and would therefore have the same effect.

To summarise the Codex, the Foehammer is a teleporting rune-etched weapon which doesn't teleport and instead travels from Arjac to his opponent. It isn't a Thunderhammer however, it is a Thunderhammer lol

My interpretation of the rule is:

The Foehammer is a heavily modified, one of a kind Thunderhammer which has many characteristics which are not found in Thunderhammers.

The Foehammer teleports from Arjac straight to his target however, for the purpose of tending to existing 40ks rules, cover saves and line of sight applies.

The Foehammer has all of the rules associated with a Thunderhammer and when thrown/teleported the wounded character is treated as being hit with a Thunderhammer.


I can understand why a lot of people might not agree or want my interpretation of the rule however, it's worth considering the following:

1)Rune Priest (no extra equipment) + Arjac = 270 points.

2)Wolf Guard would be needed which in turn increase the point value of the unit.

3)The unit has to travel within 6" and strike first. (Should they need a transport, more points used up).

4)Independant characters are not effected if they are part of a unit.

5)Unless the charater/monsterous creature has a toughness value of 6 or more, or have Eternal Warrior, they are dead anyway.

6)Both Arjac and the Rune Priest have a toughness of 4.

7)Monstrous Creatures are not effected by Jaws if they roll a 1 or a 2 during int test.

8)Should the Space Wolf player attempt to spend the majority of the game getting his Jaws/Arjac unit to strike a special character or monstrous creature, the Jaws/Arjac unit will have a far higher point value than model they are chasing (in other words if played right, the non Space Wolves player would distract an expensive unit for the majority of the game.)


So in other words, With an expensive unit, I have to chase around a special character or monstrous creature which is not a part of a unit which has toughness of 6+ or has eternal warrior. I also have to dodge incoming fire from the rest of the army in order to get within 6" of the Character/Creature.

I then have to roll a 2+ to hit followed by a 2+ to wound. Providing that the model being hit does not make a invun save, I then have to roll a Psychic test risking Perils Of The Warp.

Should I be able to kill the Monstrous creature with Jaws, I have either been led to a position where I am unable to get back the unit back into the rest of the battle (which in turn means that your model which has a lower point cost has taken my more expensive unit out of the game.) or my Arjac/Rune Priest unit is sitting in the open ready to be shot to bits from my opponent.

Should Arjac's rule be confirmed by GW in the same way as I see it, taking into consideration how it would actually effect a game,
unskilled people you will find at FLGS' are the only people who would worry about it.

[DarkLink]

Let me ask you a question mkerr.

All the weapons and their rules that are classified as under the special close combat weapons catergory are governed by the assualt rules. Yes?

If so, are you saying that weapons that are in this catergory and that are governed by the assualt rules can carry ther abilities into other phases of the game aswell instead of being inclusive of the assualt rules?

If yes, why can I not use a melta gun in assualt? It is not a pistol so does not count as a normal cc weapon. I can't find any rule that says I can't and no rule that says it is inclusive of the shooting rules. It is not catorgorized in any way and is simpley named as a weapon. It's strength is governed by the weapon. not the shot. The AP is governed by the weapon not the shot.

I think you have to draw a line somewhere.


1) It's not a Foehammer. It's named "Foehammer", and it's identical to a thunder-hammer - except he named it.
2) It has strength 10 (which is why I assume everyone thinks it deals CC property damage) just like he does with it.
3) If it lowers Initiative to 1, why not just start letting it ignore cover too? Thunder hammers obviously don't give opponents cover saves, right?
4) Maybe you need 6's to throw it at a vehicle that moved over 12 inches or over? I mean, it is a thunder-hammer afterall.

It's posts like this that show me that the guys running this page aren't special instances of gamers - these are the same kind of random - unskilled people you will find at FLGS's. I guess I sorta assumed someone who would write articles for a page with growing popularity would at least have his rules down.

You might want to go back and reread mkerr's argument. He's made statements regarding both of your points above, contradicting both of them. Plus, the logical conclusions that can be drawn from his argument do not lead to the assumptions that you put forth.

Let me summarize:
1. Neither CC weapons nor Shooting weapons may be used outside of their respective phase, normally (thus, you cannot use a meltagun in CC. Not that mkerr ever implied that you could).

2. Foehammer has been granted a special exception to this rule, allowing it to be used as a shooting weapon. Thus, once again, you cannot use the arguments presented here to justify using a meltagun in CC, because meltaguns do not have a special exception to this rule.

3. Foehammer is treated as a shooting weapon in the shooting phase, so it follows the normal rules to hit. That means you don't need 6's to hit a moving vehicle. Mkerr never implied this, nor does his argument lead to this conclusion. Also, cover saves are only allowed in the shooting phase. Thunderhammers normally ignore cover saves for this reason and this reason alone. Thus, Foehammer allows cover saves, because it does not have a rule that would deny them.

4. Because Foehammer "is a Thunderhammer" (not "is like a thunderhammer", or "similar to a thunderhammer"), even during the shooting phase you get the stunning effect.



...
I'm unable to find anything within the Space Wolves Codex which states that Arjac named his Thunderhammer 'Foehammer'.

The above quote suggests that the Foehammer is not a Thunderhammer and if it were, it should read:

"When the rune-etched Thunderhammer known as the Foehammer..."

The fact that Arjac's Thunderhammer is the only Thunderhammer which can be teleported, is further evidence to suggest it isn't technically a Thunderhammer as if it were, all Thunder Hammers would have the same ability.

'inbuilt teleport' is an interesting phrase as it suggests that the hammer is not thrown and instead, teleports for a brief moment into CC. Should that be the case, and should the Foehammer be a Thunderhammer, then it would be natural for the Foehammer to lower int to 1 (providing that the model in question survives a Str 10, AP1 wound).

Without knowing where an enemy is and without a line of sight, Arjac would not be able to teleport the Foehammer to his target. As the weapon teleports, you could argue that cover saves would not apply as it is not being thrown past obstacles to reach his target however, the codex does state that it is a Thunderhammer used as a ranged weapon.

Forgetting 40k rules, common sense tells you that hitting a moving vehicle with a ranged weapon is far easier than with a hand weapon. With a hand weapon, you have one chance to hit it before it passes/runs you over while with a ranged weapon, you may have more than one chance to hit it.

If you were to hit a moving vehicle with a hand weapon, judging it's speed and timing your attack would be more difficult. With the vehicle heading straight for you, it would suggest that you would have to hit and move at the same time.

Taking Call Of Duty as an example, (I have no idea if you play shooters) any Muppet can hit a moving tank with a missile launcher however, running up to or in front of a tank and then planting a grenade is a lot more difficult.

With this in mind, it is natural to presume that teleporting the Foehammer is far easier than jumping in the way of the vehicle to hit it.

It might be wrong for me to relate real circumstances with 40k rules however, should you throw and hit someone in the face with a custard pie or rub a custard pie in someone's face, they are still hit with a custard pie. Throwing a Thunderhammer or clubbing them with a Thunderhammer is still hitting them with a Thunderhammer and would therefore have the same effect.

To summarise the Codex, the Foehammer is a teleporting rune-etched weapon which doesn't teleport and instead travels from Arjac to his opponent. It isn't a Thunderhammer however, it is a Thunderhammer lol

My interpretation of the rule is:

The Foehammer is a heavily modified, one of a kind Thunderhammer which has many characteristics which are not found in Thunderhammers.

The Foehammer teleports from Arjac straight to his target however, for the purpose of tending to existing 40ks rules, cover saves and line of sight applies.

The Foehammer has all of the rules associated with a Thunderhammer and when thrown/teleported the wounded character is treated as being hit with a Thunderhammer.


You cannot use fluff to justify rules argument. Foehammer is a Thunderhammer, with additional characteristics. That is specifically, directly and explicitly stated in the Foehammer rules. Everything else is flavor text, and irrelevant. In the same way, you cannot use real life examples (if CoD can be called real life) to justify rules arguments.

Only rules can be used to justify rules arguments.

[PhoenixFlame]

Thanks for the posts everyone!

Oh and I play just about every army (except Eldar and Dark Eldar) and I agree with me. :)

Quite welcome mkerr, I do enjoy these types of threads (with or without a resolution/consensus) because they're good for mental exercise and rules comprehension. I think that playing multiple armies (or at the least reading the codex for them) really does develop a deeper understanding of how the rules really work in game and thus what's likely to be their meaning/intent (it's all well and good to say an assassin with an assault 20 weapon is broken... until you consider points and usability and then it moves closer to 'points sink' than game braking).

I think the case of JotWW + Foehammer is another case of the "look an I Win Button" that really isn't once points cost and situational feasibility of use are considered.
I also wanted to mention one more thing, when I say "I won't be playing it that way" in my prior point that isn't to mean that I wouldn't let [B]someone else[B] play it that way. In part when I build lists I try to avoid any issues with being told XYZ tactical option isn't "legal" if I've already spent points on it. Hence why I assume the ability in question takes a hit for my own purposes. However if I faced a player running this combo I would be completely willing to let them do so regardless of the game being tournament/friendly.

Cheers :cool:
Phoenix

[ShadowDeth]

arguments.

Only rules can be used to justify rules arguments.

You really should follow your own advice.

It looks like everyone dissenting in this thread see the efforts of yourself, The OP and a few others as manipulation of a line of text to justify an extremely far-out there interpretation of the rules.

The existence of a description of the weapon doesn't give it qualities outside of the normal phase it was meant to have. In fact, the shooting attack isn't a thrown thunderhammer. It's a shooting attack with a profile for you to reference. It's an abstract approximation of what the developers thought a "thrown" weapon should achieve in the shooting phase. If the weapon was meant to stun, it would have a side-note in the profile. Or even something like "Strength 10 - AP1 - *Thunderhammer".

The rest is just fluff. You can't just go around modifying rules because it "makes sense". That's not the rules as written, or even intended - just wish-listing. Don't be an idiot.

[hisdudeness]

The main reason I see that Foehammer not having the thunder hammer rules when thrown is:

1) C:SW says that Foehammer can be used as a ranged weapon with given profile.

2) The thunder hammer rules are in the 'close combat weapons' rules section. Once you use Foehammer as a ranged weapon it will stop being a CC weapon.

To show me this is wrong one would have to show me another CCW that can be used as a ranged weapon and keeps any CCW abilities. Foehammer is either a CCW and has the TH rule or it is a ranged weapon with the given profile. The TH rule is not a USR or included in the ranged weapon rules section, so I see no reason it should carry over to ranged combat.

I believe the TH part is included for when it is used as a CCW and nothing more. With out that word it would be a named CCW that can be thrown. I have seen the ‘40k is a permissive rule set’ pop up all over the place. So show us where the TH rules are in either the USR section or the ranged combat section that permit the TH ability to affect ranged combat.

[mkerr]

If so, are you saying that weapons that are in this catergory and that are governed by the assualt rules can carry ther abilities into other phases of the game aswell instead of being inclusive of the assualt rules?

I don't think I'm saying that at all. I'm saying the location of the rule is less important than the content of the rule.


If yes, why can I not use a melta gun in assualt? It is not a pistol so does not count as a normal cc weapon. I can't find any rule that says I can't and no rule that says it is inclusive of the shooting rules. It is not catorgorized in any way and is simpley named as a weapon. It's strength is governed by the weapon. not the shot. The AP is governed by the weapon not the shot.

No, the weapon's Strength (and other characteristics) don't work in the Assault phase. Instead of using the weapon's Strength, you use the firer's. Instead of using type to determine number of shots, you use the wielder's Attacks characteristics. So you can't really gain any Assault benefit from a Shooting attack (even if it were legal).

But let's talk about how you would use your meltagun in assault.

Here's the weapon's profile: Range 12" S8 AP1 Assault 1, Melta

Now let's look at the Weapons section to see what that means (BBB, p27).

Range doesn't apply in close combat (the Shooting phase rules prevent us from shooting when we are locked in combat).
Strength doesn't apply (we are told to use the model's Strength instead of the weapon's strength in close combat).
AP doesn't apply (we are told that you only use AP values in the Shooting phase).
Weapon type doesn't apply (you use the wielder's Attacks chacacteristic for close combat).
Additional Weapon Characteristics don't seem to apply either (at least I can't find any that apply).


So what benefit would get you if you used your meltagun in close combat?

[mkerr]

The existence of a description of the weapon doesn't give it qualities outside of the normal phase it was meant to have. In fact, the shooting attack isn't a thrown thunderhammer. It's a shooting attack with a profile for you to reference. It's an abstract approximation of what the developers thought a "thrown" weapon should achieve in the shooting phase. If the weapon was meant to stun, it would have a side-note in the profile. Or even something like "Strength 10 - AP1 - *Thunderhammer".

Okay, I'll bite. Let's discuss your claims:

1) "The existence of a description of the weapon doesn't give it qualities outside of the normal phase it was meant to have."

First of all, we aren't aguing the designer intention so "meant to have" doesn't apply. I can't find anything that leads me to conclude that I ingore the "stunning" affect of a thunder hammer that causes wounds outside of the Assault phase. If you can find something that says that, this argument wouldn't be happening.

2) "In fact, the shooting attack isn't a thrown hammer. It's a shooting attack with a profile for you to reference."

I don't know how you can conclude that it's not a thrown thunder hammer -- it's pretty clear that the thing that hits you in the face is still a thunder hammer. My Space Wolves codex tells me that "The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile". That means that Foehammer is a "ranged thunder hammer" -- it never ceases to be a thunder hammer and starts being something else.

3) "It's an abstract approximation of what the developers thought a "thrown" weapon should achieve in the shooting phase."

How do you know that? Is there an asterisk there that I missed that tells us what the designer was thinking when he wrote the passage? I'm working with what's printed and the printed entry tells me that it's still a thunder hammer when he uses it at range (that's what the word *is* means).

4) "If the weapon was meant to stun, it would have a side-note in the profile. Or even something like "Strength 10 - AP1 - *Thunderhammer".

I'm not arguing the designer's intention. I wouldn't be surprised at all that the ranged stunning effect is completely unintended. But we aren't discussing what the designer meant to happen -- we are discussing what he wrote.


The rest is just fluff. You can't just go around modifying rules because it "makes sense". That's not the rules as written, or even intended - just wish-listing. Don't be an idiot.

When you start tossing around phrases like "meant to have" and "if it was meant to stun, it would have a side-note" you aren't talking about the rules as written. If any arument seems to smack of trying to find out what "makes sense" and wish-listing, it's yours.

My arugment is based on two extremely clear sentences in the rulebook. I'm not modifying or twisting rules. I've shown them in-context and the rules support that Foehammer is still a thunder hammer when it's used as a ranged weapon.


The thunder hammer rules are in the 'close combat weapons' rules section. Once you use Foehammer as a ranged weapon it will stop being a CC weapon.

I'm not suggesting that Foehammer is a close combat weapon in the Shooting phase. I'm saying that "Foehammer is a thunder hammer" in the Shooting phase. And the thunder hammer rules (unlike other special close combat weapons) don't restrict the stunning effect to wounds caused in close combat.

The *location* of the rule matters a lot less than the *content* of the rule. As an earlier example, I showed that the Instant Death rules only appear in the Shooting phase section of the rules and are not mentioned at all in the Assault phase. It would be wrong to infer that Instant Death could only happen in the Shooting phase because of the location of the rule.

[hisdudeness]

@mkerr

I think you are missing the point (and to turn your point back on you). Yes the rules prove that Foehammer is a thunder hammer (even as a ranged weapon), but the thunder hammer is a rule as well an item name. The ranged Foehammer attack can be a thunder hammer all day long, but I see not place that says the thunder hammer RULE can be used in ranged combat.

rules do not apply and have no affect in ranged combat. Just like a meltagun has no effect in CC. Both of all the reasons you listed.

You say you are not twisting the rules, but I see no place that says TH rules can be used in ranged combat. GW has used USR's to allow abilities to cross phases. And I do not see thunder hammer listed on pages 74-76.

You keep asking us to show you where the rules stop you from do this. You have yet to show us any place where the rules permit TH rules to be used in ranged combat.

[Bikeninja]

@mkerrYou keep asking us to show you where the rules stop you from do this. You have yet to show us any place where the rules permit TH rules to be used in ranged combat.


I think because it says "it's a Thunderhammer".

But that is just me.

[hisdudeness]

I think because it says "it's a Thunderhammer".

But that is just me.

I 100% agree that it is a thunder hammer, but I see no place in the shooting rules (p 15-32) that say thunder hammer and the effect during such phase. Take rending, it is in both sections (p31 for shooting and p42 for assault) so it has an affect in both phases.

mkerr proved himself wrong with the melta example. His point is that the ranged weapon rules do not translate to CC, thus having no effect in CC. Yet he goes on the argue that a CCW weapon can apply its CCW rules to ranged combat. Can't have it both ways as some ranged weapons do have rules that can translate to CC (any weapon with rending..say an assault cannon).

If GW wanted to have the thunder hammer rule in the shooting phase my guess is they would add it to the codex as an exception, thus permiting you to do so. The point being made is that each phase has it own rules and any rules that transend phases are USRs and/or told they do.

[Nabterayl]

@mkerr

I think you are missing the point (and to turn your point back on you). Yes the rules prove that Foehammer is a thunder hammer (even as a ranged weapon), but the thunder hammer is a rule as well an item name. The ranged Foehammer attack can be a thunder hammer all day long, but I see not place that says the thunder hammer RULE can be used in ranged combat.
I think the point is that the thunder hammer rule itself does not restrict itself to close combat. For instance, consider the witchblade rule, which says "all hits scored in close combat by models armed with a witchblade inflict wounds on a roll of 2+," or the power weapons rule, which says "Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armour saves."

By contrast, the thunder hammer rule says simply "All models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn." The rulebook never says that thunder hammers only work in close combat, the way it does with a number of other special CCW types. It isn't a question of the thunder hammer rule being "extended" to ranged combat. It's a question of why the thunder hammer rule should be restricted to close combat.

[hisdudeness]

I believe it is restricted by being in the close combat weapons part of the assault rules. When you use Foehammer as a ranged weapon it is no longer a CCW and does not use CC rules. Again any rules that have effects in other phases say so. You make some good points about the wording but I don’t buy it. Basing an argument on grammar is stretching it, more so with GW poor editing skills.

What about 40k being a permissive rule set? It is pulled out when it fits one side of the argument and ignore it when it does not. Do the rules say any where that a CCW rule can be used in the shooting phase? Is the TH rule in the shooting phase section? Both are NO, thus not permitting you to do so.

It is a question of extending the rules. The rule permit you do things. How many times have you seen the ‘well it doesn’t say I can’t’ and the OP gets blasted with the permissive rule set thunder hammer to the head and/or shoulder area.

[Nabterayl]

Question for you, hisdudeness: if a chem cannon* hits a T1 model, what are the odds of the chem cannon wounding the model? 5/6, or 35/36? I'd say 35/36 - would you say 5/6?

* Profile: Template S1 AP3 Heavy 1 Poisoned (2+)*
* Against targets with a Toughness value, hits from a chem cannon will always wound on a roll of 2+

[DarkLink]

You really should follow your own advice.

It looks like everyone dissenting in this thread see the efforts of yourself, The OP and a few others as manipulation of a line of text to justify an extremely far-out there interpretation of the rules.

The existence of a description of the weapon doesn't give it qualities outside of the normal phase it was meant to have. In fact, the shooting attack isn't a thrown thunderhammer. It's a shooting attack with a profile for you to reference. It's an abstract approximation of what the developers thought a "thrown" weapon should achieve in the shooting phase. If the weapon was meant to stun, it would have a side-note in the profile. Or even something like "Strength 10 - AP1 - *Thunderhammer".

The rest is just fluff. You can't just go around modifying rules because it "makes sense". That's not the rules as written, or even intended - just wish-listing. Don't be an idiot.

Wait, did you call me an idiot? Way to be polite in a rules argument. I was having fun arguing over this until now.

Anyways, mkerr read certain key rules. From those rules, he came to a logical conclusion, that Foehammer stuns while shooting. I and a few others have come to support this argument, because we believe it is correct. If you want to think it's because we're a bunch of cheaters, go ahead.

Now, if you can find a flaw in the logic we use, or perhaps a misquoted rule that the argument is based on, point it out. Mkerr has presented his argument quite throughly. Because the argument still stands, some of us have come to accept it as correct, and the burden of proof, or in this case disproof, rests on the shoulders of those who don't agree with the argument.

So if you want to argue, show a little more maturity and actually present an alternative argument, instead of insulting people, accusing them of cheating, and simply stating that they're wrong because the argument isn't that popular. Popularity doesn't matter. Rules do.

Or, you can just houserule it to ensure that the argument is wrong. You and your gaming group has every right to do that.

[Bikeninja]

I know this is beating the proverbial dead horse but it reads to me"it's a thunderhammer". It gets all that a thunderhammer does AND the throwing stuff. That is not a stretch to me. I does not have to say "it lowers the initiative" because it says its a Thunderhammer and in the Thnuderhammer description it says if it does a wound then it lowers the iniative.

What I have gathered from this debate? If and when I play and this comes up, I'm letting my opponent decide. I think Mkerr reading is spot on and is correct. He (in my opinion)is not reading into anything but taking it as RAW. That is just me.

If we allowed ourselves to get into the RAW and RAI of everything people seem to take issue with then we would never get to play. Dirty trick, absolutely. Hard to pull off yep, gonna pull this on some a**hat powergamers for certain and watch them squirm. Or watch it fail and suffer another demoralizing defeat.

But that is just me!

[PhoenixFlame]

Basing an argument on grammar is stretching it, more so with GW poor editing skills.

Which is why this won't be settled until theres a faq/errata out to clear it up. Editing applies just as much to things like placement of sentences and structure of chapters/paragraphs/sentences.

For a direct example of this check out the rules listing for Power of the Machine Spirit


The interface between a Land Raider's machine spirit and tis fire control mechanisms allow the crew to target with incredible accuracy.
A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted. In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for shooting.
Therefore, a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a crew stunned or crew shaken result can fire a single weapon.


Now consider the wording of the rules from the BRB regarding Ramming and/or Smoke Launchers.
Neither of which are in the USR section of the book but both of which apply outside of their given phase. Add the ruling that Codex rules supersede core rules and you've got quite a few questions.
Some say only the 2nd paragraph is actual rules text leaving the 3rd as a list of examples outlining the type of uses PotMS can be put too. Others read it as 2 & 3 are both solid rules paragraphs with 3 being a list limiting the types of uses open to the player employing PotMS. With the first paragraph of the rules entry for PotMS clearly being fluff not hard rules text it becomes questionable which view is accurate (I have my opinion but that's not the point).

It could be argued that since RAW states both "foehammer is a thunderhammer" and All models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn." It is bluntly stated that thunderhammer effects apply. Since Codex rules > Core Rules and the only Codex rules we have to go by state it IS a thunderhammer & that it "can be used as a ranged weapon". Hence by RAW there is no room for debate since all other examples are being drawn from rules sources outside Codex: Space Wolves and thus have no jurisdiction to over rule anything printed there in.

Now, as stated in my prior post I can see how some players have objections to that reading of the rules. I can even see enough of a case for it that I wouldn't be too shocked if GW puts out a faq saying "nope, can't use TH special effects when throwing" (tho honestly I expect it to go the other way since it's a named model and not a game braking effect). The point I'm making here is that it's a bit over the top as far as I can tell to say that someone else is intentionally twisting the rules simply because they read it another way and have reasons for that. If it were a game breaking effect, then perhaps, there would be more reason to get heated over it. However since it's not unbalancing (in fact I'm not even sure it qualifies as effective on balance when all the special conditions to even do it are factored in on top of the points cost) I really don't see the case for exploitation.

2c
Phoenix

[The Mystic]

I think the point is that the thunder hammer rule itself does not restrict itself to close combat. For instance, consider the witchblade rule, which says "all hits scored in close combat by models armed with a witchblade inflict wounds on a roll of 2+," or the power weapons rule, which says "Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armour saves."

