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

[hisdudeness]

Assault 1.

[rle68]

Sweet, since it is not a shooting attack I can use it during the movement phase!

i did not say it wasnt a shooting attack i said it was not a "shooting " type of attack thus it doesnt have a shooting profile modifier like a melta or a plasma it is a thrown weapon like old grenades use to be

your bit of sillyness doesnt help the conversation much

[hisdudeness]

Frankly whether the attack is ‘thrown’ or shot has no bearing on the conversation either as grenades are no longer used.

This was pretty much decided a few months ago that this is a grey area and a FAQ is the only thing that will settle it. Until then it is a house rule or roll off.

[nojinx]

Nobody's claiming that Foehammer exactly fits the mold of other ranged-type weapons in the game. The closest we've got are weapons like the Tyrant's Claw or the Gauntlets of Ultramar, both of which clearly state that they are a special close combat weapon (or pair of SCCWs) that incorporate a ranged-type weapon. Foehammer doesn't do that; it clearly states (grammatically speaking) that Foehammer is a SCCW that can be used as a ranged-type weapon. This is not a mechanic anybody is claiming we have ever seen before.

The point of the various examples Mkerr and I have been pointing out is twofold:

1. It is not true that a weapon with a profile can only have rules if they are somehow indicated in the profile, or if the profile is incomplete on its face without it. The cyclic ion blaster is a good example. 18" S3 AP4 Assault 5 is complete on its face; you don't need any additional information to use that weapon in the game (unlike, say, the D-cannon's profile, which you do need additional information to use - SX doesn't tell you anything by itself). I assume you agree that if I told a Tau player he didn't get his ionization effect because it wasn't in the profile I would be wrong.
2. It is true that the long-form text describing a weapon with a profile must be searched for rules that apply to it, even if there is no indication in the profile to do so. Again, the cyclic ion blaster is a good example. There is no asterisk in the profile indicating that the weapon has additional rules. That does not make the ionization effect optional.

So let me state the following as a canon of construction for all 40K weapons, so you can easily quote it and disagree with me (if you do): The long-form text describing a weapon must in all cases be searched for rules that apply to that weapon, notwithstanding a weapon profile that is complete on its face or the lack of indication in the profile that the weapon has additional rules.

To that point, I'd like to point out the passage on BRB page 27:
"In addition to its type, a weapon may have some additional characteristics that define the way they work. These are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile, and include characteristics like 'gets hot! ' of 'blast'. A weapon may have any number of these characteristics in addition to its type."

So, is that an erroneous passage on GW's part? Did they not foresee the CIB rules when 5th edition was released - or was it released after?
Should we consider this rule the standard and the CIB an erroneous entry (in its presentation, specifically)?
How does this section influence your "cannon", if at all?

I am bringing this up for discussion, as I did not see it in the thread.

Briefly, my point of view is that there is a logical leap carrying attributes over between the two uses of Foehammer. To say that a named weapon is a [special close combat weapon] that can be used as a [ranged weapon with a specified profile] does not inherently carry over aspects from one to the other. To say that it "can be used as" something else does not carry an inclusiveness in its meaning, i.e. it is not a grammatical requirement that the aspect of being a thunder hammer carry over when being used as something else. The relationship created by the preposition is one of association and does not inherently establish that relationship as one of "combining" or a subset attribution.

The profile does not tell me to use this rule. The profile functions without this rule. However, I would be just as remiss in ignoring it as I would be in ignoring the ionization effect of the cyclic ion blaster.

This I disagree with. The grammar of the two passages differ greatly and the description of the weapon CIB is not same structure of the description of the close-combat weapon that can be used as a weapon that we see in the Foehammer entry. Note that "weapon" is the 40K term for ranged weapons (as non-intuitive as that is) and "close combat weapons" is the term used for weapons used in assault.

[Nabterayl]

So, is that an erroneous passage on GW's part? Did they not foresee the CIB rules when 5th edition was released - or was it released after?
Should we consider this rule the standard and the CIB an erroneous entry (in its presentation, specifically)?
How does this section influence your "cannon", if at all?

The cyclic ion blaster was released considerably before 5th edition - the Tau Empire codex was mid 4th edition. The singing spear is another good example of a weapon that has effects not listed or hinted at anywhere in its profile, and the eldar codex was mid to late 5th edition. This publication history is among the reasons I believe that effects do not have to be listed or hinted at in a weapon's profile to apply to shooting attacks.

Briefly, my point of view is that there is a logical leap carrying attributes over between the two uses of Foehammer. To say that a named weapon is a [special close combat weapon] that can be used as a [ranged weapon with a specified profile] does not inherently carry over aspects from one to the other.

Indeed it does not, but the argument is not that the stunning effect carries over inherently. The argument is that the stunning effect carries over because of the precise wording used. Examples like the CIB and singing spear convince me that rules that would otherwise apply to a shooting attack must be applied, even if they do not appear in the ranged attack profile.

So, the next step is to see whether the Foehammer sentence contains any rules that apply on their face to shooting attacks. The stunning effect refers to all unsaved wounds, which certainly includes wounds caused in the shooting phase. Nothing in the Foehammer sentence, or in the basic thunder hammer rules, refers to wounds caused in one phase or the other.

[nojinx]

I think the next step is to determine if the thunderhammer aspect of the weapon carries over to the other use of the weapon - and that needs to be done via grammatical analysis. I see no evidence of this in the discussion here so far. I am inclined to think that the lack of a clear attribution of the close combat quality of the weapon precisely assigned to the usage of the same weapon as the ranged weapon called out signifies the two are not associated (except that they are part of the same descriptive entry).

