arjac rockfist questions

[thealmightypez]

i had a couple questions about using rockfist in an army

1) arjac's hammer counts as a thunder hammer which can be thrown, if it hits and wounds but the model isnt killed for whatever reason, does the intended target then count as being wounded by a thunderhammer i.e, being reduced to initiative 1?

2) If arjac is included in the army list, can i take a wolf lord in terminator armor with a thunder hammer/storm shield and saga of the bear?

3) i know it odesnt say it in his rules, but does arjac count as an ic?

thanks for any help

[Eldrad]

im not completely sure about the first one, i dont think so since it's a shooting attack, and pretty sure you can take another saga and gear because he is an independent character, and he is not an independent charater, he's a squad upgrade so he cant leave the unit or be singled out in cc

[Leez]

Question three is answered in the faq free from the GW website.

Question two, end of the second paragraph on page 64 dealing with Sagas explicitly answers this. Unless your question is about having the same wargear, he has Wolf's Tooth Necklace and no grenades. A Wolf Lord in termi-armour does not have Wolf's Tooth Necklace and does have grenades. Either way, Arjac is not an HQ choice.

Question One, the book gives you a weapon profile when Foehammer is used as a ranged weapon use the profile without modification or addition.


My Space Wolf is sorta rusty though.

[DarkLink]

There was a massive argument over the first point. By RAW Arjac does indeed stun his targets. There is absolutely nothing that makes Arjac's Thunderhammer stop being a Thunderhammer when he throws it. Any time his Thunder hammer causes a wound, it stuns the target, and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that prevents this from happening when he throws it. Even when thrown, it is still a wound caused by a Thunderhammer.

Quite a few people refused to believe this, even though it's very clear in the rules, hence the massive argument a long time ago.


Edit: I belive this is the original thread here (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=2962&highlight=Arjac). There's a bit of flaming, and 22 pages of often very heated arguments over it in there.

Edit: Oh, and there's no reason to think you cannot have additional properties on a ranges weapon that are not listed in the profile. There are many, many examples of ranged weapons that have properties that are not listed in the profile, so just because Foehammer's profile does not explicitly have "stun the opponent" in it, it still gets it implicitly because it is still a Thunderhammer.

[daboarder]

sorry darklink but buy RAW, when arjac throws his hammer it has the GIVEN profile, nowhere in that profile do i see the line saying that its a thunder hammer.

[Leez]

Damn but I know there's a ranged weapon or two that have the Rending rule worked in but I can not remember which and where. Not that precedents are of any value.

edit: Either way when a ranged weapon has a special effect it has it in the profile under type for example: "Heavy 1, Rending" or "Assault 3, Sniper" or "Rapid Fire, Pinning"

Foehammer when used as a ranged attack is type: "Assault 1". If a person wanted to deviate from what the codex says the weapon is under very specific circumstances then good luck, make sure you figure out who the WAAC player is first.

[blackarmchair]

sorry darklink but buy RAW, when arjac throws his hammer it has the GIVEN profile, nowhere in that profile do i see the line saying that its a thunder hammer.

Actually, what the codex says (Without DIRECT copy paste) is Arjac's hammer COUNTS AS A THUNDERHAMMER with the following profile.

Not a Thunderhammer that can be used with the following profile, not a thunderhammer that supplants its normal rules for a different profile in the shooting phase

A thunderhammer WITH the following profile. Whether or not it was intentional RAW it stuns targets.

Coincidentally, this makes Jaws amazing for killing creatures :)

[Leez]

Actually, what the codex says (Without DIRECT copy paste) is Arjac's hammer COUNTS AS A THUNDERHAMMER with the following profile.

Not a Thunderhammer that can be used with the following profile, not a thunderhammer that supplants its normal rules for a different profile in the shooting phase

A thunderhammer WITH the following profile. Whether or not it was intentional RAW it stuns targets.

Coincidentally, this makes Jaws amazing for killing creatures :)

So it's a Thunderhammer with the following profile XXX, where the profile does not state it has any effect in addition to the Assault profile in the ranged section of the book essentially:

So A is A, whose profile is DEF, with the profile DE.

See what I mean by needing to first figure out who the "common sense" ignoring WAAC player is?