By contrast, the thunder hammer rule says simply "All models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn." The rulebook never says that thunder hammers only work in close combat, the way it does with a number of other special CCW types. It isn't a question of the thunder hammer rule being "extended" to ranged combat. It's a question of why the thunder hammer rule should be restricted to close combat.

Yes, but you are also forgetting one important line in the thunder hammer rule:

"A thunder hammer uses the same rules as a power fist."

In the power fist rule it says:

"A power fist is a power weapon, and also doubles the user's Strength (upto a maximum of10)."

So, a power fist is a power weapon and uses it's rules and a thunder hammer uses the rules of a powerfist.

Therefore a thunder hammer is a power weapon also and will use it's rules aswell as it's additional rules.

The thunder hammer rules are not stand alone rules, but simpley the power weapon rules with additions piled on top.

[hisdudeness]

@Nabterayl:

Where did you learn stat? Base probability (with all outcomes being equally likely) is # of required outcome over the # of outcomes in the sample space. For a roll of a d6 with X being the required outcome (this case a 2+) the sample space is {1,2,3,4,5,6}. While the required outcome is {2,3,4,5,6}. Thus P(x>=2) = 5/6. You will have to enlighten me on your math.

@bikeninja:

Yes it is a thunder hammer. But the game mechanic <thunder hammer> has no effect outside of CC. Show me a rule that permits the mechanic to apply outside of stated phase and I will give you a cookie. RAW does not say it does, so it does not. That is how permissive rules work.

@PhoenixFlame:

That is correct: only FAQ/errata will give us the RAI, until then we use RAW.

You have lost me on the smoke launcher/ramming. Both specifically state how/WHEN the mechanic functions.

The TH rules do not state it can be used outside of CC thus it is not permitted to be used outside of CC. Once you use it as a ranged weapon Foehammer stops being a CCW and does not use CCW rules. That is RAW, it does not state it can be used as a ranged weapon with the thunder hammer rules, it states it can be used as a ranged weapon with the stated profile. I do not see a note adding thunder hammer rules to the profile.

Look at it this way. You have a CC ‘profile’ given in the rules as “..is a thunder hammer..” and a ranged profile as given. Foehammer is 2 different weapons (rule wise) depending on how it is used. By your thinking I can mix and match combi weapon profiles. Thus giving me a 24” S8 AP1 Rapid Fire, melta (that can be used once) combi-melta.

I think the lighting claw example is perfect. I will put a lighting claw on my captains with stormbolter so I can “re-roll ANY failed roll to wound.” when I shoot with my SB. By RAW (and your thinking) it is allowed as I see nothing in the rules that say the mechanic only works in CC.

[The Mystic]

@Nabterayl:
I think the lighting claw example is perfect. I will put a lighting claw on my captains with stormbolter so I can “re-roll ANY failed roll to wound.” when I shoot with my SB. By RAW (and your thinking) it is allowed as I see nothing in the rules that say the mechanic only works in CC.

Actually there is:

"A lightning claw is a power weapon and it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound."

The key here, aswell as with the Thunder hammer, is that these weapons are power weapons and are governed by the power weapon rules as to what phase there wounds apply.

Power weapons and the wounds they cause are governed by close combat which only occurs in the assualt phase.

Did'nt mean to nitpick but this supports my view and I believe supports yours aswell.;)

[MVBrandt]

It is funny that this is still going on, and that no actual answer has been posted even now to the lightning claw argument. Also, "hisdudeness" looks to be getting as frustrated with responses not answering his argument as I was.

For the mods of BOLS, it seems apparent this thread has fallen into the world of stubborn internet incongruent argument, no?

Arguing in the box of "IT'S A THUNDAR HAMMAR SO IT DOES THUNDAR HAMMAR THINGS!!11111111111111" is absurdly funny.

[mkerr]

It is funny that this is still going on, and that no actual answer has been posted even now to the lightning claw argument. Also, "hisdudeness" looks to be getting as frustrated with responses not answering his argument as I was.

I've addressed the lightning claw example in post #52 (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=32172&postcount=52) and post #55 (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=32257&postcount=55). Not liking my answer is not the same thing as "not anwering".

I'm sure there are frustrated people on both sides of the argument, but that's no excuse for namecalling.

[MVBrandt]

You're such an mkerr, mkerr. How's that for name calling?

It's not that I didn't like your lightning claw argument, it's that it was non-responsive. I actually kind of like your argument, b/c it nullifies your thunder hammer argument. But hold off on that thought for a moment. The first thought is - your argument is not an answer to mine b/c it isn't responsive to the point I'm making, at all. You just talk about the same subject (lightning claws). You don't address the specific point about them I'm trying to illustrate.

You stated that the re-roll to wound rule fell under the Lightning Claw Section. That's non-responsive.

The rule itself simply states that wielding a lightning claw confers a re-roll ANY to wound upon the bearer. It does not specify that it is attacks with the lightning claw, or even close combat attacks, which re-roll to wound.

Therefore, in order to be responsive to the argument, you need to actually address the rule, not simply the fact that it falls under a certain section. If you can simply argue that something doesn't work because it falls under a section, then we instantly go back to the fact that thunder hammer special rules fall under the special CLOSE COMBAT weapon section, and so are non-functional at range.

You can't have it both ways, in other words.

The very nature of the lightning claw rule, AS WRITTEN, renders wielders of lightning claws able to re-roll ANY roll to wound from ANY weapon at range or in combat, *so long as* "Special Close Combat Weapon" rules are allowed to apply to ranged attacks.

So, to wit, again, it's not answering the argument when you don't respond to the actual argument. If someone goes "the sky is blue, therefore blue is the color of the sky," you are not answering the argument by saying "did you know that the sky contains air?" In other words, simply replying does not mean you are answering. It just means you're talking about the same subject.

The frustration I at the least am feeling at this thread, is that responses to legit arguments are not being made, with instead people simply answering arguments that are slightly different, but about basically the same subjects, so as to be correct.

[Nabterayl]

@Nabterayl:

Where did you learn stat? Base probability (with all outcomes being equally likely) is # of required outcome over the # of outcomes in the sample space. For a roll of a d6 with X being the required outcome (this case a 2+) the sample space is {1,2,3,4,5,6}. While the required outcome is {2,3,4,5,6}. Thus P(x>=2) = 5/6. You will have to enlighten me on your math.
The chem cannon says that it is Poisoned. As you know, a Poisoned weapon allows you to re-roll failed rolls to wound against targets of Toughness equal to or lesser than "the Strength of the wielder," which makes Poisoned a more complex effect than merely wounding on an n+, regardless of Toughness. It seems to me that the inclusion of Poisoned in the chem cannon's profile gives it access to this effect (not that there are any T1 models in the game I'm aware of at present), which would mean that it has a 35/36 chance to wound a T1 model.

My point was that the chem cannon seems to be an example of a ranged weapon that has been given a special rule found only on page 42.


@bikeninja:

Yes it is a thunder hammer. But the game mechanic <thunder hammer> has no effect outside of CC. Show me a rule that permits the mechanic to apply outside of stated phase and I will give you a cookie. RAW does not say it does, so it does not. That is how permissive rules work.
If the rule was "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with a range of 6", counting as an assault 1 weapon," would you not agree that the codex demanded that the thunder hammer mechanic apply to the ranged attack?

If the answer to the above is yes, (i) why does the inclusion of a weapon profile change your answer or (ii) in the alternative, why do you read "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" as the same as "Foehammer can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile?"


Look at it this way. You have a CC ‘profile’ given in the rules as “..is a thunder hammer..” and a ranged profile as given. Foehammer is 2 different weapons (rule wise) depending on how it is used. By your thinking I can mix and match combi weapon profiles. Thus giving me a 24” S8 AP1 Rapid Fire, melta (that can be used once) combi-melta.

I think the lighting claw example is perfect. I will put a lighting claw on my captains with stormbolter so I can “re-roll ANY failed roll to wound.” when I shoot with my SB. By RAW (and your thinking) it is allowed as I see nothing in the rules that say the mechanic only works in CC.
This goes back to the old "using" vs. "equipped with" debate. The lead-in paragraph to the lightning claw rules list re-rolling any failed rolls to wound as a benefit conferred to a model "using" a lightning claw. If you are of the opinion that "using" is equivalent to "equipped with," then you are absolutely correct, RAW would permit a lightning claw's re-roll benefit to extend to any attacks made by the model so equipped.

I am not of the opinion. There is a difference, in my mind, between "using" a special CCW and being "equipped with" it. If you had a piece of wargear that said "This is a lightning claw that may be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" I would absolutely agree that the lightning claw re-roll carried over to the ranged attack. Similarly, I would not agree that a meltagun-equipped S4 model can roll 2d6 for armor penetration in assault against a vehicle, because the meltagun is not being "used" in assault, and thus the "[Melta weapons] roll an extra D6 hen rolling to penetrate a vehicle's Armour Value at half range or less" rule on page 32 is not triggered.

Foehammer seems different to me because the codex says it is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon. There really is nothing to it other than that when it comes to why I think the thunder hammer mechanic has been extended beyond CC in this case. The rule also gives Foehammer a ranged weapon profile. As I indicated above, I don't think that was strictly necessary, although it avoids some doubt as to what the Strength of the attack would be if only a range and weapon type were given, and it adds the AP1 effect. I'll repeat my query as to why you view the profile as making the words "is a thunder hammer that" mere dicta.

[MVBrandt]

This goes back to the old "using" vs. "equipped with" debate. The lead-in paragraph to the lightning claw rules list re-rolling any failed rolls to wound as a benefit conferred to a model "using" a lightning claw. If you are of the opinion that "using" is equivalent to "equipped with," then you are absolutely correct, RAW would permit a lightning claw's re-roll benefit to extend to any attacks made by the model so equipped.

I am not of the opinion. There is a difference, in my mind, between "using" a special CCW and being "equipped with" it. If you had a piece of wargear that said "This is a lightning claw that may be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" I would absolutely agree that the lightning claw re-roll carried over to the ranged attack. Similarly, I would not agree that a meltagun-equipped S4 model can roll 2d6 for armor penetration in assault against a vehicle, because the meltagun is not being "used" in assault, and thus the "[Melta weapons] roll an extra D6 hen rolling to penetrate a vehicle's Armour Value at half range or less" rule on page 32 is not triggered.

Foehammer seems different to me because the codex says it is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon. There really is nothing to it other than that when it comes to why I think the thunder hammer mechanic has been extended beyond CC in this case. The rule also gives Foehammer a ranged weapon profile. As I indicated above, I don't think that was strictly necessary, although it avoids some doubt as to what the Strength of the attack would be if only a range and weapon type were given, and it adds the AP1 effect. I'll repeat my query as to why you view the profile as making the words "is a thunder hammer that" mere dicta.

You are not quoting the lightning claw rule correctly. It is not the lead-in, but the very end of the lightning claw rules that state any model WIELDING a lightning claw may re-roll ANY failed roll to wound. That's it. It does not say in close combat, it does not say wounds caused by the lightning claw, it does not say any failed roll to wound from the lightning claw. Trust me when I say, or google if you don't trust me, that wielding is not the same as "using" or "swinging" or anything. It's akin to either equipped with, or expertly skilled with. Also, conversationally, if you are wielding a shield and sword, you do not cease to wield the shield just b/c you are swinging the sword.

Again, the argument is not about the lightning claw being thrown or rolling to wound with it. The argument is that the pure RAW of lightning claws would enable ANY attacks ranged or not to re-roll to wound from a model with a lightning claw, IF special close combat weapon rules are legally applicable to range. I would argue that because they fall under the Special Close Combat Weapon section, they are not. This is not "Special Ranged Weapons."

If anyone wants to argue that Thunder Hamnmers work b/c the Special Close Combat Weapon section doesn't say "only applying to attacks made by these weapons in close combat" ... well, you better respect the lightning claw effects too, or your double standard is as hypocritical as it gets.


An additional note ...

If there is a section of a legal document, entitled "Murder," followed by a series of codes governing the effects of murder, there does not need to be a subsection under the word "Murder" stating "all of the following only applies to murders, and not other crimes." Why? Because the title of the section is MURDER, so obviously it applies to murders only.

To wit, when a section lists the rules for special CLOSE COMBAT weapons, it does not need to subsequently say "these rules do not apply to range." It has already done so, by all requirements of what a RULE is, when it has entitled the entire section CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS, instead of "SPECIAL WEAPONS."

As such, a Thunder Hammer is NOT a "special ranged weapon," even though it certainly IS a "special close combat weapon." The section goes on to detail to you WHY it is a special close combat weapon, but at not point renders it a special ranged weapon. Fortunately, Foehammer is ALSO a special ranged weapon, with a profile given by the codex. You'll note that they do not include any asterisk suddenly applying the rules for special CLOSE COMBAT weapons to range in the single instance of Foehammer. They've instead chosen to liberally deliver to you a wonderful ranged attack profile (at BS5 no doubt). That you wish for the rules for special CLOSE COMBAT weapons to apply to RANGED weapons also is very nice, but nonsensical in the extreme.

The analogies are a million fold.

If you have a nail gun, and nail guns spike nails into things you aim them at. It just so happen that I have the NAILERATOR, which is a nail gun that can also be used as a laser pointer. When I turn the laser pointer on, nails do not go flying out of it into the wall 20 feet away, however cool it would be. Reality does not let me apply the laws governing what a NAIL GUN does to the laws governing what a LASER POINTER does, even if my nail gun is so special that it has the ability to be used as a laser pointer also.


A final note: the only argument I am interested in heavily defending and seeing answered is the Lightning Claw example, and how it is utilized to reinforce the fact that you don't get to just randomly apply an entire rules section limited to close combat BY RULES WRITTEN IN GIANT BOLD LETTERS IN THE BRB. None of my other points are anything other than analogies and light arguments to support my point. Responding to them, but brushing over or not replying to the lightning claw issue, is not an effective counter, and will only yield likely frustrated replies from me and others.

[DarkLink]

@Nabterayl:

Where did you learn stat? Base probability (with all outcomes being equally likely) is # of required outcome over the # of outcomes in the sample space. For a roll of a d6 with X being the required outcome (this case a 2+) the sample space is {1,2,3,4,5,6}. While the required outcome is {2,3,4,5,6}. Thus P(x>=2) = 5/6. You will have to enlighten me on your math.


His point is that Poisoned weapons are ONLY defined under the CCW section. They are never mentioned in the Shooting section. However, the Banewolf or whatever has a shooting poisoned attack. So it wounds on a 2+, and against T1 it gets a reroll due to the poisoned rules.

However, by your previous logic, that CCW rules only ever apply to CCW and never ever shooting weapons, the Banewolf would not get the reroll. His point is actually a really good one, showing that your assumption that CCW rules can only ever apply to CCWs is incorrect. Kinda hurts your whole argument.


I know this is beating the proverbial dead horse but it reads to me"it's a thunderhammer". It gets all that a thunderhammer does AND the throwing stuff. That is not a stretch to me. I does not have to say "it lowers the initiative" because it says its a Thunderhammer and in the Thnuderhammer description it says if it does a wound then it lowers the iniative.


Totally feel the same way. People keep popping up saying "but mkerr, what about this", and mkerr calmly points out why their point does not invalidate his argument. No one has been able to produce an actual rule that contradicts his argument. I mean, one guy even called me an idiot, to my face, because I agreed with mkerr.

[Rapture]

I think the people who don't agree are currently doing it mostly out of stubbornness, pride, or bias. There doesn't seem to be any clear reason for the ranged thunder hammer to stop being a thunder hammer.

However, I am open minded and would like to have a decent grasp on the rules so those opposed feel free to argue if you have something valid.

[MVBrandt]

/facepalm

[Nabterayl]

You are not quoting the lightning claw rule correctly. It is not the lead-in, but the very end of the lightning claw rules that state any model WIELDING a lightning claw may re-roll ANY failed roll to wound. That's it. It does not say in close combat, it does not say wounds caused by the lightning claw, it does not say any failed roll to wound from the lightning claw.
It says that a lightning claw "allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound," yes. This does not change my point. The lead-in to the SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS section states, and the FAQ clarifies, that a model using one of the special CCWs enumerated in that section benefits from the bonuses and penalties of the weapon when "using" it. Which brings us to the question of wielding versus using:

Trust me when I say, or google if you don't trust me, that wielding is not the same as "using" or "swinging" or anything.
I strongly disagree. If I am describing a warrior sitting calmly at the other end of the room drinking a mug of cider, who habitually fights with a sword and shield, I may say to my friend, "That man wields a sword and shield" and I would not be misusing the word, because I would be speaking of the general case. However, if he has a sword and shield on his person while he is drinking a mug of cider, it would not be correct to say to my friend, "That man is currently wielding a sword and shield," because I would be speaking of a specific case. Nor would it be correct if I witnessed him, while fighting with sword and shield, kill his foe with the edge of his sword and later reported it by saying, "That man wielded his shield, and slew his foe," despite the fact that he was, at the time, wielding a shield.

However, if you believe that "the wielder" in the lightning claw rules means "the holder," then I agree that your interpretation is internally consistent. If one were to believe as you do with respect to the meaning of "the wielder" in the lightning claw rules, I would agree that one should also think that giving a model with a lightning claw allowed that model to re-roll any failed rolls to wound, regardless of which weapon the model was using at the time.

I emphatically do not believe you are giving the verb its proper meaning in this context.* Consequently I come to a different conclusion than you do. If one were to believe, as I do, that "the wielder" refers to a model that is using the lightning claw to attack at the time in question, would you not agree that one should also think that the lightning claw allowed that model to re-roll only those failed rolls to wound made when the model was attacking with the lightning claw? And would you not also agree that, if you were ever presented in a codex with a lightning claw that could be used as a ranged weapon, you could re-roll failed rolls to wound when using that special lightning claw as a ranged weapon?

* I think that there is evidence that the rulebook takes my view of things when it says "[Special close combat weapons] include more complex and powerful systems that enhance the wielder's combat skills and confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to the models using them." "To wield" and "to use" seem to be used interchangeably in that sentence, which leads me to believe that the rule writer understood "to wield" as having the same meaning as "to use." However, as I said, if "to wield" is taken to mean "to have on one's person," your argument is quite correct.

[MVBrandt]

Well enough stated, but the catch is that even your lead-in sentence identifies wielder and user differently, and uses them to represent different things ... namely, when a wielder is actively using.

As such, while a person must be using a lightning claw to ignore armor saves, a la the power weapon rule referenced, as long as he is simply wielding it, he confers the "any" wound re-roll that is a significant component of my argument.


Now, arguing about the intended use and meaning of an individual word begins to enter a realm of rules lawyering depth that is beyond any sort of enjoyment for me.

Utilizing the English language, context, and even the context of your above sentence, I'm comfortable with my application of wield.

If you want to utilize it differently, be my guest. I'm not here to win anything. I'm firmly confident that the thunder hammer affecting (I) when used at range is both illegal, and bad rules lawyering. I don't mean this offensively, it's just where I sit. I've done my best to illustrate the "why" behind this, to the satisfaction of some and the dissatisfaction of others. I am not going to think highly of someone just for disagreeing with me, nor should anyone think highly of me just b/c I disagree with them.

There's no "winning" arguments on the internet, and I'm certainly not here to win mine. My wide circle of gaming associates in the DC area (the ones I have talked to on the subject) all pretty much see this one the same way, so the result of the discussion has no meaningful bearing on me. If the BOLS meta community wishes to see it that way, it's also of no meaningful impact on me ... I just didn't think something that quite clearly is not firmly believed to be one way or another should find its way to a supposedly "expert" article on a popular blog.

Editorially, I rather wish the equivalent depth of "random forum poster who writes well" should remain in forums, and such things as 40k blogs should stick to news and rumors. This game is neither so deep, nor so professionally established (there are no "major leagues" for 40k) that self-styled internet experts are well placed outside of a conversational forum. It draws unnecessary criticism to people who are just sharing their thoughts and feelings on the game, as MKerr did here. That is to say, M, that while I don't think you are an expert to the point of being a legitimate BOLS (or any other popular site) article poster, I don't think I or anybody else (including GW personnel) really is either. It's like being a "Risk expert." Your opinions were certainly based off a visible level of education and intelligence (you can write well), but when something is not clear-cut or FAQ'ed, it was a little strange to see it advocated for as if it were an "obvious" fact.

Rambling, here :)

In short, I apologize if anything I've written came off as openly, angrily critical. None of it was; and I hold in relative esteem the majority of the contributors to this thread.

[Nabterayl]

Well enough stated, but the catch is that even your lead-in sentence identifies wielder and user differently, and uses them to represent different things ... namely, when a wielder is actively using.
I'm not sure where you're getting that. Is your claim that the lead-in paragraph says that a model gains all of a special CCW's bonuses by virtue of owning (i.e., "wielding") each special CCW, and but that a model only suffers the penalty of a special CCW when the model is using that particular special CCW? Because I don't see any other distinction to be drawn between the wielder and the user in that sentence.

EDIT:
Regardless, I've conceded that, if one defines "to wield" as "to have on one's person," then your argument is correct. What I haven't conceded is that that is the correct definition of "to wield" in this context.

I don't think we can go back and forth on what "to wield" means in context more than once or twice before we just start accusing each other of not knowing how to speak English, which won't be helpful :p So I'm willing to discuss the vernacular meaning of "to wield" for a bit, but if we can't reach agreement quickly then I think it would be more helpful to discuss the two cases separately.

I've conceded that, if your reading of "to wield" is correct, then you are also correct that a lightning claw allows the "wielder" (i.e., a model with a lightning claw) to re-roll all failed rolls to wound, even those not inflicted by a lightning claw.

Do you concede that, if my reading of "to wield" is correct, then a lightning claw only allows the "wielder" (i.e., a model currently attacking with a lightning claw) to re-roll only failed rolls to wound inflicted by a lightning claw?

[MVBrandt]

I do, but read above - I've kind of said my piece here, and don't want to draw down a higher order argument to English / diction. Suffice to say that the heading RULES that these are all CLOSE COMBAT weapon rules.

Basically in short, the very heading of the section delineates taht the rules only apply to close combat, b/c these are the rules for close combat weapons. It does not matter that the same weapon in the case of Foehammer is being used AS a ranged weapon. It is not being used as a thunder hammer, but as "Foehammer, ranged weapon with profile: xyz" ... just like any weapon at range is a ranged weapon, and cannot benefit from rules specifically TITLED as "close combat."

If people would like to believe that you can ignore the heading as not part of the rules (which is absurd), they can be my guest.

Thunder Hammer is a SUB heading of the heading Special Close Combat Weapons. As such, any rules governed under there ONLY apply to close combat weapons. When Foehammer is being used at range, it is not a close combat weapon OBVIOUSLY, and so cannot benefit from rules relegated to CLOSE COMBAT weapons. It doesn't get simpler than this, and it is abusively ignoring the rules of the game to treat Thunder Hammer as if it is its own entry separate from the rest.

Headings are part of the rules, guys.

[dagonis]

Poisoned weapons
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+ (as described in the appropriate Codex). 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.

Poisoned weapons do not get to reroll because iirc they do not have a str characteristic (hellfire rounds are S X AP 5 Rapid Fire Poisoned (2+)). So the reroll poisoned weapon rule remains a uniquely CC rule.

[ShadowDeth]

Wait, did you call me an idiot? Way to be polite in a rules argument. I was having fun arguing over this until now.


I did. This argument is the very definition of idiocy. It's a stretched interpretation based on grammar. It doesn't even follow GWS syntax, so I can't even begin to see where anyone would come up with this far out there conclusion.


Anyways, mkerr read certain key rules. From those rules, he came to a logical conclusion, that Foehammer stuns while shooting. I and a few others have come to support this argument, because we believe it is correct. If you want to think it's because we're a bunch of cheaters, go ahead.

Now, if you can find a flaw in the logic we use, or perhaps a misquoted rule that the argument is based on, point it out. Mkerr has presented his argument quite throughly. Because the argument still stands, some of us have come to accept it as correct, and the burden of proof, or in this case disproof, rests on the shoulders of those who don't agree with the argument.

