-
Website
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/ -
Original page
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/11/40k-tactics-using-jaws-of-world-wolf.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Line of sight is used for picking a target -- you don't pick a target for this power (much in the same manner as you don't pick a target for an Eldar Vibrocannon).
If you have no LOS to me and I'm within 24" of you and you draw your line straight at me -- you should not be allowed to effect me as per the "Using a psychic shooting attack".
So why do I need LOS to the point 24" away? The end point of my line isn't my target.
Explain it to me.
I'll admit it, I'm wrong on this point.
As much as I don't like it, I believe as the rules are written, you are right on this point. Due to the fact that Psychic shooting attack's LOS require a "target" and JOTW does not have one.
Mind War's also does not require LOS either, but due to the FAQ you get cover saves if cover is inverting.
:)
I respect that. Sincerely.
Considering that the vibrocannon states that no target is needed, and JotWW does not, it would therefore appear that JotWW cannot be used at all, ever. RAW
There is nothing in the JotWW entry that says that it is exempt in any way from rules regarding psychic shooting attacks.
Come on guys. This is basic stuff. How could get this wrong?
So how does it work?
It could be that 1-3 are then hit but the 4th is spared the deadly fate.
This would of course assume that all models under the *the line* are your target. This would also give you the option of assaulting any one of the units you hit with the line.
I don't know how it's suppose to really work -- it seems to me a FAQ from GW would really really help out.
Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't mean it is wrong. We went through the same pains with Lash of Submission (e.g., "you can't touch my models", "it doesn't say that you can move less than the rolled distance", "it doesn't say you can group them -- they have to keep the same formation, etc.).
I'm not trying to "create" or ingore rules. I'm giving you my interpretation of the power and how it works. Personally, I'd prefer to JotWW to be a lot less powerful.
Otherwise you'd see Eldritch Storm and Mind War from vehicles.
2) Read the rules that you quote FFS...
"Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon (an assault weapon, unless specified otherwise). So, for example, the psyker must be able to see his target unit, cannot be locked in combat, or must not have run in the Shooting phase if he wishes to use a psychic shooting attack."
So while the LINE may pass through terrain, you MUST HAVE LOS to the target.
Most of your dirty tricks are WRONG. As per the rules above you CAN NOT fire into CC.
BLOS tactical article fail # 104.
Really guys, you need to get your $hit together.
Dirty Trick #2 It's just a line, it's not a 4" wide line but a LINE... I think it would be pretty hard to break unit coherency, unless your opponnet is doing a max 2" between units congo-line.
Dirty Trick #3 -- Firing into CC, WRONG.
Dirty Trick #4 -- Again, firing into CC, WRONG.
Dirty Trick #5 -- Sounds like a nasty combo
I bet ignore all the Psychic shooting rules and cheating is a bunch of fun. How about playing it correctly now?
"As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest and ending 24" away."
Again, this does not have any mention of a target. Unless I am missing something, the Rune Priest should be able to stand in the middle of nowhere and draw a line out to nothing (of course this would never be done).
As far as RAW is concerned, I don't see a problem with the way he has described the power.
Target is completely irrelevant to this condition.
Page 40, Main 40K rule book.
Shooting into & out of close combat
"Models belonging to units locked in combat may not fire weapons in the shooting phase"
"Likewise, while especially twisted and soulless commanders may wish thier warriors to fire indiscriminately into the middle of close combats in hopes of hitting the enemy, this is not permitted."
It does not mention targets, but does mention it is NOT permitted.
JotWW tells me that I "trace a straight line across the board".
The standard shooting rules don't apply -- the power doesn't target anything. That means that normally targeting restrictions (line of sight, enemy unit, units locked in close combat, etc.) don't apply.
I don't think because page 50 uses the word "target" overwrites the limitation written in page 40 of the main rule book (see above for the exact quote).
Overall this feels very much like a "power gaming rules lawyer" trying to exploit a poorly written rule that happens to not use the word "target" and so now they're trying to say that almost none of the basic rules of 40K apply.
To that I call bullshit and a player who tried such tactics I'd refuse to play. It's absolutely not fun to play with someone who tries to bend the rules to that extremes in there favor. I'd question there skills/tactics if they need to steep that low to win a game.
JotWW doesn't have a target (much like an Eldar Vibrocannon and FotA from the old C:SM). You draw a line and look under the line. There's no targeting at all.
Until then, I'd urge players to error on the side of caution and not try to exploit the most out of a new power.
I would have enjoyed an article asking the community what do they think is the correct answers, Vs this is how to exploit this power.
And once again, the Eldar Vibrocannon specifically states that it doesn't need line of sight, nowhere in the JotWW rule does it say" doesn't need line of sight". Also, pulling a rule out of the extinct, (and therefore useless to argue any point) C:SM codex is grasping at straws, if it's not a current codex or rulebook, it has no place in these discussions.
And as for your previous post about line of sight and JotWW not following regular shooting rules, that's bull. The very first line of the power says "As a psychic shooting attack," that right there tells me it follows the regular shooting rules for psychic attacks.
And, once again, the Eldar Vibrocannon doesn't say anything about line of sight. The Eldar FAQ cleared that one up.
#2: In my playtests with JotWW, I've found that it's pretty easy to fire from an oblique angle. That makes it easy to get multiple models from the same unit.
Of course, it helps to have a mobile Rune Priest.
#3/#4: Again, I'd love to hear your argument that there's a target for JotWW. My reading is that there is no target, so I have nothing to draw line of sight to.
But I think even the most skeptical reader needs more than the word "WRONG" repeated over and over.
Sorry -- was a bit passionate with that post.
Please see the posts with Pickles.
This is the craziest thread I've seen on BOLS in many a moon. I commend you for being the voice of reason and fair gaming on this one. Even I have slipped, and I haven't even gotten involved in the rules lawyering! I think it's because I'd get my arse handed to me, no matter my stance or line of reasoning!
You've said it all better than I could. Would that we could play a game...
Remember "Fly Knight Hatchett?"
Caveat, honest one...
I love this site for it's previews but I honestly think the tactical articles (minus goat boy) need some work.
Frankly, I've seen you tolerated here for far longer than on other forums, or in gaming circles where your name is greeted with derisive laughter and jolly jeering.
This is the last breath and script I shall squander on the great Brass.
I do miss the fun ones.
2) If I recall, the gist of my "controversial" article at the time was that people should treat each other decently when playing games together, something sadly lacking at times judging by the complaints one hears about bad gaming experiences. If that's a horrible, offensive and controversial idea with some people that tells you where they are at.
3) This is a blog, people write opinion pieces here. There's never been anything against voicing contrary opinions, after all, good editorials generally elicit contrary points of view. However, it's not an excuse for personal attacks, threats, harassment or making the blog "unfriendly" for other users. 'nuff said.
Frankly, the thing that I found to be most offensive is that you hid and you currently hide behind this smokescreen of trying to "make the hobby good for everyone", but you disparage and condemn those who disagree with you. That is hardly the behavior of someone who is truly wants to make things good for everyone. Also, it appears that some of the arguments that were made against you were really quite valid. Specifically, you make sweeping arguments, but run away when someone demands that you defend your position. You might label that sort of behavior as: "not wasting time with negative people", or "ignoring those who are spoiling for a fight". I, and many others, would call it cowardice.
If you pick a fight, or make challenging statements, you should stick around to back up what you say- Like mkerr for example. I think he is totally batshit wrong about JOTWW, but he defends everything he believes time and time again. Would that you had such a set of brass balls....
I think you are irritated that someone remembers "Fly Knight Hatchett" fondly, as he was always pretty funny. Seems to me that I was addressing Jaradakar. Where, exactly, did you come in?
Having "said 'nuff", kindly bugger off, as your editorials and conversions are marginal at best, and as I know as well as just about everyone else does that to you, YOU are THE HOBBY.
:)
2) The word "line" isn't referring to "line of sight", it's referring to the "line you draw" to determine what models are effected by JotWW.
this attitude leads me to think, what's the width of this "line" one places on the table. you could Rules Lawyer it to say that since the width is not specified, you could put down a-just-less-than 2 foot wide "line" from the RP, and say that since the width is not specified and since it is slightly thinner than it's long, it's still a line, even though it's a rectangle. this is the kind of attitude is what i'm seeing.
oh, and it still counts as a shooting attack, so you need a fire point to fire out of a vehicle (as you need one for LoS), so no landraider for you!
what happened to out-thinking your opponent and using better tactics to win rather than ambiguous rulings?
(for the mathematican) A line is defined as having an infinitesimal smal thickness.
another use for my laser pointer (and it makes hitting multiple modells even harder than with a measuring tape if you as the oponent know what you do and have a bit of experience with fractal geometry :) ).
However, discussions like this are important (especially for the most competitive players) because it's important to understand what a power can do. Understanding your opponent's codex is critical to winning games.
here is your own quote:
"As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest and ending 24" away. This line may pass through terrain."
the quote for the power up there only states that JotWW may pass through terrain, it doesn't ignore LoS (as potentially confusing as this is). for example: if there's a landraider in front of the RP, he cannot see anything behind it, therefore he cannot shoot anything behind it unless it's a barrage weapon, or a shooting attack that explicitly states it requires no LoS. since the RP does not have an attack like this, the power can't be used in this instance.
note: the power's ability to ignore terrain doesn't work here as the LR is a model, not terrain, and still blocks LoS to anything behind it.
also note: "as a psychic shooting attack", implies LoS is needed, so you still have to see SOMETHING (see below).
now, don't be all defensive, i'd say that if the RP can draw an LoS to ANY enemy model (note: not friendly model, as this would violate the shooting rules, but can occur "unintentionally", see below) in the attack's range, then the power can be used, even through combats or if it effects your own models.
E.g.: the RP can see 1 guy. he uses JotWW and with the line can hit 3 other guys (even your own, as these are not the "target"[opens can of worms]) not in LoS, or through cover, in combat, etc.. i find this legal as a LoS requirement has been fulfilled (the first guy) and it still follows the power's rules. i think this is how the power's supposed to be used.
JotWW doesn't work like that. You don't "target" a unit, you draw a line. It doesn't matter if you can see them or not. It only matters if they are under the line you drew.
doesn't it start with a "t" and end with a "t"?
isn't that word "target"?
so wouldn't anything that's hit by JotWW be a "target"?
MRB pg 19: "hitting your TARGET (emp. mine) is not always enough to put them out of action." so by this sentence, anything that's hit by an attack is defined as a "target".
so by your own argument if JotWW has no "target" or no unit "targetting", then the power doesn't actually do anything, because it fails to hit them (line or not).
QED
JotWW doesn't target anything -- it creates a line. The models under that line are affected by the power. Lots of powers don't have targets but can affect models - Eldar Vibro Cannons, Holocaust (DH psychic power), Eversor's Biomeltdown, Daemonhost's Blood Boil, Inquisitorial Orbital Strikes, etc.
Sometimes powers don't have targets. When this happens, normal targeting rules just don't apply.
Quote: "Sometimes powers don't have targets. When this happens, normal targeting rules just don't apply."
wait... you're saying that when you find a hole in a rule, the whole rule(s) can be ignored? by this thinking, if weapon x has a description that doesn't cover one part A of rule B (probably due to poor wording), then the entirety of rule B is too be ignored? Am I getting this correct? can you explain your logic here, perhaps without using a single piece of information that's supposed to "explain all"?
One last time i'll analyze the rules for you:
"as a psychic shooting attack" requires a LoS, which requires you see the model you are attacking, commonly known as a "target".
ok, regular shooting/reg psychic shooting have "targets", no argument here.
"the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest and ending 24" away."
alright, a change of the shooting rules as a "to hit roll" is no longer required as any model underneath is hit. however, it still must obey the rules of shooting as it's conducted in the shooting phase, this isn't 2nd ed with a psychic phase, so any other interpretation of the shooting rules is right out. I reiterate, the shooting rules state that any model/unit effected by an enemy attack/power is a "target", so JotWW has a "target(s)", whether you can see them or not, which you can't b/c the power doesn't EXPLICITLY state it ignores LoS.
conclusion: JotWW requires LoS & has "targets". your argument is now DIW
your examples are mostly area (of) effect weapons anyway (you might as well put down Nurgle's Rot too while you're at it for all the good it'd do), which either have specific rules stating such, or have been FAQed to allow an exception (vibrocannon). using these is just trying to avoid the issue at hand, and is just bad arguing form.
besides, this is a non-issue anyways, as you just seem to be reading the rule with the effect you want it to have, rather than what it actually means. <sigh> it's hard arguing with someone being really stubborn, as it doesn't matter what i say, i'm always wrong. which means i'll lose just b/c i gave up all hope of winning first.
oh, well. i tried. teh 1nt3rn3t l0g1c is too much for common sense and the rules of logic to defeat.
you know, you are allowed to change your opinion and you won't look foolish
That's a logical fallacy. It's called an appeal to the majority (ad populum). Just because a lot of people believe something is true, doesn't make it true.
