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

[AirHorse]

Em what half of what you wrote you dont even follow the rules for evaluation that you yourself have decided to use.

You say RAW there is no such thing as a ranged thunderhammer, where does it say there is no such thing as a ranged thunderhammer? Infact, if you read the spacewolf codex it infact says "foehammer is a thunderhammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile" which makes it pretty clear there is such thing as a ranged thunderhammer. I cant even be bothered to go into all these nonexistant conflicts, but most of your assumptions seem to be that there is no such thing in the rules, but you seem to forget that codices ADD to the rules they dont just tell you which rules you get to use.

And before you say oh but its a thunderhammer and a seperate ranged weapon read it again, the thunderhammer is still being used as a ranged weapon, the addition of a profile gives it the additional rules required over a normal thunderhammer to function as a ranged weapon. This does not exclude it from being a thunderhammer and therefore the rules for thunderhammers still apply to it, read what it says- "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."

Said this lots now and I am losing interest in saying it again so Im gonna finish my contribution to this thread by saying that any arguements of RAW cannot argue against foehammer having the thunderhammers abilities, that is EXACTLY how it is written.The arguement here really is if this is what gw intended since they also included another majorly powerful ability in the same codex that gains an awful lot from this and so comes down to RAI, and I whole heartedly agree that it probaly wasnt intended as it seems a tad hax to be sniping carifex and the like with your foehammer-jotww combos.

But you have to read the writting as its written, I thought this was rediculous until I read both sections myself, that is the way its written so you cant argue against it.

[Sam]

Thats a pretty duff example there though, a combi-weapon has two seperate profiles, and you are saying that one profile borrows rules from the other when they dont, you use the profile of the mode you are firing. A thunderhammers special rules are not part of a profile, it is an innate property of being a thunderhammer, wether or not you are using it in close combat or using a ranged profile.

If you want a comparison think of chaplain cassius' mastercrafted combi-flamer. The master crafted rule is not part of any profile, it is an innate property of the weapon. Just because you must use either the bolter or flamer profiles when you fire it does not mean that it loses this ability because its not written into the profile.

Awesome example!

No, it isn't. In this case a RANGED weapon was cited that uses two different RANGED profiles, but is still the same weapon. A better example would be if the mastercrafted combi-flamer allowed you to re-roll a failed to hit roll in close combat. Here's the kicker: IT DOESN'T. Its ranged abilities have no bearing on its assault capabilities, just as having a thunder hammer (which is by definition a close combat weapon) with a ranged ability does not cause said thunder hammer to confer its capabilities as a close combat weapon to its ranged attacks.

[dagonis]

AirHorse makes a great point, this is obviously not intended.

The profile including AP1 is an interesting choice as that gives it +1 on the vehicle damage chart. A thunder hammer doesn't have this attribute. GW could have added AP2 and kept the same effect as a thunder hammer. I personally believe that the inclusion of the AP1 makes it not act like a thunder hammer, thus no I1.

If you believe Foehammer is a ranged thunder hammer does it shaken a vehicle as well? Its profile is no different from a Tau rail gun (save for range) and that doesn't cause insta-shaken.

The wording of the Foehammer rule is abysmal.

"foehammer is a thunderhammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile"

I honestly believe that if GW wanted this to knock a target's I to 1 it would read

"Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with the following profile:"

I don't feel that the issue of the lightning claws has been resolved either.

Quick recap (correct me if I am wrong):
From the BRB "A lightning claw is a power weapon and it also allows the wielder to re-roll any failed roll to wound."
MVBrandt - This would read that a model (like Lucas for instance) would get to re-roll failed wounds because he has a lightning claw and the LC rules say nothing about failed wounds in CC, just failed wounds.
AirHorse - This is not the case because you are not wielding the LC against the victim of the shooting.
MVBrandt - Just because you don't shoot with the LC doesn't mean your cease to wield it.