He didn't come to a logical conclusion. That's the big error here, in your camp. He mistook the existence of flavor text as a hard, in game rule. That's not how Warhammer works. You don't just start adding rules to powers or weapons because "it's logical."

The best part is, you, him and others are all claiming you're just going on the rules as written. You're clearly not. The rules as written show that models hit with Arjac's shooting attack suffer a strength 10, AP 1 hit. This is starting to become entirely too hilarious that one fluff word is being twisted to mean it acts like the CCW in the shooting phase. While we're at it, why don't we allow Arjac his hammer to have a chance of having a deepstrike mishap on the way back to his gauntlet?. I mean, his Hammer teleports back to him - why not place a token and let it scatter? Those are the rules governing "teleporting" in 40k - why don't they apply to his ranged thunderhammer? And where are the rules for his "massive, rune etched" gauntlet? Maybe they should allow him to act like a powerfist in close combat if he doesn't want to use Foehammer? See how silly this line of thought is?


So if you want to argue, show a little more maturity and actually present an alternative argument, instead of insulting people, accusing them of cheating, and simply stating that they're wrong because the argument isn't that popular. Popularity doesn't matter. Rules do.

Or, you can just houserule it to ensure that the argument is wrong. You and your gaming group has every right to do that.

I don't need to show maturity with anyone who can't even follow basic rules interpretations. You, and everyone that agrees with the ruling that his "shooting attack" stuns because of fluff is flat out a cheater, or just not very intelligent. Either way, I wouldn't play against any of those options.

The alternate argument has been made many times by people in this thread, and myself. You can't extrapolate rules out of thin air, and that's what I see happening.

And finally, toughen up. I know it's very comforting to assume because I called you an idiot I'm a big ol' internet toughguy - and as such my argument is flawed because I resorted to ad hominem attacks. Sadly, people do exist in the world that are abrasive and also totally know what they are talking about.

[dagonis]

I think we need to bombard GW with this question so they can address it in the FAQ. Is there a certain method to do this?

[MVBrandt]

I think being abrasive on the internet is overrated and cliche, so I think you hurt yourself by following that approach, and distract people from legitimacy in your arguments. That said, the last line paragrpah was entertaining. There are no such things as real, dangerous tough guys in the 40k world. Nobody is intimidating to the point that they are ... well ... intimidating. Someone trying to be intimidating over the subject of little toy soldier is just a douche.

Regardless, you are correct about flavor text.

Let us provide an example:

Five models can fire from the Chimera's top hatch. In reality, several are firing from the fixed lasgun emplacements along either flank, but for simplicity we assume all shots to be taken from the hatch. (p.39, Imperial Guard Codex).

This is IDENTICAL in its implications to "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:"

In short, the fact that the flavor text in the rule addresses something to be a de facto xyz is IRRELEVANT when rules are clearly provided with the actual effect. Just as those "fixed lasgun emplacements" can actually be 4 meltaguns and a plasma pistol stats-wise, and aren't required to be used as LASGUNS like the rule says they actually IN REALITY are, you don't get to use SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON abilities for a ranged weapon profile.

What's happening here is people are going I DON'T CARE THAT IT HAS A RANGED PROFILE ALREADY, I WANT TO ADD TO IT, BECAUSE IT SAYS FOEHAMMER IS A THUNDER HAMMER AND THUNDER HAMMERS REDUCE INITIATIVE!

Well, try looking at a guard player the next time he fires meltaguns out of his chimera hatch and telling him I DON'T CARE THAT THE RULES ALLOW THAT EXPLICITLY, IT SAYS IN REALITY THOSE ARE FIXED LASGUN EMPLACEMENTS BEING FIRED SO YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE LASGUNS HAVE A PROFILE ALREADY AND LASGUNS AREN'T S8AP1 MELTA!

It doesn't matter what the flavor text says. What matters is that thunder hammer special close combat weapon attacks resulting in a failed save reduce a target's initiative to 1 until the end of the following turn. Foehammer's ranged profile does not say "poisoned weapon," or "lightning claw," or "thunder hammer." It specifically says Range 6", S10, AP1, Assault 1. It does not say Assault 1, Special. It does not say Assault 1, Thunder Hammer, etc. etc. The rule is clearly delineated, following a short bit of text explaining why it has a ranged rule to begin with, just as the Chimera has text explaining why it has five firepoints. Just as the Chimera text stating IN REALITY LASGUNS does not render you unable to fire anything else from the hatch, the Foehammer text saying it's a thunder hammer with a ranged profile does not render you able to attach unwritten applications to the already clearly delinated ranged profile.

Yes, it's a thunder hammer, just like those meltaguns from the Chimera are fixed lasgun emplacements. I'm quite serious.

I really understand the desire here, but it isn't the rules. It's a translation of flavor text to CHANGING a written, rules profile from what it is to what people WANT it to be.

[Nabterayl]

Headings are part of the rules, guys.
This was the reason I brought up the chem cannon. If the above statement is true, then the chem cannon wounds all models on a 2+. If the above statement is not true, then the chem cannon wounds T1 models on a 2+, with a re-roll for failed rolls to wound. I contend that the chem cannon must get the re-roll, because Poisoned is written into its weapon profile. Do you disagree?


Poisoned weapons do not get to reroll because iirc they do not have a str characteristic (hellfire rounds are S X AP 5 Rapid Fire Poisoned (2+)). So the reroll poisoned weapon rule remains a uniquely CC rule.
Oftentimes that is true. However, the chem cannon, whose profile I quoted for those without access to the new IG codex, does have a Strength, says it is Poisoned, and is definitely a ranged weapon. That is why I brought it up.

[MVBrandt]

Regarding the Chem Cannon, and relating it, if Foehammer's ranged profile had Assault 1, Thunder Hammer, I would totally be down. Permissive rules sets require permission to create rules, or apply fixed rules to abnormal situations.

I really want readers to not miss the above commentary re: chimera fire points rule in relation to Foehammer ranged weapon rule ... check that while you're at it.

[hisdudeness]

@Nabterayl:

AH, forgot about the affect for poison. But your probability math is off. The sample space is {1,2,3,4,5,6}. Let event A equal the outcomes for a failed wound roll, so A={1}. Thus the probability of A, or P(A), is 1/6. Let event B equal the outcomes to pass the second wound roll, so B={2,3,4,5,6}. Thus P(B)=5/6.

When you have 2 independent events that you want to know the probability of happening at the same time you multiply the 2 probabilities together. 1/6 * 5/6= 5/36. My guess is you are using Congressional math to come to your answer of 35/36 otherwise you will have to explain it to me.

Back to point, that is what I have been asking for. GW has set a precedent for a CC ability being used in another phase. But I refer you to the note on p42 for the poisoned ability (see the * and the note right below the profile…no over the left a little...yea, right there). [for Darklink] If it is normal to use the ability outside of CC why the need of the note? I don’t think it is a friendly reminder on the poison rules. You have used another exception to the standard to try to explain yours (how many other poisoned ranged weapons are there). And also with the poison ability being stated in the rules for chem. cannon it now permits you to use the CCW rule in ranged combat.

Point 2, you added in the poison (no pun intended) words of ‘count as’ which has a mechanic all in itself. You also can not go and reword the rule as you see fit. RAW is RAW, not reworded to fit my point. I see no opening paragraph that says you "use" the LC to receive the re-roll. I see a “…commonly used in pairs...” and see no other occurrence of the word “use.”

You “believe” the mechanic has been extended. But have failed to show where the rules state it is extended. Show me a permissive rule and you will have my vote.

“I'll repeat my query as to why you view the profile as making the words "is a thunder hammer that" mere dicta.”

Answer: because that is the mechanic for when Foehammer is used in CC. If used as a ranged weapon you use the ranged weapon profile…as is, not adding abilities not included in the ranged combat section. The “it never stops being a TH” argument fails. There is a TH mechanic that is used for CC. Once you use it as a ranged weapon you use ranged weapon rules. If Foehammer is a CC that is used as a ranged weapon (as opposed to a TH with a separate ranged profile) does your target receive a cover save from the ‘ranged’ CCW as there is not cover saves in CC. Why not pick all the CC rules we want to use with the TH as a ranged weapon, after all it is a CCW and should follow the CC rules and not the rules for shooting.

Savvy?

[ShadowDeth]

This guy really just wrote savvy.

I think I love you, hisdudeness. :o

The last paragraph is really the crux of my counter-argument. If we're going to start adding CC abilities to a ranged attack, why stop at just the one we want? We could farm it for cover, combat resolution, initiative strikes, maybe two "thunder-hammer" throws? I'm pretty sure Arjac (my book is somewhere not at my desk) has something like 4 base attacks - let's just throw the hammer 4 times. 5 with the shield doubling as a thunder-hammer second CCW compatible add-on.

[Nabterayl]

Regarding the Chem Cannon, and relating it, if Foehammer's ranged profile had Assault 1, Thunder Hammer, I would totally be down.
So, let me ask you the same question I earlier asked hisdudeness. Suppose the rule simply said "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon." This would leave us with lots of questions such as what the range of the ranged weapon was, and what type of weapon (pistol, assault, rapid fire, or heavy) it was too. But would you agree that, if this were all the rule said, it would be clear to all that Foehammer's ranged attack was S10, ignored armor saves, and inflicted the stunning attack? And would you agree that we would know those facts due to the words "is a thunder hammer?"

If so, am I correct that it is the inclusion of the profile that causes you to change the meaning you give to those words? In other words, without the profile you would treat "is a thunder hammer" as "rules" and with the profile you treat "is a thunder hammer" as mere flavor text (what we call in my profession "dicta" - "just talking" or "just words")?
If I've correctly anticipated your hypothetical responses so far (and maybe I haven't, which is fair), can you articulate a principle as to why the switch?


I really want readers to not miss the above commentary re: chimera fire points rule in relation to Foehammer ranged weapon rule ... check that while you're at it.
This is a good point, although, if I may, I think it's disrespectful to assume that people who are arguing for Foehammer's ranged attack having the "thunder hammer" mechanic are doing so because they want an advantage, which your last post suggested. For instance, I don't play space wolves, and the only person in my gaming group who does is also my most skilled opponent. To the extent I "want" Foehammer to have the thunder hammer mechanic, it's because I think it would be awesome, not because it would give me an "advantage." Quite the opposite.

The difference I see is that the Foehammer question is whether a clause is a rule or mere flavor text. The reason this is a question is because if the clause is taken as a rule, it adds something. If it is taken as mere flavor text, it doesn't. Treating the clause as a rule has a different outcome than treating it is as flavor text, which is why there is a question of whether it is flavor text in the first place.

As I said before, I think you make a very good point. Let me try to articulate a distinction, and see if you agree that the cases are not identical after all. In the case of the Chimera's hull lasguns, the clause in question is "several are firing from the fixed lasgun emplacements along either flank," right? We have to decide whether that is a "rule" or whether it is mere flavor text.

The argument in favor of it being a "rule" is twofold. First, the codex says "are firing from the fixed lasgun emplacements." That, taken by itself, certainly suggests that three of the five shots must be from lasguns, with the remaining two firing from the top hatch (which, we may infer, counts as a 360-degree firing point for up to two models). Second, if the clause is treated as a "rule," it would reflect the reality of what is "actually happening" on the battlefield. Each of these has an analogy in the Foehammer case.

In the case of the Chimera, however, we can construct a situation where neither statement is true. A Chimera's six fixed lasgun emplacements, in reality, can only fire to the side. Up to two of them can (arguably) fire forward, and up to two of them can (arguably) fire backward. Yet the codex permits five models to fire from the hatch, with a 360-degree field of fire. In other words, five models can fire forward, and five models can fire backward. If five lasguns are fired forward from the Chimera's hatch, then only two of them may be firing from the fixed lasgun emplacements. The remaining three must be firing from the hatch. We now have reason to question the capacity of the top hatch - is it two models? Is it three? Is it five ("all shots to be taken from the hatch")? This causes the second statement to fail as well. It's not even really clear what is "actually happening" on the battlefield.

These difficulties cause me (and I suspect most people) to treat the questioned clause as mere flavor text. With Foehammer, there is no situation that can be constructed that presents similar difficulties. The absence of difficulties doesn't make Foehammer's ranged attack a thunder hammer, of course - we must look to other arguments for that, if we can find them. But the absence of difficulties does, I submit, make the Foehammer case not identical in its implications to the Chimera case, as you suggest.

[MVBrandt]

I don't think the presence or absence of difficulties are really an issue. There are inherent difficulties w/ the thunder hammer b/c of the giant leap required to completely ignore the rule inherent to the heading Special Close Combat Weapons, in order to fulfill the flavor text of "Foehammer is a thunder hammer with a ranged profile ..."

I see you trying to make a distinction, but it is neither necessary nor argumentative. Obviously they are not identical, but they are both referring to weapons in such a way that if you took the flavor text as bible, would totally change the operation of the unit and the rules of the game, etc. etc. Articulating a difference between one situation, and an analogous one, is ... pointless. They are different examples, with the same implications. The implications are not changed by your articulation.


I appreciate your statement that my argument is good ... I hope it will simply be seen as the implicit truth of the situation.

As for advantages/etc. ... the main purpose I'm trying to get at here is that the thunder hammer application from close combat magically out to ranged for Foehammer would be a benefit, and that is where this is trying to be extrapolated from ... reading deeply into the Chimera flavor text in such a way as to strip a guard player of a benefit would never occur ... which is why it isn't talked about often. In other words, I wasn't criticizing, simply stating why the Foehammer issue was even an issue, and why the Chimera one was not ... it really is OBVIOUS what the rule is. If it really was possible to create rules out of flavor text, you'd see the chimera thing argued and many other things argued, beneficial or not. This is a semantics game at best, even if the original proponents had more honorable intentions.

... but some intelligence + some semantics + a benefit to be gleaned will always yield an internet argument, b/c it's something that can't be "lost," only conceded.

Mkerr and others here advocating for the use can reiterate their own arguments or portions of them until they are blue in the face, and will never be "proven" right or wrong. Neither will I, in corollary.

As such, this is all getting rather trivial. While I think a concession on the part of the proponents of I reduction is in order, and perhaps they think the same, it's not going to happen. I won't ever play this way, and would be happy to take a 0 sportsmanship at a tournament to argue it. Not out of spite or malice, but out of a firm commitment to playing a game by the rules. Same reason I think the INAT FAQ from Adepticon is written by a bunch of loser weenies, based off the Deffrolla doesn't hit vehicles ruling.

[Nabterayl]

@Nabterayl:

AH, forgot about the affect for poison. But your probability math is off. The sample space is {1,2,3,4,5,6}. Let event A equal the outcomes for a failed wound roll, so A={1}. Thus the probability of A, or P(A), is 1/6. Let event B equal the outcomes to pass the second wound roll, so B={2,3,4,5,6}. Thus P(B)=5/6.

When you have 2 independent events that you want to know the probability of happening at the same time you multiply the 2 probabilities together. 1/6 * 5/6= 5/36. My guess is you are using Congressional math to come to your answer of 35/36 otherwise you will have to explain it to me.
My thought was that the real question is what the odds are of both rolls being a 1, which I thought was 1/36, but I never actually have taken stats, so I'll defer to you. As you say, the precise odds are not the point. Thanks for getting back to me.


Back to point, that is what I have been asking for. GW has set a precedent for a CC ability being used in another phase. But I refer you to the note on p42 for the poisoned ability (see the * and the note right below the profile…no over the left a little...yea, right there). [for Darklink] If it is normal to use the ability outside of CC why the need of the note? I don’t think it is a friendly reminder on the poison rules. You have used another exception to the standard to try to explain yours (how many other poisoned ranged weapons are there). And also with the poison ability being stated in the rules for chem. cannon it now permits you to use the CCW rule in ranged combat.
Fair enough, we've established (at least as between you and me) that it is not true that rules appearing under the heading CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS on page 42 of the main rulebook can only be used in CC. What we have not established is under what circumstances those rules can be used outside of CC. However, I don't need to, and I will demonstrate why below.


Point 2, you added in the poison (no pun intended) words of ‘count as’ which has a mechanic all in itself.
I honestly don't remember doing that, and I can't find it in my posts. Can you quote me? If I introduced an error into my argument I'd like to correct it, if possible.


You “believe” the mechanic has been extended.
No, I don't believe the mechanic has been extended. I believe that you believe the mechanic has been restricted. As you say:

that is the mechanic for when Foehammer is used in CC.

I will re-quote the thunder hammer rule to make my next point:


Thunder hammers
Thunder hammers release a tremendous blast of energy when they strike. A thunder hammer uses the same rules as a power fist. In addition, all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn. Against vehicles with no Initiative value, whenever a thunder hammer inflicts any damage result, it also inflicts a crew shaken result (see page 61).

Very well, a thunder hammer uses the same rules as a power fist. I will re-quote the power fist rules as well:


Power fists
A power fist (or 'power claw') is an armoured gauntlet surrounded by a disruptive energy field. A power fist is a power weapon, and also doubles the user's Strength (up to a maximum of 10). Power fists, however, are difficult and cumbersome to use, so attacks with a power fist are always delivered at Initiative 1 (ignore Initiative bonuses from special rules, wargear, etc.).

Very well, a thunder hammer is a power weapon. I will re-quote the power weapon rules:


Power weapons
A power weapon is sheathed in the lethal haze of a disruptive energy field, which eats through armour, flesh and bone with ease. Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armour saves.

Tracking through all of these definitions leaves us with the following:
A thunder hammer reduces the Initiative of all models wounded by it to 1 (from the thunder hammer rule).
A thunder hammer doubles the user's Strength (up to a maximum of 10) (because a thunder hammer is a power fist).
A thunder hammer delivers its attacks at Initiative 1 (because a thunder hammer is a power fist).
Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a thunder hammer are not allowed armor saves (because a thunder hammer is a power fist, which is a power weapon).
Only the fourth property of the thunder hammer restricts itself, by its terms, to close combat. The other three properties do not. In order to argue that the other three properties only function in close combat, some additional source is necessary.

MVBrandt has argued, and I think you are arguing too, that this additional authority comes from the section heading. Am I correct that you propose that that heading, by itself, restricts all subheadings to close combat? I know that MVBrandt does; as his last post says,

ignore the rule inherent to the heading Special Close Combat Weapons,

If so, this is the reason I adduced the chem cannon. The chem cannon example demonstrates that the heading CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS does not restrict the rules found under it to close combat only. (This is my attempt to demonstrate the truth of Mkerr's argument (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=32172&postcount=52) that the location of the rule is not relevant.)

We are now back to the bullet list above. Which means we are not in the situation of claiming that the stunning effect is extended to ranged combat as well as close combat. The stunning effect does not say it applies to one or the other, which ordinarily we would take to mean it applies to both. Which leaves the burden on you to demonstrate that it is restricted to close combat only. One possible source of restriction is the heading. I think the chem cannon counteracts that argument. Is there another source of restriction you can point to?

[MVBrandt]

The heading DOES restrict it to close combat only. So much so that a weapon which states in its flavor text that it fires POISON still needs to specifically add POISONED to its profile to give it the abilities of a special close combat weapon. That is to say, you cannot give it the poisoned profile just b/c the flavor text says it fires poisonous gases.

Your example of the Chem Cannon is EXACTLY why Foehammer doesn't work as a thunder hammer at range.

[Crevab]

Wait a tic, now people are arguing that you can reroll wounds when shooting with a poisoned weapon?

But it specifically says, "In addition, if the Strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder must re-roll wounds in close combat"

[MVBrandt]

I am not PERSONALLY arguing that.

I am simply stating that the rules for a special close combat weapon cannot be applied to RANGED ATTACKS (even if made in the descriptive text of the item from the same source) unless their ranged profile SPECIFICALLY says as much, countering the chem cannon by stating that just b/c the description says the attacks are poisonous, they needed to add POISONED WEAPON to the profile for it to gain that benefit.

In other words, regardless of the "flavor text" explaining what Foehammer is (a thrown thunder hammer of awesomeness), it does not gain any additional benefits beyond the rules in its ranged profile unless they are specifically stated there, either with an * relating to a subset of "this weapon contains additional special rules in its profile" (which all codices allow for and contain), or with something akin to the Chem cannon's "Poisoned Weapon (2+)" addendum, a la ... Assault 1, Thunder Hammer, or even simply Assault 1*, etc.

[Nabterayl]

The heading DOES restrict it to close combat only. So much so that a weapon which states in its flavor text that it fires POISON still needs to specifically add POISONED to its profile to give it the abilities of a special close combat weapon.
Two counter-points:

One, if the heading inherently restricts the sub-rules to close combat only, why do the power weapons, poisoned weapons, rending weapons, and witchblades rules all specifically mention close combat?

Two, your argument doesn't make sense. If the heading inherently restricts its sub-rules to close combat only, then it is not true that the Guard codex gives the chem cannon the Poisoned ability. It could not be, because the heading would inherently restrict its sub-rules, of which Poisoned is one, to close combat only.

It therefore must be the case that either (i) the chem cannon does not have the Poisoned ability, or (ii) the heading is not an absolute bar to ranged weapons having the abilities found on page 42.

If you want to argue that (i) is the case, I'm happy to do that. I thought you had already conceded (i), at least for the sake of argument, but perhaps I was wrong.


That is to say, you cannot give it the poisoned profile just b/c the flavor text says it fires poisonous gases.
We're conflating two parallel threads of argument here, and I think it just caused you to beg the question. I do not agree that "is a thunder hammer" is flavor text. You just assumed that it is. The status of that clause is a separate issue from whether or not a thunder hammer's stunning effect applies outside of close combat. The one issue is whether a ranged thunder hammer can ever inflict its stunning effect. The other issue is whether Foehammer is, in fact, a ranged thunder hammer.

You seem to be arguing that if Foehammer had "Thunder Hammer" in its profile, that would somehow override the rulebook. But on what principle? On the principle that the codex is generally allowed to override the rulebook? If so, then any statement with the effect of a rule that Foehammer's ranged attack is a thunder hammer ought to suffice. Which brings us back to the treatment of that clause, and my earlier question about how you would react if the rulebook simply said, "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a range weapon."

[hisdudeness]

@Nabterayl:
No problem.


If the rule was "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with a range of 6", counting as an assault 1 weapon," would you not agree that the codex demanded that the thunder hammer mechanic apply to the ranged attack?

Post 111 -- ‘count as’ right after the 6”.

Permissive rules… that which is not given permission to do is not permitted (thus restricted). So yes, using a CCW rule in shooting phase is not permitted. GW has set the precedent that any rule that is phase specific has a note explaining the effects out of phase. See rending and your own chem cannon for the precedent.

All quoted rules fall under the CCW section in the Assault Phase chapter. And until a rule permits the mechanic to function out of phase it will not function. Again, can I ignore cover in the shooting phase because cover is not used in CC. The rules don’t say I can’t.

I addressed the chem cannon exception. Did you miss the directions to find the note for Poisoned (2+)? And explained why it has little to no bearing to the question at hand. You found an exception, to the norm with a note explaining the adjusted mechanic for out of phase use. You did prove that you CAN use CC mechanic out of phase, but every where it happens there is a note. I see no note in the ranged profile for Foehammer.

If your point is correct, you also prove the lighting claw issue. You say at bullet points 1 thru 3 do not limit those abilities to CC. Ok, neither does LC’s ‘ANY failed wound’ limit the reroll to those in CC or those that are made with a LC. Do you see any limiting language?

Special CCW use ‘close combat’ because of word choice of the author, he could just as easily replaced ‘close combat’ with the name of the weapon the rule refers to.

‘…is a thunder hammer…’ is not flavor text. It is a reference to a mechanic on the behavior of Foehammer in CC. You are confusing the mechanic with the type of weapon. Yes, Foehammer is a weapon of type: thunder hammer. When used in CC, weapon type: thunder hammer uses the thunder hammer mechanic. I see no rules saying otherwise. I see a weapon with 2 weapon profiles (much the same as a combi-weapon). The difference is that one happens to be CC and one happens to be ranged. Can you mix the combi-weapon profiles? My guess is no. So why do you say one can mix the Foehammer profiles?