You've got a number of them in there: argument from repetition, appeal to ridicule, appeal to fear, affirming the disjunct, and a little ad hominem sprinkled in for flavor.
I've expressed my case in detail. I think it's reasonable and most consistent with the game we play. I've quoted text and referenced pages. If my argument isn't convincing to you, that's okay. Play JotWW differenttly. Play it the way that makes the most sense to you.
I'm not attacking you or your argument. I understand your position, but I don't think it's most consistent with the rules or the power. Getting frustrated and lashing out isn't going to change my mind.
a wise man once said:
"the stubborn may butt heads and bicker, but the smart will wait for the FAQ"
our arguing isn't going anywhere, so for now, let's just agree to disagree and await GW's verdict (hey we could both be wrong, who knows?).
People are right. The rule isn't always too powerful, but it has the potential and when articles come out telling people how to effectively apply the rule in ways to break it its frustrating.
This may make people ask why did i even read this article?. The answer is simple.. half a dozen people on the local scene are going to try these things and id like to be prepared
Yes, the sky did fall. I don't know where you have been since the Chaos book came out, but Lash is an over powered psychic power and anyone who uses or have faced it knows this.
The sky fell so hard that when the Demon Codex came out, the Lash got nerfed to the point where people don't bother taking it.
The only thing that has helped to stop lash is 5th edition and the reintroduction of transports as a viable option for mass use. Thats it.
As for the Jaws blog here, hmmm..... I applaud the attempt at showing some dirty tricks with the power, but most of them do not work. I am not going to bash you for your opinion, as that would be ignorant and wrong of me, but rather, I thank you for trying to open up some possibilities and attempting to educate players with this knowledge. As I have said, though, too bad most of this knowledge is flawed.
This article is full of fail.
The reason things like this upset me is because now we'll most likely see a huge insurgent of players trying to pull cheesy incorrect rulings of the power. This does not help the community.
Granted GW is mostly to blame for printing such a power without having a greater explanation to how it's to be used. I can't wait for a FAQ.
But...
Posting conclusions that are wron and/or poorly researched is what makes them wrong and/or poorly researched.
The Tzeentch demon weapon is indeed a power weapon, and as mkerr quite nicely quoted, the only place models are not allowed armor saves against power weapons is when they are wounded by it in _close combat_. Foehammer is a thunder hammer, models wounded by thunder hammers suffer the stun effect, you do not ignore armor saves with it because it is also a power weapon, you ignore armor saves because it is an AP 1 weapon.
While these may be glaring mistakes by GW, or the actual intentions of how they wanted it to work, this _is_ how they work until such time that a FAQ comes out that says differently. You can argue and rage about how unfair it is all you want, and admittedly it is, but there is no basis in anything but the fevered imaginations about "fluff" and what "GW intended" from most of you that this isn't how the rules currently work.
WTB FAQ, but somehow they'll manage to make derogatory comments about us players, create a new issue, and not fix the existing ones at the same time.
The damn thing should deal a wound with instant death regardless of toughness at AP 1, not be a shooting power and not useable in a vehicle, and require the whole line to be in LOS.
Same foolishness with the flying thunder hammer. Would it have killed them to make it clear?
Infering that it's target from shooting is at I1 is about as ridiculous as saying the Wailing Doom should get S+3d6 penetration when shot, one extra dice from the Melta rule, plus one from the MC rule. You just don't do it.
Granted JotWW is a bit of a quagmire of rules interpretation, but having played it as if it were similar to FotA or a V-cannon, it's not all THAT world-shatteringly powerful. With my army lists, it's rare that i can get over 3-4 enemy models with a shot of the power, and with most victims of it in my group I4+, that's usually only one model gone. I'd much rather use some of the other powers instead.
Plus being a primarily SW player, even I agree that there's a few things from the Codex that should be FAQd. Lukas' "Pelt of the Dopelgangrel" for one, and the "Leaders of the Pack" rule being the other I can think of...
As for the thunder hammer, it is a THUNDER HAMMER. The Wailing Doom fails because the MC penetration bonus specifically says CC hits. It could be that they intended the effect to happen, it could be that they didn't. The autoshake effect might also happen, because it is still a thunder hammer. The situation would be clearer if CC weapons had profiles like ranged ones, but they don't.
#5 is a little questionable. It reduces their attack speed to 1, but their true initiative is still what it is on their profile.
It's the same as saying that all TH/SS terminators or dudes with Powerfists only pass on a 1 because of their gear. Lysander and Calgar both have Initiative 5, but their wargear reduces attack speed to 1. They would still have a 84% chance of passing (I assume a pass is a 1-5), even though they physically attack at initiative 1.
So where is all the info on how we should be playing against the power?
Or should we just be taking your dirty tricks and not allow them to happen to us, the opponent?
No offense, but it is not one of the more impressive articles I have read here.
Jaw of the World Wolf:
The JotWW IS a psychic shooting attack quote from second paragraph of Space Wolf Codex "As a psychic shooting attack, the rune priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the rune priest and ending 24" away."
Quote 40k rule book page 50 second sentence. "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon (an assault weapon, unless specified otherwise). So for example, the psyker must be able to see his target unit...." and all the other blah.
As JotWW has not additional text saying "no line of sight is required", then you need to nominate a target that the model can see and follows the normal shooting rules (so no CC etc).
Now this is where is gets a bit muddy. If you nominate a target in front of you, but have a CC behind that target....can you use JotWW. I would personally say yes as the FAQ for Vibro Cannons says that friendly units, and those in CC can be hit by the weapon. This I guess would be a way of getting to hit CC, but you still would need a valid target in front for this to work.
Saying that, if the author changes the article to have the correct information in the first place. We maybe onto a chance of no repetition 8-)
I'm going to walk up to your JOTWW character with my Psycannon wielding, psychic hood wearing, Null Rod toting Inquisitor with 3 Plasma gun wielding vets and light up your life.
"...you give me strennnnnngth... to carry oooooooooooooooon!"
Jaradakar was correct. You have made a few "errors" with your rules lawyering.
If someone allowed you to get away with some of that, then your victory is hollow at best, and not truly in keeping with the fictional noble heritage of the Space Wolves.
For fictional shame sir...for fictional shame.
I love your guys' articles...but not when you are promoting powergaming and cheesy gaming tactics.
Also, for the tank shock, you'll want to be sure you remember that only the units the tank ends on top of have to move. Units tank shocked over don't move at all unless the tank finishes there, so you aren't going to create quite the line of death that you wish. Equally important is that you have to pre-guess the tank shock distance, you don't get to measure perfectly to those couple of models you really want to dual snipe.
Most of the dirty tricks are all well and good, but this is hardly an insightful and/or enlightening revelation, and you've got both a wrong rule (arjac) and an unclear / apparently misunderstood rule (tank shocking big lines of guys) present in the rundown.
Still, for those complaining about Jaws and its odds, consider this:
At worst, your odds to kill any model in the game with JOTWW are 16.67%
If you fire a lascannon at an independent character with a 4+ invul save (pretty average), with a space marine, and the character is in the wide open, what are your odds? 27.78% (2/3 to hit x 5/6 to wound x 1/2 to save).
That's in a scenario where your instakillable target is visible in the wide open with no one around him to soak fire and no better than a 4+ invul. If he has a storm shield or equivalent, the odds are 18.51%. Practically the same as JOTWW.
BUT JotWW works at that same 16.67% even if said character has 10 wounds, is eternal, and is hiding in a unit of 30 other models, whereas your lascannon and basically any other weapon instantly is rendered completely incapable of killing him.
It's *very* good %-wise at killing literally anything that is vulnerable to it, in actual odds terms. Don't trash it.
B- on the article though, for the obvious points coupled w/ misunderstood rules.
I'd love to hear a counter-argument that has more substance than it "doesn't work that way".
By RAW, Foehammer is a Thunder Hammer, but rules for Special Close Combat Weapons do not inherently apply themselves to shooting attacks, or shooting weapons, even if the modeled and fluff source is the same. Furthermore, such a stretch of the RAW to allow Special Close Combat Weapons to become just "Special Weapons" would instantly render things such as lightning claws infinitely more beneficial, as if RAW allows such an application, then the RAW of LC's allows any attack of any kind made by a wielder of a LC (including shooting attacks even with different weapons) to re-roll to wound.
Or all Poisonous Weapons start to apply their rules to shooting as well. That could seriously wreck some things.
It's not about the fact that he's throwing the Thunder Hammer - that's a fluff / background argument at best anyway.
It's that you're applying a special rule under SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS to shooting attacks. The lightning claw special rule itself under the same heading ALSO doesn't specify close combat, or the lightning claw itself even. So as soon as you can apply SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON rules to shooting attacks, anyone with a lightning claw can re-roll to wound with non-lightning claw weaponry used to shoot. It's just wrong.
Read the thunder hammer entry in the BBB -- then read the Power Weapon entry. I think you'll see the difference.
Here's an example that might help you. The Instant Death rules only appear in the Shooting Phase section of the rules. There's no reference to Instant Death anywhere in the Assault Phase section of the book.
Does Instant Death only apply to shooting attacks? Of course not. Why? Because the Instant Death rules says that if a models "suffers an unsaved wound from an attack" (i.e., as opposed a "shooting" attack).
If your logic was correct, then Instant Death couldn't happen in close combat.
@mkerr: you several times said people should give counter-arguments.. Yet when they do you do not even listen..
What you say is that: Because the thunderhammer description on page 42 doesn't specifically say the stunning only applies to melee attacks, then the Foehammer, when used with its shooting attack profile will also stun people as it is a thunder hammer..
YES!! WE DO GET THAT! You said it at least ten times before already..
Now please listen to MVBrandt.. He applies your logic unto one of the other special close combat weapons from page 42: The Lightning Claws
NOWHERE in their description is it specified that the reroll to wound will only apply to close combate attacks. So when I give my SM chapter master a lightning claw he can suddenly reroll to wound on this orbital bombardment, SWEET!!
Please try to argue against this with more than:
"If there's a model out there that throws his Lightning Claws, let me know."
Why won't a model with lightning claws reroll to wound with his bolter?!
Now if we keep using the same argument: "it doesn't say that it only applies close combat attacks", you'll have a hard time convincing us that we're wrong in understanding the rules as such.. There is only one conclusion and that would be that rules are just not shared between close combat weapons and ranged weaponry..
Q: Why doesn't a Lightning Claw (which says the weilder can re-roll failed rolls to wound) work on the weilder's Storm Bolter?
A: Because the "re-roll wounds" quality is inherent to the Lightning Claw, not the Storm Bolter.
So does this example prove or disprove the Foehammer issues? No. It's apples and oranges.
Why? Foehammer is a thunder hammer (not it doesn't "act like" a thunder hammer, it *is* a thunder hammer). The "stunning" quality is inherent to a thunder hammer and not restricted to wounds caused in close combat -- so no matter how the _thunder hammer_ causes wounds, it stuns the target.
I'm NOT transferring the "stunning" quality from Weapon A to Weapon B. The thunder hammer is the ranged weapon.
Get this through your head: The section on "Special Close Combat Weapons" only applies to assault. None of it applies to shooting. Rules under the special shooting rules do not carry over into close combat (for example, the warscythe doesn't have the "gauss" effect). THAT is the point YOU cannot refute. You try to play word games, but the whole PAGE is about ASSAULT.
Every army starts with the general rules in the BRB, and every army jacks them up in some way to create some flair. GW does this all the time--shake things up to keep it interesting. 40k would be unplayably boring if every army used exactly the same rules. Sure, in general a thunderhammer is CC only, but the Foehammer is flair!
