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

[DarkLink]

There's not any reason to think that the AP1 alters the way the Thunderhammer works, aside from the +1 to penetrate. It's just an additional effect that GW decided to slap on.


Chaos Codex
"Daemon Sword Drach'nyen and Talon of Horus
...The effect of these two powerful artefacts means that Abaddon counts as equipped with a Daemon Weapon that doubles his Strength (to Strength 8, as shown in his profile) instead of the normal +1, and he may re-roll any failed rolls to wound in close combat."

Who the heck spells artifact as artefact? Frickin' British English.

[jason]

Everyone is making very good points.

My idea with Ap1 is that it alters the way the thunder hammer acts. A normal power weapon/pf/th would technically be Ap2. Just not sure if the modification of its behavior would affect the stun aspect of it.

Could someone post the text of Drach'nyen here? I would be interested to see how it reads, and I don't own a copy of the CSM dex.

Actually, no. A PW/PF might be AP2 in ranged weapons, but TH have extra effects on things with armor without an Initiative. This is reflected by the AP1, which has additional effects for ranged weapons.

But I still go back to my Abaddon weapon argument.

[dagonis]

What portion of the Drach'nyen rules is ambiguous, it seems fairly straight forward to me that it is a daemon weapon.

It reads "Daemon Weapon that...." compared to the FH desc which is "The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon..." Ranged weapon seems to indicate it is just that, a ranged weapon that has its own unique profile. It doesn't say ranged thunder hammer, thunder hammer ranged attack, ranged attack that acts as a thunder hammer, etc.

Tbh if they meant it to be a ranged thunder hammer they could have just said "Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with a range of 6"." No extra profile would be needed because if the player was supposed to treat it as a thunder hammer they would be able to just extrapolate the rules from the thunder hammer rule (str x2, stun, no arm sav, etc.)

[jason]

What portion of the Drach'nyen rules is ambiguous, it seems fairly straight forward to me that it is a daemon weapon.

It reads "Daemon Weapon that...." compared to the FH desc which is "The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon..." Ranged weapon seems to indicate it is just that, a ranged weapon that has its own unique profile. It doesn't say ranged thunder hammer, thunder hammer ranged attack, ranged attack that acts as a thunder hammer, etc.

Tbh if they meant it to be a ranged thunder hammer they could have just said "Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with a range of 6"." No extra profile would be needed because if the player was supposed to treat it as a thunder hammer they would be able to just extrapolate the rules from the thunder hammer rule (str x2, stun, no arm sav, etc.)

It's not a standard Daemon Weapon. It uses it's own special rules. So it's a Daemon Weapon with different rules. That's fine. But it doesn't use the default rules. Where does it say that it uses the default rules for Daemon Weapons, because all I see is it not.

At least, that's the way I apply the logic Foehammer has applied to it.

"they could have just said "Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with a range of 6"." No extra profile would be needed because if the player was supposed to treat it as a thunder hammer they would be able to just extrapolate the rules from the thunder hammer rule (str x2, stun, no arm sav, etc.)"

First of all, your sample sentence fails. If it read that, we'd be here discussing whether it could be used in close combat. You'd say no. So, your own example fails.

Secondly, it's pretty easy when you read the sentence they have in the book that Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be thrown. Now, explain to me, in the world of GW, how this doesn't mean it's a ranged thunder hammer?

Are you going to argue that a Daemon Prince isn't a Daemon because it doesn't have Daemon in it's profile? Are you going to argue that Terminators can't assault on Deep Strike in a Planetstrike game because Deep Strike isn't in the profile? Heck, they even had to errata this because people, like you, were twisting it's meaning.

""The Foehammer is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon..." Ranged weapon seems to indicate it is just that, a ranged weapon that has its own unique profile."

Sorry, but that's not how english works. Let's work this out piece by piece.
The ranged weapon being discussed is the Foehammer. Right or wrong?
The Foehammer is a Thunder Hammer. Right or wrong?
Thunder Hammers have special rules. Right or wrong?

Now, you are going to say that because the profile doesn't contain Thunder Hammer, it shouldn't act like a Thunder Hammer. Because the profile excludes something that is already apart of the weapon, that aspect of the weapon is removed. Is that what you are saying?

Because, if that's the case, history demonstrates this is not how GW applies it's own rules. Deep Striking in Planetstrike games and Daemon Weapons are evidence of this.

"Tbh if they meant it to be a ranged thunder hammer they could have just said "Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with a range of 6""

They could also have done exactly what they did. And you know what? What they did is more in line with everything else they've ever done. Precedent matters, and in this case, precedent says it's a ranged thunder hammer.

[Bikeninja]

Well Foehammer is Str 10 because Arjacs strength is 5 and the THUNDERHAMMER profile doubles the users strength. More evidence that this is a Thunderhammer in every way with all its bells and whistles plus you get to throw it.

[PhoenixFlame]

I agree , the thrown weapons profile does not mention the stunning attack.
It should have no effect besides wounding and possible Instant Death.
Though if a model was in CC and was hit and survived the TH attack their Int would be lowered to 1.
I believe the JotWW test would be against Int 1 in that case as it reduces their Int until the end of the next players turn.