[MVBrandt]

None of the above following quote #1 is applicable to what I'm saying, b/c the codices can override the rulebook, but they must specifically do so.

That is to say, special close combat weapons are CLOSE COMBAT ONLY, PERIOD.

*BUT* in a case where a codex explicitly overrides this, such may be the case, as in the Poisoned entry for the chem cannon, or a theoretical THUNDER HAMMER entry for the Foehammer ranged weapon.

There is no such thing as a shooting weapon called a "ranged thunder hammer." It doesn't exist. Foehammer is a weapon, of that we can not be in doubt. It has a ranged profile, so it is a shooting weapon, and it is a thunder hammer, and so is a special close combat weapon. Use your venn diagrams; just b/c it does not benefit from thunder hammer special close combat weapon rules at range does not render it not a thunder hammer, nor does it have to benefit from them if it is one.

"Flavor text" is not something that exists one way or another. There's just text, and rules. Ranged weapons utilize their profiles, which indicate special rules, type (assault/rapid fire/etc.), # of shots, strength, ap, range. There is a specific allowance for special rules there, and in this case none are given.

Regarding the sub-rules for close combat, and the ones that specifically mention close combat, I don't think you can fret too much over that one as a legitimate argument. The redundancy is unnecessary, but welcome. I wish they'd been so poor in their writing skills when it came to the Thunder Hammer section of the rules.

In regard to your "any" statement comment, the last paragraph above, you're digging down way too deep for the purposes of avoiding any argument I'm making ... I don't know if this is on purpose or not. If ANY statement suffices, then again the Chimera cannot fire anything except lasguns from its top hatch, b/c there is at least a statement in its description which says that in reality these are lasgun emplacements firing.

"Any statement" never works. Ranged weapons operate off their PROFILE. Even though the text states that you are throwing Foehammer, the actual rules give Arjac a weapon with a ranged profile, and a special close combat weapon status. For the ranged weapon to have ADDITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS (p 27, BRB), it must say so in the characteristic. It clearly states that ANY time they have additional characteristics, they will be referenced in the weapon's profile, and this is supported uniformly throughout the entire book. In cases where a weapon has additional special rules, an * is used in the weapon summary (for instance, weapons with multiple firing modes, the poisoned weapon of the chem cannon, etc.). Foehammer, as you can see from the Space Wolves codex in its ranged profile, has no such special rules. It is simply a 6" range, S10, AP1 assault 1 weapon.


I'm sorry that it doesn't have any additional special rules, but barring any mention whatsoever in its profile, it ABSOLUTELY CANNOT. Anyone giving it an initiative reduction is frabricating rules. That ... is illegal.

[Nabterayl]

@Nabterayl:
No problem.



Post 111 -- ‘count as’ right after the 6”.
Ah, thanks. Let me address that up front, then, to get it out of the way. The question can be restated thusly: suppose the rule was "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon." You would, I imagine, have lots of questions about what sort of ranged weapon (what's its range, what's its Strength, what's its type, etc.), but would you agree that it was certain that when used as a ranged weapon, Foehammer would get its stunning effect if the rule were worded thusly?


Permissive rules… that which is not given permission to do is not permitted (thus restricted). So yes, using a CCW rule in shooting phase is not permitted.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but either it is permitted (which raises but does not settle the question of when), or else the chem cannon is not actually Poisoned.


GW has set the precedent that any rule that is phase specific has a note explaining the effects out of phase. See rending and your own chem cannon for the precedent.You don't need to be Poisoned to wound on a 2+, as weapons such as singing spears, hellfire rounds, and hellfire shells demonstrate. This is why I didn't see what you were getting at by pointing out the asterisk. The asterisk specifies that the weapon wounds on a 2+ regardless of Toughness. It doesn't say anything about the chem cannon being able to use the Poisoned rules despite the obvious difficulties with the wording that presents (as Crevab notes). The note stating that the chem cannon wounds on a 2+ can stand on its own without the Poisoned attribute (as again, singing spears, hellfire rounds, and hellfire shells demonstrate). The Poisoned attribute adds something additional. For that matter, the Poisoned attribute could stand on its own without specifying the 2+.


If your point is correct, you also prove the lighting claw issue. You say at bullet points 1 thru 3 do not limit those abilities to CC. Ok, neither does LC’s ‘ANY failed wound’ limit the reroll to those in CC or those that are made with a LC. Do you see any limiting language?
Yes, I do. Both Mkerr and I have been over this with MVBrandt. The limiting language is "the wielder." If you agree with MVBrandt that you can "wield" a lightning claw without actually swinging it, then absolutely lightning claws allow you to re-roll shooting rolls to wound. If you agree with me that you cannot "wield" a lightning claw without actually swinging it, then lightning claws do not allow you to re-roll shooting rolls to wound, because when you shoot, you are not "wielding" the lightning claw.

If a subsequent codex had a piece of wargear that said "this wargear is a lightning claw that can be used as a ranged weapon," then I would argue that that lightning claw could re-roll its own shooting rolls to wound, because then you would be "wielding" the lightning claw when you shot.


All quoted rules fall under the CCW section in the Assault Phase chapter. And until a rule permits the mechanic to function out of phase it will not function. Again, can I ignore cover in the shooting phase because cover is not used in CC. The rules don’t say I can’t.
This seems like an important point to me. Perhaps this all turns on the canon of construction you're adducing, which says "until a rule permits the mechanic to function out of phase it will not function." Where do you get that from? I don't see it in the rulebook, and I'm not at all convinced the rulebook falls apart unless we have it.

The cover example is unpersuasive to me. All the CC rules about cover say is that "models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered in close combat." You can apply that rule in the shooting phase, and it won't conflict at all with the rules about claiming cover saves in the shooting phase.


When used in CC, weapon type: thunder hammer uses the thunder hammer mechanic. I see no rules saying otherwise.
But you do see a canon of construction saying that rules only apply to the phase in which they're introduced. Where do you get that from?

[mkerr]

Mkerr and others here advocating for the use can reiterate their own arguments or portions of them until they are blue in the face, and will never be "proven" right or wrong. Neither will I, in corollary.

The reason it seems that I'm reiterating my argument is because my argument is very, very simple.

Here it is again:

1. "The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile"

This is not "flavor text"; it is the only part of the Foehammer description that is decidedly NOT flavor text. it is clear from this rule that Foehammer is a thunder hammer (not "counts as" and there's no caveat saying that it only "acts as a thunder hammer in close combat"). It is a thunder hammer.

In the same sentence that they define Foehammer as a thunder hammer, they also tell us that this thunder hammer can be used as a ranged weapon. The flavor text justifies this use of the weapon by telling us that Arjac hurls the weapon at his enemies. That further confirms that it's the thunder hammer that's being used at range (and not some sort of energy discharge like a lightning bolt or thunder clap). It's clear that designer wants us to know that Arjac's thunder hammer is bonking his enemies.

2. "[A]ll models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn."

The "knocked reeling" effect of a thunder hammer is not limited to wounds caused in close combat. So if it were possible to "shoot" a thunder hammer, then any unsaved wounds would cause the stunning effect.

Here are the arguments I've encountered so far:

Q1: Foehammer isn't a thunder hammer when used at range. It's a completely different weapon because close combat weapons don't ranged profiles.

A1: Foehammer gains the "thunder hammer" and "ranged" qualities in the same sentence. In my reading, the weapon that is used in close combat is the exact same weapon that is used at range. Nothing in Foehammer's description or in the main rulebook seems to strip away a close combat weapon's special qualities if it is used at range.

Q2: The location of the thunder hammer rules in the Assault phase section of the rules means that its rules only apply when used in close combat.

A2: From my reading of the rulebook, I can't find anything that seems to imply that the location of the rule is more important than the content of the rule. I've found numerous cases where a rule is defined in the Shooting phase section of the rulebook but is also used Assault phase section (and vice versa).

Q3: Since the re-roll wounds effect of Lightning Claws doesn't confer to a Storm Bolter, Foehammer's "knocked reeling" effect doesn't work when used at range.

A3: The re-roll wounds effect of a Lightning Claw applies only to wounds caused by the Lightning Claw and would not apply to wounds caused by another weapon (similarly, the Rending from a Dreadnought's Assault Cannon would not apply to wounds caused by it's Close Combat Weapon).

If there were Lightning Claws that could be used at range, then you could re-roll those wounds caused in the Shooting phase. Which would be consistent with my Foehammer argument (i.e., the "ranged" Foehammer is the same weapon that's used in close combat).


He didn't come to a logical conclusion. That's the big error here, in your camp. He mistook the existence of flavor text as a hard, in game rule. That's not how Warhammer works. You don't just start adding rules to powers or weapons because "it's logical."

First of all, you are accusing of coming to an illogical conclusion AND applying logic when the correct answer is illogical. That doesn't really make any sense.

Secondly, there's only a single sentence of "rules" in Foehammer's description. That's the only sentence I'm referencing, so clearly I'm not mistaking flavor text for game rules.


And finally, toughen up. I know it's very comforting to assume because I called you an idiot I'm a big ol' internet toughguy - and as such my argument is flawed because I resorted to ad hominem attacks. Sadly, people do exist in the world that are abrasive and also totally know what they are talking about.

Unfortunately when you start resorting to personal attacks people stop listening to you.


The “it never stops being a TH” argument fails. There is a TH mechanic that is used for CC. Once you use it as a ranged weapon you use ranged weapon rules.

The argument only fails if the location of the rule is more important than the content of the rule. Foehammer's "knocked reeling" effect is compatible with using Foehammer's ranged profile, so the effect would only be lost if rules defined in the Assault phase section could not be used in the Shooting phase section.

If we agree that the content of the rule is more important than the location, then we have to go with the rule's wording. The thunder hammer rule tells us "all models that suffer an unsaved wound"-- and in this case Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can cause unsaved wounds in both the Assault and Shooting phase.


If it really was possible to create rules out of flavor text, you'd see the chimera thing argued and many other things argued, beneficial or not.

I think this quote is really telling. I haven't used a single piece of "flavor text' to support my argument (even though the flavor text *clearly* supports it) because this isn't a RAI argument.

[mkerr]

Permissive rules… that which is not given permission to do is not permitted (thus restricted). So yes, using a CCW rule in shooting phase is not permitted. GW has set the precedent that any rule that is phase specific has a note explaining the effects out of phase. See rending and your own chem cannon for the precedent.

So if the location of the rule is more important than the content of the rule, then Instant Death only works in the Shooting phase (it is defined in the Shooting phase section and not referenced in the Assault phase section).

Is this your contention?

[dagonis]

I don't think that the location of the rule is the most important part, but it is something to be considered that poisoned shooting weapons say poisoned in the profile. Shouldn't Foehammer say thunder hammer in the profile?

[hisdudeness]

@Nabterayl (post 137)
What the wording could have been has no bearing. I can make up all kinds of wording for Foehammer. The question at hand is not a what-if. And rewording is also not RAW, it is RAI. So are we arguing RAW or RAI?

My premise is that Foehammer has 2 profiles, just like combi-weapons. One profile just happens to be CC. That is the basis of my entire argument. You can’t mix combi profiles and you can’t use CC abilities out of phase. It’s that simple. The chem cannon is an exception in a codex, which has a note explaining how the mechanic works out of phase.

Correct, there are other ways to wound on a 2+. But there is only 1 way to always wound on a 2+, which is with the poison mechanic. Instead of making a new rule, GW decided to use an existing mechanic to fit the fluff. But since the mechanic is a CCW mechanic, they added the note explaining how the mechanic works out of phase. Besides, the hell fire round is poisoned (have no idea on the others). If poisoned works out of phase, why the note? Did they have a discount on ink when they priced the book printing?

Wielding is not a game mechanic so has no bearing. Show me the ‘wielding’ mechanic. It is a descriptive word to imply usage not a defined mechanic with supporting rules. But equipped wargear is a mechanic. Do you ‘wield’ an Iron Halo to gain the iSave? No, the model is equipped with it and it ‘confers a 4+’ iSave?


This seems like an important point to me. Perhaps this all turns on the canon of construction you're adducing, which says "until a rule permits the mechanic to function out of phase it will not function." Where do you get that from? I don't see it in the rulebook, and I'm not at all convinced the rulebook falls apart unless we have it.

That is the idea behind permissive rules. If not told you can do something you can’t do it. Otherwise we can all solve most issues with the “it doesn’t say I can’t” so I can.

Example:

Permissive: Infantry can move up to 6” in the movement phase (as stated on p11). This permits me up to move 6”.

Without permissive rules, I can move infantry 12” because the rules do not say I can’t.

As for the cover argument, you are using a CCW mechanic why do you not use the rest of the CC rules. Could it be that you use the rules for the phase you are in?

@mkerr (post 139)

Instant Death rule states when the mechanic works and has no need to be stated else were as the effect does not change with the phase. TH mechanic does change with the phase. But I am beginning to think ID does not work in CC.

TH mechanic has no effect out of phase, to say it does proves the LC issue. They are one in the same, a mechanic being applied out of phase. Neither rule wording limits when the mechanic takes effect, so to say one works and the other does not is cherry picking rules. The ranged profile is the profile used when Foehammer is used as a ranged attack, I do not see the TH mechanic in that profile or a note adding it.

Why not add the assault characteristic to assault cannons because assault is in the name, since we are adding rules to profiles. Assault is a mechanic and it is the name of a weapon so it understood to have the assault rule added, right? Just like TH is a mechanic and is in the name so it is understood to be in the profile.

[Nabterayl]

That is the idea behind permissive rules. If not told you can do something you can’t do it. Otherwise we can all solve most issues with the “it doesn’t say I can’t” so I can.
You keep coming back to the permissive issue, but I disagree that that's what this turns on. The stunning effect doesn't say that you can use it in the assault phase. It just says that it happens when a thunder hammer wounds a model, or damages a vehicle.

What this is really about is whether a rule's placement in the discussion of a particular phase creates some sort of presumption that the rule only works in that phase. If so, then the permissive principle tells you that you cannot use the rule outside of the phase unless something tells you specifically that you can.

But where are you getting the presumption from in the first place?

[mkerr]

I don't think that the location of the rule is the most important part, but it is something to be considered that poisoned shooting weapons say poisoned in the profile. Shouldn't Foehammer say thunder hammer in the profile?

It couldn't say "thunder hammer" under the ranged profile because a thunder hammer isn't a weapon characteristic (and entails much more than just the "knocked reeling" effect). For example, you can have a "poisoned" wychblade and a "rending" wychblade, but you couldn't have a "thunder hammer" wychblade.


My premise is that Foehammer has 2 profiles, just like combi-weapons. One profile just happens to be CC. That is the basis of my entire argument. You can’t mix combi profiles and you can’t use CC abilities out of phase. It’s that simple. The chem cannon is an exception in a codex, which has a note explaining how the mechanic works out of phase.

That's interesting. Let's extend on your example. What would happen if you had a "master-crafted" combi-melta. Could you use the re-roll for either the bolter and meltagun shots?

If so, then the "master-crafted" quality would apply to both the bolter and the meltagun (because they are both the same weapon -- even though it can be used in two different ways). The "knocked reeling" quality works the same way -- it applies to both the *close combat* thunder hammer and the *ranged* thunder hammer because they are *both* thunder hammers.


Wielding is not a game mechanic so has no bearing. Show me the ‘wielding’ mechanic. It is a descriptive word to imply usage not a defined mechanic with supporting rules. But equipped wargear is a mechanic. Do you ‘wield’ an Iron Halo to gain the iSave? No, the model is equipped with it and it ‘confers a 4+’ iSave?

The word "wielding" matters in this case because the model bearing the Lightning Claw only gains the benefit if it is wielded. Unfortunately, the BBB doesn't define "wielder" so we have to fall back on the English language for that definition.

Your example is irrelevant because an Iron Halo doesn't require a "wielder", it simply confers a 4+ Invulnerable save.


TH mechanic has no effect out of phase, to say it does proves the LC issue.

The Lightning Claw requires that the Lightning Claw be used to gain the re-roll to failed Wounds (that's what the "wielder" reference means). To make the Lightning Claw argument applicable, you would have to argue that the Lightning Claw's re-roll work if the Lightning Claw was used at range. If you made that argument, I'd agree with you.


Why not add the assault characteristic to assault cannons because assault is in the name, since we are adding rules to profiles. Assault is a mechanic and it is the name of a weapon so it understood to have the assault rule added, right? Just like TH is a mechanic and is in the name so it is understood to be in the profile.

You are grasping at straw here. We aren't twisting the meaning of a word or taking a rule out of context. Unlike Foehammer, an Assault Cannon is not a close combat weapon. So it uses the Rending Additional Weapon Characteristic on page 31 of the main rulebook.

[DarkLink]

I think being abrasive on the internet is overrated and cliche, so I think you hurt yourself by following that approach, and distract people from legitimacy in your arguments. That said, the last line paragrpah was entertaining. There are no such things as real, dangerous tough guys in the 40k world. Nobody is intimidating to the point that they are ... well ... intimidating. Someone trying to be intimidating over the subject of little toy soldier is just a douche.


I have to agree. Though there's a stereotype about how rude and crude the internet is, I've never really had any problem, nor seen a problem on this forum, of people really being rude to each other.

Until whats-his-name called me an idiot. Twice. It's not worth getting into an argument with someone like that, especially over the internet.

[sorienor]

You are grasping at straw here. We aren't twisting the meaning of a word or taking a rule out of context. Unlike Foehammer, an Assault Cannon is not a close combat weapon. So it uses the Rending Additional Weapon Characteristic on page 31 of the main rulebook.

Thank you for disproving your own position. Just as an assault cannon is NEVER an assault weapon, a thunder hammer is NEVER a shooting weapon. What you're doing is what is commonly referred to as "easter egg hunting". The fact is that close combat weapons and rules do not apply, ever, in any way shape or form in the shooting phase and vice versa unless specifically stated (like rending).

Your whole argument rests on the fact that the entry for thunder hammer does not restrict it to close combat. I say it does not need to specifically state that it is close combat only because a thunderhammer is a close combat weapon and thus NEVER a shooting weapon. And I mean never, including Foehammer because it has a separate shooting phase profile. The fact it is a thunderhammer has NO MEANING in the shooting phase at all..it is completely irrelevant.

Your position is based on nothing but personal desire for it to work that way with no basis in the rules what so ever.

[Nabterayl]

Thank you for disproving your own position. Just as an assault cannon is NEVER an assault weapon, a thunder hammer is NEVER a shooting weapon.
There's a big difference between claiming that the "assault" in "assault cannon" makes assault cannons assault weapons, and claiming that "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon" makes Foehammer a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon.


The fact is that close combat weapons and rules do not apply, ever, in any way shape or form in the shooting phase and vice versa unless specifically stated (like rending).
Do you, too, believe that an S8 model in close combat cannot Instant Death a T4 opponent?


What you're doing is what is commonly referred to as "easter egg hunting". Your position is based on nothing but personal desire for it to work that way with no basis in the rules what so ever.
Nobody's trolling for easter eggs here. Heck, I've already explained that my position on this can only hurt me. If you'd like to explain why you believe that the appearance of a rule within a discussion of a certain phase restricts the operation of that rule to that phase, I'd love to hear it.

[DarkLink]

Thank you for disproving your own position. Just as an assault cannon is NEVER an assault weapon, a thunder hammer is NEVER a shooting weapon.

Except that GW gave Foehammer (which is a Thunderhammer) a specific exemption to the "thunderhammer is NEVER a shooting weapon."

And try to be a little less combative. Some people are really getting worked up over this issue. I had a guy openly call me an idiot, because I agreed with mkerr. This is a GAME. Not that big of a deal.

[hisdudeness]

You keep coming back to the permissive issue, but I disagree that that's what this turns on. The stunning effect doesn't say that you can use it in the assault phase. It just says that it happens when a thunder hammer wounds a model, or damages a vehicle.

So you are telling me 40k is NOT a permissive rule set? I ‘presume’ this fact because that is the consensus of the 40k community and with some research most likely stated by GW itself.


It couldn't say "thunder hammer" under the ranged profile because a thunder hammer isn't a weapon characteristic (and entails much more than just the "knocked reeling" effect). For example, you can have a "poisoned" wychblade and a "rending" wychblade, but you couldn't have a "thunder hammer" wychblade.

Why can you not have a thunder hammer wychblade? TH is a mechanic and can be applied to any weapon a designer sees fit. You keep taking TH as just a name of an item with X effect. I take TH as an item that has the mechanic TH and the mechanic has X effect. Just because you have not seen a TH wychblade in the rules does not mean it will not be in the next codex.

Master crafted weapon is a type of wargear with its own rules that clearly state how they work. It is not a quality as you put it. A combi weapon is a single weapon that is (in your example) ‘master crafted’. The MC mechanic works for the weapon as a whole and shot with the profile chosen at time of firing. The TH mechanic is a function of one of the profiles and will not pass between profiles.

Again for the people in the back, ‘wielding’ is not a defined mechanic in this rule set. Thus has no bearing. More so since ‘wielding’ has multiple definitions that conflict with the matter at hand. So to use one interpretation and ignore the rest is cherry picking. To base your LC argument on an ambiguous term with no set game definition results in a failure to prove your point. I can choose one meaning and you can choose another and we will both be equally correct as the term has no set definition in the rules. Also, in the rules it states when the item in question must do X to result in an effect. It does not state that for LC. Read the power weapon rule, last sentence. It doesn’t even say the power weapon needs to be “used” to not allow armor saves, it just says the model must be “armed” with a power weapon. The “use/wield” argument just got weaker.

So to say that the TH mechanic is not limited to CC is the same as saying the LC mechanic is also not limited to CC, as neither rule limits effect to CC.

Night all, don’t break the interwebz while I am gone.

[mkerr]

Thank you for disproving your own position. Just as an assault cannon is NEVER an assault weapon, a thunder hammer is NEVER a shooting weapon. What you're doing is what is commonly referred to as "easter egg hunting". The fact is that close combat weapons and rules do not apply, ever, in any way shape or form in the shooting phase and vice versa unless specifically stated (like rending).

You are most welcome, but nothing in my response disproved my position. I think both sides of the argument agree that Foehammer (a thunder hammer) is a shooting weapon. So I think you are going to have a hard time with the "a thunder hammer is NEVER a shooting weapon" argument.

We've also proven that the "poison" close combat rule has been applied (at least once) to a shooting weapon.


Your whole argument rests on the fact that the entry for thunder hammer does not restrict it to close combat. I say it does not need to specifically state that it is close combat only because a thunderhammer is a close combat weapon and thus NEVER a shooting weapon.

This isn't a "it doesn't say I can't" argument. A better summary of my argument is that "the content of the rule is more important than the location of the rule".


Your position is based on nothing but personal desire for it to work that way with no basis in the rules what so ever.

That's called an appeal to motive (a logical fallacy) and it's not going to work here. I haven't said anything that could lead you to the conclusion that I benefit from this interpretation. I've never played a game with Arjac and don't have a single thunder hammer in any army I play. Even if I did, I don't use "dirty tricks" (which is why I call them "dirty tricks").

Like most of the people on the pro-side of this argument, I have no dog in this race.

[Nabterayl]

So you are telling me 40k is NOT a permissive rule set? I ‘presume’ this fact because that is the consensus of the 40k community and with some research most likely stated by GW itself.
I'm telling you that what you think is an issue of permissive rule sets is not. You propose that a rule, which is introduced in the discussion of a particular phase and does not say which phase or phases in which it may be used, may only be used in the phase during the discussion of which it was introduced. That is not what a permissive rule set means. It is a completely unrelated canon of construction. I would like to know where you got it from.

[mkerr]

So you are telling me 40k is NOT a permissive rule set? I ‘presume’ this fact because that is the consensus of the 40k community and with some research most likely stated by GW itself.

