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

[Nabterayl]

Question for you, hisdudeness: if a chem cannon* hits a T1 model, what are the odds of the chem cannon wounding the model? 5/6, or 35/36? I'd say 35/36 - would you say 5/6?

* Profile: Template S1 AP3 Heavy 1 Poisoned (2+)*
* Against targets with a Toughness value, hits from a chem cannon will always wound on a roll of 2+

[DarkLink]

You really should follow your own advice.

It looks like everyone dissenting in this thread see the efforts of yourself, The OP and a few others as manipulation of a line of text to justify an extremely far-out there interpretation of the rules.

The existence of a description of the weapon doesn't give it qualities outside of the normal phase it was meant to have. In fact, the shooting attack isn't a thrown thunderhammer. It's a shooting attack with a profile for you to reference. It's an abstract approximation of what the developers thought a "thrown" weapon should achieve in the shooting phase. If the weapon was meant to stun, it would have a side-note in the profile. Or even something like "Strength 10 - AP1 - *Thunderhammer".

The rest is just fluff. You can't just go around modifying rules because it "makes sense". That's not the rules as written, or even intended - just wish-listing. Don't be an idiot.

Wait, did you call me an idiot? Way to be polite in a rules argument. I was having fun arguing over this until now.

Anyways, mkerr read certain key rules. From those rules, he came to a logical conclusion, that Foehammer stuns while shooting. I and a few others have come to support this argument, because we believe it is correct. If you want to think it's because we're a bunch of cheaters, go ahead.

Now, if you can find a flaw in the logic we use, or perhaps a misquoted rule that the argument is based on, point it out. Mkerr has presented his argument quite throughly. Because the argument still stands, some of us have come to accept it as correct, and the burden of proof, or in this case disproof, rests on the shoulders of those who don't agree with the argument.

So if you want to argue, show a little more maturity and actually present an alternative argument, instead of insulting people, accusing them of cheating, and simply stating that they're wrong because the argument isn't that popular. Popularity doesn't matter. Rules do.

Or, you can just houserule it to ensure that the argument is wrong. You and your gaming group has every right to do that.

[Bikeninja]

I know this is beating the proverbial dead horse but it reads to me"it's a thunderhammer". It gets all that a thunderhammer does AND the throwing stuff. That is not a stretch to me. I does not have to say "it lowers the initiative" because it says its a Thunderhammer and in the Thnuderhammer description it says if it does a wound then it lowers the iniative.

What I have gathered from this debate? If and when I play and this comes up, I'm letting my opponent decide. I think Mkerr reading is spot on and is correct. He (in my opinion)is not reading into anything but taking it as RAW. That is just me.

If we allowed ourselves to get into the RAW and RAI of everything people seem to take issue with then we would never get to play. Dirty trick, absolutely. Hard to pull off yep, gonna pull this on some a**hat powergamers for certain and watch them squirm. Or watch it fail and suffer another demoralizing defeat.

But that is just me!

[PhoenixFlame]

Basing an argument on grammar is stretching it, more so with GW poor editing skills.

Which is why this won't be settled until theres a faq/errata out to clear it up. Editing applies just as much to things like placement of sentences and structure of chapters/paragraphs/sentences.

For a direct example of this check out the rules listing for Power of the Machine Spirit

1. The interface between a Land Raider's machine spirit and tis fire control mechanisms allow the crew to target with incredible accuracy.
2. A Land Raider can fire one more weapon than would normally be permitted. In addition, this weapon can be fired at a different target unit to any other weapons, subject to the normal rules for shooting.
3. Therefore, a Land Raider that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons, and a Land Raider that has either moved at cruising speed, or has suffered a crew stunned or crew shaken result can fire a single weapon.

