Arjac and the magic thundrhammer

[rle68]

ok i would like a different view on this topic i have been trying to have a debate with the people in my local group but to no avail

so here it is

we all know that Arjac has a thunderhammer that can be thrown... somehow im being told that because its being thrown it is no longer a thunder hammer.. so here is what it says and you can all help with the discussion.. besides the fact we know gw is stupid

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

the fact they left off the name thunder hammer in its ranged profile is the case at point

my opinion and that of alot of players is that its a thrown thunderhammer they state its a thunder hammer that is thrown thus they dont have to be redundant and state thunder hammer in its ranged profile

if it was an energy shot of some sort id agree with the naysayers but as they state it is a thrown thunderhammer i dont see why any one could discount it other then they want to argue

this is one to me that is so clear it does not need discussion...

what do you all think ?

[BuFFo]

Its whatever you and your gaming group want it to be...

[Culven]

At my FLGS, the majority opinion is that when thrown, Foehammer uses the profile listed below, ignoring any other abilities or rules that a Thunderhammer would normally have.

Is the Singing Spear similiar in that it has special rules used in combat that do not apply when it is thrown? I do not have my Eldar codex to hand to check.

[rle68]

At my FLGS, the majority opinion is that when thrown, Foehammer uses the profile listed below, ignoring any other abilities or rules that a Thunderhammer would normally have.

Is the Singing Spear similiar in that it has special rules used in combat that do not apply when it is thrown? I do not have my Eldar codex to hand to check.

how do you get it ignores the abilities it has when it states its a thunderhammer in its description? it never stops being a thunder hammer

since when does an item lose its status as it is now thrown? the singing spear does not have any special abilities other then when its thrown it never stops being a singing spear

just like foehammer doesnt stop being a thnderhammer when thrown

they even state what it is in its description.. this is a case of a close combat weapon being used at range a unique weapon at that as no thunderhammer has been allowed to be used at range

[crazyredpraetorian]

Here we go again......:rolleyes:

[entendre_entendre]

Here we go again......:rolleyes:

you took the words right out of my mouth! let's just hope no one brings up that oh-so-popular psychic power everyone loves. if you name it, YOU LOSE!! MUHUHAHAHA!

[Jwolf]

Its whatever you and your gaming group want it to be...

I'm with BuFFo on this one. Locally it uses the shooting profile, and that is all, but the counter argument is understandable.

[Jwolf]

At my FLGS, the majority opinion is that when thrown, Foehammer uses the profile listed below, ignoring any other abilities or rules that a Thunderhammer would normally have.

Is the Singing Spear similiar in that it has special rules used in combat that do not apply when it is thrown? I do not have my Eldar codex to hand to check.

Just like Foehammer, Singing Spears have different profiles in HtH (wounds on 2s for SS) and ranged (S*3). For most cases, both also appear to be more deadly at range (S9 can insta-kill most characters, whereas wounding on 2s cannot, for example).

[Silver Drakes Legion]

Ok thunder hammer rules do not transfer the I1 to a thrown attack shouldn't the attack be strength 5 then have thunder hammer in the profile to make it double it's strength following that logic.

No weapon has been transferred as pure assault weapon to shooting before. Just like no weapon can transfer it's rule from shooting to assaulting you don't get rending on the shuriken cannon on Maugan Ra but it is a power weapon it's not a rending one. or melta on an inferno pistol even though it's a close combat weapon.

The description doesn't matter the thunder hammer rules only apply to the assault phase and that is specifically why it is in the assault phase of the BRB about what it does.

The singing spear specifically says treat it as a two handed with witchblade rules in combat... something like that don't have the book currently on me.

[rle68]

Ok thunder hammer rules do not transfer the I1 to a thrown attack shouldn't the attack be strength 5 then have thunder hammer in the profile to make it double it's strength following that logic.

No weapon has been transferred as pure assault weapon to shooting before. Just like no weapon can transfer it's rule from shooting to assaulting you don't get rending on the shuriken cannon on Maugan Ra but it is a power weapon it's not a rending one. or melta on an inferno pistol even though it's a close combat weapon.

The description doesn't matter the thunder hammer rules only apply to the assault phase and that is specifically why it is in the assault phase of the BRB about what it does.

The singing spear specifically says treat it as a two handed with witchblade rules in combat... something like that don't have the book currently on me.

exactly the signing spear has it spelled out what the extra abilities are just klike the this one when it states its a thunder hammer in its profile maugan ras weapon isnt the same thing its two weapons combines a shootign weapon with a power weapon attached

this is only a thunder hammer that can be thrown now .. how do you get it stops being a thunder hammer?

[DarkLink]

Here we go again......:rolleyes:

Right, we had a MASSIVE thread a little while ago over this issue.

[Nabterayl]

Is it too much to hope that people might actually read said massive thread if we linked to it? I could even point people to where, in my opinion, it started getting reasonable ...

[rle68]

Right, we had a MASSIVE thread a little while ago over this issue.

im sorry i wasnt around then .. youll have to forgive my newbness

[Ymir]

I really hope this helps put this to rest.

Foehammer is as much a thunder hammer that can be thrown as a Singing Spear is a witchblade that can be thrown.

Foehammer: When the rune-etched weapon known as the Foehammer leaves Arjac's massive fist, its inbuilt teleport device ensures it will quickly return to his gauntlet ready to be used again. The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

Range Strenght AP Type
6" 10 1 Assault 1

The strength of the ranged weapon is 10 which is double Arjac's strength of 5.

The Eldar "Singing Spear" is a witchblade that can be thrown. When thrown it works just like the witchblade from being strength 9 vs. vehicles to wounding on a 2+.

I understand people just don't want a army to have a character that can throw a thunder hammer, but by using the Singing Spear for the eldar it seems that yes when "Foehammer" is thrown if it hits and wounds a model then that models Int is reduced to 1 til the next turn.

No one is throwing a fit about Singing Spears cause they can't be comboed with JotWW to kill a Bloodthirster if it fails a Int check with a 2 Int.

[Culven]

Foehammer: When the rune-etched weapon known as the Foehammer leaves Arjac's massive fist, its inbuilt teleport device ensures it will quickly return to his gauntlet ready to be used again. The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

Range Strenght AP Type
6" 10 1 Assault 1

The strength of the ranged weapon is 10 which is double Arjac's strength of 5.
You seem to be using the stats to support your position, but I disagree with your conclusion that having a Strength on the Ranged Profile that matches Arjac's Strength in combat when using Foehammer means that it benefits from the Thunderhammer special rules. The problem is that the rules basically say "use the rules below when throwing Foehammer", but there is nothing that the Initiative 1 rule will also apply. I assume this is because we have never had a ranged weapon with such a modifier and either GW really didn't want it to do the Int 1 trick, or (more likely) GW just didn't think through their intent and make sure the rules actually match. I am uncertain of what the RaW is, but I lean toward "just use the stats below, nothing extra". I think that if I were to use Arjac, I would go with this less powerful interpretation. If my opponent wanted the Initiative modifer, I would probably let them have it. After all, none of my Catachans will survive a single hit anyway. ;)


No one is throwing a fit about Singing Spears cause they can't be comboed with JotWW to kill a Bloodthirster if it fails a Int check with a 2 Int.
I thought that the printed stat was used for characteristic tests, but I can't find anything stating as such. That's just wrong. :D

[Culven]

The problem that i have with the RaW is that it says it is a Thunderhammer which can use the following profile when used as a ranged weapon. It is a minor problem with how GW wrote it. If it said that it is a Thunderhammer that gains the following profile when used as a ranged weapon, then I wouldn't have an issue. However, the way that it is phrased, it seems that one is to only use the profile provided when thrown. I can see both side to the arguement, but without knowing RaI, I can't really say which is RaW.