I think his point is that falling back on the "permissive" ruleset argument (instead of debating the actual issues) doesn't move us any closer to answering the question. The consensus that 40K uses a permissive ruleset isn't germane to your argument that rules defined in the Assault phase (that don't explicitly limit themselves to the Assault phase) cannot be used in the Shooting phase simply because of the *location* of the rule.

Again, the argument is that the "content" of the rule is more important than the "location" of the rule.


Why can you not have a thunder hammer wychblade? TH is a mechanic and can be applied to any weapon a designer sees fit.

A thunder hammer isn't a mechanic; it's a weapon. The "knocked reeling" effect is a quality unique to thunder hammers. For some reason the designers have chosen to imbed that quality into thunder hammers instead of making it a distinct effect like "rending". But a thunder hammer can't be another close combat weapon at the same time unless those rules are complementary.

A thunder hammer wychblade doesn't work in the rules because their rules are contradictory -- they can't both be true. For example, a wychblade allows armor saves as normal while a thunder hammer ingores armor saves; and a wychblade counts as S9 against vehicles while a thunder hammer doubles the strength of the wielder.


Master crafted weapon is a type of wargear with its own rules that clearly state how they work. It is not a quality as you put it. A combi weapon is a single weapon that is (in your example) ‘master crafted’. The MC mechanic works for the weapon as a whole and shot with the profile chosen at time of firing. The TH mechanic is a function of one of the profiles and will not pass between profiles.

What do you base those assumptions on?

How did you draw the concludion that master-crafted is a type of wargear and not a quality applied to a weapon? You can't reach in your backpack and pull out a "master-crafted". Master-crafted can't exist on it's own -- it can only be applied to another weapon (i.e., it is an attribute or a quality of another item). You can have a master-crafted power weapon or a master-crafted combi-flamer, but you can't have a master-crafted.

What supports your claim that the "TH mechanic" will not pass between profiles? The only way that Foehammer could lose the "TH mechanic" is to suddenly cease being a thunder hammer. Gaining a ranged profile doesn't strip the thunder hammer quality from Foehammer. The ranged profile is added to Foehammer -- it doesn't replace Foehammer.


Again for the people in the back, ‘wielding’ is not a defined mechanic in this rule set. Thus has no bearing.

That's absolutely untrue. When the game fails to define a word for us, we have to fall back on the English language. The word "wield" means to effectively handle something. It doesn't mean that you have it somewhere on your person -- it implies that the item is in active use.


Read the power weapon rule, last sentence. It doesn’t even say the power weapon needs to be “used” to not allow armor saves, it just says the model must be “armed” with a power weapon. The “use/wield” argument just got weaker.

Of course not, it doesn't need to. It's easy to find discrepencies when you take them out of context (that's cherry-picking, by the way). A power weapon is a special weapon and the rules tell us how to apply their powers in close combat. If a model is armed with a power weapon and wielding a lightning claw, there's no risk that the power weapon's "chocolate" will mingle with the lightning claw's "peanut butter".

The rules tell us exactly what to do when a model is using two different special weapons in close combat.


So to say that the TH mechanic is not limited to CC is the same as saying the LC mechanic is also not limited to CC, as neither rule limits effect to CC.

No, you are trying to confuse the issue. Let's compare apples to apples. If there was a lightning claw that could be used at range, then that lightning claw would re-roll wounds caused in the Shooting phase.

That's 100% consistent with the argument I'm making for Foehammer.

[The Mystic]

Again, the argument is that the "content" of the rule is more important than the "location" of the rule.
.

You are makeing an assumption that the two dont go hand in hand. Both are equally important when discerning the rules. You are also under the assumption that the location of the rule is the same as the phase it applies to.

The phases are there to give the layout of how the turn progresses and includes rules which are relavent to that phase.

In the instance of instant death the location of the rule is relavent to the phase so is included. So the location is important. The content of the rule reads that "If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an ATTACK that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a causualty.". So the location is important because it is relavent to that phase and the content of that rule does not limit it to that phase.

In th instance of the thunder hammer it is more complicated.

First lets establish that a thunder hammer is a special close combat weapon that is under the the category close combat weapons which is a game mechanic supported by the rules. Yes?

So, close combat weapons are included in the Assualt phase of the BBB because they are relavent to that phase. So the location is important. The game mechanic of close combat weapons which is supported by the rules restrict the use of close combat weapons and their rules to the assualt phase unless specifically stated otherwise for the weapon. Even though the thunder hammer entry does not list it as phase specific, as it is a close combat weapon it is bound by that game mechanic.

In Foehammers case it does not specifically state that it's close combat abilities carry over into another phase and therefore they cannot be used.

[hisdudeness]

Because this falls in the “play it how you want” area and the discussion is going nowhere, I think it is best if both sides just layout their view. This will allow others to decide how to play it in their games based on the premise and supporting ideas. I would not add arguments to the premise post, just the premise that you favor and any supporting rules you believe support your statement. I also suggest in the title just enter for or against for easy reference.

I do believe, as with most changes to the norm, GW should add a note as to how to play the old rule in the new situation. Here you have a CCW being used as a ranged weapon (as far know has not happened before) and this leaves a large hole in the rules with no clear precedent to fill it. I further believe anyone saying they have the answer and that their answer is correct is just plain wrong. This is a new situation and since (as far as I know) none of us are part of the design team no real solid solution can be found, there will always be room for interpretation.

This has been fun, discussions like this help shed light on the dark corners of the rules that I, and others, may skim over. I have learned much.

Add: found another source from another forum (http://http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=182411&hl=foehammer&st=25). A general C:SW FAQ, but Foehammer starts around post 30. This might help other decide how to play the rule.

Happy Veterans Day and remember to thank a Vet.

Gig’em and saw'em off.

[hisdudeness]

Premise:

The thunder hammer effects do not carry over when Fowhammer is used as a ranged weapon.

Support:

1)Foehammer is a wargear that has 2 profiles. One is CC and one is ranged.

Why: Other instances of one wargear that can be used in multiple ways have 2 separate profiles that do not mix. You use one or the other. The fact that one profile is CC should not change anything. The profile for Foehammer (when used as a ranged weapon) does not note that the thunder hammer rule still apply.

Example: combi-weapons for multi profiles. chem connon for CW rule used out of the norm (a note was added).


2)thunder hammer is a mechanic as well as the name for the wargear that commonly uses the mechanic. The thunder hammer mechanic is part of the CC ‘profile’ of Foehammer, and as with combi-weapons profiles do not mix.

Why: as a mechanic in the CCW section, it cannot be used outside of CC unless a special exception allows is to do so. Wolf Claws have also made 'lighting claw' a mechnanic.

[Nabterayl]

The game mechanic of close combat weapons which is supported by the rules restrict the use of close combat weapons and their rules to the assualt phase unless specifically stated otherwise for the weapon.
I disagree. Nothing actually says that close combat weapons can only be used in the assault phase. Technically, close combat weapons are enhancements to a model's own Strength (p. 42), which is what we use in the close combat phase (p. 38). The Shooting phase, however, tells us to use the weapon's Strength (p. 19), and tells us to measure range using the weapon's maximum range (p. 17). As close combat weapons have neither a Strength of their own nor a maximum range, all targets are out of their range, and most have no Strength with which to wound anybody anyway (Poisoned weapons wouldn't need it, but unfortunately, all possible targets are beyond a Poisoned CCW's maximum range). The reason that CCWs do not enhance shooting attacks made by other weapons is because CCWs, according to page 42, only confer their bonuses and impose their penalties if the model is "wielding" or "using" them, which in the shooting phase models generally aren't (because they're using a weapon with a range and a Strength).

Thus, it happens to be the case that most CCWs cannot be used in the shooting phase. Nowhere does the rulebook actually say that CCWs can only be used in the shooting phase. If a CCW had a Strength of its own, and a maximum range greater than 0", and a Type (pistol, assault, rapid fire, heavy, or ordnance, so we know how it interacts with movement and assault), a CCW could be used in the shooting phase (remember that the shooting rules speak of "weapons," not "ranged weapons").


In Foehammers case it does not specifically state that it's close combat abilities carry over into another phase and therefore they cannot be used.
This is the reason the Instant Death example is relevant. Thunder hammers do not specifically state that their "knocked reeling" effect only apply to the close combat phase. Taken by itself, the "knocked reeling" rule applies to any phase. The only reason to think it only applies to the close combat phase is because the rule appears in the close combat section.

Similarly, the Instant Death rule, taken by itself, applies to any phase. However, it appears only in the shooting phase. If we restrict the thunder hammer's "knocked reeling" effect to the close combat phase solely because it appears in the close combat phase section of the rulebook, we should (to be consistent) restrict Instant Death to the shooting phase because it appears in the shooting phase section of the rulebook.

[Nabterayl]

I'm happy to wind down as hisdudeness suggests, though if others want to keep debating I'll stick around as long as it's civil and people are mature.

Conclusion:

The "knocked reeling" effect of a thunder hammer does apply when Foehammer is used as a range weapon.

Statement:

1). A thunder hammer is a type of weapon. Page 42 gives all thunder hammers four effects, simply by virtue of being thunder hammers:
All models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed reduce their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn, and all vehicles that suffer any damage result from a thunder hammer also suffer a Crew Shaken result (the "knocked reeling" effect).
All attacks delivered by a thunder hammer are always delivered at Initiative 1 (because all thunder hammers "use the same rules as" power fists).
Thunder hammers double the user's Strength, to a maximum of 10 (because all thunder hammers "use the same rules as" power fists).
Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a thunder hammer are not allowed armor saves (because all thunder hammers "use the same rules as" power fists and all power fists "are" power weapons).

Reason: Because of the words used to describe each of these rules (words like "use the same rules as" and "is [are]", each of these effects is a separate and distinct result of being a thunder hammer. They are not a weapon profile, nor are they Additional Weapon Characteristics in the sense of pages 29-32.

Statement:

2). The "knocked reeling" effect applies to any models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer. This wording does not specify that it applies to a particular phase or type of combat, and thus it applies to any phase in which a model suffers an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer.

Reason: We should not read words into a rule when those words are not present.
Reason: The armor-ignoring effect of a thunder hammer does specify that it applies to a particular type of combat (close combat). Multiple effects on page 42 specify that they apply only to close combat. It is reasonable to infer that the absence of this limiting language from the "knocked reeling" effect indicates that there is no such limitation.

Statement:

3). The location of a rule within the section of the rulebook devoted to a particular phase does de facto not restrict the operation of that rule to that phase.

Reason: The rulebook does not state that it should be read in this way.
Reason: If location operated as a de facto restriction, Instant Death (which is found in the Shooting Phase section of the rulebook) would not apply to the Assault Phase. Everybody agrees that Instant Death applies to the Assault Phase; hence, location must not operate as a de facto restriction.

Statement:
4). In order to be used as a weapon in the Shooting Phase, a close combat weapon would need a range, a Strength, and a Type (pistol, assault, rapid fire, heavy, or ordnance).

Reason: Page 17 tells us that targets beyond the maximum range of a weapon cannot be hit.
Reason: Page 19 tells us that attacks in the Shooting Phase use the weapon's Strength (not the firer's) when rolling to wound.
Reason: Without knowing a weapon's Type, we do not know how it interacts with movement and assaults. There is no default weapon Type specified in the rulebook, so each weapon must state its Type explicitly.
Reason: All the Shooting Phase rules use the term "weapon." Page 27 explicitly says that all weapons have a Maximum Range, Strength, an AP value, and a Type.

Statement:
5). Most close combat weapons do not have a Maximum Range, Strength, AP value, or Type, and thus cannot be used in the Shooting Phase.

Reason: Close combat weapons are not given a profile specifying their Maximum Range, Strength, AP value, or Type.
Reason: Close combat weapons are described as enhancing the user's Strength. Thus, a power fist can make a space marine sergeant S8, but the power fist is not S8 on its own.
Reason: Close combat weapons are not described as having a "range" of zero inches, or melee. They are not described as having a "range" at all. The Assault Phase rules do not reference the "range" concept at all for attacks.
Reason: Close combat weapons are not AP1, nor AP2, nor AP-. Some of them specify that they disallow armor saves, but that is not the same as an AP value.
Reason: If a close combat weapon does not have a Maximum Range, Strength, and a Type, it must not be a "weapon" (as a technical term), since page 27 says that all "weapons" have those properties. If a close combat value is not a "weapon" within the meaning page 27, it cannot be used in the Shooting Phase, since the Shooting Phase rules require using a "weapon." Page 27 also states that a "weapon" must have an AP value, but page 20 specifies that only "nearly all weapons" have an AP value.

Statement:
6). Foehammer is a thunder hammer, even when used as a ranged weapon.

Reason: The Space Wolves codex states that "Foehammer is a thunder hammer." Foehammer is thus a thunder hammer.
Reason: The Space Wolves codex states that "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile." The object of the clause "that can be used as a ranged weapon" is "thunder hammer." It is not "Foehammer." Thus, the sentence states that there is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon, and that thunder hammer (which can be used as a ranged weapon) is Foehammer. In order for Foehammer to be a thunder hammer and, separately, a ranged weapon, the sentence would have to read "Foehammer is a thunder hammer, and can be used as a ranged weapon." Hence, Foehammer does not have two profiles.
Reason: Close combat weapons do not ordinarily have profiles in any case.

Statement:
7). When used as a ranged weapon, Foehammer includes the "knocked reeling" effect.

Reason: Foehammer is a thunder hammer that has a profile (see 6).
Reason: Because it has a Maximum Range, a Strength, an AP value, and a Type, it is a "weapon" for purposes of the Shooting Phase rules (see 5).
Reason: Because Foehammer is a thunder hammer, it doubles its user's Strength, causes all attacks made with it to be delivered at Initiative 1, disallows armor saves when it wounds a model in close combat, and inflicts the "knocked reeling" effect on all models it inflicts an unsaved wound upon (see 1).
Reason: The Shooting Phase rules do not say to use the user's Strength, do not reference Initiative, and are do not describe close combat. Hence, the Strength-doubling, Initiative 1-delivering, armor-save-ignoring-in-close-combat effects of being a thunder hammer, while present, have no effect in the Shooting Phase.
Reason: The "knocked reeling" effect does have an effect in the Shooting Phase.

Commentary:
A). Far from replacing the CCW "profile" of a thunder hammer, Foehammer's ranged weapon profile only gives Foehammer the characteristics necessary to be used as a ranged weapon. CCWs do not have "profiles" to be replaced, and could be used to make shooting attacks, if they had a profile. Most CCWs do not have a profile, and so cannot be used to make shooting attacks. Foehammer does, and so it can - it is a CCW that has all the characteristics necessary to make a shooting attack. This view of things - rather than viewing Foehammer as a CCW and, separately, a ranged weapon - is not only the technically correct way to parse the rules, but more closely matches the wording of the Foehammer rule, which states that Foehammer "is a thunder hammer [a CCW] that can be used as a ranged weapon."

Anticipating Counter-Argument:
A). If CCW effects can apply outside of the close combat phase, why don't lightning claws allow re-rolls in the Shooting Phase?

Answer: If a lightning claw could be used as a ranged weapon (i.e., if it had a profile), then that lightning claw would allow re-rolls of its shooting attacks.
Answer: Lightning claws allow "the wielder" to re-roll "any" failed roll to wound. In order for the re-roll effect to apply, a model must be the "wielder" of a lightning claw. If a model is the "wielder" of a lightning claw, then it can re-roll any failed roll to wound.
Answer: A model who is shooting with a non-lightning claw weapon (e.g., a boltgun) is not, at that time, the "wielder" of a lightning claw, even if a lightning claw is on the model's hand. "Wielder" describes somebody who is actively using a weapon.
Answer: The re-roll effect of a lightning claw is one of its bonuses. The paragraph entitled "SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS" describes each of its sub-paragraphs as conferring bonuses "to the models using" the special CCWs described below. A model who is shooting with a non-lightning claw weapon (e.g., a boltgun) is not "using" a lightning claw, even if a lightning claw is on the model's hand. Thus, even if such a model is the "wielder" of a lightning claw, it is not "using" a lightning claw, and thus cannot receive the bonuses of a lightning claw.

Anticipating Counter-Argument:
B). If CCW effects only apply to a model "using" a special CCW, how come Foehammer gets its "knocked reeling" effect when used to make a shooting attack?

Answer: Foehammer is not a ranged weapon that is separately a CCW. It is a CCW that is allowed to make shooting attacks.
Answer: The rules do not distinguish between ranged weapons, which are allowed to make shooting attacks, and CCWs, which are not (see 4 and 5). A CCW is allowed to make a shooting attack as a CCW as long as it has certain characteristics (see 4), which virtually no CCWs have (see 5). Foehammer does have the necessary characteristics.
Answer: Hence, when Foehammer is used to makes a shooting attack, the model is still "using" a special CCW, even though the model is using the special CCW to make a shooting attack. In the same way, if a lightning claw had a profile, it would allow re-rolls of wounds when making a shooting attack, because the model would still be "using" a special CCW, even though the model would be using the lightning claw to make a shooting attack (see A).

[MVBrandt]

I don't have a big say in this argument anymore. It's patently, obviously, abundantly clear that Foehammer is at range simply a S10, AP1, 6" range Assault 1 weapon, with no added special rules. The arguments for it reducing initiative are neither RAW, nor convincing, at least to me or my peers in the "real world." That the corollary is true for its proponents is irrelevant to me.

That said, I will only add that you should look up the meaning of the word "Wield" (and "wielder," etc.) in the dictionary.

"I do not think it means what you think it means."

[DarkLink]

I don't have a big say in this argument anymore. It's patently, obviously, abundantly clear that Foehammer is at range simply a S10, AP1, 6" range Assault 1 weapon, with no added special rules. The arguments for it reducing initiative are neither RAW, nor convincing, at least to me or my peers in the "real world." That the corollary is true for its proponents is irrelevant to me.

That said, I will only add that you should look up the meaning of the word "Wield" (and "wielder," etc.) in the dictionary.

"I do not think it means what you think it means."

And I disagree. It's patently, obviously, abundantly clear that Foehammer is at range DOES stun its target, by RAW, and I am fully convinced. Instead of only saying we're wrong, point out WHY we're wrong.

Look at Nabterayl's last post. It very clearly, point by point, lays out our side's argument. If you can find a rule that specifically contradicts any of those points, then say so. No one has done that yet, thus our argument still stands.

[MVBrandt]

I believe I have stated to extensive, exhaustive effect why the argument has no legs to stand on whatsoever. That said, there's no point to continuing an argument when people on both sides hold no incentive or reason to change views. I'm certainly not incentivized to.

As a fully realized and happy human being in the real world, I have no need to win an internet argument. While I respect the fair bit of mental weight that's been leveraged in a grammatical sense through most of this thread, I do not hold the purveyors of this viewpoint as bible truth in especially high regard, either. My initial rationale for even posting was that it was put forth along with some very trite, simplistic other "tactics" as brilliant strategy and usage of the JOTWW, on the BOLS frontpage. I've satisfied myself, which is the only person I had any interest in satisfying, by posting objection to both the rule interpretation, and the smugness associated with the article itself. A note - I am not stating that the original article poster is a smug person, only that the thought of a 40k "Expert" who is so brilliant at this toy soldier game that he or she or they can establish a site with articles on expert tactics is itself a very smug, absurd thing. I occasionally get frustrated that a site originally renowned for its timely rumor and news reporting has fallen so far.

I change hearts and minds in my daily life. I don't browse the web in search of the same fulfillment. If you've read my arguments with sincerity (as I've read the other side's, trust me), and still disagree, then we will remain at an impasse. This is a simple game, no more important or deeper than monopoly, and no more deserving of in-depth "tactical analysis," b/c none of it is really all that deep. My only interest is in seeing the game played according to its own rules, and never interpreting rules at all - simply following them.

All that matters is that Arjac Rockfist has a ranged weapon with a profile very specifically stated as Range 6", S10 AP1 Assault 1, with no special rules attached. In fact, the weapon is in no way special. It's just a S10, AP1 assault weapon. That this imaginary character and imaginary weapon are represented by a thrown thunder hammer are things utterly irrelevant to the rule itself (by virtue of a lack of any special rules denoted with asterisk, or addition of THUNDER HAMMER to the ranged weapon profile), and in any event, it's beyond my concern whether people in other parts of the country play by house rules such as this.

[The Mystic]

I disagree. Nothing actually says that close combat weapons can only be used in the assault phase. Technically, close combat weapons are enhancements to a model's own Strength (p. 42), which is what we use in the close combat phase (p. 38). The Shooting phase, however, tells us to use the weapon's Strength (p. 19), and tells us to measure range using the weapon's maximum range (p. 17). As close combat weapons have neither a Strength of their own nor a maximum range, all targets are out of their range, and most have no Strength with which to wound anybody anyway (Poisoned weapons wouldn't need it, but unfortunately, all possible targets are beyond a Poisoned CCW's maximum range). The reason that CCWs do not enhance shooting attacks made by other weapons is because CCWs, according to page 42, only confer their bonuses and impose their penalties if the model is "wielding" or "using" them, which in the shooting phase models generally aren't (because they're using a weapon with a range and a Strength).

Thus, it happens to be the case that most CCWs cannot be used in the shooting phase. Nowhere does the rulebook actually say that CCWs can only be used in the shooting phase. If a CCW had a Strength of its own, and a maximum range greater than 0", and a Type (pistol, assault, rapid fire, heavy, or ordnance, so we know how it interacts with movement and assault), a CCW could be used in the shooting phase (remember that the shooting rules speak of "weapons," not "ranged weapons").


This is the reason the Instant Death example is relevant. Thunder hammers do not specifically state that their "knocked reeling" effect only apply to the close combat phase. Taken by itself, the "knocked reeling" rule applies to any phase. The only reason to think it only applies to the close combat phase is because the rule appears in the close combat section.

Similarly, the Instant Death rule, taken by itself, applies to any phase. However, it appears only in the shooting phase. If we restrict the thunder hammer's "knocked reeling" effect to the close combat phase solely because it appears in the close combat phase section of the rulebook, we should (to be consistent) restrict Instant Death to the shooting phase because it appears in the shooting phase section of the rulebook.

Ok.

1: You are right that in the rule book there is no mention of ranged weaponry in the shooting phase. So by that logic, as a ranged weapon does not exist in the rules then Foehammer would not be able to make a shooting attack at all. But lets look over that for the moment. So now we must make a distiction between what a "weapon" is and what a "close combat weapon" is. Luckily the rule book list the distictions within two seperate categories, "Weapons" and "Close combat weapons". As Foehammer is a thunder hammer it is a close combat weapon and is in no way defined as a "weapon" in it's description. So what of the profile provided? Well if the profile is to be used in the shooting phase and is useing the characteristics defining what a" weapon" is it would become a weapon within that phase which means any additional characteristics, including the "knocked reeling" affect, would have to be listed as per the rules for"Weapons".

2: "Close combat weapons" are restricted to the assualt phase unless specifically listed otherwise within it's rules or if it is given a profile, in which case, it becomes a "weapon" and will follow the rules for "weapons" as it's characteristics define it as such.

3: In the case of Instant death the location is important because of it's relevance to the phase being described. The content of the rule then allows that rule to apply to other phases. The thunder hammer entry on it's own does not restrict it to the assualt phase, however as it is defined as a "Close combat weapon" it is restricted to the assualt phase unless it' rules are altered as I've specified above.

Whew! I hate typing.:p

[Nabterayl]

2: "Close combat weapons" are restricted to the assualt phase unless specifically listed otherwise within it's rules or if it is given a profile, in which case, it becomes a "weapon" and will follow the rules for "weapons" as it's characteristics define it as such.
I think this is the point at which we part ways. What says that close combat weapons are restricted to the assault phase unless specified otherwise? What says that "weapons" cannot be used in the assault phase?

My contention is that this entire distinction between weapons that can only be used in the assault phase and weapons that can only be used in the shooting is specious. I contend that the rulebook does not classify weapons so strictly. Instead, what we have is this:


1. If you want to use a weapon (any weapon) in the Shooting Phase, that weapon must have a maximum range, a Strength, an AP value (though AP value has a default of -, as various mechanics such as exploding vehicles demonstrate, so AP value need not be specified unless you want it to be something other than -), and a Type. Any weapon that has those characteristics may be used in the Shooting Phase.

