arjac rockfist questions

[DarkLink]

If your "common sense" leads you to believe a TH will magically stop acting as a TH because GW sucks at clarifying rules, then you really need to re-evaluate how much "sense" you really have. Your opinion reeks of WAAC.

Anyways, I think you guys missed DarkLink's point. This has ALREADY been discussed, and the answer is clear. I think it goes without saying that another 20 pages of troll-**** isn't necessary?

Right. This has already been discussed. A clear answer has already been found. Read the thread that I linked to, and you'll find that JWolf very early on presents an argument that explains "yes, Foehammer does stun its target when thrown".

JWolf's argument is never disproven, despite 20+ pages of fervent argument. A lot of people rail against, it, and refused to believe it, but the could find absolutely no justification in the rules to claim that Foehammer does not stun its target.





And Leez, as I've already said, there are many examples of weapons that have rules outside their shooting profile. And I'm not talking about just rending or something. From the last page of the old thread, here are some 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.

All of these weapons have properties that, if you only used their profile, would not be used. Just looking at these examples makes it crystal clear that even if Foehammer does not note in its profile that it stuns its target, that means nothing. It does not lose the rule.

[Old_Paladin]

There was a massive argument over the first point. By RAW Arjac does indeed stun his targets. There is absolutely nothing that makes Arjac's Thunderhammer stop being a Thunderhammer when he throws it.

Accept, that RAW, the thunderhammer special rule is listed under close combat weapon rules and only applies to wounds done in close combat.

Unless we also think that a lightning claw allows you to re-roll wounds with your stormbolter or plasma pistol; because a lighning claw says "re-roll all wounds," not re-roll wounds in close combat.

And blood angel players will be happy to know that their inferno pistols give them the melta special rules in close combat with vehicles; since its clear that they don't lose the melta rule in melee, you just wouldn't count the strength and AP. Nothing makes it stop being both a melta weapon and a close combat weapon.


Or we can read the big 'ol rulebook and realize that "ranged weapon types" are only for ranged attacks and "melee weapon types" are only applied for melee.

[Leez]

Right. This has already been discussed. A clear answer has already been found. Read the thread that I linked to, and you'll find that JWolf very early on presents an argument that explains "yes, Foehammer does stun its target when thrown".

JWolf's argument is never disproven, despite 20+ pages of fervent argument. A lot of people rail against, it, and refused to believe it, but the could find absolutely no justification in the rules to claim that Foehammer does not stun its target.

And Leez, as I've already said, there are many examples of weapons that have rules outside their shooting profile. And I'm not talking about just rending or something. From the last page of the old thread, here are some examples;

All of these weapons have properties that, if you only used their profile, would not be used. Just looking at these examples makes it crystal clear that even if Foehammer does not note in its profile that it stuns its target, that means nothing. It does not lose the rule.

Having gone through half the thread you linked and already grown tired of the endless repetition and talking past instead of with one another and with both sides being "clearly" right. I'm left wondering if the later half is worth reading. I don't think you'll be surprised when I say I agree with MVPBrandt so far.

No one in this thread, myself included, has added to the old on in even the slightest, so I find little point in continuing here until there is something new. Just one question, who in that thread is JWolf?

At least this isn't a terribly pressing issue. Arjac Rockfist is a ridiculous waste of points.

[DarkLink]

Personally I've always viewed individuals that add things to rules or out right make them up so as to gain advantage as "reeking" of WAAC. A particularly indicative behaviour of the WAAC player is the attempt to claim the moral high ground of "common sense" and then proceed to badger those that don't agree with them because "the answer is clear". A frequent insult used by the WAAC player is to call the other person the WAAC player followed often by then dismissing them as a niggling Rules-Lawyers.

Something about casting stones springs to mind.

When has anyone in this thread insulted someone else, or accused them of rules lawyering or being a WAAC player. Except for you, right here.

Ok, so you didn't insult anyone. But in this comment is sounds as if you're saying "I may or may not be right, but anyone who disagrees with me is a dirty, filthy WAAC player, so it doesn't really matter".

Unless we also think that a lightning claw allows you to re-roll wounds with your stormbolter or plasma pistol; because a lighning claw says "re-roll all wounds," not re-roll wounds in close combat.

A storm bolter or plasma pistol is not a lightning claw, thus there is no reason why you would be able to reroll wounds caused by the bolter/pistol.

Foehammer is, however, a thunderhammer. This is explicitly stated. And anytime a Thunderhammer causes a wound, it stuns its target. Thus, if Foehammer wounds its target, it stuns it, and there is nothing that prevents this from happening when using Foehammer as a ranged attack.

And blood angel players will be happy to know that their inferno pistols give them the melta special rules in close combat with vehicles; since its clear that they don't lose the melta rule in melee, you just wouldn't count the strength and AP. Nothing makes it stop being both a melta weapon and a close combat weapon.

Inferno pistols, and other shooting weapons, don't use their special effects in CC, as you aren't shooting it, you're just clubbing them on the head. They simply grant +1 A in close combat, as per RAW. However, when a Thunderhammer stuns its opponent, all it needs to do is cause a wound. There's nothing to limit this to close combat, other than the fact that Thunderhammers normally can't be used as a ranged attack.