I agree with the above in principle,
"...reducing their initiative to a value of 1 until the end of the next players turn" pretty much means that JotWW would be causing them to take a test against a characteristic of 1.
However since Arjac's thrown thunderhammer doesn't state that it gets this effect at range and JotWW is used in the shooting phase and the thunderhammer effects last "...until the end of the next players turn." it becomes a non-issue with RAW currently. Now if GW ever errata/faq's Arjac to use full thunderhammer effects on the throw... well that's a sad day for Keepers et al (either way works for me tho as a play both Daemons and Wolves, so it's an even trade )
I do see the point others are making about it being a thunderhammer and thus using those rules, but I myself won't be playing it that way without some support (simply because that's my leaning anyway, play RAW if there's a gray area which ever fig/effect is unclear takes the hit... but that's a personal method and may or may not be generally applicable). I wouldn't be willing to go so far as to say it's RAW that all thunderhammer benefits get to be used because the profile also adds AP 1 which is not an effect of the normal thunderhammer nor is it a given of a ranged weapon. Does it make sense in the fluff? Yes. Do I think we'll see a faq stating that thunderhammer effects apply? Probably. But until then I'll play it like they don't.

[mkerr]

Tbh if they meant it to be a ranged thunder hammer they could have just said "Foehammer can be used as a ranged thunder hammer with a range of 6"."

What they *could* have said doesn't really come into the argument. We have to work with what they actually said.

On a side note, your alternative wording wouldn't work. Your wording would allow armor saves because there's no AP value. If you check the wording of Power Weapon (that's where the details of how a Thunder Hammer / Power Fist work in close combat) it's clear that no saves are allowed by wounds caused in close combat.

It also wouldn't tell us if it was a Assault, Heavy or Rapid-fire weapon. So for your alternative text it would have to say "Foehammer can be used as an ranged thunderhammer with a range of 6", Assault 1 and AP2". That's a lot clunkier than the wording they used.

I do see the point others are making about it being a thunderhammer and thus using those rules, but I myself won't be playing it that way without some support (simply because that's my leaning anyway, play RAW if there's a gray area which ever fig/effect is unclear takes the hit... but that's a personal method and may or may not be generally applicable).

I think that's a fine answer, PhoenixFlame. If you don't agree with the interpretation, then don't play that way. There are several "dirty tricks" that I've written about that we've "house ruled" away in our local gaming group.

Thanks for the posts everyone!

Oh and I play just about every army (except Eldar and Dark Eldar) and I agree with me.

[redrio]

Gotta be a big fat NO to that.

Counter question - do all you people who count it as a thunder hammer when thrown and force the decrease to I1 for a survivor also count his hammer as AP1 in CC against vehicles and so give him the +1 on the damage chart?

Smells like cheating to me...

yes, it's still a thunder hammer when he throws it, but the whole situation stinks of abusing the rules for personal gain in an army that's already powerful enough so doesn't need any "help".

Look at Arjac's point cost and profile, then look at how much a WG Battle Leader with TH/SS, TA and saga of the bear would be (yeah I know they can't take it but it's 35pts for WLs). He's already cheaper by 15pts BEFORE you factor in extra strength, rerolling misses against IC/MC, being stubborn and his extra attack bonus from the shield. Do you not think he's good enough without having to worm in this extra ounce of power?

And the TH rules are in the section "Close Combat Weapons". I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but shooting profiles and CC profiles are different even for the same weapon. That's why our plasma pistol toting men don't get S7 AP2 in combat etc.

What's next? Avatars at S8 AP1 in CC because their Wailing Doom has that profile...?

[mkerr]

Counter question - do all you people who count it as a thunder hammer when thrown and force the decrease to I1 for a survivor also count his hammer as AP1 in CC against vehicles and so give him the +1 on the damage chart?

No, there's no AP in close combat. Foehammer a thunder hammer with a ranged profile (as opposed to a ranged weapon with a thunder hammer profile).

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

Do you not think he's good enough without having to worm in this extra ounce of power?

I honestly think that the "stunning" effect of a thunder hammer doesn't make him any tougher -- there aren't a lot of models that can survive being wounded by a S10 AP1 weapon.

And the TH rules are in the section "Close Combat Weapons". I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but shooting profiles and CC profiles are different even for the same weapon. That's why our plasma pistol toting men don't get S7 AP2 in combat etc.

You don't shoot a plasma pistol in close combat; it simply counts as a close combat weapon. That's why it's not S7 (and it wouldn't be AP2 in close combat because AP is used for shooting attacks).

What's next? Avatars at S8 AP1 in CC because their Wailing Doom has that profile...?

I think you are misunderstanding the argument - or my argument anyway. Foehammer gets the thunder hammer stunning ability when used as a ranged weapon. That's the entirety of the argument.

I'm not suggesting that Foehammer somehow gets "AP1" in close combat -- that's not supported by the rules. Even if it was, AP1 is meaningless outside of the shooting phase.

[redrio]

pistols count as CC weapons to represent firing point blank as you charge/fight, which is why I mentioned it here, as it's a crossover where a weapon affects both CC and shooting.

The Avatar thing was tongue in cheek too, to be honest, I am aware it's the opposite of the situation we're discussing.

Seriously though, if you were using this in a game would you keep a straight face? Never mind RAW vs RAI, It just feels wrong. I'd be all for it being allowed the stun if it didn't then leave my opponent's prized model so vulnerable to the JotWW. I appreciate that there's not many guys who can take the wound and fight on, so the situation will arise very rarely, but for a Keeper of Secrets, Hive Tyrant etc it's a big deal. Plus it would kinda steal his glory as he'd then not be able to take out whatever he'd thrown his hammer at in honourable close combat....

I have Arjac in my SW list but I'd feel like I was cheating if I employed this tactic.

This forms the basis of my argument against it: If they had just said "he may throw his thunder hammer at any target up to 6" away" then we'd know it was S10, ignored armour saves, reduced I to 1 for a survivor and caused crew shaken against a vehicle in addition to any other damage, without needing a ranged profile.

Instead they gave it a gun's profile, with specific different effects against vehicles, so is it not reasonable to assume that they intended the effect on infantry to also be different?

When thrown, foehammer is an inherently different weapon to when used in CC.