[Torcano]

If your "common sense" leads you to believe a TH will magically stop acting as a TH because GW sucks at clarifying rules, then you really need to re-evaluate how much "sense" you really have. Your opinion reeks of WAAC.

Anyways, I think you guys missed DarkLink's point. This has ALREADY been discussed, and the answer is clear. I think it goes without saying that another 20 pages of troll-**** isn't necessary?

[Leez]

If your "common sense" leads you to believe a TH will magically stop acting as a TH because GW sucks at clarifying rules, then you really need to re-evaluate how much "sense" you really have. Your opinion reeks of WAAC.

Anyways, I think you guys missed DarkLink's point. This has ALREADY been discussed, and the answer is clear. I think it goes without saying that another 20 pages of troll-**** isn't necessary?

Personally I've always viewed individuals that add things to rules or out right make them up so as to gain advantage as "reeking" of WAAC. A particularly indicative behaviour of the WAAC player is the attempt to claim the moral high ground of "common sense" and then proceed to badger those that don't agree with them because "the answer is clear". A frequent insult used by the WAAC player is to call the other person the WAAC player followed often by then dismissing them as a niggling Rules-Lawyers.

Something about casting stones springs to mind.

[DarkLink]

If your "common sense" leads you to believe a TH will magically stop acting as a TH because GW sucks at clarifying rules, then you really need to re-evaluate how much "sense" you really have. Your opinion reeks of WAAC.

Anyways, I think you guys missed DarkLink's point. This has ALREADY been discussed, and the answer is clear. I think it goes without saying that another 20 pages of troll-**** isn't necessary?

Right. This has already been discussed. A clear answer has already been found. Read the thread that I linked to, and you'll find that JWolf very early on presents an argument that explains "yes, Foehammer does stun its target when thrown".

JWolf's argument is never disproven, despite 20+ pages of fervent argument. A lot of people rail against, it, and refused to believe it, but the could find absolutely no justification in the rules to claim that Foehammer does not stun its target.





And Leez, as I've already said, there are many examples of weapons that have rules outside their shooting profile. And I'm not talking about just rending or something. From the last page of the old thread, here are some 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.

All of these weapons have properties that, if you only used their profile, would not be used. Just looking at these examples makes it crystal clear that even if Foehammer does not note in its profile that it stuns its target, that means nothing. It does not lose the rule.

[Old_Paladin]

There was a massive argument over the first point. By RAW Arjac does indeed stun his targets. There is absolutely nothing that makes Arjac's Thunderhammer stop being a Thunderhammer when he throws it.

Accept, that RAW, the thunderhammer special rule is listed under close combat weapon rules and only applies to wounds done in close combat.

Unless we also think that a lightning claw allows you to re-roll wounds with your stormbolter or plasma pistol; because a lighning claw says "re-roll all wounds," not re-roll wounds in close combat.

And blood angel players will be happy to know that their inferno pistols give them the melta special rules in close combat with vehicles; since its clear that they don't lose the melta rule in melee, you just wouldn't count the strength and AP. Nothing makes it stop being both a melta weapon and a close combat weapon.


Or we can read the big 'ol rulebook and realize that "ranged weapon types" are only for ranged attacks and "melee weapon types" are only applied for melee.

[Leez]

Right. This has already been discussed. A clear answer has already been found. Read the thread that I linked to, and you'll find that JWolf very early on presents an argument that explains "yes, Foehammer does stun its target when thrown".

JWolf's argument is never disproven, despite 20+ pages of fervent argument. A lot of people rail against, it, and refused to believe it, but the could find absolutely no justification in the rules to claim that Foehammer does not stun its target.

And Leez, as I've already said, there are many examples of weapons that have rules outside their shooting profile. And I'm not talking about just rending or something. From the last page of the old thread, here are some examples;

All of these weapons have properties that, if you only used their profile, would not be used. Just looking at these examples makes it crystal clear that even if Foehammer does not note in its profile that it stuns its target, that means nothing. It does not lose the rule.

Having gone through half the thread you linked and already grown tired of the endless repetition and talking past instead of with one another and with both sides being "clearly" right. I'm left wondering if the later half is worth reading. I don't think you'll be surprised when I say I agree with MVPBrandt so far.