If a thunderhammer causes a wound, it stuns its opponents. There's nothing that says this applies only to CC, anywhere.

Or we can read the big 'ol rulebook and realize that "ranged weapon types" are only for ranged attacks and "melee weapon types" are only applied for melee.

But there's no actual rule that says that. Anywhere. You made it up.

Now, when you use a ranged weapon in cc, you don't use its shooting profile. But there's nothing that prevents you from using the cc effects of a ccw when you are using that ccw as a ranged weapon, with the exception of the fact that almost no ccws can be used as ranged weapons.

Having gone through half the thread you linked and already grown tired of the endless repetition and talking past instead of with one another and with both sides being "clearly" right. I'm left wondering if the later half is worth reading. I don't think you'll be surprised when I say I agree with MVPBrandt so far.

No one in this thread, myself included, has added to the old on in even the slightest, so I find little point in continuing here until there is something new.

Right, there's no point in having another endless, circular argument. Though only one side had actual rules to back up their arugment.

Just one question, who in that thread is JWolf?

Oops, not JWolf. Mkerr. My bad.

[Old_Paladin]

As for the lightning claw it doesn't say attacks from/by the claw or attacks in close combat; it actually says "any wounds by a model that has a claw," a wound by a bolter from a model that also has a claw would qualify (it both caused a wound and has a claw).
Of course, it's also silly; no one should even do it; but poor wording isn't a justification. That's my point.

I can understand peoples point about the hammer (and it should probably have the rule), but ranged and melee wepons are different.
If the profile was Range:x Strength:y AP:z *assault 1, thunderhammer
or if it had a wargear section with a long-form discription, like every other special weapon you said was similar.

There are only two special categories that affect both melee and ranged: rending and poison.
But it is always clear: such as a assault cannon having assault4, rending.
And in all those cases, it only applies to one style of fighting, rending on a gun doesn't allow rending in melee (or vice versa), and a poison knife doesn't give you a poison shotgun.


And fankly, the rules tells us only what we CAN do; if it's not stated directly, we don't do it. The thrown version does not tell us we can add special rules; it needs to be treated as anyother ranged weapons profile. It doesn't have a special short-form rule in it profile, and it doesn't have a long-form discription that says that all normal thunderhammer rules also apply at range.

I personally find it funny that you say a melta pistol isn't melta in combat, but a thunderhammer is a thunderhammer if thrown.
The rules actually state that we only ignore strength and AP (the reason we should ignore special rules is because it fails to tell us we can use them [so we shouldn't]), likewise when the hammer is given a gun profile, we treat it as a gun (since the gun-type profile isn't saying additionally use these specific special rules).
At the very least, give the consession to the enemy that you'll work out all other shooting effects for his squad first and then throw the hammer (as it's like he's striking last, just like a powerfist; and you're trying to use all the rules for a thunderhammer, not just trying to pick and choose).

[Leez]

When has anyone in this thread insulted someone else, or accused them of rules lawyering or being a WAAC player. Except for you, right here.

Ok, so you didn't insult anyone. But in this comment is sounds as if you're saying "I may or may not be right, but anyone who disagrees with me is a dirty, filthy WAAC player, so it doesn't really matter".

I think he and I manged to not so subtly imply the other is a WAAC player. What I do mean in the end though is that being or not being a rules lawyer and/or WAAC has nothing whatsoever to do with being right or wrong. I understood him to think otherwise because he choose to address me instead of my reasoning. I guess he took "make sure you figure out who the WAAC player is first." from a prior post personally.

[Lerra]

Coincidentally, this makes Jaws amazing for killing creatures

Just an FYI, most players consider Jaws to function off of a model's unmodified initiative, so that a model who has been struck with a thunderhammer still tests for Jaws using his normal initiative. Similarly, a model with a powerfist also tests for Jaws using his unmodified initiative.

[mkerr]

There should be a forum rule against "thunderhammers at range" threads. These go nowhere fast.

Although I feel that I (and even MVBrandt) made some decent arguments in that thread, the real winner of that debate was Nabterayl (a contract lawyer in real-life). He's freaking brilliant and impossible to beat -- I've made it a point to never face off against him in a rules debate!

He's got a ton of gems in the thread, but I always use [URL="http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=34383&postcount=156"]#156[/URL] as an example of a fantastic rules argument.

Mkerr

[Nabterayl]

There should be a forum rule against "thunderhammers at range" threads. These go nowhere fast.

Although I feel that I (and even MVBrandt) made some decent arguments in that thread, the real winner of that debate was Nabterayl (a contract lawyer in real-life). He's freaking brilliant and impossible to beat -- I've made it a point to never face off against him in a rules debate!

Aw, flatterer

[DarkLink]

I think he and I manged to not so subtly imply the other is a WAAC player. What I do mean in the end though is that being or not being a rules lawyer and/or WAAC has nothing whatsoever to do with being right or wrong. I understood him to think otherwise because he choose to address me instead of my reasoning. I guess he took "make sure you figure out who the WAAC player is first." from a prior post personally.

No worries, I was just makin' fun of you there.

More importantly, I finally got to see Zombieland, and it was awesome.