As I said, I wouldn't care if my opponent wanted to benefit from the Init modifier, and I wouldn't try to claim it for myself. Meri's Theorum and all.

[rle68]

Culven

sorry you must have missed this little tid bit of information

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

Range Strenght AP Type
6" 10 1 Assault 1 """""

Right there it says its a thunder hammer with a ranged profile your comment that it doesnt say its initiative modifier is quite innacurrate sorry to say

it does indeed say that it is a thunder hammer and thunder hammers do what thunder hammers do

however i am not sure that it would make the init 1 for purposes of jaws so that was not the reason for my init post on this topic.. thats a seperate issue and not one i want to bring up here

[Nabterayl]

Okay ... nobody's brought up the rule location thing yet, so I think we're still amidst the sane. What this boils down to, I think, is how you read the lead-in to a weapon's profile. If you look at page 42 you can see that "thunder hammer" is defined in terms of being a power fist plus something extra, and "power fist" is in turn defined in terms of being a power weapon plus something extra. Substituting the definitions for the terms themselves you get the following:


The Foehammer is a power weapon. The Foehammer doubles the user's Strength. All attacks using the Foehammer are delivered at Initiative 1. The Foehammer reduces the Initiative of all models that suffer an unsaved wound from it to Initiative 1. The Foehammer inflicts a Crew Shaken result whenever it inflicts any damage result against vehicles with no Initiative value. The Foehammer can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

The question the reader has to ask themselves is whether rules effects that are in the description of the weapon but not in the shooting profile count as being in the shooting profile. Some people answer no. I answer yes, because if that isn't the rule, then weapons like the cyclic ion blaster don't get their special effect. But until the rule location folks show up, that's the important question.

[Culven]

I am of the opinion that the ranged profile is indeed separate fromt he close combat rules since there is nothing stating that they are linked. Though, it would be strange if the combat abilities were mentioned for a ranged weapon, and we would be asking "why is the ranged attack made at Init 1?". I think that GW should have either added a special rule to the ranged profile granting the Init 1 modifier or simply stated that when thrown, Foehammer gains the following profile. To me, "gains" means "in addition to its normal rules" whereas "uses the following" means "uses the stats and rules listed in the profile below".

I think my head is going to assplode. I wish Foehammer had just stayed in the Pelican so that we could have avoid this entire problem.

[Nabterayl]

I am of the opinion that the ranged profile is indeed separate fromt he close combat rules since there is nothing stating that they are linked.
Hush! You'll bring the crazies!

What I was trying to show, Culven, is that "The Foehammer is a thunder hammer" is actually five distinct statements. The first three statements are plainly only applicable in close combat, and I don't think anybody disputes that. The final two statements do not mention anything about close combat. I mean, if the rule just said:


The Foehammer reduces the Initiative of all models that suffer an unsaved wound from it to Initiative 1. The Foehammer inflicts a Crew Shaken result whenever it inflicts any damage result against vehicles with no Initiative value. The Foehammer can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile: 6" S10 AP1 assault 1

That isn't structurally any different from this, right?


Any rolls to wound of a 6 count as AP1, regardless of the target's Toughness. 18" S3 AP4 assault 5

[Culven]

Hush! You'll bring the crazies!
I hate to break it to you, but we . . . I mean they are already here. ;)

That isn't structurally any different from this, right?

Any rolls to wound of a 6 count as AP1, regardless of the target's Toughness. 18" S3 AP4 assault 5
The difference that I see is that the CIB can only cause wounds per the shooting rules, so it is easy to infer that is what the "To Wound of 6 = AP1" statement is refering to. It takes a bigger leap for me to make the assumption that the Special Close Combat weapon rules are to apply to the special ranged attack as well.

[Nabterayl]

Nooooo! The crazies!!! :eek:

Just kidding; always happy to talk rules with you ;)

So, since we've gotten into this territory, Culven, is it the wording of the rule itself or the fact that Foehammer is, fluff-wise, a hammer, that bothers you? Suppose for instance we had a special storm bolter whose rules read:


The Foebolter reduces the Initiative of all models that suffer an unsaved wound from it to Initiative 1. The Foebolter inflicts a Crew Shaken result whenever it inflicts any damage result against vehicles with no Initiative value. The Foebolter can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile: 24" S4 AP5 assault 2

Would that pose the same difficulties for you?

[sonsoftaurus]

IMO uses the profile listed, does not get shaken in addition. If everything carries over, are people arguing that if Arjac hits a vehicle in HTH and rolls on the damage table he gets a +1 because the shooting profile shows it to be AP1? Madness, madness I say! ;)

(Of course, before the recent FAQ release I wouldn't have thought GW would combine CA and FC, so who knows...:D )

Besides, I have yet to have anyone be able to actually show me where in Codex: Space Wolves it says that Arjac actually throws the hammer. It's certainly implied, but it never says "he throws his thunderhammer and when it bonks someone on the head...". For all we know it shoots lightning bolts or S10 AP1 Wolflasers or something.

[Ymir]

This is the codex enrty for Foehammer word for word.

Foehammer: When the rune-etched weapon known as the Foehammer leaves Arjac's massive fist, its inbuilt teleport device ensures it will quickly return to his gauntlet ready to be used again. The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

Range Strenght AP Type
6" 10 1 Assault 1

LOL so I take it as if it leaves his hand it is thrown. And yes I know it is via the rules treated as a gun not a grenade. But just like a Singing Spear it is thrown.

[Rapture]

since when does an item lose its status as it is now thrown?

If marines could throw plasma guns I wouldn't expect them to be ap 2.

Sorry, couldn't let that kind of logic infect the masses.

[BuFFo]

Culven, just fyi.... If I were to pick a side, I would pick yours :)

[DarkLink]

For reference, here's a link to the previous thread, all 20 some odd pages of it: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=2962

It looks like it got bumped up to the top of the rules section anyways, just figure'd I'd post a link.

[rle68]

If marines could throw plasma guns I wouldn't expect them to be ap 2.

Sorry, couldn't let that kind of logic infect the masses.

ok ill throw it back on you for obfuscating the obvious

show me anywhere in any rule in this game where you can throw a plasma gun... i can show you where i can now throw a thunder hammer

what else do you have ?