The problem here is that he's hitting you at 6" with the same exact weapon he's hitting you with in close combat. It's the same thunder hammer.
again look at the deamon weapn example, or that fact that arjac TH gets ap 1 when thrown (an ability not granted by a thunderhammer in CC), unless you think the ranged profile would affect your CC ability.
Instant Death is not an effect referenced under Special Ranged Weapons, where it says Unsaved wounds inflicted by laserbeamers cause Instant Death.
Either you're being disingenuous b/c you've been driven there by all the heat you're under for such an absurd rules claim on a well-known blog site, OR you're just not that deep a thinker. I wouldn't call that a criticism of you, per se ... perhaps you're trying to reply to TOO MANY points all at once across this board.
It's not wise to carry on arguments from the point of view of thinking you're smart enough to "beat" everyone ... it's just not going to happen. Sometimes you should take a step back and consider the other side with a little more of an open mind. You've already lost any cookie points in the internet fame department ... few people are trolling here thinking you're the rock 'em sock 'em master of the world wolf. Might as well at least earn some brownies back by considering the legitimacy of your position a little more critically.
W/E though, take some last wordage ... you're due. I've relegated my conversation on this matter to the thread covering the subject in the lounge - it's far easier to follow chronologically.
The long and short and the part you cannot address, I'm afraid, if your point is correct, is this ....
IF the rules delineated under Special Close Combat Weapons can be applied to ranged weapons at all, Lightning Claws subsequently are. You cannot go WHEN YOU CHUCK LIGHTNING CLAWS LET ME KNOW, b/c the rules for Lightning Claws don't say you re-roll "any failed wounds inflicted by the lightning claw." They just say any wounds inflicted by the wielder.
Applying SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON rules to RANGED ATTACKS is actively stupid, or actively disingenuous.
You're not a clever rules lawyer when you're just plain wrong.
Let me know when you find something in the rules that supports your argument.
Furthermore, besides the absurd fluff-based argument you make, the crux of your whole argument lies with this line:
"A thunderhammer uses the same rules as a power fist. In addition, all models that suffer an unsaved wound..."
You are literally trying to claim that, after the period, all the rules listed apply to any shooting attacks the weapon can make. Please show me the page which supports this. EVERY SINGLE RULE on page 42 applies to close combat only. As soon as YOU can show US why this is not the case then I will listen.
It is really clear that the rules under SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS apply to assault only. The line basically reads:
"A thunderhammer uses the same rules as a power fist. In addition [to its other effects in close combat], all models that suffer an unsaved wound..."
It is clear as day that the "in addition" is referring to its properties in assault.
And guess what? Look up "psycannon bolts" it says "only armor saves may be taken against psycannon bolts - invulnerable saves may NOT be taken." So I guess if I give my inquisitor a bolt pistol and psycannon bolts he ignores invulerable saves in close combat right? Because it never says it can't be used in assault right? And in assault, they still count as psycannon bolts right?
It's still a thunder hammer when it's used as a ranged weapon. I threw my "thunder hammer" at you. You took a wound and didn't die. You were wounded by a "thunder hammer".
That means that it's a S10 AP1 Assault 1 "thunder hammer" that has a range of 6".
He's not shooting a lightning blast from his thunder hammer -- he's hitting you with the same thunder hammer that he uses in close combat.
However....
You will notice that when thrown Foehammer is AP1 = +1 on Damage Rolls. Foehammer doesn't get this advantage in cc with a tank.
Why not?
It seems to me that FH gets one advantage when in cc, stun & another advantage when thrown, + 1 damage.
That seems most reasonable to me....
"Foehammer is a thunderhammer. It is thrown because the cool little story about the character says so. Therefore its shooting attacks have the stun rule.
The Tzeentch daemon weapon is a power weapon. The stupid story says it shoots lightning or something dumb like that. Therefore its shooting attacks still allow armor saves unlike a power weapon."
Do you see how asinine that is? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A THROWN WEAPON IN 40K. It works one way with shooting and one way in close combat.
If it said "Axe of Badassness is a power weapon that can shoot with the following profile" would you really argue that it ignores saves? Hell, this is basically how burnas are worded - do they ignore armor saves when they shoot?
My assumption is that the whole world understands that none of the rule effects of the power weapon apply to the shooting profile of the burna. Until there is an FAQ for Ajac that says otherwise, I'm going to play it the same as a burna.
So let's look up Power Weapon in the BBB. It says that "models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armor saves".
That's pretty clear. The power weapon ability only works in close combat. Why? Because that's what the rule tells us. Now look at the "knocked reeling" quality of a thunder hammer -- do you see anything that restricts it to close combat? No, so it's not.
If you take an unsaved wound from a Thunder Hammer -- no matter when it happens -- you are knocked reeling. That's just the way thunder hammers work. Foehammer is a thunder hammer, even when it's used as a ranged weapon.
Now look at the description of a thunder hammer.
Yes, they gave Foehammer a statline so that it could be used as a ranged weapon. But in the same sentence, they state that Foehammer is a thunder hammer.
No..... this is where your logic and interpretation has gone awry. After they say ...with the following stats:, there is a punctuation mark wich is the introduction of a definition....
A definition of the rules used by the ranged weapon mentioned before the punctuation mark. It may say that the Foehammer is a thunderhammer, but that is a referance to the Foehammer, describing that the Foehammer uses the thunderhammer rules. Now comes the part you have chosen to ignore when others have argued against you, that it can also be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile: . Now you get the profile for that weapon...
please look up the use if punctuation marks if you do not know what it does, and I think we both can agee that in this case it is used to inform the reader
that here comes a definition.
The wargear even changed the stat-line of your supposed thrown thunder hammer!! Str10? What kind of thunder hammer is that? AP 1?? Thunder hammer's don't have AP... Oh that's right, it's not actually a thunder hammer when you throw it... because thunder hammers function like a power fist and doubles the strength, and by saying that it's Str 10, it's countermanding the RAW in the BRB, but we're using the stat line given in the Codex.... so wait.... is it using the thunder hammer rules or not? Because it doesn't say thunder hammer in the stat line... just 'names' it in the description of the weapon.
This is a SHOOTING WEAPON with a GIVEN stat line. "Can be used as a range weapon with the ******* FOLLOWING PROFILE ********* this is the key point. It doesn't matter if it talks about it being a thunder hammer or not, because it proceeds to declare that it's making it's own rules for the weapon because it doesn't exist as a ranged weapon.
If there were a character that had an item that read " This power fist can be thrown in the shooting phase and has the following stat line - Str 3, AP 6, Rng 6" are you going to tell me that it ignores armor saves because it's a power fist, even though it's AP 6? Well it doesn't say power fist in the state line, just mentions it in the description, so maybe it's not supposed to actually be a power fist when you throw it? Or how about that it doubles the strength? Oh that's right, IT'S NOT A POWER FIST BECAUSE I'M USING A DIFFERENT STAT LINE TO "SHOOT" WITH IT.
The rules for the weapon no where state that it functions as a thunder hammer when thrown. Use the rules that are given, for god sakes that's what it telling you to do. It's not pointing you to another book for special rules, it's no omitting anything, it's telling you right there. Period.
"If there were a character that had an item that read " This power fist can be thrown in the shooting phase and has the following stat line - Str 3, AP 6, Rng 6" are you going to tell me that it ignores armor saves because it's a power fist, even though it's AP 6?"
No, of course not. Why? Because if you look at the Power Fist entry (the same page as the Thunder Hammer entry) it says that it's a Power Weapon which does not allow saves from wounds caused in close combat.
But since you are on the page with the Thunder Hammer entry, read it. You'll notice that any **** UNSAVED WOUND FROM A THUNDER HAMMER **** (to use your emphasis) knocks you reeling. Period.
Foehammer is a thunder hammer, regardless of how it's used. I'm certain that this wasn't the designer's intention, but we work with the rules we have.
Your point on Arjac is both absurd (in that you yourself even admit the designers clearly didn't intend it), and NOT RAW, as has been demonstrated by intelligent trollers of this page for a couple of days now.
That Foehammer is a Thunder Hammer is true, even when used as a shooting attack, it is the shooting attack of Foehammer, Thunderhammer of Arjac Rockfist, and it's quite cool donchaknow.
Said fact has NOTHING to do with the rules of Warhammer 40,000. You're going "It's still a thunder hammer, so go read the thunder hammer rules newbsZ!!!1" We're then pointing out the irrelevance of such a statement and position, and you're basically replying with ... "IT'S STILL A THUNDER HAMMAR, SO GO READZ TEH THUNDAR HAMMAR ROOLZE NEWBZES!"
I reiterate a lovely post by an individual many posts up on this thread ...
So anyone can write a bols article these days?
In every one of my responses, I've backed my position with rules quotes and page numbers. I guess that just can't compete with internet speak and capital letters.
And, of course, anyone can write BOLS articles! Just write one and submit it!
:)
its ok mkerr, ill still read your articles no matter how "out of band" they are. thats why i come to BOLS. its entertaining.
We aren't promoting anything, just drilling down into a controversial power and learning more about it. I'm not "manufacturing" these dirty tricks; just talking about them.
And the more you understand about JotWW, the better prepared you'll be when something like this happens on a table.
I like reading these discussions for some reason. It's like watch an intelligent, verbal cage fight. Lots of spectacle.
I like how mkerr makes replies to every post in a intelligent and well-mannered way and people should have figured out by know that name-calling and capitalizing your arguments doesn't work.
More on topic however I'd like to say that I have completely lost sight of right and wrong here. Bad arguments are being made, examples are being given that don't make sense at all and while a few good people are trying to make it more understandable (mkerr) being one of them, they can't beat the enormous amount of bullshit that keeps piling up on them.
Even more on the topic I would say that while the dirty tricks might be correct (explicitly not taking sides here) you shouldn't try them in any non-(extremely)friendly game or you'll be run out by a mob of angry wargamers. I doubt turning around and showing the relevant page in the codex while screaming "IT'S RIGHT HERE, PLEASE LOOK" will do you much good in that situation.
The point of the articles is to get us thinking and talking creatively about the rules. If that means I get yelled at and called names from time to time, I can live with that. :)
Foehammer doesn't behave as a thunderhammer when used as a ranged weapon. The stat line given replaces the normal thunderhammer abilities.
I'd love to hear your argument, but it needs to be a bit more than "nuh-uh".
p 27 BBB explains the ranged weapons profile. there is a sub heading called additional characteristics. this says in a nutshell that additional characteristics would be included under the weapon type in the profile. examples are blast and gets hot
p 42 BBB explains close combat weapons and thunder hammers. by having two sections, there is clearly a line between ranged and CCWs.
now my friends and i had a debate about this as well. there is two ways you can use Arjac's hammer. as a ranged weapon (following the profile and pg 27 for ranged weapons) and in CC (following the CCW rules on pg 42). to use them both would argue some kind of meld of the rules, like testing for gets hot for your plasma pistol because it gives you and additional attack by using your ranged weapon in close combat. the rules only say that the str and AP are not used in CC. i guess one could argue then, that you have to test for 'gets hot' for any rolls of a 1 to hit in CC?
though it is fluffy to think that someone hit with a thrown thunder hammer gets knocked back (and he should), GW didn't put that additional characteristic in the range weapon profile. and though it doesnt specifically say you cant do it, the rules usually tell you what you CAN do.
also, do you really need to come up with dirty tricks to use JotWW? anything that can remove an expensive model on a single roll 33% or better of the time speaks for itself (and makes me sad when it happens to me) :)
There are several rules described in the close combat weapon rules, like poisoned and rending that also get used in shooting. Are you saying that since Rending is a "close combat weapon special rule" it shouldn't apply to Assault Cannons?
As far as the game rules are concerned, he is not throwing a hammer at the enemy model. He is shooting that model, with a ranged weapon with the profile and abilities shown. There is no difference between any ranged weapon in the game at all, save those specifically listed in the weapon's profile. The fluff behind what it is is completely irrelevant.
So here's my example. I shoot a unit that is in cover with a frag grenade from a grenade launcher. I then charge it. Well, that's a frag grenade. So that eliminates the enemy cover advantage for CC, right?
A thunder hammer is a close combat weapon -- that's why it's listed in the close combat weapons section. There are lots of examples of close combat weapons that are also ranged weapons.
Unlike most close combat weapons, thunder hammers have entry in the rulebook. It tells me what a thunder hammer does. It says:
"Thunder hammers release a tremendous blast of energy when they strike. A thunder uses the same rules as a power fist. In addition, all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn."
