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

[nojinx]

But is not the restrictive aspect of the relative clause limited to the relationship of the clause to the direct object? Yes, the clause modifies the object, but the nature of the modification in question cannot be derived from the restrictive relationship between the two. It must be drawn from the syntactic meaning of the phrase (direct object + clause) itself, right? The restrictive aspect only identifies the object modified. So, to accept your premise, we have to feel confident that the phrase "a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile..." cannot be interpreted otherwise. So we would need an argument that is based on something in the meaning of the phrase and not on the direct relationship between the object and clause. The relationship is called out, but the meaning is not part of the restrictive association - rather the association gives us a start point to seek the meaning.

I did not see a reference to bolters on page 42. Addressing your point, it seems that two types of weapons are cleary called out in the rules: "weapons" and "close combat weapons". Weapons are described on page 27, where we see some defining statements:
"Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example...", after which a boltgun profile is shown.
"In addition to its type, a weapon may have some additional characteristics that define the way they work. These are added to the weapon type in the weapon's profile, and include characteristics like 'gets hot!' or 'blast'. A weapon may have any number of these characterstics in addition to its type."

So, per the rules, we know that additional characteristics (beyond 'type'), if applicable, are added to the weapon type in the profile. Would this not exclude any description or definition of a weapon's aspect that is not listed as part of its profile (i.e. written into the prose text)?

I'll understand if this is tedious or you think I am missing some obvious point and don't wish to continue. I just have a fascination with these discussions. Cheers.

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

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

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

Because I is not part of a ranged attack, the change to the I value is irrelevant when using Foehammer as a ranged weapon. Read a few posts before yours and you'll see a good explanation by Nabterayl of what aspects of the TH would be included in the ranged attack.

[Nabterayl]

HsojVvad, the normal thunder hammer rules can be found on page 42 of the main rulebook. As you can see, a thunder hammer is a power fist that also reduces the initiative of anybody it wounds but doesn't kill to 1 for the next turn. Hence, thunder hammers attack at I1, but if they wound somebody, that person will also strike at I1 next turn, so the thunder hammer and its wounded victim will strike simultaneously. Pretty straightforward.

The controversy is the fact that Foehammer (from the new Space Wolves codex) is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon. The question is this: when used as a ranged weapon, does this particular thunder hammer still reduce its victims' Initiative to 1? There are three major positions, which I am enormously simplifying for ease of reference (even my own):

1. Yes, it still reduces the enemy's Initiative, because page 42 says thunder hammers do that to "all models that suffer an unsaved wound," not all models that suffer an unsaved wound in close combat only. This is the position that I advocate.
2. No, it doesn't reduce the enemy's Initiative, because the ranged weapon profile doesn't specifically say that it is still a thunder hammer when used as a ranged weapon.
3. No, it doesn't reduce the enemy's Initiative, because even though page 42 doesn't specify that the Initiative-reducing effect only works in close combat, we should infer that it only works in close combat because it appears under the "close combat weapons" section of the rulebook.

[Nabterayl]

But is not the restrictive aspect of the relative clause limited to the relationship of the clause to the direct object? Yes, the clause modifies the object, but the nature of the modification in question cannot be derived from the restrictive relationship between the two. It must be drawn from the syntactic meaning of the phrase (direct object + clause) itself, right? The restrictive aspect only identifies the object modified. So, to accept your premise, we have to feel confident that the phrase "a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile..." cannot be interpreted otherwise. So we would need an argument that is based on something in the meaning of the phrase and not on the direct relationship between the object and clause. The relationship is called out, but the meaning is not part of the restrictive association - rather the association gives us a start point to seek the meaning.

Yes, this is true. The grammatical point is unambiguous, but it doesn't take us all the way. In my opinion, the key point (really, the only point) that the grammar clears up is that Foehammer is not two weapons in a single object (a thunder hammer, and a generic "ranged weapon"). The thunder hammer itself is, unambiguously, a ranged weapon. What remains to be determined at that point is what properties that ranged weapon has.

I did not see a reference to bolters on page 42. Addressing your point, it seems that two types of weapons are cleary called out in the rules: "weapons" and "close combat weapons". Weapons are described on page 27, where we see some defining statements:
"Every weapon has a profile that consists of several elements, for example...", after which a boltgun profile is shown.

I'm referring to the following statements:

"Weapons like chainswords, rifle butts, combat blades, bayonets, etc., do not confer any particular bonus to the model using them."

Of course, if a model is using a two-handed close combat weapon (such as a rifle's butt or a two-handed battle axe), it may not use it together with another weapon."

The most natural way to read these two statements, in my view, is to say that ranged weapons may indeed be used as close combat weapons. A special close combat weapon is simply one that confers a benefit to the model when "used." That is, both bolters and lasguns can be used in close combat, but because neither of them specifically mentions any kind of close combat benefit, they confer none (unless of course we're dealing with a special case such as True Grit).