Now consider the wording of the rules from the BRB regarding Ramming and/or Smoke Launchers.
Neither of which are in the USR section of the book but both of which apply outside of their given phase. Add the ruling that Codex rules supersede core rules and you've got quite a few questions.
Some say only the 2nd paragraph is actual rules text leaving the 3rd as a list of examples outlining the type of uses PotMS can be put too. Others read it as 2 & 3 are both solid rules paragraphs with 3 being a list limiting the types of uses open to the player employing PotMS. With the first paragraph of the rules entry for PotMS clearly being fluff not hard rules text it becomes questionable which view is accurate (I have my opinion but that's not the point).

It could be argued that since RAW states both "foehammer is a thunderhammer" and 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." It is bluntly stated that thunderhammer effects apply. Since Codex rules > Core Rules and the only Codex rules we have to go by state it IS a thunderhammer & that it "can be used as a ranged weapon". Hence by RAW there is no room for debate since all other examples are being drawn from rules sources outside Codex: Space Wolves and thus have no jurisdiction to over rule anything printed there in.

Now, as stated in my prior post I can see how some players have objections to that reading of the rules. I can even see enough of a case for it that I wouldn't be too shocked if GW puts out a faq saying "nope, can't use TH special effects when throwing" (tho honestly I expect it to go the other way since it's a named model and not a game braking effect). The point I'm making here is that it's a bit over the top as far as I can tell to say that someone else is intentionally twisting the rules simply because they read it another way and have reasons for that. If it were a game breaking effect, then perhaps, there would be more reason to get heated over it. However since it's not unbalancing (in fact I'm not even sure it qualifies as effective on balance when all the special conditions to even do it are factored in on top of the points cost) I really don't see the case for exploitation.

2c
Phoenix

[The Mystic]

I think the point is that the thunder hammer rule itself does not restrict itself to close combat. For instance, consider the witchblade rule, which says "all hits scored in close combat by models armed with a witchblade inflict wounds on a roll of 2+," or the power weapons rule, which says "Models wounded in close combat by the attacks of a model armed with a power weapon are not allowed armour saves."

By contrast, the thunder hammer rule says simply "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." The rulebook never says that thunder hammers only work in close combat, the way it does with a number of other special CCW types. It isn't a question of the thunder hammer rule being "extended" to ranged combat. It's a question of why the thunder hammer rule should be restricted to close combat.

Yes, but you are also forgetting one important line in the thunder hammer rule:

"A thunder hammer uses the same rules as a power fist."

In the power fist rule it says:

"A power fist is a power weapon, and also doubles the user's Strength (upto a maximum of10)."

So, a power fist is a power weapon and uses it's rules and a thunder hammer uses the rules of a powerfist.

Therefore a thunder hammer is a power weapon also and will use it's rules aswell as it's additional rules.

The thunder hammer rules are not stand alone rules, but simpley the power weapon rules with additions piled on top.

[hisdudeness]

@Nabterayl:

Where did you learn stat? Base probability (with all outcomes being equally likely) is # of required outcome over the # of outcomes in the sample space. For a roll of a d6 with X being the required outcome (this case a 2+) the sample space is {1,2,3,4,5,6}. While the required outcome is {2,3,4,5,6}. Thus P(x>=2) = 5/6. You will have to enlighten me on your math.

@bikeninja:

Yes it is a thunder hammer. But the game mechanic <thunder hammer> has no effect outside of CC. Show me a rule that permits the mechanic to apply outside of stated phase and I will give you a cookie. RAW does not say it does, so it does not. That is how permissive rules work.

@PhoenixFlame:

That is correct: only FAQ/errata will give us the RAI, until then we use RAW.

You have lost me on the smoke launcher/ramming. Both specifically state how/WHEN the mechanic functions.

The TH rules do not state it can be used outside of CC thus it is not permitted to be used outside of CC. Once you use it as a ranged weapon Foehammer stops being a CCW and does not use CCW rules. That is RAW, it does not state it can be used as a ranged weapon with the thunder hammer rules, it states it can be used as a ranged weapon with the stated profile. I do not see a note adding thunder hammer rules to the profile.