Nothing in that entry says that the wounds must be caused in close combat. Compare that to Power Weapons that say that "models wounded in close combat" or witchblades which say "all hits scored in close combat").
The thunder hammer only specifies that the wound be caused by a thunder hammer. Since Arjac hits you with his thunder hammer at range (as opposed to a blast of lightning or a thunder clap), the target is subject to the thunder hammer rules on page 42 of the BBB.
I've also covered "Trying to understand..."s question as well.
Powerfist entry states that it is a Power weapon that double's your strength and makes you strike at Initiative 1.
So if a Powerfist is a Power weapon with additional rules and the Thunderhammer follows the rules for Powerfists with more additional rules then you would follow the Power weapons rules for where the effects take place.
Yes?
That's like arguing that all (Eldar) Pathfinders must be mounted in a (Tau) Devilfish because both units have the same name.
In this case, I'm hitting you in one phase with the exact same weapon I'm hitting you with in the second phase. Nothing in the rules suggests that a thunder hammer ceases to be a thunder hammer when it's thrown.
So, if I give my Terminator Chapter Master an auxiliary grenade launcher, and it can shoot frag grenades, then logically he must be equipped with frag grenades. How else would he be shooting them? The description of the ranged weapon clearly states that it uses frag grenades, who also have a close combat role which is clearly defined in the rule book. They are defined as assault grenades. Basically, that would be me...I don't know...hitting in one phase with the exact same weapon I'm hitting you with in the second phase? Nothing in the rules suggests that a frag grenade ceases to be a frag grenade when it's shot.
So it's not really like "all (Eldar) Pathfinders must be mounted in a (Tau) Devilfish because both units have the same name". It's more like arguing that if a thunder hammer has the same effect when it is shot at someone (not thrown, as the fluff makes no difference. The profile doesn't state anything about it being "thrown", and therefore this has no in-game effect) as when you assault them with it, then logically so should, for example, frag grenades, which are clearly defined as assault grenades.
To continue the singing spear argument, well, that's a CC weapon which can be thrown. Sound familiar? So let's dissect it for a moment. By your argument, they can list it as a CC weapon and then just state in the rules that it can be "used as a thrown singing spear" and that covers it. But strangely enough, no, they don't do that. In order to establish the precedent for how thrown CC weapons work, they specifically state what it does when shot ("thrown"). They specifically essentially rewrite all of its CC rules for when you throw it. A singing spear (and heck, a witch blade, for that matter) HAS a CC weapon listing in the rule book. Why bother rewriting those rules when they could just say "is a thrown singing spear" or even "is a thrown witch blade". Heck, they could eliminate the singing spear entry entirely except to say "A singing spear can be used as a thrown witch blade with X for range". And that one line would therefore equal the entire entry in the rule book, right? And yet GW doesn't seem to agree. So along comes another thrown melee weapon. Why bother giving it a profile if they could just say "it's a thrown thunder hammer". Shouldn't that generate a S10 ranged attack that ignores armor saves in and of itself? So why bother giving it a profile, except to state that "THIS, and only this, is what this weapon does when you shoot ("throw") it"?
More functionally, Arjac works something like this:
-------------------------------------
Arjac Rockfist
<insert profile here>
Weapons: Foehammer with built-in Thunder Hammer
SPECIAL RULES
Foehammer:
Foehammer is a ranged weapon with the following profile:
6" S10 AP1 Assault 1
---------------------------------------------
And...that's it.
2. Nothing in the book says that ranged weapons are "shot". Lots of weapons in the game are thrown. In this case, Foehammer is a "ranged" thunder hammer -- not a thunder hammer with a "built-in ranged weapon".
3. The witchblade and singing spears entries specify what happens in close combat and in ranged combat. Restrictions in the witchblade entry make it clear what effects you use in close combat and restrictions in the singing blade entry make it clear what happens in the shooting phase.
Now compare that to the thunder hammer entry and the foehammer entry and you'll see the difference.
Note: There are lots of weapons that have effects that aren't listed on the profile line, like master-crafted.
Necron codex:
Warscythes..."there are no saving throws of any kind allowed against wounds caused by a warscythe. and when attacking a vehicle 2d6+strength is used for armor penetration"
Pariahs..." wargear: Warscythe with builtin gauss blaster.
Gauss blaster..." 24" s5 ap4 assault2
So all wounds caused by the built in gauss blaster ignore all saves and against vehicles roll 2d6+5....
According to your illogical argument this would be true. But it isnt.
Do snipers always wound on a 4 in close combat? Do they rend?
If my Dreadnaught looses its DCCW, does it get rending attacks with its assault cannon in cc?
This is a pointless argument between a lot of sane people and one hopeful rules lawyer. So anyone can write for BOLS now?
Pariahs: Not the same, they specifically state that they're using a different ranged weapon from the CC weapon.
Dreadnought: Again, the DCCW and AC are distinct, different weapons, on different arms, and can be destroyed individually.
Also, since models now state that they come with CC weapons, any older codex with a sniper rifle (do any still exist?) would therefore logically be attacking with either A) the sniper rifle in CC, which has no CC rules or B) with no CC weapon, a precedent established by, for example, Tyranids. So I don't think that applies either.
2. Again, Space Marine Scouts aren't using their Sniper Rifles in close combat. If you could shoot a Sniper Rifle in close combat, then you'd probably wound on a 4+.
3. Again, we're talking about two different weapons here.
4. Attacking me personally is lazy (and detracts from your argument). Don't take it so bad -- there are lots of wonky rules in the game and this is just one of them. Thankfully one that won't come up very often.
And, yes, anyone can write for BOLS. You should submit an article!
I'm not saying that one weapon's quality moves to another weapon (as in your DCCW getting Rending because the model is also armed with an Assault Cannon). I'm saying that Arjac is using the SAME weapon (a Thunder Hammer) in close combat and at range.
If he was shooting a lightning blast or a thunder clap, we wouldn't be having this argument. But he is hitting you with the same weapon in the shooting phase and the assault phase.
Thank you. FINALLY. You admit the only reason it gets the "stun" effect is because of the fluff. So if it was like a Pariah warscythe and shot lightning, then it wouldn't get the stun effect? Or if the pariah weapon could be thrown, then it would ignore saves?
There are a lot of "wonky" rules. Fortunately, this one is totally made up.
This seems to be really frustrating for you, and I'd love for you to find something - anything - in the rules to help your argument. I'd love for the Foehammer + JotWW to be incorrect, but examples like this aren't advancing your argument.
Again, you have been unable to point out how a rule listed under "Special Close Combat Attacks" applies to shooting.
Also, like I said, I will now be using my psycannon bolts in my bolt pistols in close combat. I am pretty sure you can even give those to your justicars. 10pts turns a justicar into a S6 monster that ignores regular and invulnerable saves. It's like giving him a warscythe! Post it on your blog.
"Interesting argument, but you aren't shooting your Plasma Pistol in close combat (e.g., it's not a S7 attack). If you were (like in 2nd Edition), then it would probably get hot. You can the extra attack simply because you are holding a "pistol" weapon."
on the contrary to that, your thunder hammer rules are listed under the close combat section and not included in your ranged weapon characteristic.
basically it comes down to the how you decide to use it, as a ranged attack (use the profile) or a CCW, use the rules for thunderhammers. if what your claiming is true then you could say that he gets a +1 on the damage chart when damaging a vehicle in CCW because his TH is s10 ap1. it simply doesnt work that way. CCW and ranged weapons function different, even in the case where one can be used as both. just look at deamon weapons.
Distinct. As in different. As in not the same for shooting and not the same for close combat. Like the Foehammer.
The codex gives a stat line that lays out the rules for using it while shooting, and the BRB gives the rules for using it in CC. It can't get any clearer than that.
Or to be catty: Can you show me anything that suggests Foehammer gets to use the properties of a special close combat weapon when used as a ranged attack? It needs to be a bit more than "uh-huh!"
The stat line isn't the only rules for using a ranged weapon. Sometimes you need to refer to other rules to see how they work. Consider these examples:
1. Ortan Cassius' Infernus is a master-crafted combi-flamer. The bolter shells wound on 2+. Neither are in the stat line for the weapon.
2. Yarrik's Bale Eye is a hot-shot laspistol that can be shot in addition to another ranged weapon.
Even regular weapons often have rules that don't appear on the weapon's stat-line:
1. Cluster Mines are resolved against rear armor.
2. Orbital Bombardments double always scatter the full 2D6".
3. Wraithcannon inflict glancing hits on a 3 or 4 and a penetrating hit on a 5 or 6 against a target with an Armor Value.
etc.
The fact that "thunder hammer" doesn't appear on the statline doesn't mean that it's not a thunder hammer. Or that it loses the "knocked reeling" affect for unsaved wounds.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING. THOSE ARE IN FANTASY NOT 40K.
The Tzeentch Daemon weapon is a POWER WEAPON, does that mean its shooting attack IGNORE ARMOR SAVES? NO.
All the examples you list above are EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT in the relevant codex. It DOES NOT say in the Space Wolves codex that the shooting attack of the Foehammer causes the stun effect.
It is just a thunderhammer with a shooting attack. You are purposefully bending the rules to gain an advantage and to make it worse you're trying to pass it off as a "tactic" and confusing new players.
To answer your questions:
1. No, because in the Power Weapon description of it clearly states that "models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armor saves" (BBB, p42).
Clearly the Tzeentch Daemon Weapon wouldn't ignore saves (because of the clear description of how a power weapon works).
2. The fact that Foehammer is a thunder hammer with a ranged statline is very clear. But nothing in the codex indicates that it loses the thunder hammer quality.
Saying "EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT" doesn't actually mean that the words are explicitly spelled out. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
3. It is not a "thunderhammer with a shooting attack" -- it's a thunder hammer. Arjac throws it at you and it returns to his hand because it has a nifty teleporter inside. He hits you -- physically -- with his thunder hammer in the shooting phase.
Besides, I'd take "Gets Hot" rule if I could gain the S7 attacks for using a plasma pistol in close combat.
It's not a "thrown melee weapon". It's a ranged weapon. If you have to invent a new weapon category, you're probably inventing rules to go with it.
Ragnar: If there was a single thing in the entry referencing the use of the thunderhammer's normal CC abilities, I would agree, but there isn't. This is 40k, an inclusive rule set. If it doesn't say you can, you CAN'T.
As I've responded to you before, Anonannoyed, Arjac hits you in the shooting phase with his thunder hammer. There is nothing in the thunder hammer rules (BBB, p42) that says that the thunder hammer stunning affect only happens in close combat. There's nothing in Arjac's entry (C:SW, p51) that suggests that Foehammer loses the thunder hammer ability when used as a ranged weapon.
I'm not inventing rules -- my argument is as clear as day and I'm quoting lines and referencing pages. Your argument is basically a collective "nuh-uh".
Show me something that says that the thunder hammer ability is lost. Show me something that says that Arjac isn't hitting you with a thunder hammer in the shooting phase. Show me something -- anything -- that supports your position and I'll listen.
Seriously. Anything.
Furthermore, if it's just a "thrown thunder hammer" like you keep inventing, why is it S10 and not S8? And why is it AP1 - but not AP1 in close combat?
Hey! Maybe the shooting profile carries over into close-combat and it adds +1 to all damage rolls against vehicles because it's AP1! You should mention that in your next tactics article.
Secondly, it doesn't matter *where* the rule appears in the book -- it matters *what* the rule says.
Here's an example: The Instant Death rules appear in the Shooting phase section of the rules. There are no references to Instant Death in the Assault Phase section. Does that mean that Instant Death only happens in the Shooting Phase? No, of course not.
Why? Because the wording of Instant Death tells us that it's triggered by an "unsaved wound from an attack" (not from a "shooting attack"). The thunder hammer rules are similar in that it doesn't narrow the "knocked reeling" effect to close combat (unlike ALL of the other special close combat weapons).
This line alone should qualify his statement, but when people want exact wording, they want it to say: "This confers all of the effects of a thunder hammer to the ranged attack." Myself, I'd let you use it that way, just because it would make no sense if it didn't, unless it hit me with the handle ^^;
In the same way, the Avatar's flame + melta immunity rule didn't specify each weapon, but anyone with any common sense wouldn't try to argue that a weapon that uses flame under a different name still works. After all, it's still fire. In the same way, this is still a thunder hammer, but being thrown at your face. Don't stringently adhere to strict RAW, because it doesn't usually give way to what /should/ happen.