[DarkLink]

ok ill throw it back on you for obfuscating the obvious

show me anywhere in any rule in this game where you can throw a plasma gun... i can show you where i can now throw a thunder hammer

what else do you have ?

Actually, to more directly contradict his logic, Thunderhammers inflict damage by hitting things really hard. Thus, it makes sense that if you throw one, it would still hurt a lot. However, plasmaguns inflict damage by firing blasts of highly energized plasma, not by clubbing the target to death. It wouldn't make sense for a thrown plasmagun to be AP 2 as a result.

[rle68]

Actually, to more directly contradict his logic, Thunderhammers inflict damage by hitting things really hard. Thus, it makes sense that if you throw one, it would still hurt a lot. However, plasmaguns inflict damage by firing blasts of highly energized plasma, not by clubbing the target to death. It wouldn't make sense for a thrown plasmagun to be AP 2 as a result.

Well said :)

[Rapture]

ok ill throw it back on you for obfuscating the obvious

show me anywhere in any rule in this game where you can throw a plasma gun... i can show you where i can now throw a thunder hammer

what else do you have ?

O please forgive my obvious obfuscation.

This is the first time ever the the rules let you throw a thunderhammer, and that is why people are in conflict. If the next codex lets marines throw plasma guns would they still hit the the plasma gun profile?

The point I am making is that throwing something doesn't automatically allow it to function as it normally would.

[gcsmith]

Hmm just my $0.02 anyway it says its a Thunder hammer which may use the following profile in shooting.

Well here's the thing, if it didn't have thunder hammer there it would never count as a thunder hammer, as such it would just be a CCW with a nice thrown attack but nothing in CC as such i believe that its there not to imply its ranged ability but the fact it actually counts as a thunder hammer in combat. The fact it goes on to say it uses the following profile means it uses the following profile.

If I said:
Sargent A comes with 2 ccw which may be thrown at his strength, at AP 5 and his attacks, by your logic he would get a bonus attack because hes throwing 2 CCW. yet it says his attacks, not attacks plus 1.
This is same when it says uses FOLLOWING PROFILE. this indicates that profile and only that profile, since a Thunder hammer is a melee weapon, no matter how u ask they woudnt have put thunder hammer as its sideline rules but would have described any special affects which they do with every other special character but somehow in your sight not this one.

Sorry for any grammer mistakes.

[DarkLink]

O please forgive my obvious obfuscation.

This is the first time ever the the rules let you throw a thunderhammer, and that is why people are in conflict. If the next codex lets marines throw plasma guns would they still hit the the plasma gun profile?

The point I am making is that throwing something doesn't automatically allow it to function as it normally would.

And as I pointed out a second ago (well, a few posts ago, anyways), throwing plasma guns is a poor example. It wouldn't make sense for a plasma gun to use its profile if thrown, but it would make sense for a thunder hammer to use its profile.

[gcsmith]

my example is closer i guess

[Culven]

So, since we've gotten into this territory, Culven, is it the wording of the rule itself or the fact that Foehammer is, fluff-wise, a hammer, that bothers you?
It is the fact that it is a Special Combat Weapon with what appears to be an alternate set of rules for use when it is thrown that keeps me from accepting that the Initi 1 rules would alos apply.


Suppose for instance we had a special storm bolter whose rules read:

The Foebolter reduces the Initiative of all models that suffer an unsaved wound from it to Initiative 1. The Foebolter inflicts a Crew Shaken result whenever it inflicts any damage result against vehicles with no Initiative value. The Foebolter can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile: 24" S4 AP5 assault 2
Would that pose the same difficulties for you?
Like the Cyclic Ion Blaster, there is only one way for this weapon to inflict damage, hence it is reasonable to assume that any rules relating to causing damage would apply when shooting. A better example would probably be:

The Foepistol is an Inferno Pistol which may be used in close combat as a Strength 8 Power Weapon.

and then debating whether the +1 to Armour Penetration rolls due to being an AP1 weapon would apply. I would still argue against it as there is no mention of a bonus to Armour Penetration in the close combat profile.

[rle68]

It is the fact that it is a Special Combat Weapon with what appears to be an alternate set of rules for use when it is thrown that keeps me from accepting that the Initi 1 rules would alos apply.


Like the Cyclic Ion Blaster, there is only one way for this weapon to inflict damage, hence it is reasonable to assume that any rules relating to causing damage would apply when shooting. A better example would probably be:

The Foepistol is an Inferno Pistol which may be used in close combat as a Strength 8 Power Weapon.

and then debating whether the +1 to Armour Penetration rolls due to being an AP1 weapon would apply. I would still argue against it as there is no mention of a bonus to Armour Penetration in the close combat profile.


id agree that you wont count it as an ap1 weapon as its a thunderhammer and acts only as a thunder hammer the added abuility of it being thrown gives it the ap1 ability but its still a thunderhammer... he problem here is people want to assume for whatever reason that when thrown which has been pointed out has never been allowed before that it loses its thunderhammer status when thrown

and no where has anyone shown an example of this set of circumstances existing before

no i honestly feel the real fear that alot of players feel if they admit this one they will have to face jaws and this weapon all the time (i dont know if id go with the init 1 being the init test agaisnt jaws anyways )

its a 450 points trick at a minimum and closer to 600 or 800 points to make it work effectively are you all that scared of an 800 point one time trick ?

[Nabterayl]

It is the fact that it is a Special Combat Weapon with what appears to be an alternate set of rules for use when it is thrown that keeps me from accepting that the Initi 1 rules would alos apply.
Ah, so you really are one of the locational crazies ;)

The Init 1 rules don't specify how the wound is inflicted, so why should we care? The Instant Death rules are found in the Shooting section, but we don't restrict Instant Death to shooting attacks.

[Culven]

id agree that you wont count it as an ap1 weapon as its a thunderhammer . . .
I think you may have misread my post. I was posting about the hypothetical Foepistol, not the Foehammer. It was to illustrate why I wouldn't accept that this hypothetical ranged weapon which has alternate rules for use in combat still, in my opinion, wouldn't use any of its ranged rules in combat. It is a reversal of the Foehammer which some are arguing should use one of its close combat abilities when using its ranged profile.

no i honestly feel the real fear that alot of players feel if they admit this one they will have to face jaws and this weapon all the time (i dont know if id go with the init 1 being the init test agaisnt jaws anyways )
I think you are assuming a motivation that most likely doesn't exist for the majority of posters. This is a rules form. Most posters in rules forums are not trying to bend the rules to their liking. Instead, most (including myself) are simply trying to discern what the rules actually say. Once this is defined, then everyone is free to house rule it as needed to fit the desires of the players in their game and group.

As I have already stated, I wouldn't prevent my opponent from claiming the Init 1 rule, but I wouldn't try claiming it for myself. I am still not certain that it was intended as my interpretation of the rules is that the weapon uses the ranged profile and nothing else (including the assumption that it still counts as a Thunderhammer even when using the ranged profile) since this is not included in the ranged profile that one is to use when it is thrown.