2. If you want to use a weapon (any weapon) in the Assault Phase, you may do so, with no restrictions. However, using a weapon in the Assault Phase does not mean you get to use that weapon's Strength in close combat. This is demonstrated by the fact that, though page 42 clearly speaks of models "using" weapons (and in the case of multiple special CCWs, it's very important to specify which weapon is being "used"), page 38 tells to use the model's Strength (not the weapon's) in close combat. This also accounts for statements such as "if a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt ..." on page 42. In order for a weapon to enhance a model's close combat, it needs to have additional rules (for instance, a power fist, though it has no Strength of its own, doubles the using model's Strength).

That's all I see in the rulebook. Foehammer is an odd duck in that it has all of the following properties:

Maximum Range: 6"
Strength: 10
AP: 1
Type: Assault 1
Doubles user's Strength
Delivers all attacks at Initiative 1
Disallows armor saves by models wounded by it in close combat
Reduces to 1 the Initiative of any model wounded by it that fails it until the end of the next player's turn.
Inflicts a Crew Shaken result on any vehicle it damages

Most thunder hammers only have 5-9. Many weapons only have 1-4 (or some variation thereon). Foehammer is weird in that it has 1-9.

The usual objection at this point is that, because 1-4 constitute a "profile," 5-9 must be ignored in the Shooting Phase. This seems to me to be making up a restriction out of whole cloth. Where in the rulebook does it say that a weapon's profile constitutes the only effects it may have in the Shooting Phase? Nowhere that I can find. Granted, most of the time it doesn't come up, but if it did - if a weapon had rules that are not found in the profile - where in the rulebook does it say that we must not use those rules in the Shooting Phase?

[MVBrandt]

The rulebook explicitly states that a weapon's additional characteristics will be included in its profile.

Since no other characteristics are included in or referenced by Foehammer's profile when used as a ranged weapon, you are illegally violating the rules if you apply its characteristics as a special close combat weapon called a "thunder hammer."

It does not get more complicated than that.

In the rulebook, in answer to your question, page 27:

ADDITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
In addition to its type (in this case Assault 1), a weapon may have additional characteristics that define the way they work. These are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile, and include characteristics like 'gets hot!' or 'blast.' A weapon may have any number of these characteristics in addition to its type.

We then know for a fact that this applies to additional benefits gained by applying rules from the Special Close Combat Weapons section. Example? Poisoned being applied to the Banewolf weapon, directly next to its type, in the weapon's profile.

Because any additional characteristics are included in the weapon's profile, next to type, according to the game's rulebook, and because when fired as a ranged weapon with a set profile, Foehammer's profile does not include any additional characteristics whatsoever, it does not benefit from any, regardless of the fact that it still is a thunder hammer, and so benefits from the rules applying to thunder hammers as special close combat weapons. It is not that it does not benefit from them, but that when fired as a ranged weapon, it uses a very clearly published and worded profile with no asterisks or quesiton marks, and certainly NO inclusion of "*" or "Thunder Hammer," or even ANY additional characteristics whatsoever, in said profile.

As soon as you apply 5-9, you are violating the rules of 40k, according to the rulebook, and the rules as written.

[AirHorse]

Said I wasnt gonna post again but I changed my mind, I wanted to add one thing which everyone seems to totaly be overlooking. Codices add new rules, redefine them or make exceptions to them.

It doesnt say that a thunderhammers special rules effects only apply in close combat, but its a given that it does when there are no ranged thunder hammers at time of writing but it is NOT a rule, just an assumption.

Now in a new codex there is a thunderhammer that works at range, and no where, anywhere in the rules does it say that a thunderhammer loses its abilities because it also has a ranged profile, it simply has a ranged profile added for use in the shooting phase.

Therefore we have a new exception to the rule that thunderhammers are only close combat weapons, and as a thunderhammers special rule about stunning doesnt specify itself to close combat attacks only it also affects any ranged attacks that any thunderhammers can make, which we now have one instance of in foehammer.

Thus any attacks made by foehammer, at range or in close combat, will afflict the stunning special rule on a model that suffers an unsaved wound from these attacks.

I added something new, and tried to sum up nice and clear. Hope it helps.

[Nabterayl]

The rulebook explicitly states that a weapon's additional characteristics will be included in its profile.

Since no other characteristics are included in or referenced by Foehammer's profile when used as a ranged weapon, you are illegally violating the rules if you apply its characteristics as a special close combat weapon called a "thunder hammer."

It does not get more complicated than that.

In the rulebook, in answer to your question, page 27:

ADDITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
In addition to its type (in this case Assault 1), a weapon may have additional characteristics that define the way they work. These are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile, and include characteristics like 'gets hot!' or 'blast.' A weapon may have any number of these characteristics in addition to its type.

We then know for a fact that this applies to additional benefits gained by applying rules from the Special Close Combat Weapons section. Example? Poisoned being applied to the Banewolf weapon, directly next to its type, in the weapon's profile.
Thanks for answering that. I don't think your position is clearly wrong, but it's not clear to me that "Additional characteristics ... are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile" means any additional characteristics, or simply the Additional Weapon Characteristics listed on page 29. Page 29, after all, only says "These extra weapon characteristics are represented by additional rules that are added to a weapon's type."

The Poisoned example is a very strong one, I agree. I think everybody is agreed that if Foehammer's profile was 6" S10 AP1 assault 1 thunder hammer, there would be no ambiguity.

There are two reasons I don't find the Poisoned example conclusive. One, the fact that GW has listed the Poisoned effect in the profile does not, obviously, mean that it can only be listed in the profile. They could, in theory, say "all boltguns are Poisoned(3+)," and I think it would be clear that boltguns got Poisoned(3+) despite the fact that it didn't appear in their profiles. Foehammer seems to me to be an example where they have done just that.

Nonetheless this is the first time anybody has articulated to me why they think a weapon with a profile can't benefit from rules not explicitly listed in the profile, so thank you very much. Most enlightening.

EDIT: As an example, take something that is clearly an Additional Weapon Characteristic, such as Gets Hot! When a sternguard squad uses its Vengeance rounds, it is given a new profile to use: 18" S4 AP3 Rapid Fire Gets Hot! Obviously the Gets Hot! rule applies, since it is in the profile.

When a flash gitz squad buys blastaz, they do not get a new profile. They just have a sentence in the codex that says "Blasta snazzguns have the Gets Hot! special rule." Clearly, blasta snazzguns must suffer from Gets Hot!, even though the codex does not give blasta snazzguns a new profile.

[MVBrandt]

That is because they retain an asterisk in their weapon profile referring to additional special rules contained within the entry, which is perfectly legitimate. In this case, the blasta snazzguns getting hot IS mentioned in the profile, in the form of an asterisk, which is clarified in the description of the weapon.

No such asterisk and clarification exists in the case of Foehammer.

Additionally, I think the poisoned example is just that - an example. In a permissive rules set such as this, they have already told you on page 27 where additional characteristics are applied, and go on to state that ANY NUMBER of them may be included there, clearly identifying that there aren't any that need to be kept off for any reason. That poisoned is used is a key aspect in identifying that EVEN rules for special close combat weapons both can be applied, and if they are applied, are done so right in the profile, like everything else.

Now, the only other time I'd be inclined to allow for something, is if instead of writing 6" S10 AP1 Assault 1 Thunder Hammer, it wrote ...

Foehammer is a thunder hammer that may be fired as a ranged weapon with the following profile: 6/10/1/assault1 ... restart paragraph ... In addition, it benefits from the I reduction bonus of the Thunder Hammer when used at range, or something similar, akin to an addition that states a weapon suffers from Gets Hot!, blah blah blah.

I'm not arguing intent here. I don't care what the intent was. I'm not even arguing "obvious," with IMO bad arguments like "obviously it's a thunder hammer" being totally irrelevant.

It doesn't MATTER that it's a thunder hammer, or that thunder hammers don't limit themselves to the close combat phase. Totally irrelevant. Unless it says something in its profile to give it a characteristic, it doesn't have it. That's just the way it works.

[The Mystic]

The Poisoned example is a very strong one, I agree. I think everybody is agreed that if Foehammer's profile was 6" S10 AP1 assault 1 thunder hammer, there would be no ambiguity.

There are two reasons I don't find the Poisoned example conclusive. One, the fact that GW has listed the Poisoned effect in the profile does not, obviously, mean that it can only be listed in the profile. They could, in theory, say "all boltguns are Poisoned(3+)," and I think it would be clear that boltguns got Poisoned(3+) despite the fact that it didn't appear in their profiles. Foehammer seems to me to be an example where they have done just that.

Nonetheless this is the first time anybody has articulated to me why they think a weapon with a profile can't benefit from rules not explicitly listed in the profile, so thank you very much. Most enlightening.

EDIT: As an example, take something that is clearly an Additional Weapon Characteristic, such as Gets Hot! When a sternguard squad uses its Vengeance rounds, it is given a new profile to use: 18" S4 AP3 Rapid Fire Gets Hot! Obviously the Gets Hot! rule applies, since it is in the profile.

When a flash gitz squad buys blastaz, they do not get a new profile. They just have a sentence in the codex that says "Blasta snazzguns have the Gets Hot! special rule." Clearly, blasta snazzguns must suffer from Gets Hot!, even though the codex does not give blasta snazzguns a new profile.

But Foehammer does not specifically state that it's abilities as a thunder hammer are included for the purposes of shooting within it's rules. It simpley states that it is a thunder hammer and as such is a close combat weapon. As with poisoned it would have to be listed in the profile. As Foehammer has neither it's additional abilities cannot be used.

This was the exact point I was attempting to articulate in my earlier post.

[Nabterayl]

That is because they retain an asterisk in their weapon profile referring to additional special rules contained within the entry, which is perfectly legitimate. In this case, the blasta snazzguns getting hot IS mentioned in the profile, in the form of an asterisk, which is clarified in the description of the weapon.
I don't see an asterisk in the snazzgun entry either on page 56 or in the summary on page 104. A number of other examples come to mind, such as the cyclic ion blaster (which includes no asterisk, and yet whose rule paragraph states that to-wound rolls of 6 give it AP1), the singing spear, d-cannon, and wraithcannon (which include no asterisk, and yet whose profiles do not specify what it needs to roll to wound), among others.

[MVBrandt]

Per our private message exchanges,

For all of those weapons, additional rules are presented along with the weapon's profile that specifically amend or add to the profile. That is to say, they amend it (by explaining things like "X"), or they add to it (by adding things such as "Gets Hot!").

For the snazzgun, the base weapon does not require an asterisk, because it does not have anything additional. Upgrades may be purchased that affect the weapon's profile, and these effects are clearly delineated by the Flash Gitz entry. The rest of the rules in entirety for the weapon are right there in its profile - it has a range, a strength, an ap (d6), and a type. What more is required?

For Foehammer, it does not have any special rules or additions that grant it anything even in the entry for Thunder Hammers in the codex. Stating it is a thunder hammer is IRRELEVANT in that sentence, b/c it then gives a ranged profile that does not contain the thunder hammer rule even in the slightest.

[Nabterayl]

Oh, fine, take it back public ;)

I'll repeat my PM response as well:

My point was that it is clearly legal (indeed, required) to look beyond the four corners of the profile itself for additional functionality, even if the profile does not include any kind of asterisk or note indicating that there are additional rules, even if the profile functions perfectly fine on its own (e.g., the cyclic ion blaster and cyclone missile launcher), and even if the additional rules are not summed up under a handy heading (e.g., the cyclic ion blaster and cyclone missile launcher again). It sounds like you agree on this principle, and I'm pretty sure everyone else would too.

What we disagree on, and this gets back to the grammar point again, is whether Foehammer includes any additional rules. I contend that "is a thunder hammer" is it. You contend that "is a thunder hammer" does not apply additional functionality to the weapon. I'm not really sure why that is. Is it because you think what the codex really means is "is a thunder hammer for purposes of close combat?" Are we back to the old "special CCW effects can only be included in a shooting attack if noted in the profile" (in which case I ask why special CCW attacks are treated differently from Additional Weapon Characteristics and even weirder rules, such as those for the CIB and CML, which are neither)?

Or do you see something in "all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn" that is explicitly phase- or close combat-specific?

[MVBrandt]

Nah, I'm just saying that when a line goes ...

X is a Y and may be fired as a ranged weapon with profile Z, and Z does not include somewhere in it: Z = n+Y, then you can't apply Y to Z.

It is NOT a case of Y = Z, b/c in this case Y is a thunder hammer, and Z is at the very least more than a thunder hammer, by virtue of its profile. Since the profile includes no reference whatsoever to thunder hammer, nor any FOLLOWING clarified / clear-cut addendums adding thunder hammer rules to the profile, it does not have Y in it. So, Y+Z = X, but Z =! n+Y

I'm tired and going home. I'm carrying this discussion on anymore b/c Nabterayl is intelligent enough to be worth sparring with. I'm not likely to change my view on it, b/c it isn't based on any inferred meanings from my p.o.v., just pure RAW.

[mkerr]

The rulebook explicitly states that a weapon's additional characteristics will be included in its profile.

I don't know how you can make that argument. There are examples in almost every codex of shooting attacks having special characteristics that fail to appear on the profile.

From old codices, like Daemonhunters:


1. The Vindicare Exitus Rifle, the Culexus Animus Speculum, and the Callidus Neural Shredder all have effects that aren't covered by the profile.

2. Heavy Support Orbital Strikes have targeting, timing and placement rules -- as well as Inaccuracy.
to new codices, like the Space Marine codex:


3. Chapter Master Orbital Bombardment has an "always scatters the full 2D6" rule that's not covered in the weapon's profile.

4. Scout Bike Cluster Mines have tons of weird rules that don't appear in the profile.

5. Cassius' Infurnus has rules that don't appear in the profile.

to the latest Space Wolves codex:


6. Psychic shooting attacks like Fury of the Wolf Spirits and Murderous Hurricane have special characteristics that don't appear on the profile.

7. Njal's Lord of the Tempests ranged attacks don't even have profiles.

These characteristics aren't ingored when those shooting attacks are made.

[Nabterayl]

Thanks, MVBrandt. I appreciate that.

In thinking about this, perhaps it is actually the term "thunder hammer" that is tripping people up. I'm a contract lawyer, so I'm used to sentences that are packed with defined terms. I mention that just so you will have some context when I say that I read "Foehammer is a thunder hammer that may be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" as:


Foehammer disallows armor saves by any model wounded by it in close combat, doubles the user's Strength (up to a maximum of 10), always delivers its attacks at Initiative 1 (ignoring Initiative bonuses from special rules, wargear, etc.), reduces the Initiative of any model wounded but not killed by it to 1 until the end of the next player's turn, against vehicles with no Initiative value inflicts a crew shaken result any time it inflicts any damage result, and may be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

Range: 6" S:10 AP:1 Assault 1

That is the exact same sentence, except that I have replaced "thunder hammer" with the rules for how a thunder hammer actually works, taken from page 42. That is not any different to me, structurally, than this:


The D-cannon always wounds on a roll of 2+, and on a roll to wound of a 6 it inflicts instant death on the victim (regardless of its Toughness value). Against targets with an Armour Value, the D-cannon always inflicts a glancing hit on a roll of 3 or 4 and a penetrating hit on a roll of 5 or 6. It has the following profile:

Range: G24" S:X AP:2 Heavy 1, Blast

Both cases have "the following profile," and both cases have written rules that are not in the profile, or indicated by the profile in the slightest way. You might guess that you have to look up what a D-cannon wounds on, given that its Strength is listed as X. But nothing in the profile remotely suggests that a D-cannon inflicts Instant Death on a 6 - and yet it does.

[DarkLink]

Said I wasnt gonna post again but I changed my mind, I wanted to add one thing which everyone seems to totaly be overlooking. Codices add new rules, redefine them or make exceptions to them.

It doesnt say that a thunderhammers special rules effects only apply in close combat, but its a given that it does when there are no ranged thunder hammers at time of writing but it is NOT a rule, just an assumption.

Now in a new codex there is a thunderhammer that works at range, and no where, anywhere in the rules does it say that a thunderhammer loses its abilities because it also has a ranged profile, it simply has a ranged profile added for use in the shooting phase.

Therefore we have a new exception to the rule that thunderhammers are only close combat weapons, and as a thunderhammers special rule about stunning doesnt specify itself to close combat attacks only it also affects any ranged attacks that any thunderhammers can make, which we now have one instance of in foehammer.

Thus any attacks made by foehammer, at range or in close combat, will afflict the stunning special rule on a model that suffers an unsaved wound from these attacks.

I added something new, and tried to sum up nice and clear. Hope it helps.

Right. Foehammer is a thunderhammer with additional characteristics.

summed up as simply as I can
1. Foehammer is a Thunderhammer. Stated explicitly in the Foehammer rule.

2. Thunderhammers "auto-stun" infantry on a successful to-hit roll, and vehicles on a successful to-penetrate roll. Didn't bother copying the rule.

3. The Thunderhammer rule does not limit this effect to close combat, thus it also applies when "shooting" the foehammer. This is evidenced in several cases, such as Instant Death applying to both CC and Shooting, despite only being listed in the Shooting section, as well as the existence of Poisoned Shooting weapons.

4. This only works, because Foehammer has been given an explicit ability to be used as a shooting weapon, unlike other CCW's.

5. Shooting weapons may have additional effects not mentioned in their profile. There have been several examples listed proving this point.

Conclusion:
As such, Foehammer "stuns" its target in the shooting phase, as well as in CC.



People seem to primarily get hung up on point 3. That doesn't make point 3 any less true, though, as mkerr and others have repeatedly pointed out.

Additionally, the only reason this whole thing works is because point 4 is true. Foehammer can be used as a ranged weapon, an exception to the normal "CCW's can't shoot, and Shooting weapons can't be used in CC".

[AirHorse]

Brilliant explanation nabterayl! Thats what weve been trying to get across for ages!

I also wanted to add something about all this grammar pants(im not the worlds best language user ever :P). Everyone keeps saying "oh it says it can be used as a ranged weapon with that profile so it cant use the other special rules" but having looked at the sentence a fair few times now I twigged, isnt the way to seperate things without inclusion to say "Foehammer can be used as a thunderhammer or a ranged weapon with the following profile"?

Now Im not a master or anything so this is more of a question, but surely without the critical word, or, the sentence effectively means that foehammer is used as both a thunderhammer(a close combat weapon) and a ranged weapon(with its profile) at the same time? Surely this is exactly the same as saying its a ranged weapon with profile str10 ap1 thunderhammer then having the blurb in the book about thunderhammers making it a close combat weapon at the same time?

Im asking this because comments like "oh if it had thunderhammer in its profile then I would totaly agree" are being said and I just find that weird since as I understand it there is actually no difference. But then like I said Im not 100% i understand the language part of it correctly.

[Nabterayl]

Grammatically -

The clause "that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" is a relative clause. You can tell it's a relative clause because it begins with the word "that," which is a relative pronoun. Relative clauses don't have to start with relative pronouns, but in this case we have one, so that's easy.

Relative clauses modify things in some way. They typically modify nouns (or noun phrases, which follow the same rules as nouns, so I will just say "nouns" from here on out), though they can also modify whole clauses. In English, if they modify a noun, they always follow the noun that they modify. Example: The man is the president that I met. "President" is the noun immediately preceding "that I met," which is the relative clause. Grammatically, this means "that I met" modifies the president; it tells you which president you met. If you wanted instead to identify which man you met, you would have to say, "The man that I met is the president."

But does our relative clause modify a noun, or something else?

As it happens, in English, a relative clause that is also a restrictive clause can only modify a noun. As it also happens, in English, a non-restrictive relative clause is marked by off-setting the relative clause with commas. Example: The man, who is the president, is Barack Obama. The relative clause, introduced with the relative pronoun "who," is "who is the president." The commas (or pause in speech, if we're speaking) indicate that the clause is non-restrictive. The restrictive version of the same sentence is: The man who is the president is Barack Obama.

In the Foehammer sentence, we have a restrictive relative clause, which we know because there are no off-setting commas. This means that our relative clause can only modify a noun. This, in turn, means that our relative clause must modify the immediately proceeding noun.

The immediately preceding noun is "a thunder hammer." Hence, grammatically, "that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" modifies "a thunder hammer." It does not modify "Foehammer."

[AirHorse]

Cool, enjoying the lesson in english here :P.

So does that mean that what I said is true? Would it require another word or bit of punctuation to seperate the defined usage of foehammer from what it is(a thunderhammer)?

Also, when it says "can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile", am I right to say that there is nothing here in language terms which indicates that the profile(well the bit after the following basically to be more language relevant) is completely seperated from what is being used and that it is purely down to the rules we are gaining meaning from to determine this?

Edit: just realised I asked the same question twice I think XD, getting tired now :P

[Nabterayl]

There's no way with the current word order to make "that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" grammatically modify "Foehammer." You could add a comma to make the relative clause non-restrictive, but it would still modify "a thunder hammer." Example: Foehammer is a thunder hammer, which can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile (that and which are interchangeable in British English, which the rulebook was written in; formal American English requires the switch to "which" with the comma, according to some grammarians).

Changing the word order, or re-wording the sentence, could obviously change its grammatical structure, but that's hardly news :p

"With the following profile" is a prepositional phrase, which describes the relation of the immediately preceding noun in its own clause to the noun in the prepositional phrase. So there is no way to read "with the following profile" as related to anything other than "weapon," which in turn is modified by the adjective "ranged" (guessing you didn't need me to tell you that "ranged" modifies "weapon"). As a logical, rather than grammatical, matter, nothing in the sentence prohibits Foehammer from being a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with a different profile, or even with no profile at all, but of course in a permissive ruleset we are not allowed to go down those roads, even if they are logically possible.

[MVBrandt]

I don't know how you can make that argument. There are examples in almost every codex of shooting attacks having special characteristics that fail to appear on the profile.

From old codices, like Daemonhunters:


1. The Vindicare Exitus Rifle, the Culexus Animus Speculum, and the Callidus Neural Shredder all have effects that aren't covered by the profile.

2. Heavy Support Orbital Strikes have targeting, timing and placement rules -- as well as Inaccuracy.
to new codices, like the Space Marine codex:


3. Chapter Master Orbital Bombardment has an "always scatters the full 2D6" rule that's not covered in the weapon's profile.

4. Scout Bike Cluster Mines have tons of weird rules that don't appear in the profile.

5. Cassius' Infurnus has rules that don't appear in the profile.

to the latest Space Wolves codex:


6. Psychic shooting attacks like Fury of the Wolf Spirits and Murderous Hurricane have special characteristics that don't appear on the profile.

7. Njal's Lord of the Tempests ranged attacks don't even have profiles.

These characteristics aren't ingored when those shooting attacks are made.


As is the norm for you, Kerr, you did not reply to any of my answers already posted to Nab's far more eloquent responses in that vein. When you're late to the party, catch up on the whole picture.





Re: Nab, and your restatement of the rule replacing thunder hammer with its rules ... check our pm's, but I think you both got it wrong on the rephrase, and still don't have anything that applies to the fact that when used as a ranged weapon, you have a profile, and no subsequent applications or exemptions or special rules applied to it. It's simply an Assault 1 weapon, when used at range. There's no more to it.

I don't have anything personally against the folks who will play it this way, but you're using a house rule as far as I am concerned. It even makes sense, it's just not the pure RAW. There's a leap being made that because it's a thunder hammer, even though they give a "that may be used as a ranged weapon with profile X" somehow it's included.

A = B, that may be used as C. This does not automatically make B = C, nor does it by default render B a subcomponent of C. Unless C is defined as n + B, or simply as B.

In this case, C is not defined in any such way, and in fact, when C is subsequently defined, B is nowhere to be found.