"If you are wielding a sword and a dagger, you do not cease to be a wielder of a sword just because you are striking with a dagger."

I think that is a compelling argument. Close combat rules apply to close combat weapons, ranged rules apply to ranged weapons.

Power weapons aren't described as AP2, they say they ignore armor saves. I can find no reason they wouldn't be called AP2 as there is absolutely no difference between the two (that I am aware of).

BRB reads:
"blah blah blah... Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armour saves."

but it could just as easily read

"blah blah blah... Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon treat the wound as AP2."

[MVBrandt]

The long and short here is that the rules as written for Foehammer specifically state that it is treated as a ranged weapon with the following profile. The rule does not say "is a thunder hammer that can be thrown at range, and has the following profile." You may treat it as a ranged weapon, not as a "thunder hammer with range."

Beyond that, above examples about implications of applying special close combat weapon rules to all types of attacks, and not just close combat, breaks the game on a couple of obvious levels (i.e. lightning claws).

Foehammer certainly does not cause thunder hammer effects at range. It doesn't do it RAW, and it doesn't do it by the standards of special close combat weapons in general. I still, by the way, see the proponents replying to these comments with defenses that have nothing to do with the arguments against using it that way, also.

Replying to an argument that was never made doesn't make for correctness, it just makes you the most recent poster. I recognize that can count for a lot on a forum, but come on.

[entendre_entendre]

"foehammer is a thunderhammer that can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile"

my translation: foehammer is a thunderhammer in CC and has the following stats as a ranged attack. the "with the following profile" bit replaces any previous rules of the weapon may have had (ie. down to I1 when wounded/ shaking vehicles). if GW had wanted Foehammer to give the thunderhammer rule for the ranged attack, they would have written: "foehammer is a thunderhammer in close combat, and has the following ranged attack: (stats here). In addition, if the target is wounded by the ranged attack, they are at I1 for the rest of the turn. vehicles suffer crew shaken in addition to any other effects."

the weapons change of stats for the RA (namely the already mentioned AP1) are also interesting. am i mistaken or does Arjac have S5? if he doesn't (and if i am wrong here, please disregard this), then the RA for foehammer wouldn't be functioning as a thunderhammer in the first place, as it would more than double his strength, thus defeating any rules pertaining to TH's.

besides, you're transplanting rules from one section (which is sealed off BTW in the CLOSE COMBAT section of the MRB, not the shooting section) into a different one. this would make the LC example theoretically possible as well, and that possibility has been already argued about here, but does follow the same line of logic.

Conclusion: the weapon has two completely separate statlines. stop trying to take advantage of some wording that actually has no pertinence to the argument.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Let us forget Foehammer and the is it isn't it? circle. It is ambiguous enough that either side could be right. When the FAQ is written the "winners" will do a jig and say "I told you so, I told you so, I am so clever you should have listened to me because I am so clever, wasn't it obvious?". We are supposed to be mates, right? That was not supposed to be rude but I think we are getting carried away.

Anyway.

If someone survives a TH hit, they are reduced to i1 until the end of next player's turn. This IS clear even if it was not intended, as in for them to be picked out by a nifty shooting attack.

JotWW will remove them against an i1 dice roll.

The wound allocation is clear even if it is silly.
SCENARIO 1:
3 normal wounds + 2 PW wounds against 4 bolter marines and 1 flamer marine. 2 marines die & 3 saving throws are taken.
4 normal wounds + 2 PW wounds against 4 bolter marines and 1 flamer marine. The flamer marine dies "twice" and the 4 saving throws are taken.

It is clear even if it is silly.

TH explicitly lower i to 1. This is not ambiguous, even if you don't like it or it was not intended.