Roll with the fluff and use common sense lads.
EDIT: lol, the fortune cookie was right ^_^
1. Under Thunder Hammers: "A thunder hammer uses the same rules as a power fist."
2. Under Power fists: "Power fists, however, are difficult and cumbersome to use, so attacks with a power fist are always delivered at Initiative 1 (ignore Initiative bonuses from special rules, wargear, etc.)
3. Under Foehammer in C:SW: "The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon..."
Now, derive from these rules. The Foehammer is a thunder hammer. A thunder hammer is a power fist, except where the rules differ, obviously. A powerfist always delivers its attacks at initiative 1.
From this, we must ask, when can a model deliver attacks at initiative 1? Of course, only in close combat, as there are never initiative orders in a shooting phase. Ergo, the foehammer may only be used in an assault, at initiative 1. Of course, you can't shoot while engaged in combat, so you can't actually use it as a ranged weapon then.
If you want to be a stickler about it being a thunder hammer, its functionally impossible to use. Also, I wouldn't get hung up on the wording of "attack", as there are cases of GW using it in the shooting phase to refer to shooting attacks.
And, for some reason, the designer didn't specify that the "knocked reeling" effect is restricted to wounds caused in close combat. If you look at the other weapons (power weapons, witchblades, etc.), you'll notice they are careful to define that their special effects only happen in close combat.
The fundamental argument is that Foehammer is a "ranged" thunder hammer. Even though it follows ALL of the rules for a ranged weapon (including finding it's place in the shooting sequence), it is still a thunder hammer.
Since it's a thunder hammer, we have to refer to the thunder hammer rules which tell us that if the weapon causes an unsaved wound, then the target is knocked reeling.
That's just the way it works until they FAQ it.
If you want to take the rules for thunder hammers from both the given profile, and the thunder hammer rules given under close combat weapons, you have to take the good and the bad. I'm not going to argue whether or not to do this; Its been beaten to death in these comments. I'm simply showing that to take the position of using the thunder hammer rules for close combat weapons and applying them to the throwing of the thunder hammer, you end up with an un-usable weapon.
The Foehammer is a ranged weapon, yes. However, the thunder hammer rules are more specific than the shooting rules, clearly. A thunder hammer, being a powerfist, must deliver its attacks at initiative 1. The only way this is possible is for it to be used in close combat, at initiative 1, when Arjac is in said combat.
Obviously, you can't fire in close combat, however, thats not the issue. I won't argue that the thunder hammer doesn't cause the reeling effect when used as a ranged weapon, as long as you accept that its attacks must be delivered at initiative 1. This makes it unusable in any situation, of course, but... perhaps thats what occurs when you try to shoehorn rules where they don't belong?
If you want to refute my points, please do. The main point being, a thunder hammer must deliver its attacks at initiative 1. I don't believe any of my other premises can be argued(other than whether the thunder hammer rules apply to the foehammer, but I'm accepting your premise for the sake of this argument).
A thunder hammer is a power fist++. A power fist delivers its attacks at Iniative 1.
"Attacks" almost always refer to close combat attacks (that's why there's an "Attacks" characteristic). The rules generally refer to "shooting attacks" as shots. As a matter of fact, I'm not finding the word "attacks" in the shooting phase section at all.
So not only are "attacks" a clear reference to the Assault phase, but so is Initiaitive.
I'm not nitpicking (or twisting words) to build my argument. If you find yourself twisting words to counter it, then you are probabaly in a weaker position.
A thunder hammer is a power fist++. A power fist delivers its attacks at Iniative 1.
"Attacks" almost always refer to close combat attacks (that's why there's an "Attacks" characteristic). The rules generally refer to "shooting attacks" as shots. As a matter of fact, I'm not finding the word "attacks" in the shooting phase section at all.
So not only are "attacks" a clear reference to the Assault phase, but so is Initiaitive.
I'm not nitpicking (or twisting words) to build my argument. If you find yourself twisting words to counter it, then you are probabaly in a weaker position.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. Thunder hammers are special close combat weapons, shooting weapons have completely different mechanics, and as such when it becomes one it has a completely different profile.
Foehammer is both a thunder hammer and a "ranged weapon". But at no point does it stop being a thunder hammer.
I have to disagree with you about the Foehammer. When used as a ranged attack, it gets a ranged attack profile separate from the already confounding stats of a thunderhammer.
Having said that, I know that I am already wrong...
I think it's funny.
No matter that I utterly disagree with mkerr, he is flawless in his interpretations of GW's logic loops, and a gentleman about it at that!
Kudos to all engaged here, with one notable exception, that being He Who Shall Not Be Called Out Nor Stand Up.
Blut for the blut gawt.
i think it's just the way these things go - i remember when Mind Worm was going to be the new thing all the kids were wearing - and look at it now...
I once observed a game where lil old eze made an avatar of khaine go home crying about his sins :)
Once a model is "removed from play", it can't come back so We'll Be Back and Miraculous Intervention can't get around JotWW either.
---
Necrons do get their we'll be back.
in the codex it says when a model would otherwise be removed from the game, not when it lost its last wound. i don't have the codex on hand for the exact wording though.
WBB works if a model is reduced to 0 wounds, "or would otherwise removed as a casualty". However as quoted in C: SW, the model is directly "removed from play" rather than "removed as casualty". There're some messing stuff here if you're arguing on the wordings.
I'm going to disagree and say that this was just bad editing on GW's part, and I'm pretty sure they "assumed" everyone would understand that "removing from play" is the same as "removed as a casualty".
Not to be confrontational, but I would actually appreciate if you could find where in the rulebook "removed from play" is distinct from "removed as a casualty"
For example: the Avatar's shooting attack (even though he's throwing his spear or whatever) does not follow the rules for monstrous creature close combat attacks.
Anyone who tells you different is full of it and a cheater. Rules as Written.
I'm sorry your Avatar example doesn't work.
The argument is simple:
1. I'm hitting you in close combat with a thunder hammer. A thunder hammer causes a stunning effect because it's a thunder hammer.
2. I'm hitting you with the exact same thunder hammer as a ranged attack. It still causes the stunning effect because it's still a thunder hammer.
That's as RAW as it gets.
There are no rules *written* that even suggests that using a melee weapon as a ranged weapon would strip the weapon of its basic characteristics (e.g., if I could throw a ChainFist at you, then it would still roll 2D6 for vehicle penetration -- because it's a ChainFist).
If all the rules were the same, but the stupid thing shot fireballs - would you really try to claim that they stun an opponent? Sorry, if it's not spelled out then you can't have it. It's effect when it's thrown is obviously different from its effect in combat. End of story.
How is it different to a Singing Spear being thrown?
fluff is no factor when it comes to the rules. just look whats happened to my army. (iron hands)
It is a thunder hammer with a RANGED ATTACK.
I should totally use your logic and use psycannon bolts in close combat in a bolt pistol. After all, they "never cease to be" psycannon bolts. You should post that on chainfist - isn't it about daemonhunters? 10pts to give a justicar or inquisitor a warscythe. Pretty awesome tactic.
As long as you are being wounded by a thunder hammer, you suffer the stunning affect.
That's about as RAW as it gets.
The againsts argue it isn't in the ranged attack profile.
One side or another claiming RAW doesn't really work. Because of the ambiguousness of the write-up, both have a valid claim. It is not clear. Even if you say RAW times infinity plus one so there, it is ambiguous.
IMO: Perhaps the gentlemanly thing to do would be for the SW to give up his "right" to stun. If FAQ validates the fors you have been seen to be self-effacing and your foes will warm to you. If FAQ validates the againsts you will have been seen as a beardy-cheese-git trying to swing any advantage your way, even illegal ones.
It is a game that both players are supposed to enjoy....
if in the course of a game some discrepancy like this arises, the players should (as it says in the very same rulebook) agree on an interpretation, or, if that isnt possible, roll a die or flip a coin or something. fair for everyone. that is, i find, generally the best solution.
For example, the Eldar shining spear when used as a shooting attack uses the "ranged" profile given.
But a thrown thunder hammer is still a thunder hammer.
By the way, there are other ranged weapons that use the "Special Close Combat Weapons" rules -- rending and poisoned are both defined there. Both can be used outside of close combat.
Mastercrafted isn't mentioned in the weapons profile. Does that mean that it's lost on a ranged weapon?
Lots of unique weapons have special rules. Foehammer is a unique weapon.
The Tzeentch Daemon weapon also shoots - does that mean it's shooting attacks also count as power weapon hits?
It shoots with the profile that is listed THAT'S ALL.
This wouldn't be an issue if it still had the 4th edition wording. (Obviously a long running conspiracy by the secret cabal of space wolf players!) lol.
To back this up why would any rune priest cast this power in a random direction at something they dont even know is there? Realistically, it wouldnt happen...
a) the end of the line should be in LOS
b) can't cross friendly models
...but by RAW, it's just a line, ignores terrain, doesn't require targets and gets fuzzy around the normal restrictions on only using ranged attacks on enemies.
Hopefully they Errata/FAQ it so the end of the line is the "target", which is how we play line attacks.
The power tells us how to "shoot" the power. You draw a line -- there is no target for the power (e.g., my attached unit isn't restricted to shooting or assaulting one of the units affected by JotWW).
JotWW isn't the first power that doesn't require line of sight, it's just the most recent.
In the rulebook under the assault phase...."DISALLOWED ASSAULTS...
Units are not allowed to assault if:
They are already locked in combat
They ran in the shooting phase
They have gone to ground
They shot rapid fire weapons or heavy weapons in the shooting phase
They are falling back
In addition to the above, a unit that fired in the shooting phase can ONLY ASSAULT THE UNIT IT SHOT AT - it CANNOT assault a different unit than the one it previously SHOT at."
Clearly it doesn't say anywhere here that you need to TARGET a unit to be forced to assault it, you may only assault units you SHOT at, so any unit attached to the RP must fire at what he does, and must assault only the units SHOT by JotWW.
No units are targeted. You draw a line and see what's under it.
Okay, let's assume you are right. Let's flip over to the "Shooting Sequence" and follow it with JotWW:
1. Check Line of Sight & Pick a Target -- Hmm, there's no target for JotWW; I draw a line. Since there's no target for the power, where do I draw line of sight to? Weird.
2. Check Range -- Hmm, well there's no range for the power, just a 24" line.
3. Roll to hit -- nope.
4. Roll to wound -- nope.
5. Take Saving Throws -- nope.
6. Remove Casualties -- nope.
So in what way does JotWW follow "ALL of the shooting rules"?
It's not a normal shooting attack. It doesn't need line of sight. It doesn't require that I pick a target. I don't have to roll to hit, wound and my opponent doesn't get saves.
With this power, you don't select a unit -- you draw a line. That line can be in any direction and cover anything. Once you've drawn the line, you check to see what's under it.
Those models are not "targets". They are just the models that were affected by the line. If there's a "target" with this power, it's the location where the line starts (which would make the "target" the Rune Priest).
It breaks down because you are allowed to 'target' more than one unit (let's say four enemy units fall under the Line), and even your own friendly units. This is an obvious departure from normal shooting restrictions. Which of the four enemy units should the rest of the RP's unit shoot at? How is that determined? Must they shoot at one of the enemy units effected by JotWW, or can they pick their own?
Furthermore: imagine an enemy model 10" away from the RP. JoWW does not have a 24" range (like normal ranged weapons); it's not that JoWW works on targets up to and including 24" away--you draw that line out to the full 24" no matter what, even if your 'target' is much closer. What if the rest of the line goes through some building/bunker/Land Raider? Are you asked to ignore anything under the line behind these things? No.
You are not asked to check LOS out to 24", or to the units under/along the line. It would be very strange to check LOS to a 'target' at 10" away, and have that same line continue another 14" farther.
You simply place a line on the table. I don't see how LOS has anything to do with it. I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on the term "Psychic Shooting Attack."
The ignoring terrain is simply an 'added' advantage of the power but doesn't exempt it from the usual targeting restrictions, it basically means the power will continue to have a 24" reach even after striking the initial unit/model targeted by the RP, unlike other shooting attacks which end once they've hit the targeted unit.
For example: stationary Bolter fire hitting an enemy unit 10" away doesn't continue to hit others for a further 14".... JotWW does.