Ah, so you really are one of the locational crazies ;)
Yes. If the rules tell me to use an alternate profile, then I will use only that profile. If that profile tells me to also use the close combat special rules of the weapon, then I will.


The Init 1 rules don't specify how the wound is inflicted, so why should we care?
I only care because that is part of the Thunderhammer rules, which is a Special Close Combat weapon. As I read the rules for Foehammer, we are to use the stats and rules included in the profile when it is thrown. That profile doesn't make mention of the ranged attack counting as being made by the Thunderhammer Special Close Combat Weapon.

The Instant Death rules are found in the Shooting section, but we don't restrict Instant Death to shooting attacks.
The Instant Death mechanic is part of the Wounding rules and the Assault rules refer back to the wounding rules. So, this actually seems to illustrate my point. The Assault rules tell us to use the rules in the Shooting section. If they didn't, then we wouldn't have a clear directive to do so and would have to assume that they apply, much as some are doign when applying the Thunderhammer special rules to the ranged profile.

Again, I would like to reiterate, I wouldn't try to claim this advantage as I am not convinced it was intended and I wouldn't want to use an advantage that I'm not sure of on my opponent. Conversely, I would not prevent my opponent from using it, as I can see the logic behind the claim

[Nabterayl]

I did, but I don't see how the argument is different than Culven's. My argument is that, of the five statements that comprise "thunder hammer," two of them simply talk about all wounds inflicted by the item. I further went on to argue that it simply is not true that weapons can only have the effects listed in their profiles. There are lots of examples of weapons that have special effects or rules not listed in their profile. The cyclic ion blaster is one; the 20-page thread has plenty of other examples.

The argument is simply that Foehammer states that all unsaved wounds inflicted by it reduce the victim's Initiative to 1, and that Foehammer can be used as a ranged weapon. It has nothing at all to do with Foehammer being a CCW.

Culven's counter-argument, which seems to be yours as well, is that because Foehammer also happens to be a CCW, we should imply a limitation on the Init 1 effect that says it only works on wounds inflicted in close combat.

[gcsmith]

no one read what i wrote then

[Rapture]

Honestly I don't see how anyone can automatically assume that the thrown version has the same abilities. In the long run a FAQ might support that idea but until it does anyone who add traits to the listed profile is just a wishful thinker.

What if troops could throw power fists? Would they still hit with double strength? Using a weapon in the way it was designed to be used and throwing it can have very different results.

[Nabterayl]

Rapture, it's a question of asking what the abilities are, and what precisely they say. For instance, power fists say that they double the user's Strength. As the user's Strength is not used in a Shooting attack, nobody ought to claim that a thrown power fist (or thrown power klaw, or thrown thunder hammer) doubles the Strength of the resultant Shooting attack. Similarly, power weapons say that they ignore armor saves in close combat. As Shooting attacks do not take place in close combat, nobody ought to claim that a thrown power weapon (in any form, be it thrown power sword, thrown power fist, thrown thunder hammer, or whatever) ignores armor saves in the resultant Shooting attack.

The Init 1 effects are not written as being close-combat specific, or Assault phase specific. They refer to any wounds, or any roll on the vehicle damage table. That is the difference.

[Rapture]

Nabterayl, the point is that throwing something doesn't mean that the thrown weapon will operate in the same way.

[Nabterayl]

Right, but if you're going to make a non-rules based argument ... this isn't a very good example of that.

A thunder hammer releases a blast of energy when its head comes in contact with a solid object. It is this blast of energy that stuns the target, which is represented in-game by the Init 1 rules. Similarly, a thunder hammer causes damage when its head, moving quickly, comes in contact with a solid object.

We know that when Arjac throws his hammer, its head smashes into the target. We know that because a thrown hammer does not cause much damage when its handle hits the target, and we are only concerned with examples where the hammer does cause damage. Because the head of the thrown hammer comes into contact with the target, it would release its blast of stunning energy.

The thunder hammer is one of the few examples that actually does make sense from a fluff point of view. It's a way better example than removing your power fist and hurling that, or throwing a plasma gun, or anything like that.

[Rapture]

Right, but if you're going to make a non-rules based argument ... this isn't a very good example of that.

A thunder hammer releases a blast of energy when its head comes in contact with a solid object. It is this blast of energy that stuns the target, which is represented in-game by the Init 1 rules. Similarly, a thunder hammer causes damage when its head, moving quickly, comes in contact with a solid object.

We know that when Arjac throws his hammer, its head smashes into the target. We know that because a thrown hammer does not cause much damage when its handle hits the target, and we are only concerned with examples where the hammer does cause damage. Because the head of the thrown hammer comes into contact with the target, it would release its blast of stunning energy.

The thunder hammer is one of the few examples that actually does make sense from a fluff point of view. It's a way better example than removing your power fist and hurling that, or throwing a plasma gun, or anything like that.

I wasn't making a non-rules based argument. I was just pointing out the fault in assuming that throwing something is the same as using it normally.

From a combined viewpoint of logic and fluff this argument does not make sense to me. If the hammer released a 'stunning' blast of energy the force from that energy could cause it to be launched in the opposite direction of the facing of the head of the hammer.

However, fluff and logic have no place in the rules forum. You can't assume that a weapon operates the same when it is thrown because that is just an assumption. You have already pointed out examples where throwing a piece of equipment would not have the same effect as using the equipment as it is normally used.

I think that unless the benefits are clearly listed in the profile being used then the weapon only uses the rules that it has listed.

[Nabterayl]

If you're making a rules-based argument, what is the point of the "throw" reference? "Throw" is not a rules concept. Shooting attack is, and I've explained that the rules in question refer to neither wounds caused in close combat nor wounds caused in shooting - simply wounds, period. Some people, like Culven, feel that we should infer a restriction to close combat wounds. I can understand that, but it's an inference - the default way to read "an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer" is with reference to whether the wound was caused by a thunder hammer, not whether the wound was caused in the assault phase.

EDIT:
I think that unless the benefits are clearly listed in the profile being used then the weapon only uses the rules that it has listed.
I don't think that can be true. The cyclic ion blaster and cyclone launchers, for instance, both have benefits that are nowhere mentioned in the profile. It is simply not true that you can only look to the profile of a shooting attack to figure out what rules apply to that attack.

[Culven]

. . .I've explained that the rules in question refer to neither wounds caused in close combat nor wounds caused in shooting - simply wounds, period. Some people, like Culven, feel that we should infer a restriction to close combat wounds. I can understand that, but it's an inference - the default way to read "an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer" is with reference to whether the wound was caused by a thunder hammer, . . .
Your arguements are very persuasive. I am starting to think that you are right, but I still feel that I couldn't claim the ability if I were to use Arjac. It still feels like a grey area since there isn't anythig explicitly stating that one is to apply it when using the ranged profile. However, your arguement that it is still the Thunderhammer that is making the ranged attack is logical. I think when simplified to "What is being used to make the ranged attack? The Thunderhammer.", it is easier for me to accept your arguement. It is just a strange situation since I can think of no other weapon with special rules associated with the weapon itself (it tends to be Special Close Combat weapons that have this attribute) that has an alternate or additional profile. Ranged weapons with multiple profiles tend to have all special rules for each included in that mode of fire's profile (such as can be seen with SM Sternguard), and the gun has no special rules that apply regardless of what may or may not be included in those profiles.