Preferred enemy usage is clear even if it is silly.
SCENARIO 2:
In cc each model attacks whole-heartedly with all attacks. Even if they will kill the Firewarriors and be drilled by the Tau gunline next turn. The intention is no pulling punches for your benefit.
Preferred enemy allows the attacker to re-roll to hit dice. Hits can be re-rolled. The Tau can be killed more slowly by accepting misses and taking re-rolls on the hits. This was not the intention but it is clear it is legitimate.

The preferred enemy usage is not ambiguous, even if you don't like it or it was not intended.

[dagonis]

I just want to say I have no malice toward any posters in this thread, I just like to argue the rules a bit.

I don't think that even if it knocks I down to 1 that is it totally game breaking, but it is cheese. I think that we can all agree with that.

Arjac is Str5, so the Str 10 hit makes sense, but the AP1 portion doesn't fit with the TH rules.

Any pro-ranged TH posters want to address that?

[MVBrandt]

You cannot apply special close combat weapon rules to ranged attacks.
The thunder hammer is not used at range, it is used "as a ranged weapon," with a set profile, by the very wording of the rule.

Using special close combat weapon rules with ranged attacks would also break lightning claws.

These are all true.

Continuing to argue points that have nothing to do with those 3 issues (like saying utterly pointless things such as READ THE THUNDER HAMMER RULE SEE IT DOESN'T SAY CLOSE COMBAT) is pointless.

I certainly will not play with nor allow in my tourneys/events it to be played that Arjac's ranged attacks can do this, it's not RAW or sensible.


To wit, as explanation, here is what I am attempting to say:

I and others have made points that acknowledge a couple of key things:

Arjac is throwing a thunder hammer.
Arjac's ranged attack is being made with a thunder hammer.
Thunder hammers do not specify "close combat" in their specific subentry in the Special Close Combat Weapons section of the BRB.

We then go on to make arguments stating that Arjac's thunder hammer does not apply its I reduction when used at range ANYWAY.

The responses so far, and in the tactica on the bols frontpage as well by Mkerr, are ....

BUT HE'S THROWING A THUNDER HAMMER
BUT THE RANGED ATTACK IS BEING MADE WITH A THUNDER HAMMER
BUT THE THUNDER HAMMERS DON'T SPECIFY CLOSE COMBAT IN THEIR SUBENTRY
RE-READ THE THUNDER HAMMER RULE

caps used to delineate, not to "internet shout"

As such, the responses to at least my argument are simply arguing with me about things I'm OPENLY CONCEDING. It's shadow boxing. Stop it, turn around, I'm right behind you.

Here is an analogy for what is happening:

Bad Arguer: THIS MAN AS KILLED BY A SHOTGUN!
MVBrandt: This man was definitely killed by a gun, you're totally right that a shotgun is a gun, but it cannot have been a shotgun, the caliber is not right!
Bad Arguer: BUT A SHOTGUN IS A GUN, DUDE. SEE, I'M RIGHT.
MVBrandt: /Facepalm

[Javin]

I would certainly not agree that the Foehammer gets free bonus abilities like reducing Initiative.

If used it the thrown hammer has an entirely different profile. Its no longer a Thunder hammer but another weapon entirely with new abilities (ap1).

I use RAW as my back up. If the weapon is thrown it has X abilities if it is used as a TH then it has X abilities.

But in the end about 9 years from now (when the new squats codex comes out, long before the DE one GW will FAQ it and all be revealed.

[The Mystic]

Thunder hammers do not specify "close combat" in their specific subentry in the Special Close Combat Weapons section of the BRB.

You are absolutly correct in this and to further support your arguement the is something that is stated in the Thunderhanmmer CC rules.

It states " A thunder hammer uses the same rules as a powerfist."

So lets have a look at the Powerfist CC rules. It states " A power fist is a power weapon, and also doubles the user's Strength.".

So when broken down the reason why it is not specified is because it is specified in the power weapons CC rules as a Thunder hammer is, RAW, a power weapon with additional rules applied during CC. The same is applied to lightning claws as they are power weapons with additional rules.

Hope that makes sense.....