If a power doesn't need LOS it will go out its way to state that in the description. Jaws does not do that, it clearly states "AS a psychic shooting attack" and Lash does state it needs LOS... all be it in a less clear and consistent way, but then this is the poorly conceived CSM codex we're talking about for a moment. And your unit is restricted to shooting or assaulting 'the' initial enemy target as an attached character cannot fire at a different unit to the one he has joined..... What rule book are you reading? and are you sure its the same game or current edition?
If there's no target, there's nothing to draw line of sight to.
1. "the psyker must be able to see his target unit,..."
Jaws has it's own rules for targeting -- there's no "target unit". You draw a line from the Rune Priest to a point 24" away -- models (not units) under the line are affected.
That's the whole of the _targeting_ rules -- it doesn't matter where that line goes. Draw it, look under it and see what models are touched.
It's obvious the power uses the rules inherit in a psychic shooting attack where the rules for the power itself does not obvious make said rules obsolete.
Use some common sense - use the rules for psychic shooting except for where the power states that those rules don't apply, which is plainly in its description. Where it contradicts the rules it overwrites them. It's not difficult to figure out.
Use some common sense indeed. While JotWW does not use the exact words 'ignores LOS', it does say that the line may pass through terrain--which is the same thing! You cannot trace LOS through a wall. You can trace JotWW through a wall. Therefore, JotWW does not require LOS.
I find it particularly frustrating that GW described the power the way they did. "As a Psychic Shooting Attack..." and then everything else contradicts the premise. But there you go. It's a Psychic Shooting attack in name only.
Asking for a defined list of specific exclusions reminds me of the little warning they used to put on solar screens for car windshields: "WARNING! Do not attempt to operate vehicle with solar screen in place!" Well duh.
WARNING! We're calling Jaws of the World Wolf a psychic shooting attack for lack of a better name. Here's how you use it: <description follows>
I argue that the rules for JotWW does "obviously make [pyschic shooting attack] rules obsolete."
Also, the target is the point 24" away from the rune priest, that's what he needs to be able to see, not a targetted model
GW FAQ'd that the Vibro Cannon works on targets out of line of sight, against friendly units and against units locked in close combat.
My 2 öre (swedish eq. to cents)
And also, what's up with the stupid "may" that GW saw fit to include in the description (Rune Priest may trace a straight line). Does that mean it's optional. "must" or "will then" would have been better...
Yes, a psyker normally needs to see his target when he is using a psychic shooting power -- but JotWW doesn't have a target unit. It's an indiscriminate line.
1) Pick an initial target, via normal targeting restrictions (psychis shooting attack rules)
2) draw a straight 24" long line from RP, even if it passes through Terrain.
3) Models (not units) that are hit/touched by the line (including those out of LOS due to terrain or other models blocking, like a vehicle) are removed from play if they do not make a successful initiative test.
Who's the target in your example?
The "psychic shooting attack" just prevents you from shooting another weapon in the shooting phase (JotWW + another shooting attack would be sucky).
The ignoring terrain is simply an 'added' advantage of the power but doesn't exempt it from the usual targeting restrictions, it basically means the power will continue to have a 24" reach even after striking the initial unit/model targeted by the RP, unlike other shooting attacks which end once they've hit the targeted unit.
For example: stationary Bolter fire hitting an enemy unit 10" away doesn't continue to hit others for a further 14".... JotWW does.
Why would his thunder hammer be AP1 when flying through the air, but not AP1 when in his fist? For the same reason the shooting hammer does not affect initiative (or auto shake) and the CCW hammer does: Two separate sets of rules.
Thunder hammer can mean two things: One, it can mean the CCW specified in the close combat section of the BBB. Two, it can mean the fluffy idea of a massive, powered war hammer. In this case, it is clearly the second that is intended. The rules do not carry over from shooting phase to close combat phase or vice versa.
1. Nothing in that sentence implies that the ranged profile can be used in close combat. So of course his close combat attacks aren't AP1 (not that AP is used in close combat anyway).
2. But it's clear that the thunder hammer is used as a ranged weapon. It doesn't stop being a thunder hammer, so we need to know those rules too.
3. The fact that the thunder hammer rules appear in the close combat section doesn't matter. What matters is *what it says* under the thunder hammer entry.
Not so... it's a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile.
I think that bears repeating. It's not a thunder hammer with the following profile. It's a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile. That ranged weapon's profile does not include the thunder hammer special rules.
I will never use the character anyway, but if I ever face an opponent who does, and for what ever reason wants me to have an initiative 1 for a turn after throwing his hammer at me, I suppose it will come down to a roll off.
If the Dex says it is a "Thunder Hammer" with a shooting profile I would think it would get the "THUNDER HAMMER" special rule and the cool guy snazy bit the book added on to it!
Jaws of the World Wolf. not too scared, but I've got forces with decent psyker protections. It might cause more people to actually look into buying Inquisitors, but that's a little extreme, and not always really cost effective in an all-comers list.
If you arrange yourself, you can minimize it's effects, and still not impact your gameplay. It will cause you to need to think a bit more about what your opponent is bringing to the table.
But knowledge is always power.
And JotWW does not need a target you bunch of whiners. It's so simple, you just draw a straight line from the character, period. Nowhere in the description of the power does it even mention the word 'target' and any references to it being a psychic shooting attack is only making it so he can't use that ability if engaged in CC, shot last that turn, etc. Mkerr speaks the truth.
I'll correct the article -- thanks for pointing it out, Eric!
At least that is how I would argue in tourney. I think it holds up quite nicely.
"This line may pass through terrain. Monstrous creatures, beasts, cavalry, bikes and infantry models that are touched by this line must take an Initiative test "
the problem witht hat argument is that sure, you need LOS to see the target, But this ability has no targets.
This works like an Eldar Vibrocannon (which is a shooting attack that doesn't require line of sight either).
There's no "target unit" for JotWW. It effects individual models (e.g., I can't "allocate' the Initiative tests to other models in the unit, etc.).
There is no target for JotWW. There's just a line.
Alternatively, does it say under the rule that the power is Indirect fire, or Guess?
I can draw that line anywhere I want as long as it ends no more than 24" away from the Rune Priest.
LOS is not required. This is self-evident. JotWW can pass through walls. LOS cannot pass through walls.
Mkerr, is your purpose in life to always come to the most rules-lawyering conclusion possible?
If talking about stuff like this isn't your cup of tea, maybe skipping those sections would help. You clearly aren't understanding the intention of the article.
-Tau FWs, all Battlesuits that're not Shas'vre or above
-All Crons except Flayed, Wraiths, Pariahs and Lords
-Plaguebearers, GUO, Beast of Nurgle
-Carnifex, upgraded or not
-All non-HQ/Nobs Orks
I should have missed some but can't recall right now.
The problem with Jaw isn't only because its cheapness and abundance (unlike some funky psychics in the past that're only 2 at best) but also its potential. Destroying any non-vehicle models with at least 1/6 chance by that model alone is just wrong.
Or should I say all RP models have "broken" written all over it even Jaw is put aside?
Now I may be incorrect, but I put forth that the studio intended those two clauses to be separate and that no two psykers in a Space Wolf army should have the same spell and that there should never be more than one JotWW in a single Force Org. army list. I'm betting that when the studio makes an "official" ruling on this there will be a lot of disappointed players who can no longer base their whole army around multiple characters with this spell. It's a colorful, characterful spell and the studio has tried to prevent it being abused like the "two lash" Chaos armies have done.
40K has many roleplay style elements in it to make it epic and heroic and help players create colorful armies and characters the way one would like to have a colorful character in roleplay games. Unfortunately, many of those elements get stretched by the "hardcore" gamers who often lose sight of the intention of those game elements. I've already asked a contact at GW to look into this and see if he can get something quick back from the studio before this gets out of hand like the "players can use each other's teleport homers" and "Chaos Dreadnoughts don't actually have to execute their fire frenzy if one does (insert made up, game illegal action here)" interpretations that just won't quite die completely. Hopefully, we'll shortly know one way or another just what the "real" rule is on this as intended by the writers of the rule on page 81 of the Codex.
And according to the Battle Report - you can - as they obviously had two rune priests in there.
I don't think JoTWW is amazing. I think Living Lightning is pretty powerful and probably the most dangerous one. JoTWW will have games were it does nothing, and then you have games where it is amazing. Hell I played one, where it went off twice, hitting 8 guys total and I didn't kill a single one.
But again - we will have to wait for an FAQ to resolve lots of problems etc. Hooray wording!!!
"nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination" - same as Brass Scorpian. You can have the same psychic powers as someone else, as long as you have a different combination. You can have the same wargear as someone else, as long as you have a different combination.
Now, if the sentance was "nor may they bear the same psychic powers, or wargear combination" you have a , seperating psychic powers and wargear, differenetiating the two, which i would read how you read the original. You can't have the same psychic powers as someone else. You can have the same wargear as someone else, as long as you have a different combination.
An even better version would be "nor may they bear the same psychic powers. They may not bear the same wargear combination." Clear, concise. Not exactly pretty to read, but given time and effort it could be phrased to be just as clear and a more pleasent treat to the eyes.
However, to take the quote in it's full context "To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination".
Man, that's all kinds of messed up when looking for an exact definition. The first comma, after saga could imply that the "or" is a continuation, therefore seperating the psychic powers clause and the wargear combination clause (the way you think it is). Or it's exactly as written, which means the psychic power clause and wargear clause are all one clause (the way me and BrassScorpian think it is).
Tldr version - the wording could go either way and trying to push the rule one way or another is just arguing semantics.
Apologies for the long winded rambling post - I hate GW grammar :p.
On topic, I'd find that rules position more convincing if Njal wasn't a "special character" with all of his abilities pre-loaded by the rules rather than chosen by the player. I also read that battle report, but it didn't affect my opinion of the rules in question here.
Again, I'm not so entrenched in my own position that I believe I could not be incorrect, but I like to err on the side of caution and to me it seems the rules on page 81 say something different than what a lot of people would like them to say. In any case, hopefully we'll hear from GW shortly on this.
Thanks!
They get things wrong too. Just because they have done it does not make it true....
C'mon FAQ!
Line of sight? No. Why all the debate about this? Is it not in the least bit plausible that these mighty psykers whome can navigate warpstorms, shoot all sorts of energy from thin air and can bend your thoughts to theirs would not have the clairvoyance to locate living beings with a psychic "thumbprint" some 50 meters away? Not to mention a space marine would be getting live data feeds from who knows how many sources on the battlefield. Lets not forget all those little floating skulls flying around or the choosers of the slain able to relay enemy positions.
Target? Nope. The Rune Priest powers are very shamanistic and druid like. He knows roughly where bad guys are and he is going to open the grand canyon underneath them. Obviously a space wolf only has one "gear" so to speak which is full throttle. Same with the Rune Priest. That is why the power goes 24 inches in a line. That just represents the raw power going directly ahead of the Rune Priest. It matters not to him if you are 5 or 50 feet away. He is going to unleash 100% in your direction. If it was more focused like a blast template or flamer template then yes, sight required. But the thin line really just represents this raw, untrained power going straight ahead of the priest.
Thrown thunder hammer causing stunned result? I have to pass on that one. It uses the stat line. I am also here to say at what point is a str 10 AP1 missle weapon not friggin' sweet enough? Sure it only has a 6 inch range but so what. I would look more like the Thunderhammer would be an active weapon that has to be in the hands of the user to activate the "thunder" portion of it. The fact that it is a str 10 missle to me is already taking into account the "thunder" part of it. Wanting it to stun is just getting greedy to me (although if it is ever FAQ'd the other way I will not complain, lol).
All the above is only my opinion and I am not basing any of it on facts, just what I feel is right.
I am also in the camp that would allow Rune Priests to have one like power and one different power to be legal. Stands to reason for me.
Yeah, but suits aren't effected because they a jump infantry and honestly, virtually any CC model in the SW codex should handle Firewarriors and with less cost and more resiliency. JotWW is almost useless against anything Tau the SW would have trouble killing. The only real targets worth noting are Broadsides (handled better by OBEL scouts/WGL w PF IMO) and if anyone is really silly enough to bring an ethereal (and only if you don't put this vulnerable model in a transport). Firewarriors? A Lone Wolf with MoW can do that job if they are gunline and mech Tau requires bringing units to pop the Fish anyway, at which point you should be able to clean them up in CC. Kroot? 5pt flamer upgrade gets the job done. Crisis and Stealth Suits? There's your real problem and JotWW won't solve that. Now, making them make dangerous terrain tests for jumping around? That has its appeal.