No one in this thread, myself included, has added to the old on in even the slightest, so I find little point in continuing here until there is something new. Just one question, who in that thread is JWolf?

At least this isn't a terribly pressing issue. Arjac Rockfist is a ridiculous waste of points.

[DarkLink]

Personally I've always viewed individuals that add things to rules or out right make them up so as to gain advantage as "reeking" of WAAC. A particularly indicative behaviour of the WAAC player is the attempt to claim the moral high ground of "common sense" and then proceed to badger those that don't agree with them because "the answer is clear". A frequent insult used by the WAAC player is to call the other person the WAAC player followed often by then dismissing them as a niggling Rules-Lawyers.

Something about casting stones springs to mind.

When has anyone in this thread insulted someone else, or accused them of rules lawyering or being a WAAC player. Except for you, right here:p.

Ok, so you didn't insult anyone. But in this comment is sounds as if you're saying "I may or may not be right, but anyone who disagrees with me is a dirty, filthy WAAC player, so it doesn't really matter":p.



Unless we also think that a lightning claw allows you to re-roll wounds with your stormbolter or plasma pistol; because a lighning claw says "re-roll all wounds," not re-roll wounds in close combat.

A storm bolter or plasma pistol is not a lightning claw, thus there is no reason why you would be able to reroll wounds caused by the bolter/pistol.

Foehammer is, however, a thunderhammer. This is explicitly stated. And anytime a Thunderhammer causes a wound, it stuns its target. Thus, if Foehammer wounds its target, it stuns it, and there is nothing that prevents this from happening when using Foehammer as a ranged attack.



And blood angel players will be happy to know that their inferno pistols give them the melta special rules in close combat with vehicles; since its clear that they don't lose the melta rule in melee, you just wouldn't count the strength and AP. Nothing makes it stop being both a melta weapon and a close combat weapon.

Inferno pistols, and other shooting weapons, don't use their special effects in CC, as you aren't shooting it, you're just clubbing them on the head. They simply grant +1 A in close combat, as per RAW. However, when a Thunderhammer stuns its opponent, all it needs to do is cause a wound. There's nothing to limit this to close combat, other than the fact that Thunderhammers normally can't be used as a ranged attack.

If a thunderhammer causes a wound, it stuns its opponents. There's nothing that says this applies only to CC, anywhere.



Or we can read the big 'ol rulebook and realize that "ranged weapon types" are only for ranged attacks and "melee weapon types" are only applied for melee.

But there's no actual rule that says that. Anywhere. You made it up.

Now, when you use a ranged weapon in cc, you don't use its shooting profile. But there's nothing that prevents you from using the cc effects of a ccw when you are using that ccw as a ranged weapon, with the exception of the fact that almost no ccws can be used as ranged weapons.


Having gone through half the thread you linked and already grown tired of the endless repetition and talking past instead of with one another and with both sides being "clearly" right. I'm left wondering if the later half is worth reading. I don't think you'll be surprised when I say I agree with MVPBrandt so far.

No one in this thread, myself included, has added to the old on in even the slightest, so I find little point in continuing here until there is something new.

Right, there's no point in having another endless, circular argument. Though only one side had actual rules to back up their arugment;).



Just one question, who in that thread is JWolf?


Oops, not JWolf. Mkerr. My bad.

[Old_Paladin]

As for the lightning claw it doesn't say attacks from/by the claw or attacks in close combat; it actually says "any wounds by a model that has a claw," a wound by a bolter from a model that also has a claw would qualify (it both caused a wound and has a claw).
Of course, it's also silly; no one should even do it; but poor wording isn't a justification. That's my point.

I can understand peoples point about the hammer (and it should probably have the rule), but ranged and melee wepons are different.
If the profile was Range:x Strength:y AP:z *assault 1, thunderhammer
or if it had a wargear section with a long-form discription, like every other special weapon you said was similar.

There are only two special categories that affect both melee and ranged: rending and poison.
But it is always clear: such as a assault cannon having assault4, rending.
And in all those cases, it only applies to one style of fighting, rending on a gun doesn't allow rending in melee (or vice versa), and a poison knife doesn't give you a poison shotgun.