[mkerr]

As is the norm for you, Kerr, you did not reply to any of my answers already posted to Nab's far more eloquent responses in that vein. When you're late to the party, catch up on the whole picture.

Jump to conclusions much? Your provided "answers" didn't work for the examples I posted (that's why I posted them). But I agree that Nab is quite eloquent.

I suspect my frustration has more to do with your method of presenting your case than anything else. It feels like you post a sweeping generalization and when it proves false, you answer with another sweeping generalization.

Here's an example:


The rulebook explicitly states that a weapon's additional characteristics will be included in its profile.

I'm summarizing here, but you basically said the *only* way for a Shooting weapon to gain an additional characteristic is if that characteristic is included in the profile.

Nab showed an example where that assumption was proved false (Snazz Gun), so you responded with another sweeping generalization:


For all of those weapons, additional rules are presented along with the weapon's profile that specifically amend or add to the profile. That is to say, they amend it (by explaining things like "X"), or they add to it (by adding things such as "Gets Hot!").

Note the "[f]or all those weapons" comment. So you respond by saying that if the weapon has an additional characteristic that's not listed in the profile then that characteristic can *only* amend or add to the profile (e.g., range, strength, AP, etc.).

But if you look at my examples, that's clearly not the case:

1) The Neural Shredder has an additional effect against vehicles that is not an amendment or addition to the profile. If your statement was true, then the Neural Shredder would need a "Crew Scrambler" characteristic in the profile because it's affect against vehicles isn't a change to its existing profile.

Note: This example clearly illustrates our point about the "knocked reeling" effect of a thunder hammer.

2) A Chapter Master's Orbital Bombardment is Inaccurate and never benefits from the Chapter Master's Ballistic Skill. This isn't a change to the profile (i.e., it doesn't amend the range, strength, AP, type or additional characteristics of the Orbital Bombardment). If your statement was true, then it would need to appear as an "Inaccuracy" additional characteristic. But it doesn't.

All of my examples were selected to prove that many ranged weapons in the game have "additional characteristics" that NEITHER appear on the profile NOR modify an existing profile.

[DarkLink]

MVB, I have to agree with mkerr. Mkerr introduced an argument, and the only real counter-argument you have brought up have been sweeping statements which ultimately are either incorrect, or don't actually contradict mkerr's argument, as pointed out in mkerr's post above.

[MVBrandt]

There are no ranged weapons where the effects and special effects of the weapon (where different from generic ones like "assault 1) are not defined in detail as applying to those ranged effects. That's the general analysis here. All of MKerr's examples support my position, which is why responding to them in detail with that would be rather silly.


The long and short is that despite protestations to the contrary, since the weapon is given a ranged profile, and no amendments or adjustments are made thereafter, it is akin to the equation given in my prior post. When used as a ranged weapon, for the purposes of this *game that we play,* foehammer has no aspects of a "thunder hammer special close combat weapon."


The presented rule is not "Foehammer is A, and when used at range is A+B" ... instead it is Foehammer is an A, that may be used as a B, and B = C.

A = Thunder Hammer
B = ranged weapon
C = 6" Range, S10, AP1, Assault 1

Nowhere in "C" is the value A present, nor anywhere after following any of the formats in any codex or the rulebook for purposes of additional rules.

[DarkLink]

There are no ranged weapons where the effects and special effects of the weapon (where different from generic ones like "assault 1) are not defined in detail as applying to those ranged effects. That's the general analysis here. All of MKerr's examples support my position, which is why responding to them in detail with that would be rather silly.


Well, the whole point of mkerr's argument is that Foehammer does get its special effect.

1. Foehammer is a Thunderhammer that can be used as a ranged weapon
2. Thunderhammers "stun" under certain conditions. The only thing restricting this to CC is the fact that Thunderhammers cannot normally be used as a shooting weapon.
3. However, because Foehammer is a Thunderhammer that CAN be used as a shooting weapon, overcoming the normal restrictions, Foehammer can "stun" its target, even when shooting. It never looses its stunning rule.

Normally, a Thunderhammer only "stuns" in CC, because a Thunderhammer can only be used in CC normally. Foehammer is not restricted as such. Thus, by RAW, any enemy that takes a wound from Foehammer (including a shooting wound) is stunned, and vehicles that takes damage will be auto-shaken (including shooting).

[hisdudeness]

Someone at some point brought up the idea that it really does not matter if the TH mechanic functions at ranged. So I got to thinking about that and here is the chain of events that would have to happen:

1. Foehammer must hit.
2. Foehammer must wound.
3. Target wounded must have Invulnerable save and fail it. (AP1)
4. Target must have more than 1 wound.
5. Target with multiple wound must also have Eternal Warrior USR.(S10 will cause ID on every unit I know of)

This all comes to less then 1% chance that the target will survive to be hit with JotWW. That is not counting the chance that Arjac and this target (that meets all above) are on the same table. Which will make the chance a small fraction of 1%.

So if you play it as Foehammer gets TH and you get to target that survives, get a picture and sent it to 'pic of the day'.


Either way, this is still a important issue as it will set a precedent for other wargear that will come about.

[Lerra]

All Monstrous Creatures will survive a single hit from Foehammer. The lowest toughness MC is a Daemon Prince at T5, and they are immune to instant death. Every other MC is T6+.

[Duke]

I get about an 18% chance of those criteria coming together...Not too bad.

Anyhow, Sometimes I feel we get too wrapped up in RAW (Or in this case RAnW aka Rules as not written). You know how many agruments we could make because it sepficically doesn't say XYZ.

Lets introduce a little common since into this multipage mess.

If you get hit by a TH, you get stunned... It doesn't matter if I throw it at you or have my hand attatched to the handle... You still got smacked by a TH.

I mean seriously this remindes me or ROE discussions in the military: Technically you cannot use a .50 cal on people. So to get around this the .50 cal gunner will 'shoot the enemies pistol,' because it is techincally equipment. The way this argument is going it is almost like the insurgent getting up after being shot and saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" the simple fact is that you got shot by a .50 cal, like it or not.

Don't choose ignorange simply to save pride.

Duke

[MVBrandt]

Well, the whole point of mkerr's argument is that Foehammer does get its special effect.

1. Foehammer is a Thunderhammer that can be used as a ranged weapon
2. Thunderhammers "stun" under certain conditions. The only thing restricting this to CC is the fact that Thunderhammers cannot normally be used as a shooting weapon.
3. However, because Foehammer is a Thunderhammer that CAN be used as a shooting weapon, overcoming the normal restrictions, Foehammer can "stun" its target, even when shooting. It never looses its stunning rule.

Normally, a Thunderhammer only "stuns" in CC, because a Thunderhammer can only be used in CC normally. Foehammer is not restricted as such. Thus, by RAW, any enemy that takes a wound from Foehammer (including a shooting wound) is stunned, and vehicles that takes damage will be auto-shaken (including shooting).

When Foehammer is shot, it is a ranged weapon with a set profile, not a "ranged thunderhammer."

I think that's what's generally being missed, or intentionally misread here.

The rule does not say Foehammer is a thunder hammer AND a ranged weapon. It says foehammer is a thunder hammer that MAY BE USED AS a ranged weapon with a very fixed, clear cut, set profile.

There's really nothing more to it than that.

Again, though, I know of nobody with any willingness to budge on this within the last 19 or w/e pages, my own tournaments will never FAQ that foehammer can do this, and there's no situation I'm going to run into where anyone's going to attempt to play with the rule this way.



Duke: In terms of common sense vs. the rules of a game, it's a bit different from .50 cals in the real world.

What I mean is ... if you want to go by "common sense," guardsmen stuck in close combat with an immobilized, weaponless dreadnaught can walk away, right? Or instead of punching it with their hands or krak grenades, can just lift those meltaguns of theirs and "bam," right? There are 500 rules that instantly get thrown out the window if we want to take common sense into play.

It's a GAME, not the real world. The rules of a game are the rules of a game, you play by them, and you advocate for change if you don't like them, or you don't play the game. You can also house rule them, with your buddies. There's all sorts of options.

[Nabterayl]

There are no ranged weapons where the effects and special effects of the weapon (where different from generic ones like "assault 1) are not defined in detail as applying to those ranged effects. That's the general analysis here. All of MKerr's examples support my position, which is why responding to them in detail with that would be rather silly.
Nobody's claiming that Foehammer exactly fits the mold of other ranged-type weapons in the game. The closest we've got are weapons like the Tyrant's Claw or the Gauntlets of Ultramar, both of which clearly state that they are a special close combat weapon (or pair of SCCWs) that incorporate a ranged-type weapon. Foehammer doesn't do that; it clearly states (grammatically speaking) that Foehammer is a SCCW that can be used as a ranged-type weapon. This is not a mechanic anybody is claiming we have ever seen before.

The point of the various examples Mkerr and I have been pointing out is twofold:
It is not true that a weapon with a profile can only have rules if they are somehow indicated in the profile, or if the profile is incomplete on its face without it. The cyclic ion blaster is a good example. 18" S3 AP4 Assault 5 is complete on its face; you don't need any additional information to use that weapon in the game (unlike, say, the D-cannon's profile, which you do need additional information to use - SX doesn't tell you anything by itself). I assume you agree that if I told a Tau player he didn't get his ionization effect because it wasn't in the profile I would be wrong.
It is true that the long-form text describing a weapon with a profile must be searched for rules that apply to it, even if there is no indication in the profile to do so. Again, the cyclic ion blaster is a good example. There is no asterisk in the profile indicating that the weapon has additional rules. That does not make the ionization effect optional.
So let me state the following as a canon of construction for all 40K weapons, so you can easily quote it and disagree with me (if you do): The long-form text describing a weapon must in all cases be searched for rules that apply to that weapon, notwithstanding a weapon profile that is complete on its face or the lack of indication in the profile that the weapon has additional rules.

With that as our canon, let me turn to Foehammer again.

As I explained to AirHorse, "that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" refers to "a thunder hammer," not "Foehammer." I'm happy to be proven wrong on this point, but if you're inclined to try I request that you explain under what circumstances a relative clause can have a head ("head" is the thing it modifies, AirHorse) that does not immediately precede it.
Example: The man is a president that I find worthy of respect says that you find a president worthy of respect. It does not say that you find a man worthy of respect, and as we all know, respecting a man's discharge of his professional office is different from respecting the man himself. The only way in English the relative clause can refer to the man is to make man the immediately preceding thing. Example: The man that I find worthy of respect is a president. That sentence does say that I find a man worthy of respect, and does not actually say anything (except by logical implication) about my feelings towards the president.

I'm going to un-pack the sentence again. In your PM to me you indicated that this sort of thing is "inappropriate for a warhammer 40k rules environment." I don't see why. I'm not deploying any secret lawyer tricks here. I'm not even doing anything that the rulebook doesn't do itself. Power fists and thunder hammers, for instance, are each defined with reference to previously defined terms. The only way you know that a power fist ignores armor saves is because "a power fist is a power weapon." That doesn't tell you anything about ignoring armor saves - unless you do what I'm about to do. Similarly with thunder hammers, combi-weapons, the Tyrant's Claw, and so forth.

So let me start with the sentence:

Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile.

This unpacks to (among other ways of presenting it):


Foehammer is a power weapon that doubles the user's Strength (up to a maximum of 10). It is, however, difficult and cumberosme to use, so attacks with it are always delivered at Initiative 1 (ignore Initiative bonuses from special rules, wargear, etc.). In addition, all models that suffer an unsaved wound from it and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn. Against vehicles with no Initiative value, whenever it inflicts any damage result, it also inflicts a crew shaken result. It can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

If you disagree that I have correctly unpacked the sentence, I ask that you please unpack it yourself to present your view of what the sentence actually says, without falling back on defined terms that are in question (I leave "power weapon" as a defined term because power weapons very clearly only apply to wounds inflicted in close combat, not a case we are concerned with).

Now, according to the earlier stated canon of construction, I search that sentence for rules that are applicable to the weapon with the profile. I do this even though the profile does not tell me to, and even though the profile is facially complete. I am giving the long-form description of Foehammer the exact same treatment as I give the cyclic ion blaster.

Combing through the long-form description, I see a couple of rules that are obviously not applicable to the profile. It's irrelevant that Foehammer doubles its user's Strength, for instance. The user could have a Strength of 1 or a Strength of 10 and it wouldn't matter for purposes of the shooting rules. Similarly, it's irrelevant that Foehammer delivers all attacks at Initiative 1. I will bear that in mind as I go through the shooting rules, but as the shooting rules never tell me to reference the Initiative of a shooting attack, it will never come up.

It is relevant to know that all models that suffer an unsaved wound will be knocked reeling, etc. and that any damage result also inflicts crew shaken. So long as the shooting rules bring me to the point of inflicting a damage result (which they do, at least if I roll a damage result on the vehicle damage table) or of inflicting an unsaved wound (which they do, at least if I roll well enough and my opponent rolls poorly enough), this rule will come into play.

The profile does not tell me to use this rule. The profile functions without this rule. However, I would be just as remiss in ignoring it as I would be in ignoring the ionization effect of the cyclic ion blaster.

I trust that, when you reply, you will have stopped me at the points in the procedure above where you disagree. I will now proceed to the points in your post where I disagree with you.


The long and short is that despite protestations to the contrary, since the weapon is given a ranged profile, and no amendments or adjustments are made thereafter, it is akin to the equation given in my prior post. When used as a ranged weapon, for the purposes of this *game that we play,* foehammer has no aspects of a "thunder hammer special close combat weapon."
I think this is in error. It's true that the weapon is given a ranged profile, and that no amendments or adjustments are made thereafter. Nor do we have any reason, if we just look at the profile, to think that there must be amendments or adjustments somewhere. However, all of those statements are also true of the cyclic ion blaster. That weapon is also given a ranged profile, and no amendments or adjustments are made thereafter. Nor do we have any reason, if we just look at the profile, to think that there must be amendments or adjustments somewhere. Yet there are. We must search the long-form description of the weapon for amendments or adjustments, no matter what.


The presented rule is not "Foehammer is A, and when used at range is A+B" ... instead it is Foehammer is an A, that may be used as a B, and B = C.

A = Thunder Hammer
B = ranged weapon
C = 6" Range, S10, AP1, Assault 1

Nowhere in "C" is the value A present, nor anywhere after following any of the formats in any codex or the rulebook for purposes of additional rules.
This is also true. If you want to look at like this, the presented rule for the cyclic ion blaster is "[The cyclic ion blaster] is B, and B = C," where A, B and C have the following values, is it not?


A = any rolls to wound of 6 count as AP1
B = ranged weapon
C = 18" S3 AP4 Assault 5

Nowhere in "C" is the value A present, nor anywhere after following any of the formats in any codex or the rulebook for purposes of additional rules. A is present prior to B and C, as it is in the Foehammer long-form description.

[Duke]

Im going to have to throw my lot in with Nab on this one...

My main reason for supporting this is because
a- Foehammer is a thunderhammer
b- ANY unsaved wounds from a thunderhammer lower inititive to 1
c- therefore ANY unsaved wounds from Foehammer lower inititive to 1


Pretty simple, and I did it in less that 300 words (Wink, wink nab. lol)

Duke

[MVBrandt]

Foehammer is not a Thunder Hammer Special Close Combat Weapon at range.
It's a 6" S10 AP1 Assault 1 weapon.

There, I did it in 20 words.

As a PS,

all of the examples from 4th edition (and prior?) codices are sort of irrelevant, given the BRB rules weren't the same either, and none of them are relevant to the current world and syntax. Checking post-5th codices would be more effective ... haven't proofed all the backlog to see which if any of those were done.

[Nabterayl]

Foehammer is not a Thunder Hammer Special Close Combat Weapon at range.
It's a 6" S10 AP1 Assault 1 weapon.

And we were being so civil, too :( Do you disagree with my canon of construction? If so, what is yours? Do you disagree with how I unpacked the sentence? If so, how would you do it?


all of the examples from 4th edition (and prior?) codices are sort of irrelevant, given the BRB rules weren't the same either, and none of them are relevant to the current world and syntax.
What, exactly, changed, and how is it relevant in your view?

[MVBrandt]

That was uncivil?

This discussion is a bit too much of a vortex. I'd continue ours that we've been having via PM if you'd like, Nab.

Working on a $1B proposal, and spending too much time rehashing arguments :p

[Nabterayl]

I've certainly seen more uncivility on the internet :p I just didn't want this to devolve into snark sniping, you know?

By all means, continue (or not) in a way that doesn't screw your real life. I'm sure we're all in favor of responsible gaming (or ... gaming meta-hobby ... or ... whatever this is :p) I am very curious about your instinct that the rules for which the term "thunder hammer" stands are somehow not applicable to the profile. You are sounding like your reason for that is that the rule states, as it were, "THIS IS THE PROFILE," and the rules for which "thunder hammer" stands are not included in the profile. What I don't get is how you distinguish between this case and other situations in which the rule states, "THIS IS THE PROFILE," and other rules are included in the long-form description. Surely it's not because they used the defined term "thunder hammer" rather than writing out all the rules for which "thunder hammer" stands?

[DarkLink]

Foehammer is not a Thunder Hammer Special Close Combat Weapon at range.
It's a 6" S10 AP1 Assault 1 weapon.

There, I did it in 20 words.

As a PS,

all of the examples from 4th edition (and prior?) codices are sort of irrelevant, given the BRB rules weren't the same either, and none of them are relevant to the current world and syntax. Checking post-5th codices would be more effective ... haven't proofed all the backlog to see which if any of those were done.

Now we've come full circle, back the the first half dozen pages where mkerr would repeatedly point out that there is nothing that causes Foehammer to loose the Thunderhammer effect when shooting. It doesn't stop being a Thunderhammer, even when used as a ranged weapon.

[ShadowDeth]

There's nothing in the text to indicate that the shooting attack 'is' a thunder-hammer, either.

"Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile."

The second that sentence from the codex states it 'can' be used as a ranged weapon, it has to then follow the profile for the shooting attack. There is no "Well, it's a thunder hammer so why not!?"

No. That's not logical adhesion to the rules. That's illogical connection of two completely unrelated points, the (unfortunate) description of the weapon somewhere in the vicinity of the actual rules.

I really don't understand how so many people can incorrectly decipher the syntax in that sentence.

[MVBrandt]

Since none of us here are being judged by the gods of English, someone can easily just break it down differently and claim it's proper syntax ... been done already.

While I agree w/ you, this one's not going anywhere new.

[mkerr]

I think that Nabterayl did an awesome job of deconstructing the sentence a few pages back. I suggest that you skim his fantastic posts before you make the assumption that any of the readers are incorrectly deciphering the syntax.

Oh, and one demerit for thread necromancy.

[MVBrandt]

I think that Nab's deconstruction is not perfect, no matter how much it agrees w/ your premature BOLS frontpage post. It's perfectly deconstructable either way, by about every law of English out there. That said, we took our discussions on the subject to PM ... and there it will stay as far as I'm concerned (in case Nab wants to carry it on again).

For my point, I wasn't ever convinced in the least by the pro-I reduction args, and it seems the same went the other way. It doesn't much matter. It is kind of a thread necro.


As a PS - in reading back over some of this, I hope nobody here actually got emotionally involved in this. It's a tabletop game ... nothing about it is all that big a deal, and it isn't very deep or tactically intimidating. Rules lawyering is more of a forum troll sport of its own ... the impacts on the trivial game of Warhammer 40k are pretty light, so naturally getting upset about it is a little unnecessary.

IN a real world situation, this kind of debate never happens. Intelligence or dicing off wins out quickly. When you have intelligent enough people desperately attached to their points of view, forums enable folks to take time and construct arguments that sound correct and support their view ... this doesn't really work in the give and take of real world conversation, and the results of these discussions are never binding in any reasonable man's book. It's a silly game, with badly written rules put together by average joes. Not a wonder or a big investment of emotion required ... that they sometimes turn out a lil ambiguous.

[rle68]

My reading allows it (I even talk about it on my JotWW Tactica (http://www.chainfist.com/2009/10/using-jaws-of-world-wolf.html) on Chainfist).

Here's the skinny:

1. He throws his Thunder Hammer. It never stops being a Thunder Hammer and it's a Thunder Hammer that hits you (i.e., as opposed to being a beam that shoots out of it or a summoned strike of lightning).

2. "Thunder Hammer" isn't an Additional Weapon Characteristic, like Gets Hot! or Sniper. It's not something that would appear in the statline -- it comes from the fact that it's a Thunder Hammer.

3. The Thunder Hammer entry in the rulebook doesn't restrict the wounding to wounds caused in close combat. It says "all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling".

So, by my reading, Arjac's thrown attack is still a Thunder Hammer and still causes the Thunder Hammer effect.

-- mkerr

i agree 100% correct finally someone sees the light!.. now wether or not it reduces the init to 1 for jaws is another issue entirely

and the one fact every single one of you has failed to mention it states in teh description it is thrown not shot, that right there makes it a thunderhammer attack not a """shooting""" attack arjac is throwing the thunderhammer not shooting lightning or other garabage out of it

[gcsmith]

what weapon type is it?

[hisdudeness]

Sweet, since it is not a shooting attack I can use it during the movement phase!

[hisdudeness]

Assault 1.

[hisdudeness]

Frankly whether the attack is ‘thrown’ or shot has no bearing on the conversation either as grenades are no longer used.

This was pretty much decided a few months ago that this is a grey area and a FAQ is the only thing that will settle it. Until then it is a house rule or roll off.

[rle68]

Sweet, since it is not a shooting attack I can use it during the movement phase!

i did not say it wasnt a shooting attack i said it was not a "shooting " type of attack thus it doesnt have a shooting profile modifier like a melta or a plasma it is a thrown weapon like old grenades use to be

your bit of sillyness doesnt help the conversation much

[nojinx]

Nobody's claiming that Foehammer exactly fits the mold of other ranged-type weapons in the game. The closest we've got are weapons like the Tyrant's Claw or the Gauntlets of Ultramar, both of which clearly state that they are a special close combat weapon (or pair of SCCWs) that incorporate a ranged-type weapon. Foehammer doesn't do that; it clearly states (grammatically speaking) that Foehammer is a SCCW that can be used as a ranged-type weapon. This is not a mechanic anybody is claiming we have ever seen before.

The point of the various examples Mkerr and I have been pointing out is twofold:
It is not true that a weapon with a profile can only have rules if they are somehow indicated in the profile, or if the profile is incomplete on its face without it. The cyclic ion blaster is a good example. 18" S3 AP4 Assault 5 is complete on its face; you don't need any additional information to use that weapon in the game (unlike, say, the D-cannon's profile, which you do need additional information to use - SX doesn't tell you anything by itself). I assume you agree that if I told a Tau player he didn't get his ionization effect because it wasn't in the profile I would be wrong.
It is true that the long-form text describing a weapon with a profile must be searched for rules that apply to it, even if there is no indication in the profile to do so. Again, the cyclic ion blaster is a good example. There is no asterisk in the profile indicating that the weapon has additional rules. That does not make the ionization effect optional.
So let me state the following as a canon of construction for all 40K weapons, so you can easily quote it and disagree with me (if you do): The long-form text describing a weapon must in all cases be searched for rules that apply to that weapon, notwithstanding a weapon profile that is complete on its face or the lack of indication in the profile that the weapon has additional rules.


To that point, I'd like to point out the passage on BRB page 27:
"In addition to its type, a weapon may have some additional characteristics that define the way they work. These are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile, and include characteristics like 'gets hot! ' of 'blast'. A weapon may have any number of these characteristics in addition to its type."

So, is that an erroneous passage on GW's part? Did they not foresee the CIB rules when 5th edition was released - or was it released after?
Should we consider this rule the standard and the CIB an erroneous entry (in its presentation, specifically)?
How does this section influence your "cannon", if at all?

I am bringing this up for discussion, as I did not see it in the thread.