If it is true that a "weapon" such as a lasgun can be used in close combat, I see no reason why a "close combat weapon" such as a thunder hammer could not be used in ranged combat. As page 27 states, a "weapon" must have a range, a Strength, an AP, and a Type. Most "close combat weapons" have none of those things, so they cannot be "weapons" within the meaning of page 27. But if we came across a close combat weapon that did have each of those things, on what basis would we say it is not a "weapon" within the meaning of page 27? Surely not on the basis that one is either a "close combat weapon" or a "weapon." There is no such exclusivity, as the two quotes I provided above demonstrate.

So, per the rules, we know that additional characteristics (beyond 'type'), if applicable, are added to the weapon type in the profile. Would this not exclude any description or definition of a weapon's aspect that is not listed as part of its profile (i.e. written into the prose text)?

That is certainly the natural reading, yes. But if that is so, then many weapons have been changed rather drastically in 5th edition. The following are a few examples:

• The Tau cyclic ion blaster, which mentions in the long-form description that rolls to wound of 6 count as AP1 - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
• The eldar singing spear, which mentions in the long-form description that it has Strength 9 against vehicles - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
• The eldar wraithcannon and D-cannon, each of which mention in the long-form description that rolls to wound of 6 inflict Instant Death - but make no mention of this in the weapon profile.
• The space marine cyclone launcher, which mentions in the long-form description that it may be fired together with a storm bolter - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.

Each of these four examples (there are others, but I think they make the point) alters the way their weapons "work" (to use page 27's phrase). None of them are mentioned in the weapon profile. Surely we are not to conclude that, because they are not included in the weapon profile, they are to be ignored?

[nojinx]

If it is true that a "weapon" such as a lasgun can be used in close combat, I see no reason why a "close combat weapon" such as a thunder hammer could not be used in ranged combat.

This seems a fallacy to me. How is the converse inferred from the known fact?

Note that we do have ranged weapon that is specifically called out as counting as an close combat weapon in the assault phase: the pistol. Would we say that the - just throwing this out there - that the pistol, when used in close combat, cannot be saved against with 5+ or 6+ armor saves because it is defined as an AP 5 weapon? "...a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." Pg 29

That is certainly the natural reading, yes. But if that is so, then many weapons have been changed rather drastically in 5th edition. The following are a few examples:

• The Tau cyclic ion blaster, which mentions in the long-form description that rolls to wound of 6 count as AP1 - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
• The eldar singing spear, which mentions in the long-form description that it has Strength 9 against vehicles - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.
• The eldar wraithcannon and D-cannon, each of which mention in the long-form description that rolls to wound of 6 inflict Instant Death - but make no mention of this in the weapon profile.
• The space marine cyclone launcher, which mentions in the long-form description that it may be fired together with a storm bolter - but makes no mention of this in the weapon profile.

Each of these four examples (there are others, but I think they make the point) alters the way their weapons "work" (to use page 27's phrase). None of them are mentioned in the weapon profile. Surely we are not to conclude that, because they are not included in the weapon profile, they are to be ignored?

It seems something has to be ignored: either the cyclone rule in the text of the SM codex, or the general definition of what a weapon is in the BRB. The two are logically irreconcilable. Generally speaking, though, I think a codex entry trumps a BRB entry, right? So if the form of presentation of something in a codex differs from what the BRB tells us it should be, we must assign authority to the codex entry. This supports the viability of the precedence you point out.

The other examples you quoted can be written off to being published prior to the 5th Ed. BRB, but I would guess that the Cyclone launcher is not the only example of a weapon with rules described outside the profile entry published since 5th's release.

[Nabterayl]

This seems a fallacy to me. How is the converse inferred from the known fact?

The converse cannot be so inferred, but this isn't necessarily a situation of inferring the converse. If the contention is, "An item of wargear can be a 'weapon' or a 'close combat weapon,' but not both," then it is sufficient to point out that a bolter or lasgun is also a close combat weapon.

Note that we do have ranged weapon that is specifically called out as counting as an close combat weapon in the assault phase: the pistol. Would we say that the - just throwing this out there - that the pistol, when used in close combat, cannot be saved against with 5+ or 6+ armor saves because it is defined as an AP 5 weapon? "...a pistol counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." Pg 29

I don't think so, no. The AP is a characteristic of the pistol, which are not the characteristics we check against in close combat. If you take a careful look at the power weapon rules, for instance, you'll see that a power weapon modifies the model's characteristics. Strictly speaking, it is the model, and not the weapon, that makes the attack in close combat - even if the model is "using" a particular weapon.

It seems something has to be ignored: either the cyclone rule in the text of the SM codex, or the general definition of what a weapon is in the BRB. The two are logically irreconcilable. Generally speaking, though, I think a codex entry trumps a BRB entry, right? So if the form of presentation of something in a codex differs from what the BRB tells us it should be, we must assign authority to the codex entry. This supports the viability of the precedence you point out.