Look at it this way. You have a CC ‘profile’ given in the rules as “..is a thunder hammer..” and a ranged profile as given. Foehammer is 2 different weapons (rule wise) depending on how it is used. By your thinking I can mix and match combi weapon profiles. Thus giving me a 24” S8 AP1 Rapid Fire, melta (that can be used once) combi-melta.

I think the lighting claw example is perfect. I will put a lighting claw on my captains with stormbolter so I can “re-roll ANY failed roll to wound.” when I shoot with my SB. By RAW (and your thinking) it is allowed as I see nothing in the rules that say the mechanic only works in CC.

[The Mystic]

@Nabterayl:
I think the lighting claw example is perfect. I will put a lighting claw on my captains with stormbolter so I can “re-roll ANY failed roll to wound.” when I shoot with my SB. By RAW (and your thinking) it is allowed as I see nothing in the rules that say the mechanic only works in CC.

Actually there is:

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

The key here, aswell as with the Thunder hammer, is that these weapons are power weapons and are governed by the power weapon rules as to what phase there wounds apply.

Power weapons and the wounds they cause are governed by close combat which only occurs in the assualt phase.

Did'nt mean to nitpick but this supports my view and I believe supports yours aswell.

[MVBrandt]

It is funny that this is still going on, and that no actual answer has been posted even now to the lightning claw argument. Also, "hisdudeness" looks to be getting as frustrated with responses not answering his argument as I was.

For the mods of BOLS, it seems apparent this thread has fallen into the world of stubborn internet incongruent argument, no?

Arguing in the box of "IT'S A THUNDAR HAMMAR SO IT DOES THUNDAR HAMMAR THINGS!!11111111111111" is absurdly funny.

[mkerr]

It is funny that this is still going on, and that no actual answer has been posted even now to the lightning claw argument. Also, "hisdudeness" looks to be getting as frustrated with responses not answering his argument as I was.

I've addressed the lightning claw example in post [URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=32172&postcount=52"]#52[/URL] and post [URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=32257&postcount=55"]#55[/URL]. Not liking my answer is not the same thing as "not anwering".

I'm sure there are frustrated people on both sides of the argument, but that's no excuse for namecalling.

[MVBrandt]

You're such an mkerr, mkerr. How's that for name calling?

It's not that I didn't like your lightning claw argument, it's that it was non-responsive. I actually kind of like your argument, b/c it nullifies your thunder hammer argument. But hold off on that thought for a moment. The first thought is - your argument is not an answer to mine b/c it isn't responsive to the point I'm making, at all. You just talk about the same subject (lightning claws). You don't address the specific point about them I'm trying to illustrate.

You stated that the re-roll to wound rule fell under the Lightning Claw Section. That's non-responsive.

The rule itself simply states that wielding a lightning claw confers a re-roll ANY to wound upon the bearer. It does not specify that it is attacks with the lightning claw, or even close combat attacks, which re-roll to wound.

Therefore, in order to be responsive to the argument, you need to actually address the rule, not simply the fact that it falls under a certain section. If you can simply argue that something doesn't work because it falls under a section, then we instantly go back to the fact that thunder hammer special rules fall under the special CLOSE COMBAT weapon section, and so are non-functional at range.

You can't have it both ways, in other words.

The very nature of the lightning claw rule, AS WRITTEN, renders wielders of lightning claws able to re-roll ANY roll to wound from ANY weapon at range or in combat, *so long as* "Special Close Combat Weapon" rules are allowed to apply to ranged attacks.

So, to wit, again, it's not answering the argument when you don't respond to the actual argument. If someone goes "the sky is blue, therefore blue is the color of the sky," you are not answering the argument by saying "did you know that the sky contains air?" In other words, simply replying does not mean you are answering. It just means you're talking about the same subject.

The frustration I at the least am feeling at this thread, is that responses to legit arguments are not being made, with instead people simply answering arguments that are slightly different, but about basically the same subjects, so as to be correct.