The cyclic ion blaster and cyclone launchers, for instance, both have benefits that are nowhere mentioned in the profile. It is simply not true that you can only look to the profile of a shooting attack to figure out what rules apply to that attack.
I still have trouble accepting this as justification for your position simply because both of those weapons can only be used in one mode, that is they are ranged weapons which can only be fired as such. I am trying to find an existing weapon which is more analogous to the situation of Foehammer, i.e. it has multiple profiles with different special rules for each. Unfortunately, every example I can think of is a ranged weapon which uses different ammunition for its rules instead of having rules for the weapon itself. I keep thinking that the Scouts Heavy Bolter with Hellfire Shells might fit, but I don't have the codex to hand to verify the wording.

How about Huron's Gauntlet? It is a Power Fist that can be fired as a Heavy Flamer. If we had a multiplayer game where we were allowing firing into combat not involving one's own troops, would the Heavy Flamer ignore Armour Saves? The models are in close combat, and the Power Fist rules say nothing about the model with the Power Fist needing to be making attacks in close combat nor that the wounds need to be inflicted during the assault phase.

Yes, I know that example is stretching it, but it is the best I can think of at the moment. ;)

[Ymir]

Do you feel bad when you use Singing Spears which are via thier description in the codex a "witchblade" that has a ranged weapon use. Which by the way wounds on a 2+ and hits vehicles with a str 9.....just like a "witchblade" via page 42 in the Rulebook.

I will use the Singing Spear as my reason that Foehammer has a ranged weapon use. That because it's description says it is a thunder hammer, thus when used as a ranged weapon it gets the abilities via page 42 of the Rulebook. Which are if it hits and deals a unsaved wound then the model wounded Int drops to 1 and no matter what if it hits a vehicle then the vehicle suffers a crew shaken or stunned which ever it does.

[Nabterayl]

In the case of Huron's gauntlet I'd say no, but I'd say no based on RAW grounds. The Tyrant's Claw says that it "incorporates a built-in heavy flamer." To me, that is saying that the Tyrant's Claw is a single item which comprises two distinct weapons. "The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon" is saying that the Foehammer is a single item which can be used in two ways.

I can't think of another weapon like Foehammer in the game. But here's a hypothetical for you. Suppose we get a dark eldar character who is S3 and has poisoned blades which wound on a 2+, and has a special rule allowing him to throw his poisoned blades to make a shooting attack with the following profile: 6" S3 AP- assault 1. Wouldn't everybody assume that the shooting attack wounded on a 2+, even if the profile didn't mention poison?

[Culven]

I would be wondering why GW would have opted to exclude the mention of Poison 2+ since they have included it in ranged weapon profiles before. I would probably assume it was an intentional omission, and not expect it to be Poisoned 2+ as a ranged weapon. The end result would be an issue similar to Foehammer in that it would be an assumption that the close combat rules which are clearly defined should be applied to the ranged attack.

In the end, this is just another Foehammer example with a different ability substituted, so I don't think it really helps us understand the situation.

What is your view on my Foepistol hypothetical posted earlier? Instead of a special close combat weapon, I tried turning it around and giving a ranged weapon a special rule for use in combat. Would the weapon benefit from the bonuses that it gains during the chooting phase when it is used in combat?

[Nabterayl]

@Culven:

If a ranged weapon had the Init 1 language and that ranged weapon could also be used to make close combat attacks according to its rules, yes, I would expect that the Init 1 effect applied to both shooting and close combat.

I think I've realized that you and I approach that situation differently. I don't see the Init 1 stuff as being a close combat benefit, even though it is a benefit that, except for Foehammer, is only conferred upon close combat weapons. That's the unique thing about it, to me.

If we had a power sword that could be used as a ranged weapon, I wouldn't assume that the Shooting attack ignores armor, because the power weapon effect specifies wounds in close combat.

If we had a power fist that could be used as a ranged weapon, I wouldn't assume that the Shooting attack doubled its listed Strength, because the power fist effect specifies that it doubles the user's Strength, whereas the Shooting rules tell us to use the weapon's Strength.

If we had a melta gun that could be used as a close combat weapon, I wouldn't assume that the close combat attack ignored armor, because the Assault and rules never tell us to check the AP of an attack in close combat.

EDIT: I do think Ymir brings up a good point about the Singing Spear example. True, the Singing Spear Strength is X, so we have reason to look elsewhere - but we look elsewhere whether or not we have reason to.

[Ymir]

LOL I love how you dance around the Singing Spear example. Since the descriptions are dead on the same. Both are a ranged weapon that retain the abilities granted to them via page 42 of the Rulebook. The onlt thing I can ask is look at a Eldar Codex please!

If you can't do this. Do what I am doing. E-Mail GW the following everyday til they either block you or do something about this.

I am not asking for a response on a rule. I am asking how GW could release a 6 page FAQ on the Space Wolves and not clarify one of the most heated debates on BoLS forums. I mean you guys can waste time and ink on "How much is Arjac or Lukas total point cost?", but you can't put to rest this question!

If I have Arjac Rockfist throw his Foehammer at something with multiple wounds and a high Int say 5, and I deal a wound does the model wounded Int drop to 1 because Foehammer is a "thunder hammer"?

Again I am not asking for a rule answer from you guys. I am asking that this be passed on to whoever made that FAQ so that they may update it to put this to rest. Below are Links from BoLS forums so you can see this is getting out of hand and you as a company which made this needs to fix this issue.....NOT JUST LEAVE IT UP TO THE PEOPLE RUNNING LOCAL TOURNAMENTS! Your company is responsible for making thinks clear as crystal in certain situations, and this is one of them.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=2962

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=4522

I have my stand on this issue, but I am willing to be wrong if GW will just put it in print in a FAQ how Foehammer works when thrown. Thank you for your time, and I hope this will get past on to who it needs to to get something done before 'Ard Boyz starts up!

[Culven]

I think I've realized that you and I approach that situation differently. I don't see the Init 1 stuff as being a close combat benefit, even though it is a benefit that, except for Foehammer, is only conferred upon close combat weapons. That's the unique thing about it, to me.
To clarify, I am not looking at the situation as trying to apply a "close combat benefit" to Foehammer when thrown. You have already cited the rules of Thunderhammers which make no reference to being in combat only. The fact that, up until Foehammer, Thunderhammers could only cause wounds in combat actually has no bearing on my point of view. Rather, my position is that the ranged profile is self-contained and makes no reference to the Init 1 rule. If I use a broader approach, and look at it as being a Thunderhammer with its own associated rules, regardless of whether it is being used in combat or as a ranged weapon, then I agree that the Init 1 rule applies. It is my desire to consider the ranged profile as self contained (as is the precedent from other ranged weapons with multiple profiles) the keeps me from wanting to claim the Init 1 rule if I were to field Arjac. This is why I am trying to find another weapon where the weapon itself has rules that apply to multiple "modes" but that ability isn't included in the profiles for those modes. Thus far I can't think of one (the Singing Spear may be one, but I am unfamiliar with its rules and do not have the codex to hand).