I cannot prove that dynamic of "carrying over" with grammatical rules and the syntax involved, ergo I cannot say that the close combat specific aspects carry over to the ranged weapon option. The grammar of the sentence as written certainly does not require such an interpretation.

[Nabterayl]

I think the next step is to determine if the thunderhammer aspect of the weapon carries over to the other use of the weapon - and that needs to be done via grammatical analysis. I see no evidence of this in the discussion here so far.

You missed it in the morass of pages, then (not really surprising, I suppose). See for instance [url=http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=34488&postcount=175]post 175[/url] and following. Or for those who can't click the link, start with the sentence:

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

"That can be used as a ranged weapon" is a restrictive relative clause. In English, restrictive relative clauses must modify the immediately preceding noun. If you don't know what a restrictive relative clause is, either take my word for it, or consult wikipedia's explanations [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictiveness#Restrictiveness_in_English]here[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses#Restrictive_or_non-restrictive]here[/url]. 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:

1. Thunder hammers ignore armor saves in close combat (because they are power fists, which are power weapons)
2. Thunder hammers double the user's Strength (because they are power fists)
3. Thunder hammers strike at Initiative 1 (because they are power fists)
4. Thunder hammers reduce to 1 the Initiative of any model that suffers an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer
5. 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?

1. Not #1, because shooting attacks are not close combat.
2. Not #2, because shooting attacks use the weapon's Strength, not the user's.
3. Not #3, because shooting attacks never check Initiative.
4. Yes #4, because shooting attacks do inflict wounds, and #4 (unlike #1) does not specify wounds in close combat.
5. Yes #5, because shooting attacks do inflict vehicle damage table rolls, and #5 does not specify vehicle damage table rolls in close combat.

[nojinx]

Thanks for your reply. I especially appreciate the links to the wiki pages. I learned (re-learned) something, and that always makes my day.

I find your logic re: what a Thunder hammer does valid and I have no issue with it. You description of the grammatical structure of the sentence seems accurate (what was I thinking to refer to the clause as a preposition?) and helps to narrow down the discrepancy between our viewpoints.

"A thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile..."

I have an issue in that I do not see the above clause as necessitating that the involved modification requires the attributes of the subject of the clause "A thunder hammer" to carry over as part of the modification. The interpretation is viable, but is it imperative or can this be reasonably read to signify a substitution? This is the crux of my contention. I refer back to how weapons are defined in the BRB.

I understand how you see the precedent for inclusion of descriptive text as part of a weapons profile. I wonder how relevant they are given they are from 4th edition codices.

Interesting to note that the authors specifically called out "ranged weapon". I can't say that the authors intended it, but adding the adjective "ranged" is technically unnecessary, as all "weapons" in 40K and ranged - i.e. they all have a profile (as opposed to "close combat weapons", which is the other class). This would lead me to think they are calling out the thunder hammer aspect as a ranged attack - again, if the (seemingly redundant) word was placed their for that intention.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss.

[Nabterayl]

"A thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile..."

I have an issue in that I do not see the above clause as necessitating that the involved modification requires the attributes of the subject of the clause "A thunder hammer" to carry over as part of the modification. The interpretation is viable, but is it imperative or can this be reasonably read to signify a substitution? This is the crux of my contention. I refer back to how weapons are defined in the BRB.

Earlier in this mess of a thread, I suggested that the rulebook actually doesn't distinguish between "[ranged] weapons" and "close combat weapons." Rather, I suggest that the distinction is between weapons with a range, Strength, AP, and Type, and weapons without. Page 42 certainly seems to contemplate that a bolter can be used in close combat, for instance, which suggests to me that there is no hard and fast distinction in the rules between ranged weapons and close combat weapons. Rather, there are only weapons that have the characteristics necessary to make Shooting attacks, and weapons without those characteristics. Ordinarily a thunder hammer has neither range, Strength, AP, nor Type - and I contend that it is on that basis that it cannot make shooting attacks. Foehammer, as it happens, does have a range, Strength, AP, and Type, and so it can make shooting attacks.

However, in answer to your grammatical point ...

As I understand you, the question is whether it is possible to read the Foehammer sentence as saying that Foehammer is a thunder hammer, and Foehammer is a ranged weapon, without any reference to being a ranged thunder hammer. The answer to that question is no. Grammatically speaking, the "ranged weapon" referred to must be "a thunder hammer." That is the way restrictive relative clauses work in English. Of course, because the "thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon" is Foehammer, we understand that, logically, Foehammer must also be a ranged weapon. There is no way to read that sentence that makes Foehammer a non-thunder hammer ranged weapon, however.

There are ways to write that sentence that (grammatically) makes Foehammer a thunder hammer, and a ranged weapon that is not a thunder hammer. For instance:

Foehammer is a thunder hammer, and may also be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

or

Foehammer is a thunder hammer. Foehammer may be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile:

In each of these sentences we might have logical arguments over whether Foehammer remains a thunder hammer when it is a ranged weapon, but grammatically, it is clear that the ranged weapon in question is Foehammer, not the thunder hammer. In the sentence as written, the ranged weapon in question must be the thunder hammer.

[HsojVvad]

Ok, I didn't feel like reading over 21 pages here. I am a newb with the rules, and never played with or against thunder hamers yet. So here is my question. To use a Thunder Hammer, you strike it in CC at I 1 correct? So if this is the case, here is my question. How can you attack someone with a TH with a Higher I? So if you want to throw the TH with agaisnt a higher I, you can't since you have to go last and if you are the first turn player, you can't throw it until after your opponent has attacked. After your opponent has attacked, you can't throw it because your "firing phase" has passed.

So either it causes you to be I 1 when thrown, but can't be thrown, or it can be thrown but dosn't lower the I.

I know, I am a newb so can someone tell me where in the BRB to look forthe rules please.