And fankly, the rules tells us only what we CAN do; if it's not stated directly, we don't do it. The thrown version does not tell us we can add special rules; it needs to be treated as anyother ranged weapons profile. It doesn't have a special short-form rule in it profile, and it doesn't have a long-form discription that says that all normal thunderhammer rules also apply at range.

I personally find it funny that you say a melta pistol isn't melta in combat, but a thunderhammer is a thunderhammer if thrown.
The rules actually state that we only ignore strength and AP (the reason we should ignore special rules is because it fails to tell us we can use them [so we shouldn't]), likewise when the hammer is given a gun profile, we treat it as a gun (since the gun-type profile isn't saying additionally use these specific special rules).
At the very least, give the consession to the enemy that you'll work out all other shooting effects for his squad first and then throw the hammer (as it's like he's striking last, just like a powerfist; and you're trying to use all the rules for a thunderhammer, not just trying to pick and choose).

[Leez]

When has anyone in this thread insulted someone else, or accused them of rules lawyering or being a WAAC player. Except for you, right here:p.

Ok, so you didn't insult anyone. But in this comment is sounds as if you're saying "I may or may not be right, but anyone who disagrees with me is a dirty, filthy WAAC player, so it doesn't really matter":p.

I think he and I manged to not so subtly imply the other is a WAAC player. What I do mean in the end though is that being or not being a rules lawyer and/or WAAC has nothing whatsoever to do with being right or wrong. I understood him to think otherwise because he choose to address me instead of my reasoning. I guess he took "make sure you figure out who the WAAC player is first." from a prior post personally.

[Lerra]

Coincidentally, this makes Jaws amazing for killing creatures :)

Just an FYI, most players consider Jaws to function off of a model's unmodified initiative, so that a model who has been struck with a thunderhammer still tests for Jaws using his normal initiative. Similarly, a model with a powerfist also tests for Jaws using his unmodified initiative.

[mkerr]

There should be a forum rule against "thunderhammers at range" threads. These go nowhere fast.

Although I feel that I (and even MVBrandt) made some decent arguments in that thread, the real winner of that debate was Nabterayl (a contract lawyer in real-life). He's freaking brilliant and impossible to beat -- I've made it a point to never face off against him in a rules debate!

He's got a ton of gems in the thread, but I always use #156 (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=34383&postcount=156) as an example of a fantastic rules argument.

Mkerr

[Nabterayl]

There should be a forum rule against "thunderhammers at range" threads. These go nowhere fast.

Although I feel that I (and even MVBrandt) made some decent arguments in that thread, the real winner of that debate was Nabterayl (a contract lawyer in real-life). He's freaking brilliant and impossible to beat -- I've made it a point to never face off against him in a rules debate!
Aw, flatterer ;)

[DarkLink]

I think he and I manged to not so subtly imply the other is a WAAC player. What I do mean in the end though is that being or not being a rules lawyer and/or WAAC has nothing whatsoever to do with being right or wrong. I understood him to think otherwise because he choose to address me instead of my reasoning. I guess he took "make sure you figure out who the WAAC player is first." from a prior post personally.

No worries, I was just makin' fun of you there:p.

More importantly, I finally got to see Zombieland, and it was awesome.

[Old_Paladin]

More importantly, I finally got to see Zombieland,
What took you so long?
You live in the States, not the moon!


and it was awesome.
Oh course, it's only the best zombie movie made in the last two decades (the remake of Dawn was really good, but the originality of Zombieland makes it take top spot).


That's what this thread needs to be about; not a stupid argument about Arjac, but an argument about the best zombie movies.

[DarkLink]

What took you so long?
You live in the States, not the moon!

I know! At least I saw Kickass when it was in theaters. I'm not very good about catching movies when they come out:rolleyes:

[Lerra]

I thought Shaun of the Dead was awesome. As good as Zombieland imo.

[Scribbles]

Alright, I'm new to the forum, and wasn't here when the argument was brought up the first time. If this has been brought up there, please show me.

Let us just do something hypothetically. Let's say that Foehammer's ranged profile is AP5 instead of AP1. Would it still ignore all armor saves against wounds when it's thrown, even though it is only AP5?