If we had a melta gun that could be used as a close combat weapon, I wouldn't assume that the close combat attack ignored armor, because the Assault and rules never tell us to check the AP of an attack in close combat.
What about the bonus D6 for Armour Penetration due to Melta or the +1 on the vehicle damage table since it is an AP1 weapon? Neither rule states that it only applies when the weapon is used for shooting. When used in combat, it would most definitely be within 1/2 of the weapon's range, and it is an AP1 weapon, which is the only criteria mentioned.

This mess is why I would prefer to assume that the alternate profile is self-contained. If the bonus isn't mentioned, then it won't apply.

[Nabterayl]

To clarify, I am not looking at the situation as trying to apply a "close combat benefit" to Foehammer when thrown. You have already cited the rules of Thunderhammers which make no reference to being in combat only. The fact that, up until Foehammer, Thunderhammers could only cause wounds in combat actually has no bearing on my point of view. Rather, my position is that the ranged profile is self-contained and makes no reference to the Init 1 rule. If I use a broader approach, and look at it as being a Thunderhammer with its own associated rules, regardless of whether it is being used in combat or as a ranged weapon, then I agree that the Init 1 rule applies. It is my desire to consider the ranged profile as self contained (as is the precedent from other ranged weapons with multiple profiles) the keeps me from wanting to claim the Init 1 rule if I were to field Arjac. This is why I am trying to find another weapon where the weapon itself has rules that apply to multiple "modes" but that ability isn't included in the profiles for those modes. Thus far I can't think of one (the Singing Spear may be one, but I am unfamiliar with its rules and do not have the codex to hand).
The Singing Spear is a pretty good example. It states:


The spear can be used in close combat, but it requires two hands and so the wielder cannot gain the extra attack from an extra hand weapon. Like witchblades, singing spears wound on a 2+, but when rolling to damage a vehicle they have a Strength of 9. When thrown, singing spears have the following profile:

Range: 12" S: X AP: 6 Assault 1

Technically, a singing spear is not a witchblade that can be thrown (witchblades are 1H weapons). They are, however, close combat weapons that can be thrown to make a shooting attack, and they retain their close combat benefits (wounding on a 2+, hitting vehicles at S9) even when thrown, as those benefits do not specify close combat or shooting. One potential difference between a singing spear and Foehammer is that the singing spear's profile is arguably not "complete," in that SX doesn't tell you what the weapon has to roll to wound, so we have reason to look elsewhere.

I should stress that the complete vs. incomplete profile is a bad distinction, in my view, and the reason is this. SX tells us we need to know what the weapon wounds on. If we were only trying to "complete" the profile, we would see that singing spears wound on a 2+, and look no further. If we were only trying to "complete" the profile, we would overlook the fact that singing spears also count as S9 when used against vehicles, because nothing in the profile "suggests" that we should look for a special anti-vehicle rule.

Rather than a profile-based approach, I think the better approach is simply to look at all of the text that describes a weapon, profile and long-form text, and apply any and all rules we find according to their terms.


What about the bonus D6 for Armour Penetration due to Melta or the +1 on the vehicle damage table since it is an AP1 weapon? Neither rule states that it only applies when the weapon is used for shooting. When used in combat, it would most definitely be within 1/2 of the weapon's range, and it is an AP1 weapon, which is the only criteria mentioned.
Unless the piece of wargear said something phase-specific like "the meltahammer has the following profile when used as a ranged weapon" I would apply the extra d6 of penetration and the +1 on the vehicle damage table, yes.

[Culven]

OK, thank you for providing the Singing Spear rules. It does seem to set a precedent that the Foehammer is now following. I still don't like the fact that the ranged profile is basically incomplete since we are left to assume whether it is self-contained or not. A little more clarity would have been nice, but I realise that it was written by a GW designer, so it isn't a surprise.

I think you have convinced me.


Unless the piece of wargear said something phase-specific like "the meltahammer has the following profile when used as a ranged weapon" I would apply the extra d6 of penetration and the +1 on the vehicle damage table, yes.
Isn't this basically what the Foehammer rules are saying? Again, as I read the rule, it says "use the following profile when making a ranged attack". For the Foepistol, the equivalent would be "in combat it counts as a S8 Power Weapon". Don't both of these essentially say "when making a special attack with this weapon, use this profile" with neither specifically stating that we should use any rules not included in that profile?

I realise that this issue may not be critical, but it still bothers me that there is no clear direction to use anything other than just the stats in the alternate profile. It still feels like we are left to assume some of the rules, which seems to be the trend for GW rules. I figure in 10-20 years, the rulebook will consist of nothing more than Movement Phase, Shooting Phase, and Assault Phase headers with the players left to fill in how they feel like playing it.

[Ymir]

Again look at the codex. This is what the Codex entry for Foehammer says word for word:

Foehammer: When the rune-etched weapon known as the Foehammer leaves Arjac's massive fist, its inbuilt teleport device ensures it will quickly return to his gauntlet ready to be used again. The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

Range Strenght AP Type
6" 10 1 Assault 1

It actually says "with the following" which if I am not mistaken mean also. Thus making it a thunder hammer 1st with the ranged profile added to all the abilities of a thunder hammer.

[Nabterayl]

OK, thank you for providing the Singing Spear rules. It does seem to set a precedent that the Foehammer is now following. I still don't like the fact that the ranged profile is basically incomplete since we are left to assume whether it is self-contained or not. A little more clarity would have been nice, but I realise that it was written by a GW designer, so it isn't a surprise.

I think you have convinced me.
Goodness, a rules argument that produced a change of opinion? See, I knew there was a reason I liked this community :)

But to wrap up one point:


Isn't this basically what the Foehammer rules are saying? Again, as I read the rule, it says "use the following profile when making a ranged attack". For the Foepistol, the equivalent would be "in combat it counts as a S8 Power Weapon". Don't both of these essentially say "when making a special attack with this weapon, use this profile" with neither specifically stating that we should use any rules not included in that profile?
The question is whether "use the following profile when making a ranged attack" means "only use the following profile when making a ranged attack," and I don't think it does.

However, if a weapon specifies that a profile is only used for ranged attacks - if instead of saying, "Foepistol's profile is 12" S8 AP1 melta" it said "Foepistol may be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile: 12" S8 AP1 melta" then I would not apply elements of the profile to close combat attacks.

[rle68]

Goodness, a rules argument that produced a change of opinion? See, I knew there was a reason I liked this community :)

But to wrap up one point:


The question is whether "use the following profile when making a ranged attack" means "only use the following profile when making a ranged attack," and I don't think it does.