I haven't played against the power yet so this is just a feeling I have...
Then again, I don't know why GW keeps giving Slaneesh the over powered powers, and the other chaos gods useless junk. Every edition Slaneesh gets the 'game breaking' power...
lol, silly. i dont know why.
I was under the impression that the main rule book holds jump and jet infantry as seperate to normal infantry on a number of pages, and so they can claim to be immune to the power (they can simply be said to be flying over the newly created chasm).
Couple this with units in vehicles being unaffected, and it seems like a repeat of Lash-hysteria. It's another very dangerous power which can be quite a pain, but mech lists and careful planning can limit its potential and in the average game I can't see it being as game-breaking as many have suggested.
JotWW is a psychic "shooting" attack. The rules for shooting disallow for shooting through or into cc. I guess you can use it on the guys inside of an ork Truck since it's open topped and you can see the models right?
I hope you are being sarcastic, right?
JOTW is a shooting attack therefore can not effect or be placed over units involved in CC.
None of that applies to JotWW because I "trace a straight line across the board". The line can go anywhere I want it to. I can trace it over enemy units, friendly units and units in close combat.
Since there's *no* target, things that stop me from "targeting" don't apply.
I have to chuckle a bit at this innocent conversation that has been squashed under a torrent of raging arguments that are going on further up. sigh.
Have you noticed how often mkerr appears in these as well?
Thus, I see no other action than to state that I think that when foehammer is used as a ranged weapon it does not affect your Initiative like a thunder hammer.
Now, I'm going to run.
Thus, I see no other action than to state that I think that when foehammer is used as a ranged weapon it does not affect your Initiative like a thunder hammer.
Now, I'm going to run."
dont run, go back up there and take a poke at 'em. its fun. everyone's doing it.
:) sorry mkerr
:)
NB I have, it isn't broken as it did nothing worthwhile in the game at all - used 3 times and all it took off the table was 4 Firewarriors and one Broadside, the other Rune Priest with Fury of the Wolf Spirit did more damage
It's not possible- Ajrac's Thunderhammer when used as a shooting weapon does not share the Thunderhammer's special CC effects. It's merely a 6" range assault rail-gun.
you will have 2-4 priests shooting their lasers... 'CMON! you only can have one with the same power. It is clearly specified in the codex, just befor the army list. Please, check that.
note the s on powers, and rune priests have two powers... thus you can't have JotWW and Living lightning x 4 but you can have JotWW + A, +B, +C, +D, as the models will not bear the same psychic powers.
If your going to a tournament, consult with organizer until GW comes up with a faq.
1. Foehammer is a thunder hammer. Check out the description of a thunder hammer.
2. Arjac throws his thunder hammer as a ranged weapon. Note it's still the same exact thunder hammer that he uses in close combat.
3. If a thunder hammer causes an unsaved wound (note it doesn't specify in close combat), then the model's initiative is reduced to 1.
4. Then check out the characteristic tests section.
It's pretty clear to me. Not exactly the nicest thing to do (and thankfully Foehammer only has a 6" range), but it's legal unless they FAQ it otherwise.
The ability to snipe characters out of a mob is incredibly rare, and in every other case it is explicitly stated that these weapons/models/psychic powers do this, and in no case are any of those abilities nearly as effective or as cheap as JOTWW.
1) Units that are locked in combat may NOT be targeted (scatter may still affect them).
This means that JotWW may not be drawn across a combat since 1) it does not scatter and 2) it is a "psychic shooting attack", which works the same as a standard shooting attack. Even though it doesn't require a target, shots cannot purposefully be placed on units in combat (e.g. a battlecannon shot may not be placed touching a combat. It may scatter, but may not be originally placed.)
2) Units must have LOS.
The "ignores terrain" section is most likely to prevent cover saves against JotWW. However, a shooting attack, and therefore a psychic shooting attack, must be used within LOS of the shooter. Impassable terrain or large opaque terrain (e.g. no open windows or door) blocks LOS for weapons and cuts down their range. That means that JotWW's LOS ends whenever it hits impassable terrain or differently leveled terrain (it is a straight line on a plane, same as how blast templates cannot effect multiple levels), and therefore cannot affect any units behind impassable or multi-level terrain.
(Pages 50 and 16 in the AoBR rule book).
Skip over to the Shooting Phase section and go through the Shooting Sequence and you'll see how different JotWW is.
Therefore, JotWW may not be laid across a combat.
And exactly: since JotWW is a shooting attack, it must have LOS, despite it's lack of target. You can't hit what you can't see, even if you don't "target" it.
It actually says: "A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not locked in combat as its target, and may not split its fire among different targets."
There are no restrictions in JotWW to tell me where I cannot draw the line. It just says draw a line. There's no target so the above targeting rules don't apply either.
I agree with you that Jaws has made the same initial impression that Lash of Submission did.
However, just like Lash of Submission, this power is less and less effective against me the more I face it. In fact, I lost only 3 Fire Warriors to it in my game tonight. The deal is this, folks: there is no good way to hide from the first shot of Jaws of the World Wolf. Deal with it. Now, after the 170 point Rune Priest has killed maybe 50 points of your guys, annihilate him with extreme prejudice.
Simply put, I can't see any way a smart player can lose a game because of a flashy waste of time like Jaws of the World Wolf. That "totally awesome" Rune Priest can only kill a single Space Marine in combat, by odds. Club him to death with your Tactical Squad, and then chuckle as your opponent takes the model off the table.
Tell him that after the battle, your Tactical Squad dug a hole and buried the Priest in the "Jaws of Inefficiency".
We even went through all of the same reactions locally. "It can't work like that.", "I'll punch anyone that tries that on me.", etc. Eventually most people came around and found out that it wasn't that bad. It took some playtesting to convince everyone though.
So you can definitely have multiple RP's with this power, as long as they are not identical.
If the rule did not begin by stating that, "As a psychic shooting attack . . ." then I would have to agree that normal restrictions do not apply. But because the rule clearly does say the latter, then normal restrictions are obviously taken into consideration. The only time the rule book is overridden is when a codex specifically says so, and since that is not the case here then the rulebook still stands.
Now I do agree that the rule as written confusing to say the least, but until an FAQ is published and lets us know exactly how the skill works we should play it by the rules we know for fact. You target a model and draw a line through said model, meaning that if you cannot target a model by the normal rules of shooting then you cannot target said model. But if you successfully target and draw a line through a model you can proceed to cause tests on whatever models your line crosses through.
I mean what happens when someone decides to target a model completely hidden behind a wall that they could not possibly have known was there? Its just a ridiculous attempt at bending the rules. I don't care about the technology available to the 40k universe, if we go by that logic then vindicators could target at ICs that are hidden behind a wall. There are reasons the rules are in place. The power is strong as is, no need to use TRICKS (not tactics) to abuse it.
And since when does Lash not have a target? From what I know, you need LoS to cast Lash on a TARGET; all restriction applying.
1. I'm not arguing that the power is a psychic shooting attack. It clearly is just that. The power takes place in the shooting phase and makes sure the Rune Priest follows lots of rules for using the power.
2. A psychic shooting attack also tells us that the psyker needs to see the target unit for his shooting power. The problem here is that there isn't a "target unit". The psychic power has the player draw a line -- it doesn't nominate a target unit.
3. If their was a target unit, then you'd do all of the normal stuff (e.g., check line of sight, make sure that the target is an unlocked enemy unit, roll sighting distance, etc.). But none of that applies here. You roll your psychic test and draw a line. No line of sight needed.
If you needed line of sight, then you'd have to have a target to draw it to. What's the target of JotWW? Is it the start of the line? The end of the line? The unit that it first crosses? Second? Last?
Since I have to charge the unit I "targeted", which unit can the Rune Priest assault? Any of them? All of them? None of them?
What about the unit that's attached to the Rune Priest? What unit can they shoot? Any of the affected units? None of them? The closest one? The furthest one?
This power works almost identically to the Eldar Vibrocannon (which was FAQ'd to have no targets, not require line of sight, to affect friendly models and to extend into close combat).
The Vindicare does it perfectly, and specifically states that it ignores all targeting restrictions. Why wouldn't GW just do the same thing with JotWW, haven't they learned? If you are going to make a rule that has such a diverse way of working then you should start its description like this, "JotWW is a psychic shooting attack, but unlike normal psychic shooting attacks . . ."
I am not arguing that the way you are playing it is against intentions or that the wording specifically disallows it either. What I am saying is that as written, there is too much ambiguity to play the power against the rulebook that we know and love.
I for one would not use JotWW some of the ways you suggest because . . .
1) It would create too much complaining and controversy for my liking.
2) The power is strong enough as is.
3) It would be pretty cheesy to place that line in order to single out some model completely out of line of sight, because without LoS restrictions there is no defense against; and what it boils down to is one dice roll (not even a simple tactical defense).
4) I don't want to take the chance at becoming TFG after the FAQ comes out.
As an added personal note I avoid abusing badly written rules like this. For example my BA army that contains Brother Corbulo and his exsanguinator allows me to ignore one failed save per turn on any model within range. RAW this includes vehicles with cover saves; but seeing as I am a nice guy who doesn't like confrontation during a game of 40k and hates to see the look on my opponents face as he feels like his is being cheated, I refrain from this sort of behavior (not saying you are not a nice guy). Especially because of the fact that I could not possibly justify having my Apothecary equivalent save his rhino from a Railgun.
Both players are supposed to enjoy the game and not feel they are being hoodwinked by an argumentative lawyer.
Let us not use it, the fuzzy rules, until the FAQ spells it out, so that all enjoy the game. :)
Sure there is! Stay more than 24" away until that bastard is dead! :)
Swamp the RP with disposable infantry, he can't shoot while engaged in CC. etc.
"range 6", strength 10, Ap 1, Assault 1". It does not cause int loss as you can see the codex does not say that. If you want to argue that how thunder hammers work in cc is added to this ranged attack that has its abilities spelled out then why does it say str 10 instead of 5 or 5(10) and just have us assume that it turns into str 10?
2)Here's where I disagree. Most wargear doesn't change a models initiative, but merely the initiative at which they strike. Much like thunderhammers don't change an enemy's initiative, just the initiative at what they strike.
I hate this power. It combines much of what makes things broken- Targeting single models, flat out removing models with no defense from it other than a single roll. It should earn many times it's points back against necrons, and can be worth it verse other armies. For example, a 360 point Nightbringer is removed from the table on a 5-6. It can snipe out heavy weapons and powerfists, rendering squads useless for the purpose they were brought. Pesky IG commander/special character? Dead. It's the same as lash, when something was claimed to be overpowered and was.
I don't think two models can have it. Njal is different as he is a special character, much like a DH player can have BC Stern and a Brother Captain, even though BCs are 0-1. The codex would say "psychic power COMBINATONS or" or "psychic power AND wargear combinations" if it meant either of those.
The power does not target any units. There is a precedence for this power, the eldar Vibro Cannon.
I'm just wondering a couple of practical issues when using this power:
1. how do you deal with hight differences? the line is a straight laser line or something? If let's say their are 2 models on top of eachother due to a lvl building. Would both models be hit if the line went in their direction? or just the guy that get's hit by the guy. Also where from do you pull the line? the head, Base? al these things effec how the line is moving across the board and influence who get's hit.
2. if it can go through terrain how are you going to make sure the line you claim too see is correct? it's not like a template where you can put it close to the models. I think this is going to become a bigger problem then the rules lawyering going on here.
I would like to know how you would deal with these issues. as for the power it self Being Eldar my runes of warding will pay off even more :) and for all you Sm players out their get a librarian and stop whining it's just something to counter I don't know how expensive it is to get the power but if it's so scary just brace yourself against it.
Since we're talking about a chasm (and a very rare situation), I'd probably say infinite height is the best solution.
2. You don't have to "see" any of the affected models. You draw a line (using your tape measure) and check to see what models are underneath. Those are the ones that are affected -- trying to see if you have line of sight one some or all of them isn't needed.