Briefly, my point of view is that there is a logical leap carrying attributes over between the two uses of Foehammer. To say that a named weapon is a [special close combat weapon] that can be used as a [ranged weapon with a specified profile] does not inherently carry over aspects from one to the other. To say that it "can be used as" something else does not carry an inclusiveness in its meaning, i.e. it is not a grammatical requirement that the aspect of being a thunder hammer carry over when being used as something else. The relationship created by the preposition is one of association and does not inherently establish that relationship as one of "combining" or a subset attribution.


The profile does not tell me to use this rule. The profile functions without this rule. However, I would be just as remiss in ignoring it as I would be in ignoring the ionization effect of the cyclic ion blaster.

This I disagree with. The grammar of the two passages differ greatly and the description of the weapon CIB is not same structure of the description of the close-combat weapon that can be used as a weapon that we see in the Foehammer entry. Note that "weapon" is the 40K term for ranged weapons (as non-intuitive as that is) and "close combat weapons" is the term used for weapons used in assault.

[nojinx]

I think the next step is to determine if the thunderhammer aspect of the weapon carries over to the other use of the weapon - and that needs to be done via grammatical analysis. I see no evidence of this in the discussion here so far. I am inclined to think that the lack of a clear attribution of the close combat quality of the weapon precisely assigned to the usage of the same weapon as the ranged weapon called out signifies the two are not associated (except that they are part of the same descriptive entry).

I cannot prove that dynamic of "carrying over" with grammatical rules and the syntax involved, ergo I cannot say that the close combat specific aspects carry over to the ranged weapon option. The grammar of the sentence as written certainly does not require such an interpretation.

[Nabterayl]

So, is that an erroneous passage on GW's part? Did they not foresee the CIB rules when 5th edition was released - or was it released after?
Should we consider this rule the standard and the CIB an erroneous entry (in its presentation, specifically)?
How does this section influence your "cannon", if at all?
The cyclic ion blaster was released considerably before 5th edition - the Tau Empire codex was mid 4th edition. The singing spear is another good example of a weapon that has effects not listed or hinted at anywhere in its profile, and the eldar codex was mid to late 5th edition. This publication history is among the reasons I believe that effects do not have to be listed or hinted at in a weapon's profile to apply to shooting attacks.


Briefly, my point of view is that there is a logical leap carrying attributes over between the two uses of Foehammer. To say that a named weapon is a [special close combat weapon] that can be used as a [ranged weapon with a specified profile] does not inherently carry over aspects from one to the other.
Indeed it does not, but the argument is not that the stunning effect carries over inherently. The argument is that the stunning effect carries over because of the precise wording used. Examples like the CIB and singing spear convince me that rules that would otherwise apply to a shooting attack must be applied, even if they do not appear in the ranged attack profile.

So, the next step is to see whether the Foehammer sentence contains any rules that apply on their face to shooting attacks. The stunning effect refers to all unsaved wounds, which certainly includes wounds caused in the shooting phase. Nothing in the Foehammer sentence, or in the basic thunder hammer rules, refers to wounds caused in one phase or the other.

[Nabterayl]

I think the next step is to determine if the thunderhammer aspect of the weapon carries over to the other use of the weapon - and that needs to be done via grammatical analysis. I see no evidence of this in the discussion here so far.
You missed it in the morass of pages, then (not really surprising, I suppose). See for instance post 175 (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=34488&postcount=175) and following. Or for those who can't click the link, start with the sentence:


The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

"That can be used as a ranged weapon" is a restrictive relative clause. In English, restrictive relative clauses must modify the immediately preceding noun. If you don't know what a restrictive relative clause is, either take my word for it, or consult wikipedia's explanations here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictiveness#Restrictiveness_in_English) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses#Restrictive_or_non-restrictive). This is an important point, because "that can be used as a ranged weapon" modifies thunder hammer, not Foehammer. In other words, we are not dealing with Foehammer, which is both a thunder hammer, and can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile. We are dealing with a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon, whose name is Foehammer.

That's the first grammatical point to get clear. Because we all know what a restrictive relative clause is, we know that the ranged weapon in question is a thunder hammer. This leads to our second question, which is, "What is a thunder hammer?" What precisely does a thunder hammer do, and how do we know?

Take a look at page 42. You will see that the thunder hammer paragraph nowhere mentions doubling Strength, striking at Initiative 1, or ignoring armor saves in close combat. Yet thunder hammers do all of those things. How do we know? Because the thunder hammer paragraph tells us that thunder hammers are power fists, and the power fist paragraph tells us that power fists are power weapons. We see from this that the term "thunder hammer" describes a weapon with five distinct special rules:

Thunder hammers ignore armor saves in close combat (because they are power fists, which are power weapons)
Thunder hammers double the user's Strength (because they are power fists)
Thunder hammers strike at Initiative 1 (because they are power fists)
Thunder hammers reduce to 1 the Initiative of any model that suffers an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer
Thunder hammers inflict a Crew Shaken result on any vehicle without an Initiative value whenever they roll on the vehicle damage table.

Because we know what restrictive relative clauses are, we know that the ranged weapon in question is a thunder hammer, and therefore has each of the five distinct special rules above. We now ask ourselves, which of those five (if any) are worded in such a way as to apply to a shooting attack?

Not #1, because shooting attacks are not close combat.
Not #2, because shooting attacks use the weapon's Strength, not the user's.
Not #3, because shooting attacks never check Initiative.
Yes #4, because shooting attacks do inflict wounds, and #4 (unlike #1) does not specify wounds in close combat.
Yes #5, because shooting attacks do inflict vehicle damage table rolls, and #5 does not specify vehicle damage table rolls in close combat.

[nojinx]

Thanks for your reply. I especially appreciate the links to the wiki pages. I learned (re-learned) something, and that always makes my day.

I find your logic re: what a Thunder hammer does valid and I have no issue with it. You description of the grammatical structure of the sentence seems accurate (what was I thinking to refer to the clause as a preposition?) and helps to narrow down the discrepancy between our viewpoints.

"A thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile..."

I have an issue in that I do not see the above clause as necessitating that the involved modification requires the attributes of the subject of the clause "A thunder hammer" to carry over as part of the modification. The interpretation is viable, but is it imperative or can this be reasonably read to signify a substitution? This is the crux of my contention. I refer back to how weapons are defined in the BRB.

I understand how you see the precedent for inclusion of descriptive text as part of a weapons profile. I wonder how relevant they are given they are from 4th edition codices.

Interesting to note that the authors specifically called out "ranged weapon". I can't say that the authors intended it, but adding the adjective "ranged" is technically unnecessary, as all "weapons" in 40K and ranged - i.e. they all have a profile (as opposed to "close combat weapons", which is the other class). This would lead me to think they are calling out the thunder hammer aspect as a ranged attack - again, if the (seemingly redundant) word was placed their for that intention.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss.

[Nabterayl]

"A thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile..."

I have an issue in that I do not see the above clause as necessitating that the involved modification requires the attributes of the subject of the clause "A thunder hammer" to carry over as part of the modification. The interpretation is viable, but is it imperative or can this be reasonably read to signify a substitution? This is the crux of my contention. I refer back to how weapons are defined in the BRB.
Earlier in this mess of a thread, I suggested that the rulebook actually doesn't distinguish between "[ranged] weapons" and "close combat weapons." Rather, I suggest that the distinction is between weapons with a range, Strength, AP, and Type, and weapons without. Page 42 certainly seems to contemplate that a bolter can be used in close combat, for instance, which suggests to me that there is no hard and fast distinction in the rules between ranged weapons and close combat weapons. Rather, there are only weapons that have the characteristics necessary to make Shooting attacks, and weapons without those characteristics. Ordinarily a thunder hammer has neither range, Strength, AP, nor Type - and I contend that it is on that basis that it cannot make shooting attacks. Foehammer, as it happens, does have a range, Strength, AP, and Type, and so it can make shooting attacks.

However, in answer to your grammatical point ...

As I understand you, the question is whether it is possible to read the Foehammer sentence as saying that Foehammer is a thunder hammer, and Foehammer is a ranged weapon, without any reference to being a ranged thunder hammer. The answer to that question is no. Grammatically speaking, the "ranged weapon" referred to must be "a thunder hammer." That is the way restrictive relative clauses work in English. Of course, because the "thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon" is Foehammer, we understand that, logically, Foehammer must also be a ranged weapon. There is no way to read that sentence that makes Foehammer a non-thunder hammer ranged weapon, however.

There are ways to write that sentence that (grammatically) makes Foehammer a thunder hammer, and a ranged weapon that is not a thunder hammer. For instance:


Foehammer is a thunder hammer, and may also be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

or

Foehammer is a thunder hammer. Foehammer may be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

In each of these sentences we might have logical arguments over whether Foehammer remains a thunder hammer when it is a ranged weapon, but grammatically, it is clear that the ranged weapon in question is Foehammer, not the thunder hammer. In the sentence as written, the ranged weapon in question must be the thunder hammer.

[HsojVvad]

Ok, I didn't feel like reading over 21 pages here. I am a newb with the rules, and never played with or against thunder hamers yet. So here is my question. To use a Thunder Hammer, you strike it in CC at I 1 correct? So if this is the case, here is my question. How can you attack someone with a TH with a Higher I? So if you want to throw the TH with agaisnt a higher I, you can't since you have to go last and if you are the first turn player, you can't throw it until after your opponent has attacked. After your opponent has attacked, you can't throw it because your "firing phase" has passed.

So either it causes you to be I 1 when thrown, but can't be thrown, or it can be thrown but dosn't lower the I.

I know, I am a newb so can someone tell me where in the BRB to look forthe rules please.

[nojinx]

But is not the restrictive aspect of the relative clause limited to the relationship of the clause to the direct object? Yes, the clause modifies the object, but the nature of the modification in question cannot be derived from the restrictive relationship between the two. It must be drawn from the syntactic meaning of the phrase (direct object + clause) itself, right? The restrictive aspect only identifies the object modified. So, to accept your premise, we have to feel confident that the phrase "a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile..." cannot be interpreted otherwise. So we would need an argument that is based on something in the meaning of the phrase and not on the direct relationship between the object and clause. The relationship is called out, but the meaning is not part of the restrictive association - rather the association gives us a start point to seek the meaning.

I did not see a reference to bolters on page 42. Addressing your point, it seems that two types of weapons are cleary called out in the rules: "weapons" and "close combat weapons". Weapons are described on page 27, where we see some defining statements:
"Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example...", after which a boltgun profile is shown.
"In addition to its type, a weapon may have some additional characteristics that define the way they work. These are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile, and include characteristics like 'gets hot!' or 'blast'. A weapon may have any number of these characterstics in addition to its type."

So, per the rules, we know that additional characteristics (beyond 'type'), if applicable, are added to the weapon type in the profile. Would this not exclude any description or definition of a weapon's aspect that is not listed as part of its profile (i.e. written into the prose text)?

I'll understand if this is tedious or you think I am missing some obvious point and don't wish to continue. I just have a fascination with these discussions. Cheers.


Ok, I didn't feel like reading over 21 pages here. I am a newb with the rules, and never played with or against thunder hamers yet. So here is my question. To use a Thunder Hammer, you strike it in CC at I 1 correct? So if this is the case, here is my question. How can you attack someone with a TH with a Higher I? So if you want to throw the TH with agaisnt a higher I, you can't since you have to go last and if you are the first turn player, you can't throw it until after your opponent has attacked. After your opponent has attacked, you can't throw it because your "firing phase" has passed.

So either it causes you to be I 1 when thrown, but can't be thrown, or it can be thrown but dosn't lower the I.

I know, I am a newb so can someone tell me where in the BRB to look forthe rules please.

Because I is not part of a ranged attack, the change to the I value is irrelevant when using Foehammer as a ranged weapon. Read a few posts before yours and you'll see a good explanation by Nabterayl of what aspects of the TH would be included in the ranged attack.

[Nabterayl]

HsojVvad, the normal thunder hammer rules can be found on page 42 of the main rulebook. As you can see, a thunder hammer is a power fist that also reduces the initiative of anybody it wounds but doesn't kill to 1 for the next turn. Hence, thunder hammers attack at I1, but if they wound somebody, that person will also strike at I1 next turn, so the thunder hammer and its wounded victim will strike simultaneously. Pretty straightforward.

The controversy is the fact that Foehammer (from the new Space Wolves codex) is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon. The question is this: when used as a ranged weapon, does this particular thunder hammer still reduce its victims' Initiative to 1? There are three major positions, which I am enormously simplifying for ease of reference (even my own):

Yes, it still reduces the enemy's Initiative, because page 42 says thunder hammers do that to "all models that suffer an unsaved wound," not all models that suffer an unsaved wound in close combat only. This is the position that I advocate.
No, it doesn't reduce the enemy's Initiative, because the ranged weapon profile doesn't specifically say that it is still a thunder hammer when used as a ranged weapon.
No, it doesn't reduce the enemy's Initiative, because even though page 42 doesn't specify that the Initiative-reducing effect only works in close combat, we should infer that it only works in close combat because it appears under the "close combat weapons" section of the rulebook.

[Nabterayl]

But is not the restrictive aspect of the relative clause limited to the relationship of the clause to the direct object? Yes, the clause modifies the object, but the nature of the modification in question cannot be derived from the restrictive relationship between the two. It must be drawn from the syntactic meaning of the phrase (direct object + clause) itself, right? The restrictive aspect only identifies the object modified. So, to accept your premise, we have to feel confident that the phrase "a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile..." cannot be interpreted otherwise. So we would need an argument that is based on something in the meaning of the phrase and not on the direct relationship between the object and clause. The relationship is called out, but the meaning is not part of the restrictive association - rather the association gives us a start point to seek the meaning.
Yes, this is true. The grammatical point is unambiguous, but it doesn't take us all the way. In my opinion, the key point (really, the only point) that the grammar clears up is that Foehammer is not two weapons in a single object (a thunder hammer, and a generic "ranged weapon"). The thunder hammer itself is, unambiguously, a ranged weapon. What remains to be determined at that point is what properties that ranged weapon has.


I did not see a reference to bolters on page 42. Addressing your point, it seems that two types of weapons are cleary called out in the rules: "weapons" and "close combat weapons". Weapons are described on page 27, where we see some defining statements:
"Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example...", after which a boltgun profile is shown.
I'm referring to the following statements:


"Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc., do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them."

Of course, if a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt or a two-handed battle axe), it may not use it together with another weapon."

The most natural way to read these two statements, in my view, is to say that ranged weapons may indeed be used as close combat weapons. A special close combat weapon is simply one that confers a benefit to the model when "used." That is, both bolters and lasguns can be used in close combat, but because neither of them specifically mentions any kind of close combat benefit, they confer none (unless of course we're dealing with a special case such as True Grit).

If it is true that a "weapon" such as a lasgun can be used in close combat, I see no reason why a "close combat weapon" such as a thunder hammer could not be used in ranged combat. As page 27 states, a "weapon" must have a range, a Strength, an AP, and a Type. Most "close combat weapons" have none of those things, so they cannot be "weapons" within the meaning of page 27. But if we came across a close combat weapon that did have each of those things, on what basis would we say it is not a "weapon" within the meaning of page 27? Surely not on the basis that one is either a "close combat weapon" or a "weapon." There is no such exclusivity, as the two quotes I provided above demonstrate.


So, per the rules, we know that additional characteristics (beyond 'type'), if applicable, are added to the weapon type in the profile. Would this not exclude any description or definition of a weapon's aspect that is not listed as part of its profile (i.e. written into the prose text)?
That is certainly the natural reading, yes. But if that is so, then many weapons have been changed rather drastically in 5th edition. The following are a few examples:

The Tau cyclic ion blaster, which mentions in the long-form description that rolls to wound of 6 count as AP1 - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
The eldar singing spear, which mentions in the long-form description that it has Strength 9 against vehicles - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
The eldar wraithcannon and D-cannon, each of which mention in the long-form description that rolls to wound of 6 inflict Instant Death - but make no mention of this in the weapon profile.
The space marine cyclone launcher, which mentions in the long-form description that it may be fired together with a storm bolter - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
Each of these four examples (there are others, but I think they make the point) alters the way their weapons "work" (to use page 27's phrase). None of them are mentioned in the weapon profile. Surely we are not to conclude that, because they are not included in the weapon profile, they are to be ignored?

[nojinx]

If it is true that a "weapon" such as a lasgun can be used in close combat, I see no reason why a "close combat weapon" such as a thunder hammer could not be used in ranged combat.


This seems a fallacy to me. How is the converse inferred from the known fact?

Note that we do have ranged weapon that is specifically called out as counting as an close combat weapon in the assault phase: the pistol. Would we say that the - just throwing this out there - that the pistol, when used in close combat, cannot be saved against with 5+ or 6+ armor saves because it is defined as an AP 5 weapon? "...a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." Pg 29


That is certainly the natural reading, yes. But if that is so, then many weapons have been changed rather drastically in 5th edition. The following are a few examples:

The Tau cyclic ion blaster, which mentions in the long-form description that rolls to wound of 6 count as AP1 - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
The eldar singing spear, which mentions in the long-form description that it has Strength 9 against vehicles - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
The eldar wraithcannon and D-cannon, each of which mention in the long-form description that rolls to wound of 6 inflict Instant Death - but make no mention of this in the weapon profile.
The space marine cyclone launcher, which mentions in the long-form description that it may be fired together with a storm bolter - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
Each of these four examples (there are others, but I think they make the point) alters the way their weapons "work" (to use page 27's phrase). None of them are mentioned in the weapon profile. Surely we are not to conclude that, because they are not included in the weapon profile, they are to be ignored?

It seems something has to be ignored: either the cyclone rule in the text of the SM codex, or the general definition of what a weapon is in the BRB. The two are logically irreconcilable. Generally speaking, though, I think a codex entry trumps a BRB entry, right? So if the form of presentation of something in a codex differs from what the BRB tells us it should be, we must assign authority to the codex entry. This supports the viability of the precedence you point out.

The other examples you quoted can be written off to being published prior to the 5th Ed. BRB, but I would guess that the Cyclone launcher is not the only example of a weapon with rules described outside the profile entry published since 5th's release.

[Nabterayl]

This seems a fallacy to me. How is the converse inferred from the known fact?
The converse cannot be so inferred, but this isn't necessarily a situation of inferring the converse. If the contention is, "An item of wargear can be a 'weapon' or a 'close combat weapon,' but not both," then it is sufficient to point out that a bolter or lasgun is also a close combat weapon.


Note that we do have ranged weapon that is specifically called out as counting as an close combat weapon in the assault phase: the pistol. Would we say that the - just throwing this out there - that the pistol, when used in close combat, cannot be saved against with 5+ or 6+ armor saves because it is defined as an AP 5 weapon? "...a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." Pg 29
I don't think so, no. The AP is a characteristic of the pistol, which are not the characteristics we check against in close combat. If you take a careful look at the power weapon rules, for instance, you'll see that a power weapon modifies the model's characteristics. Strictly speaking, it is the model, and not the weapon, that makes the attack in close combat - even if the model is "using" a particular weapon.


It seems something has to be ignored: either the cyclone rule in the text of the SM codex, or the general definition of what a weapon is in the BRB. The two are logically irreconcilable. Generally speaking, though, I think a codex entry trumps a BRB entry, right? So if the form of presentation of something in a codex differs from what the BRB tells us it should be, we must assign authority to the codex entry. This supports the viability of the precedence you point out.
I agree with this line of reasoning. Carrying it further, the space wolf codex presents two rules (the Initiative-reducing rule and the Crew Shaken-inflicting rule), both of which apply by their terms to shooting attacks, and both of which appear in the long-form description of the weapon but not in the profile. Using the logic you suggest, we would apply the two rules to the shooting attack even though they don't appear in the profile, right?

[nojinx]

The converse cannot be so inferred, but this isn't necessarily a situation of inferring the converse. If the contention is, "An item of wargear can be a 'weapon' or a 'close combat weapon,' but not both," then it is sufficient to point out that a bolter or lasgun is also a close combat weapon.

Technically, bolters and lasguns are not close combat weapons in any way that is meaningful to the rules system. The descriptive text that mentions those things does not appear to have any affect on the rules. If you take a bolter away from a marine, the marine will still have the same attack characteristic. Even if we concede the idea that bolters can be used as close combat weapons, how does that prove we can use close combat weapons as weapons?

We do have one weapon type which is specifically called out as usable as a close combat weapon in assault: the pistol. We do also have example of close combat weapons that can be used as weapons. Foehammer, however you interpret it, is one. Deathsceamer from the CSM codex is another. I think Foehammer is the first one we have seen where an aspect of the close combat weapon can functionally carry over to the weapon form. Hence the general confusion.


I don't think so, no. The AP is a characteristic of the pistol, which are not the characteristics we check against in close combat. If you take a careful look at the power weapon rules, for instance, you'll see that a power weapon modifies the model's characteristics. Strictly speaking, it is the model, and not the weapon, that makes the attack in close combat - even if the model is "using" a particular weapon.

That makes sense. Technically, the model "makes the attack" in shooting also. The other parameters (after the attempt to hit) come from the weapon profile and not the model's.

So, I think what is being said here is that all close combat weapons affect the involved model. All specific aspects not withstanding, those effects come into play at all times - i.e. there is nothing that specifies effects of close combat weapons as being limited to close combat (unless limited specifically, which most are).

I think the point about lightning claws in relation to this dynamic has been mentioned (or is obvious), right? Or maybe that was FAQ'ed?


I agree with this line of reasoning. Carrying it further, the space wolf codex presents two rules (the Initiative-reducing rule and the Crew Shaken-inflicting rule), both of which apply by their terms to shooting attacks, and both of which appear in the long-form description of the weapon but not in the profile. Using the logic you suggest, we would apply the two rules to the shooting attack even though they don't appear in the profile, right?

Yes, if one agrees with your understanding of that object + relative clause. That's where I keep stumbling.

Thanks for your willingness to banter with me.

[Nabterayl]

Technically, bolters and lasguns are not close combat weapons in any way that is meaningful to the rules system. The descriptive text that mentions those things does not appear to have any affect on the rules. If you take a bolter away from a marine, the marine will still have the same attack characteristic. Even if we concede the idea that bolters can be used as close combat weapons, how does that prove we can use close combat weapons as weapons?
Well, again, it depends on what the contention is. If the contention is that weapons have to be one or the other, plainly that is wrong, and the fact that bolters and lasguns are described as two-handed normal CCWs is one way to demonstrate it. Pistols are another way to demonstrate it.

If the contention is just, "close combat weapons cannot be used as weapons," that's another issue, and would have to be addressed in a different way.


So, I think what is being said here is that all close combat weapons affect the involved model. All specific aspects not withstanding, those effects come into play at all times - i.e. there is nothing that specifies effects of close combat weapons as being limited to close combat (unless limited specifically, which most are).
Yes, that is exactly what I contend.


I think the point about lightning claws in relation to this dynamic has been mentioned (or is obvious), right? Or maybe that was FAQ'ed?
This was brought up earlier, and it's a reasonable thing to question. In keeping with my general contention about how "weapons" and "close combat weapons" work, I'd look to the precise wording of the lightning claw rules:


A lightning claw is a power weapon and it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound.

There are two important words there, which I have italicized. The word "any," by itself, would imply that a model armed with pistol and lightning claw could re-roll failed rolls to wound from his pistol.

Note, however, the word "wielder." A model making a shooting attack with a pistol is not "wielding" his lightning claw, even if he has a lightning claw clutched in his other hand. "Wielding" in the context of page 42 pretty clearly means "making the attack with." Consider, for instance, a model armed with both a thunder hammer and a lightning claw. If such a model attacked in close combat with its thunder hammer, it would not be allowed to re-roll failed rolls to wound. Why? Because the model is not "wielding" the lightning claw - it is "wielding" the thunder hammer. This same principle would apply to shooting attacks as well.


Yes, if one agrees with your understanding of that object + relative clause. That's where I keep stumbling.
Maybe I don't understand your grammatical difficulty, then. Are you asking whether the relative clause could refer to a noun other than "thunder hammer?" If that is your question, the answer is unambiguously no, and that's just a rule of English grammar. Not many people are taught English grammar at that level of depth these days, alas, but it is the rule even so.