However, if a weapon specifies that a profile is only used for ranged attacks - if instead of saying, "Foepistol's profile is 12" S8 AP1 melta" it said "Foepistol may be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile: 12" S8 AP1 melta" then I would not apply elements of the profile to close combat attacks.

no it says WITH the following profile .. very clearly its a thunder hammer with the following profile.. stop playing grammatical intent and read what it says

[Sam]

I think this is a silly argument, because if you ever actually tried to do it you would get punched in the nuts.

[Nabterayl]

no it says WITH the following profile .. very clearly its a thunder hammer with the following profile.. stop playing grammatical intent and read what it says

Respectfully, before you start criticizing my grammatical abilities, you might read my posts enough to notice that I not only agree with your interpretation of the rules but have managed to persuade one of the more thoughtful members of these forums to agree with both of us.

[Sam]

no it says WITH the following profile .. very clearly its a thunder hammer with the following profile.. stop playing grammatical intent and read what it says

It says it is "used as a RANGED WEAPON with the following profile:" which means when you use it as a RANGED WEAPON, you use it with that profile. As has been continually pointed out on this forum, the rules are written from a 'this is what you CAN do' perspective, so if it does not say you reduce them to initiative 1 when using it as a range weapon, you cannot do it.

[Commissar Lewis]

I personally love how Arjac seemingly is based on one of my favorite gods, Thor.

[Fellend]

This is the codex enrty for Foehammer word for word.

Foehammer: When the rune-etched weapon known as the Foehammer leaves Arjac's massive fist, its inbuilt teleport device ensures it will quickly return to his gauntlet ready to be used again. The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

Range Strenght AP Type
6" 10 1 Assault 1


In every possible way it says that this is thunder hammer that CAN BE USED as a ranged weapon with the following profile.

Range Strenght AP Type
6" 10 1 Assault 1

Meaning grammatically that it's a thunder hammer that when it's thrown it uses this and only this profile.
No where in that sentence does it say that it adds the Thunder hammers profile to the shooting attack.

The bunny is a rabbit that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:
Meaning that the bunny is a rabbit UNTILL IT IS THROWN in which case it ceases to be a rabbit.
If the rabbit runs back after it's been thrown it reverts to it's original rabbit state..

[sebi81]

that´s the point. a ranged weapon with the given profile ist a ranged weapon with the given profile. not more not less. and this is the way foehammer can be used.
als long as the rules are concerned, its just a ranged weapon and not a thrown thunderhammer with the given profile. if it would say it is a thunderhammer that can be thrown at enemy models in the shooting phase, then I would guess the ini of the hit model is 1.
but that is not what the rules are saying. its a thunderhammer (which makes clear, it is following the rules for a thunderhammer) which can be used as a ranged weapon (not a ranged thunderhammer or something like that) with the following profile. if it should use the thunderhammer rules when it´s thrown that must have been stated. the text as it is imo doesn´t say anything else than Arjac can use a thunderhammer in close combat and a ranged weapon with the given profile in the shooting phase.

[DarkLink]

I personally love how Arjac seemingly is based on one of my favorite gods, Thor.

Ever hear of Wulfgar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companions_of_the_Hall#Wulfgar)?

[Nabterayl]

that´s the point. a ranged weapon with the given profile ist a ranged weapon with the given profile. not more not less.
sebi81, what's your explanation for how singing spears hit vehicles at S9? The profile is just 12" SX AP. What about that says S9 vs. vehicles? By your theory we can't do more, nor less, than the profile, right?

[Fellend]

Like witchblades, signing spears wound on a 2+ but when rolling to damage a vehicle they have a strength of 9.
There you go.
The SX simply represent see above rules instead of typing in (2vs units 9vs vehicles) as that would be to much.
Think instead of trying to twist the rules in your favour

[Nabterayl]

Like witchblades, signing spears wound on a 2+ but when rolling to damage a vehicle they have a strength of 9.
There you go.
The SX simply represent see above rules instead of typing in (2vs units 9vs vehicles) as that would be to much.
Think instead of trying to twist the rules in your favour
Ah, you say, "but the profile is incomplete!" So you must mean that we can look outside the profile when the profile, by itself, is unplayable, right?

How then do you justify cyclic ion blaster shots getting AP1 on a 6? Where is that indicated in a profile? Is 18" S3 AP4 assault 5 unplayable, or otherwise incomplete?

[Fellend]

No i'm saying that X has a meaning which is displayed elsewhere due to size restrictions.

Cyclic ion blaster says in it's weapon description that is has this effect while while wounding.
As it's only a shooting weapon there are no complications as to when this takes effect.

It's really simple. just think of Arjacs weapon as two different weapons. One is is a thunderhammer what is used in assault, the other is a shooting weapon that is used in the shooting phase.
It's only as a physical item they are one and the same.

[Nabterayl]

No i'm saying that X has a meaning which is displayed elsewhere due to size restrictions.
If "size restrictions" is a valid excuse for not putting something in the profile, surely the two stunning effects would qualify for it as well?


Cyclic ion blaster says in it's weapon description that is has this effect while while wounding.
As it's only a shooting weapon there are no complications as to when this takes effect.

It's really simple. just think of Arjacs weapon as two different weapons. One is is a thunderhammer what is used in assault, the other is a shooting weapon that is used in the shooting phase.
It's only as a physical item they are one and the same.
I can't think of it that way, because it doesn't fit the grammar of the sentence. The sentence does not describe a single item (Foehammer) which is both a thunder hammer and a ranged weapon. It describes a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon. In pseudoalgebra, the sentence says


(Foehammer) is (thunder hammer)(ranged weapon)

not


(Foehammer) is [(thunder hammer)+(ranged weapon)]

To repeat from the other thread:


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.

[Fellend]

I notice how you skip copula verbs while doing your analysis. Thus making any discussions as to what a Thunder Hammer is irrelevant.

"If "size restrictions" is a valid excuse for not putting something in the profile, surely the two stunning effects would qualify for it as well?"

No since that is not directly related to the strenght of the attack. But is a status effect that should end up at the end of the weapon profile where there are for that reason ample space.
Now if the Foehammer really was long ranged Hammer then it's strenght would also be X as the X would be strength x2.

[Rapture]

All the grammatical analysis in the world doesn't change the fact that the profile to be used for shooting attacks doesn't include the special rules in question.

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'."

The passage in question specifically states that the ranged attack uses a "following" profile. Special rules cannot be added to that profile.

If the rules aren't listed in the profile for shooting attacks then they cannot be used for shooting attacks.

[nojinx]

All the grammatical analysis in the world doesn't change the fact that the profile to be used for shooting attacks doesn't include the special rules in question.

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'."

The passage in question specifically states that the ranged attack uses a "following" profile. Special rules cannot be added to that profile.

If the rules aren't listed in the profile for shooting attacks then they cannot be used for shooting attacks.

His argument on this point hinges on a precedent set by a couple of similar cases, notably the Cyclic Ion Blaster of the Tau Empire codex. Putting aside the fact that the reference is from 4th edition publication, the CIB is an example of a weapon having a characteristic that is not part of its profile but, nonetheless, if part of the weapon's rules.