I agree with this line of reasoning. Carrying it further, the space wolf codex presents two rules (the Initiative-reducing rule and the Crew Shaken-inflicting rule), both of which apply by their terms to shooting attacks, and both of which appear in the long-form description of the weapon but not in the profile. Using the logic you suggest, we would apply the two rules to the shooting attack even though they don't appear in the profile, right?

[nojinx]

The converse cannot be so inferred, but this isn't necessarily a situation of inferring the converse. If the contention is, "An item of wargear can be a 'weapon' or a 'close combat weapon,' but not both," then it is sufficient to point out that a bolter or lasgun is also a close combat weapon.

Technically, bolters and lasguns are not close combat weapons in any way that is meaningful to the rules system. The descriptive text that mentions those things does not appear to have any affect on the rules. If you take a bolter away from a marine, the marine will still have the same attack characteristic. Even if we concede the idea that bolters can be used as close combat weapons, how does that prove we can use close combat weapons as weapons?

We do have one weapon type which is specifically called out as usable as a close combat weapon in assault: the pistol. We do also have example of close combat weapons that can be used as weapons. Foehammer, however you interpret it, is one. Deathsceamer from the CSM codex is another. I think Foehammer is the first one we have seen where an aspect of the close combat weapon can functionally carry over to the weapon form. Hence the general confusion.

I don't think so, no. The AP is a characteristic of the pistol, which are not the characteristics we check against in close combat. If you take a careful look at the power weapon rules, for instance, you'll see that a power weapon modifies the model's characteristics. Strictly speaking, it is the model, and not the weapon, that makes the attack in close combat - even if the model is "using" a particular weapon.

That makes sense. Technically, the model "makes the attack" in shooting also. The other parameters (after the attempt to hit) come from the weapon profile and not the model's.

So, I think what is being said here is that all close combat weapons affect the involved model. All specific aspects not withstanding, those effects come into play at all times - i.e. there is nothing that specifies effects of close combat weapons as being limited to close combat (unless limited specifically, which most are).

I think the point about lightning claws in relation to this dynamic has been mentioned (or is obvious), right? Or maybe that was FAQ'ed?

I agree with this line of reasoning. Carrying it further, the space wolf codex presents two rules (the Initiative-reducing rule and the Crew Shaken-inflicting rule), both of which apply by their terms to shooting attacks, and both of which appear in the long-form description of the weapon but not in the profile. Using the logic you suggest, we would apply the two rules to the shooting attack even though they don't appear in the profile, right?

Yes, if one agrees with your understanding of that object + relative clause. That's where I keep stumbling.

Thanks for your willingness to banter with me.

[Nabterayl]

Technically, bolters and lasguns are not close combat weapons in any way that is meaningful to the rules system. The descriptive text that mentions those things does not appear to have any affect on the rules. If you take a bolter away from a marine, the marine will still have the same attack characteristic. Even if we concede the idea that bolters can be used as close combat weapons, how does that prove we can use close combat weapons as weapons?

Well, again, it depends on what the contention is. If the contention is that weapons have to be one or the other, plainly that is wrong, and the fact that bolters and lasguns are described as two-handed normal CCWs is one way to demonstrate it. Pistols are another way to demonstrate it.

If the contention is just, "close combat weapons cannot be used as weapons," that's another issue, and would have to be addressed in a different way.

So, I think what is being said here is that all close combat weapons affect the involved model. All specific aspects not withstanding, those effects come into play at all times - i.e. there is nothing that specifies effects of close combat weapons as being limited to close combat (unless limited specifically, which most are).

Yes, that is exactly what I contend.

I think the point about lightning claws in relation to this dynamic has been mentioned (or is obvious), right? Or maybe that was FAQ'ed?

This was brought up earlier, and it's a reasonable thing to question. In keeping with my general contention about how "weapons" and "close combat weapons" work, I'd look to the precise wording of the lightning claw rules:

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

There are two important words there, which I have italicized. The word "any," by itself, would imply that a model armed with pistol and lightning claw could re-roll failed rolls to wound from his pistol.

Note, however, the word "wielder." A model making a shooting attack with a pistol is not "wielding" his lightning claw, even if he has a lightning claw clutched in his other hand. "Wielding" in the context of page 42 pretty clearly means "making the attack with." Consider, for instance, a model armed with both a thunder hammer and a lightning claw. If such a model attacked in close combat with its thunder hammer, it would not be allowed to re-roll failed rolls to wound. Why? Because the model is not "wielding" the lightning claw - it is "wielding" the thunder hammer. This same principle would apply to shooting attacks as well.

Yes, if one agrees with your understanding of that object + relative clause. That's where I keep stumbling.

Maybe I don't understand your grammatical difficulty, then. Are you asking whether the relative clause could refer to a noun other than "thunder hammer?" If that is your question, the answer is unambiguously no, and that's just a rule of English grammar. Not many people are taught English grammar at that level of depth these days, alas, but it is the rule even so.