Personally, I think it can't effect models above ground level. It says it must be drawn along the board, and all precedents only affect one level.
also I'm worried about the fack that if he aims his line somewhere the line suddenly moves if he sees he is maybe going to miss the models he is aiming for. If someone used this spell I would want to know where he directs his line to before he goes and meassure out the 24" otherwise you are going to see a lot of magnetic models :P. all in all this spell has a lot more problems then just the wording.
Cheers CJ
I find it curious that the 'model' can be hit... does that not include it's base? If the line hit's the wingtip of my Flyrant but doesn't pass over its base is the Flyrant hit? I think so...
phase." Thus there is no way you could argue they are initiative 1 in the shooting phase.
Here's the entry from the BBB: "In addition, all models that suffer an unsaved wound from a thunder hammer and are not killed will be knocked reeling, reducing their Initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next player's turn.".
That means that anything they do until the end of the next player's turn goes off an Initiative of 1. Assaulting? Initiative 1. Sweeping Advance? Initiative 1. Initiative test? Initiative 1.
DH thunderhammers just make the person strike last, they don't even mention initiative in the codex. Oops!
Apparently I can't even escape it in close combat now despite it being a psychic shooting weapon!
You shouldnt be able to take out Carnifexes, Bloodthirsters, Ghazghkull, Abaddon, Calgar and such other models so easily!
Ive started to simply refuse to play against Space Wolves, because everyone with them at my local GW insists on taking at least 2. It sure is fun losing all your awesome monster things on the first turn because of a single dice roll!
Everything else in the codex is fine and dandy, its just this stupid thing sours it all up with its blatant unfairness.
I'm cosidering getting Inquisition allies for my Space Marines so I can Vindicare every Rune Priest I see.
AUGH i hate this stupid power!
Apparently I can't even escape it in close combat now despite it being a psychic shooting weapon!
You shouldnt be able to take out Carnifexes, Bloodthirsters, Ghazghkull, Abaddon, Calgar and such other models so easily!
Ive started to simply refuse to play against Space Wolves, because everyone with them at my local GW insists on taking at least 2. It sure is fun losing all your awesome monster things on the first turn because of a single dice roll!
Everything else in the codex is fine and dandy, its just this stupid thing sours it all up with its blatant unfairness.
I'm cosidering getting Inquisition allies for my Space Marines so I can Vindicare every Rune Priest I see.
Apparently I can't even escape it in close combat now despite it being a psychic shooting weapon!
You shouldnt be able to take out Carnifexes, Bloodthirsters, Ghazghkull, Abaddon, Calgar and such other models so easily!
Ive started to simply refuse to play against Space Wolves, because everyone with them at my local GW insists on taking at least 2. It sure is fun losing all your awesome monster things on the first turn because of a single dice roll!
Everything else in the codex is fine and dandy, its just this stupid thing sours it all up with its blatant unfairness.
I'm cosidering getting Inquisition allies for my Space Marines so I can Vindicare every Rune Priest I see.
Isn't an initiative test done with the unmodified profile-Initiative so lowering the Initiative with a Powerfist(equipment) or being hit by a thunderhammer should have no effect ... but please I am really not sure 'bout this.
So far as I understand it the Thunderhammer-Stun only takes effect in Close Combat situations.
Well ... not sure about this ... the rule itself sounds good ... lowering the Initiative to 1 but the rule relying on the Test says clearly "without modification"
Re-read the characteristic test section, it doesn't say anything about using your "unmodified" characteristic for the test.
oh ... my necrons even worse
But thanks cause now I understand this testing stuff better
*thumbs up*
Apparently I can't even escape it in close combat now despite it being a psychic shooting weapon!
You shouldnt be able to take out Carnifexes, Bloodthirsters, Ghazghkull, Abaddon, Calgar and such other models so easily!
Ive started to simply refuse to play against Space Wolves, because everyone with them at my local GW insists on taking at least 2. It sure is fun losing all your awesome monster things on the first turn because of a single dice roll!
Everything else in the codex is fine and dandy, its just this stupid thing sours it all up with its blatant unfairness.
I'm cosidering getting Inquisition allies for my Space Marines so I can Vindicare every Rune Priest I see.
Apparently I can't even escape it in close combat now despite it being a psychic shooting weapon!
You shouldnt be able to take out Carnifexes, Bloodthirsters, Ghazghkull, Abaddon, Calgar and such other models so easily!
Ive started to simply refuse to play against Space Wolves, because everyone with them at my local GW insists on taking at least 2. It sure is fun losing all your awesome monster things on the first turn because of a single dice roll!
Everything else in the codex is fine and dandy, its just this stupid thing sours it all up with its blatant unfairness.
I'm cosidering getting Inquisition allies for my Space Marines so I can Vindicare every Rune Priest I see.
Apparently I can't even escape it in close combat now despite it being a psychic shooting weapon!
You shouldnt be able to take out Carnifexes, Bloodthirsters, Ghazghkull, Abaddon, Calgar and such other models so easily!
Ive started to simply refuse to play against Space Wolves, because everyone with them at my local GW insists on taking at least 2. It sure is fun losing all your awesome monster things on the first turn because of a single dice roll!
Everything else in the codex is fine and dandy, its just this stupid thing sours it all up with its blatant unfairness.
I'm cosidering getting Inquisition allies for my Space Marines so I can Vindicare every Rune Priest I see.
If there was a target unit with JotWW, then it would require line of sight. Since there isn't a target unit, what do you draw line of sight to?
Nowhere in that ranged profile does it say its a thunderhammer.
Additionally, "stunning" isn't an "additional weapon characteristic", like Rending or Sniper, so it couldn't just say "thunder hammer" on the profile -- it wouldn't mean anything.
But Foehammer is a thunder hammer -- even when it is used as a ranged weapon. You can't counter that. A thunder hammer has an additional "knocked reeling" ability that doesn't say it's lost when it's used as a ranged weapon. You can't counter that too.
It would be awesome if it was made clear one way or the other. It would be great if it said something in the statline. It would be awesome if they FAQed it. But until then we go by what we have -- and what we have is that you are being hit in the shooting phase with a thunder hammer, and hunder hammers knock you reeling.
I'm attacking you with a "ranged" thunder hammer. It's not a generic ranged weapon -- it's a thunder hammer. Thunder hammer's have specific rules for what happens when you are wounded with them (regardless of when the wound occurs).
You're taking the descriptive text ("throws his Thunder Hammer") and making it into rules text. That's like saying a weapon that "can destroy any enemy of the Imperium, ignoring all armor and invulnerable saves" doesn't work against Sisters of Battle, Space Marines, or Imperiel Guard because they aren't enemies of the Imperium. It's stupid. Yes, the word "thunder hammer" has a rules meaning, but _only in the context of close combat_. It doesn't apply to ranged attacks because the weapon profile for the ranged attack doesn't say Thunder Hammer under the section detailing its special qualities.
Explain that to me.
You mentioned above that "There are tons of weapons that have qualities that aren't listed on the profile," but all of these are melee weapons. All ranged weapons have some kind of note in their Special section or descriptive text box somewhere. You're making what I feel is a pretty huge leap of logic from "it says the words thunder hammer in the description" to "the weapon is stunning even though it doesn't say so."
And sometimes a name implies something about the ranged weapon, for example a "master-crafted bolt pistol" means something -- and master-crafted doesn't appear in the weapon's profile.
Cheers CJ
Like many though, I take issue with the assumption that Foehammer stuns at range. IMO not on the profile, not part of the game effect.
A lot of the justification for assuming it strikes like a Thunderhammer at range as well is based on "It's a thrown thunderhammer!" Nice, but at least in my printing of the Space Wolves book on p. 51 there isn't actually any mention that Arjac throws it. It's certainly implied, but it's not actually stated - just like reducing initiative when used as a ranged weapon isn't stated. It's not a thrown thunderhammer - it's a thunderhammer that also has a specific profile to use for shooting.
I can see how it could be read the other way, and may even end up being FAQ'd that way since he's intended to be a Thor ripoff, but I just don't see it that way.
Re: JotWW
Q: Does it have a target, or does it work along the lines of the V-cannon?
A: It works like the v-cannon - pick a direction and let it rip
Q: Does it require LOS?
A: To at least one model it's fired through
Q: Can it go into/through CC?
A: No.
Re: Leaders of the Pack
Q: Can JotWW (or any other power) be taken more than once?
A: Yes, as long as the second power is different in all cases (eg, A+B/A+C/A+D/A+E)
A) Foehammer get stuns in the shooting attack because;
B) its a thunderhammer and;
C) thunderhammers, described in the CC rules section, get stuns.
Ok fair enough, even though nowhere in the shooting statline of foehammer or its description does it say it gets stuns, it is logically assumed in your argument.
But then you argue that you jotww dosn't need LOS or a target because its description doesn't spcifically say it even though jotww is:
A) a psychic shooting attack
and those are described in the psychic section as;
B)counts as firing a ranged weapon (an assault weapon,
unless specified otherwise)
with a further specific example of
C) the psyker
must be able to see his target unit, cannot be locked in
combat, or must not have run in the Shooting phase if
he wishes to use a psychic shooting attack. In the same
way, if a psyker targets a unit with a psychic shooting
attack, then he can only assault that unit in the ensuing
Assault phase.
You choose to skip the very same logic path you use for the benifits of foehammer to get the benifits of jotww.
You can't have it all ya know.
Just because the power is described as a pyschic shooting attack does not mean that every general condition must be met. The general conditions stand unless they are modified by the specifics of the power--and in this case the LOS condition is modified.
You're familiar with the principle, it's integral to the 40k ruleset. Codex trumps rulebook.
JotWW may pass through terrain. It is not possible to see through terrain. Therefore, the general requirement of psychic shooting attacks that the psyker must be able to see his target has been modified by the Codex description of the power. If your 'target' for JotWW is on the other side of a wall, you can still drop the line on him even though you can't see him.
I too find it unfortunate and frustrating that GW didn't use the explicit languange 'LOS not required.' But it's self evident to me that a line that passes through terrain, two squads, a close combat, a Land Raider, and still hits a Carnifex out at 24" away makes LOS moot. This is an indescriminate power that hits friend and foe alike out to a certain range, regardless of whether the RP can see them all (or any of them).
The only open questions I have are: 1) If the RP is attached to a squad, who must that squad fire at? The closest enemy hit by the power? any of the enemies hit by the power? or any target of their choice, independent of the RP?
and 2) likewise, what are the assault restrictions after using JotWW?
I would suggest that JotWW should be considered entirely independent from the attached squad's shooting, and has no assault restriction. The squad shoots and assaults as normal, ignoring the fact the RP is doing his own thing in the shooting phase. But this is houserule/workaround at best, and is not firm.
"You're familiar with the principle, it's integral to the 40k ruleset. Codex trumps rulebook."
Yes, but in this case stating that it is a psychic shooting attack in the description re-affirms the rules it should follow. My thought for the rule that it ignores terrain is to address when the 24" line passes through your target unit, into a wall or other terrain and then into another unit behind that wall. That way, all other "shooting" conditions are adressed. ie, who the RP can assault, who his retinue shoots at, ect.
I would be ok with this power targeting a unit completely blocked by LOS, as long as a FAQ would state that it was a "target" unit. That way it would keep the RP from using jotww, then running off and assaulting another unit.
"Nothing is skipped."
What is skipped is the line stating that jotww is a psychic shooting attack. agreed, its confusing as hell and needs to be addressed as to why its there.
"JotWW may pass through terrain. It is not possible to see through terrain. Therefore, the general requirement of psychic shooting attacks that the psyker must be able to see his target has been modified by the Codex description of the power."
Based on two statements, you drew a logical conclusion. But it is a conclusion only- those two statements never claim to trump the first line of the powers description.
Ulimately this power comes down to an opinion, so lets agree to respect each others no matter how wrong yours is. ;)
Seriously, thank you for an gentmenly reply with good, solid, descriptions and supporting facts of your thought process. Its rare to see that these days.
I this is taken Verbatim from the Dex Am I safe to assume that the line MAY NOT pass through Vehicles? I does only say that it MAY pass through Terrain, but makes no mention of its ability to pass through any thing else that may stop a traced line.
"It can't be used on units in vehicles..." because they're not on the table thus not eligible to be shot at.
"...since the passengers inside can't shoot" What has the passengers' ability to shot got to do with them/their transport being a target?
Unless you meant to say "...be used BY...", which would then validate the entire sentence.