I see the problem as being one of non-conclusiveness. I don't see the grammar (and resultant logic) necessitating that the valid attributes of a thunder hammer carry over. That may just be from my own ignorance, but I need to see the proof before I buy into the postulate. The interpretation is valid but not necessarily correct.

[Nabterayl]

I really don't see what the edition of the codex has to do with anything. This is a point about how we read the rulebooks, both primary and codex. If it really is true that no weapon can have an effect that is not listed in the profile, then a number of weapons work differently than presently played. The cyclic ion blaster is the clearest example, but it is hardly the only one.

[rle68]

It says it is "used as a RANGED WEAPON with the following profile:" which means when you use it as a RANGED WEAPON, you use it with that profile. As has been continually pointed out on this forum, the rules are written from a 'this is what you CAN do' perspective, so if it does not say you reduce them to initiative 1 when using it as a range weapon, you cannot do it.

i love how you forget it also says its a thunder hammer WITH and doesnt say use instead of .. and to answer another one of your insightful posts you or anyone ever tied to punch me in the nuts might find your own head shoved up your own @$$

[Fellend]

It doesn't say no weapons can have stats added from their profile. In fact if that were true some weapons wouldn't be able to be used at all. Holy orb of antioch for example.

What it does say is that since it's not mentioned anywhere that the special effects of a thunderhammer is transfered then it is infact not transfered.

It it had said "The Foehammer is a thunderhammer that can be used with as a ranged weapon with this profile, while still retaining it's abilities" or simply in the status sidebar said "thunderhammer" then yes that would be true.
The cyclonic ion blaster is simply a weapon that says it does this while wounding. there's no uncertainty about how it should be used. It clearly states how it's used.

And using the "the rules doesn't say that I can't do it" is just absurd. Nowhere does it say that I can't unleash my RL dog to devour your plastic soldiers and claim it was an act of Imperial Justice.

[rle68]

It doesn't say no weapons can have stats added from their profile. In fact if that were true some weapons wouldn't be able to be used at all. Holy orb of antioch for example.

What it does say is that since it's not mentioned anywhere that the special effects of a thunderhammer is transfered then it is infact not transfered.

It it had said "The Foehammer is a thunderhammer that can be used with as a ranged weapon with this profile, while still retaining it's abilities" or simply in the status sidebar said "thunderhammer" then yes that would be true.
The cyclonic ion blaster is simply a weapon that says it does this while wounding. there's no uncertainty about how it should be used. It clearly states how it's used.

And using the "the rules doesn't say that I can't do it" is just absurd. Nowhere does it say that I can't unleash my RL dog to devour your plastic soldiers and claim it was an act of Imperial Justice.


you have got to be kidding me.. you cant be serious with that garbage your spewing

Did you miss the part that says its a thunder hammer WITH the following profile not instead of.. what part of that do you not understand?

if i was to take your way of doing things dont play Vulcan and try to use his gauntlet flamer cus no where does it list what its profile is i can make the case then it doesnt have one.. and thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard

you know the fact your wrong yet you cling to this garbage you claim

it never says it is not a thunderhammer, it goes out of tis way to state not only is it a thunder hammer its a thunder hammer WITH the following profile..it is still a thunder hammer

that would end the debate.. the judge finds in favor of Arjac and case dismissed

[Nabterayl]

Okay, let's calm down here, rle68. Name calling just derails the thread. Let's start from where we agree and work forward from there.


It doesn't say no weapons can have stats added from their profile. In fact if that were true some weapons wouldn't be able to be used at all. Holy orb of antioch for example.
Based on this, it sounds like we both agree that weapons can have effects that are not listed anywhere in their profile. The next question is whether Foehammer is such a weapon.


What it does say is that since it's not mentioned anywhere that the special effects of a thunderhammer is transfered then it is infact not transfered.

It it had said "The Foehammer is a thunderhammer that can be used with as a ranged weapon with this profile, while still retaining it's abilities" or simply in the status sidebar said "thunderhammer" then yes that would be true.
The cyclonic ion blaster is simply a weapon that says it does this while wounding. there's no uncertainty about how it should be used. It clearly states how it's used.
Let's think about this for a moment, and continue using the CIB as an example. How do we know that the cyclic ion blaster's AP1 effect applies? It is not actually the fact that the CIB can only wound in one way. It is the fact that it says "Any rolls to wound of a 6 count as AP1." That is the first thing we need to realize. Only then do we ask, "Well, under what circumstances can the CIB roll to wound?" It so happens, of course, that the CIB can only wound in one way, which is by shooting.

Foehammer is actually similar. Foehammer says, "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 the first thing we need to realize. There is no "transferring" of an effect; the effect itself applies to all unsaved wounds. Then we ask, "Well, under what circumstances can a thunder hammer wound?" It so happens, of course, that most thunder hammers can only wound in close combat. But Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can wound in both close combat and in shooting, and so the Initiative 1 effect applies as written. Again, no "transferring" involved.

[gcsmith]

No transfering involved? sorry but it does state uses FOLLOWING PROFILE, end of story that is the profile, people ive seen here, yh but u shouldnt need to add thunder hammer to profile cus its common sense, however u also argue you cant base rule judgments on common sense, Rules As written is thunder hammer doesnt apply due to following profile not having it

[rle68]

No transfering involved? sorry but it does state uses FOLLOWING PROFILE, end of story that is the profile, people ive seen here, yh but u shouldnt need to add thunder hammer to profile cus its common sense, however u also argue you cant base rule judgments on common sense, Rules As written is thunder hammer doesnt apply due to following profile not having it

You however are 100% absolutely incorrect it does state that it is a thunder hammer WITH the following profile not that uses the following profile

read what it says before saying it is one way and you have that way incorrect Thanks

[Nabterayl]

There's no transferring involved because the rule as written applies to both shooting and close combat attacks. We are not "transferring" a rule that is assault-specific and applying it in a shooting situation.

As for the "following profile" argument, if you think that we're arguing on the basis of common sense then you haven't followed the arguments. Cyclone launchers can be fired in conjunction with a storm bolter not on the basis of common sense but because that is what the rule says, even though it doesn't say it in the profile. Foehammer stuns its enemies when used to make a shooting attack not on the basis of common sense but because that is what the rule says, even though it doesn't say it in the profile.

[Fellend]

Won't be bothered to sink to his level. Untill GW says it passes on the thunderhammer attributes. I won't agree with it, if you want to ***** about it have fun. Make up whatever rules you want. I'm not playing you anyway so it won't matter to me.

[rle68]

There's no transferring involved because the rule as written applies to both shooting and close combat attacks. We are not "transferring" a rule that is assault-specific and applying it in a shooting situation.

As for the "following profile" argument, if you think that we're arguing on the basis of common sense then you haven't followed the arguments. Cyclone launchers can be fired in conjunction with a storm bolter not on the basis of common sense but because that is what the rule says, even though it doesn't say it in the profile. Foehammer stuns its enemies when used to make a shooting attack not on the basis of common sense but because that is what the rule says, even though it doesn't say it in the profile.


100% correct i agree with everything you said here :)