[Bikeninja]

Wow, I use this debate as a joke on my home forums for the purposes of being funny. I love this debate though and for the record agree that Foehammer should in fact cause you to go to initiative 1 when it is thrown and causes a wound.

My advice: It should be decided on before you play. Talk your judge/tourney organizer, opponent whatever and get aruling before you play. That way you don't rely on it and you lose it. Buddy of mine just lost a tourney because he assumed everyone played poisoned weapons the same. Apparenty they don't and he had ruling go against him so that was obviously wrong. Now he asks about poisoned weapons before games so that both players are clear and this doesn't happen.

[incenerate101]

Just to calrify this heated topic

I for one am tired of this rule debate being thrown in my face ( i play space wolves and use Arjac quite a bit ). I sent an email to a judge from my local store and asked if he could clarify the rules. The FINAL decision in my personal store is it acts as a thunderhammer that has been thrown meaning all the thunderhammer rules apply to the ranged attack as well as in CC. Now going back to the Jaws debate the unit in the squad wounded by the ranged attack is treated as Initative 1 but noone else in the sqaud is affected. So generally we have to say which model we are going to hit with it.

Hope these rulings helped out with the debate.
-Incenerate

[DarkLink]

Alright, I'm new to the forum, and wasn't here when the argument was brought up the first time. If this has been brought up there, please show me.

Let us just do something hypothetically. Let's say that Foehammer's ranged profile is AP5 instead of AP1. Would it still ignore all armor saves against wounds when it's thrown, even though it is only AP5?

I linked to the argument earlier in the page.

But you do bring up an interesting point. I don't feel like going through the effort of looking up how thunderhammers ignore armor saves exactly, but in your example Foehammer probably would still ignore armor, at least if it simply states "wounds caused by Thunderhammers ignore armor saves".

[Leez]

I linked to the argument earlier in the page.

But you do bring up an interesting point. I don't feel like going through the effort of looking up how thunderhammers ignore armor saves exactly, but in your example Foehammer probably would still ignore armor, at least if it simply states "wounds caused by Thunderhammers ignore armor saves".

Assuming it's treated as a ranged melee-ruled weapon it would have the "ignore armor save" statement. Foehammer via being a Thuderhammer, Thunderhammer because it's treated like a Power Fist, Power fist because it counts as a Power Weapon, with Power Weapon itself comes the ignore armour save statement.

[Nabterayl]

Assuming it's treated as a ranged melee-ruled weapon it would have the "ignore armor save" statement. Foehammer via being a Thuderhammer, Thunderhammer because it's treated like a Power Fist, Power fist because it counts as a Power Weapon, with Power Weapon itself comes the ignore armour save statement.
That is the correct train of thought, but if you look up power weapons again on page 42, you'll see that they actually specify that they ignore armor saves in close combat only. One of the reasons there's a question as to whether Foehammer includes the "knocked reeling" effect even when used as a ranged weapon is because the "knocked reeling" rules on page 42 don't specify that they function in close combat only - unlike power weapons' "ignore armor saves" rule, on the same page, which does.

Hence, if Foehammer is still a thunder hammer when used as a ranged weapon (which I believe it is, for the reasons laid out in the post DarkLink linked to earlier), it does indeed ignore armor saves - but only when it causes wounds in close combat, which it will never do when used as a ranged weapon.

[Leez]

That is the correct train of thought, but if you look up power weapons again on page 42, you'll see that they actually specify that they ignore armor saves in close combat only. One of the reasons there's a question as to whether Foehammer includes the "knocked reeling" effect even when used as a ranged weapon is because the "knocked reeling" rules on page 42 don't specify that they function in close combat only - unlike power weapons' "ignore armor saves" rule, on the same page, which does.

Hence, if Foehammer is still a thunder hammer when used as a ranged weapon (which I believe it is, for the reasons laid out in the post DarkLink linked to earlier), it does indeed ignore armor saves - but only when it causes wounds in close combat, which it will never do when used as a ranged weapon.

Ah, so it doesn't, strange they added such a worthless bit to it's description, wonder what their intention was.

[DarkLink]

Ah, so it doesn't, strange they added such a worthless bit to it's description, wonder what their intention was.

To add irony to this exact situation, I'm sure:rolleyes: