PDA

View Full Version : Banner of Murder/Black Ark Corsairs Question



mickjagger
22-06-2009, 00:57
The banner of murder grants the unit it is with the armor piercing rule, would this also apply to the repeater handbows (if given) to the corsairs? Or would it only apply to the close combat attacks. It seems like it should apply to both, but i cannot tell.

Draconian77
22-06-2009, 01:02
Aren't repeater handbows already armour piercing?

emperorpenguin
22-06-2009, 01:07
Aren't repeater handbows already armour piercing?

No, repeater crossbows are armour-piercing, repeater handbows don't have that rule

I say both but you never can tell after the awful decision regarding Lifetaker.......

mickjagger
22-06-2009, 01:16
What decision regarding lifetaker?

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
22-06-2009, 01:31
Is it bad for me to want it to be true?

xragg
22-06-2009, 04:23
Without opening the books, I dont see why the handbows wouldnt also get the ap rule. The banner just states the unit gains ap, not ap in close combat.

Hulkster
22-06-2009, 09:08
they would indeed get AP

as xragg said, it says that the unit gains AP, not that the unit gains ap in cc

emperorpenguin
22-06-2009, 10:40
What decision regarding lifetaker?

hits from it do not count as magical

chippyman64
22-06-2009, 20:39
umm no lifetaker is a magical wepon and therefore all attacks count as magical as per normal magic wepons.

chivalrous
22-06-2009, 20:48
umm no lifetaker is a magical wepon and therefore all attacks count as magical as per normal magic wepons.

Not according to the most recent official Dark Elf FAQ.

The ruling brought Lifetaker into line with the ruling for the magic Wood Elf bows, but not for the High Elf or Empire bows

nosferatu1001
22-06-2009, 22:16
The idea being that the bow is magical, however the bolts may not be - so is "reasonable" from that interpretation.

Just because your bow is enchanted so it always hits the target doesnt mean your arrows / bolts are as well.

emperorpenguin
22-06-2009, 22:18
umm no lifetaker is a magical wepon and therefore all attacks count as magical as per normal magic wepons.

I think you need to read the FAQ before you start throwing around your interpretation and telling me I'm wrong :eyebrows:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3000006&start=2


Q. Do attacks from Lifetaker count as magical
attacks?
A. No, they do not.

r019nd
22-06-2009, 22:38
Can armour piercing stack like magic resistance?

If so you could put the banner in x-bows elves for -2 armour save? or would it just be a waste?

EvC
22-06-2009, 22:49
Magic resistance doesn't even stack. Armour piercing certainly won't stack either.

Lordmonkey
29-06-2009, 11:13
Special rules do not stack. A weapon either has AP or doesn't - if you give AP to a unit that already has AP you gain... nothing.

They would have AP in close combat, however.

Nice idea with the repeater handbows :)

Gazak Blacktoof
29-06-2009, 11:26
Something I'd thought about was using a black dragon egg in combination with the banner of murder in a unit of corsairs. That should give you an additional round of shooting and armour piercing on the strength 4 breath weapon.

Draconian77
29-06-2009, 14:29
Bleh...the Black Dragon Egg doesn't look so great when compared to Stream of Bile...also; we have Hydras. :D

Are you guys really saying that the Hand Bows and/or Lifetaker get Ap from the Ap banner?

chivalrous
29-06-2009, 14:41
Are you guys really saying that the Hand Bows and/or Lifetaker get Ap from the Ap banner?

Why not? As has already been suggested, the rules don't restrict it to close combat weapons only.
The trouble is that it's could be considered a waste of points on a small flanking unit.

Gazak Blacktoof
29-06-2009, 14:49
Bleh...the Black Dragon Egg doesn't look so great when compared to Stream of Bile...also; we have Hydras. :D

30 points isn't too bad for what it does, it would be much better if the effect lasted for two player turns though. The potential prevention of a charge can enable you to completely pound a unit into the ground with your hydras, bolt throwers or other shooting and magic.

As it stands you can't make use of both the attack and the bonus toughness which I'm sure is probably unintentional.

Draconian77
29-06-2009, 15:39
Why not? As has already been suggested, the rules don't restrict it to close combat weapons only.
The trouble is that it's could be considered a waste of points on a small flanking unit.

Right, but do we as players need the rules to say "In close combat only?"

I mean, surely that leads us open to abuses like Stream of Bile(S4 Breath Weapon) and Standard of Seeping Decay or heck, does the Assassins Killing Blow gift state in close combat only?

@Gazak; Not being able to benefit from both gifts is one problem, everything being ItP is an entirely different but no less annoying kettle of fish...

stripsteak
29-06-2009, 16:01
Right, but do we as players need the rules to say "In close combat only?"

I mean, surely that leads us open to abuses like Stream of Bile(S4 Breath Weapon) and Standard of Seeping Decay or heck, does the Assassins Killing Blow gift state in close combat only?


Armour piercing applies to weapons and so would only affect the weapons carried by the troups now special abilities or banners. It's rules do not limit it to close combat weapons only.

Killing blow itself is what limits it to close combat. the rule for KB in the brb says it is only for close combat unless a unit specifies otherwise.

chivalrous
29-06-2009, 16:04
I mean, surely that leads us open to abuses like Stream of Bile(S4 Breath Weapon) and Standard of Seeping Decay or heck, does the Assassins Killing Blow gift state in close combat only?


The rulebook states that Killing Blow only happens in close combat, furthermore it states that rarely ranged attacks will do too but it will specifically say so in the relevant army book. Waywatchers have this specific mention, Touch of Death doesn't.
There is no such restriction for Armour piercing.

In fact, there are more armour piercing ranged weapons in the game than there are armour piercing close combat weapons.
Hanguns
pistols
Dark Elf Repeater crossbows
Repeater handguns
Wood Elf bows

vs.

Beastmaster's Scourge
Soulrender
Whip of Agony


Right, but do we as players need the rules to say "In close combat only?"
Yes. It would be very helpful. it would stop threads like this cropping up for one thing.
Do you want to suggest to the Dwarf, Empire and Wood Elf players that we make amour piercing close combat only?

Draconian77
29-06-2009, 16:12
Right, but from my last post you where meant to take the point and not the example...

I'm sure looking through the army books you could find lots of things where the wording is generic enough to apply to shooting or magic aswell. (Rending Sword, Sword of Justice, Stream of Bile+Standard of Seeping Decay, etc)

Eventually we need either incredibly well worded rules(From GW? Impossible...) or a bit of common sense. I actually prefer option 2.

I don't think having the AP rule entitles you to AP ranged attacks, I think having a ranged weapon with the AP rule does.

As an aside, aren't Wood Elf bows S4 and not Armour Piercing?

chivalrous
29-06-2009, 16:25
I don't think having the AP rule entitles you to AP ranged attacks, I think having an AP weapon does.
But if you go along with that judgement, the banner would be utterly useless as neither the handweapons nor the handbows have the armour piercing rule, just the unit.
I see where you are coming from though, the rule is usually attached to a weapon rather than a unit.

It would help me if I knew where you were taking your precedent from that only close combat weapons should benefit.



As an aside, aren't Wood Elf bows S4 and not Armour Piercing?
You could very well be right, I don't face them all that often and could still be remembering the White Dwarf 'get-you-by' list.


I'm sure looking through the army books you could find lots of things where the wording is generic enough to apply to shooting or magic aswell. (Rending Sword, Sword of Justice, Stream of Bile+Standard of Seeping Decay, etc)

Absolutely, there are some terrible descriptions out there, but in the examples of magic weapons, there is an argument that they are in the description for that particular magic weapon.

The Banner of Murder, nor the rules for Armour Penetration, in themselves.

I can't comment on Bile/Seeping decay I don't know what they do.

Gazak Blacktoof
29-06-2009, 16:29
@Gazak; Not being able to benefit from both gifts is one problem, everything being ItP is an entirely different but no less annoying kettle of fish...

Well I don't know about everything being ITP, that's a massive exaggeration. Of the armies I face/ use there are some frenzied troops, my tomb kings, plus squig hoppers and that's essentially it. Now obviously there's vamps and daemons on top of that plus a few wood elf units.

Draconian77
29-06-2009, 19:32
But if you go along with that judgement, the banner would be utterly useless as neither the handweapons nor the handbows have the armour piercing rule, just the unit.
I see where you are coming from though, the rule is usually attached to a weapon rather than a unit.

I amended my thoughts to make them more rules like, essentially:
I don't think having the AP rule entitles you to AP ranged attacks, I think having a ranged weapon with the AP rule does.

It would help me if I knew where you were taking your precedent from that only close combat weapons should benefit.

Do I need a precendent? Am I not allowed to use RAI or common sense as I do most of the time? Your point of view on this subject is something that I just don't like seeing and I see it a lot these days, things like the Potion of Strength giving Dragons S9/Chariots S8 and the item Caledors bane giving the bearer S9 on the charge.

From some rules point of views you could say that the models have AP but their weapons do not. That's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me anyway.

I don't think this is a game breaking rule or anything, I was just sort of dismayed that everyone agreed so readily. No one question the RAI?

You could very well be right, I don't face them all that often and could still be remembering the White Dwarf 'get-you-by' list.

I double checked, they are indeed S4. This is essentially irellevant though.

Absolutely, there are some terrible descriptions out there, but in the examples of magic weapons, there is an argument that they are in the description for that particular magic weapon.

Sigh...I don't even think there should be arguments over this. A magic sword(etc) should only work in combat.

The Banner of Murder, nor the rules for Armour Penetration, in themselves.

I don't think the AP banner gives AP to the models weapons, just the model.

I can't comment on Bile/Seeping decay I don't know what they do.

For clarification the Stream of Bile gives a Herald of Nurgle a S4 breath weapon and the Standard of Seeping Decay allows all models in the Palguebearer unit to re-roll failed "to wound" rolls. Allowing for a S4 breath weapon with re-rolls to wound...

I just thought of a decent example;

A Wood Elf Spellsinger with the Glamourweave Kindred.
Would shots from her Longbow count as magical attacks?
Yes.
How do we know?
The book tells us that it includes ranged attacks, the banner of Murder doesn't?


Well I don't know about everything being ITP, that's a massive exaggeration.
Of the armies I face/ use there are some frenzied troops, my tomb kings, plus squig hoppers and that's essentially it. Now obviously there's vamps and daemons on top of that plus a few wood elf units.

Ah, I know it was a stretch. I just sort of meant to convey the thought "Lots of units are ItP" rather than all of them.

EvC
29-06-2009, 19:39
If you go with the idea of "it must specifically say ranged attacks are included", then I counter with, "it must specifically say close combat attacks are included" ;)

There are plenty of items and abilities that let you re-roll hits/ wounds or add extra effects. Warrior Priest Prayers are one, giving AP is another. Don't worry about it.

stripsteak
29-06-2009, 20:11
I just thought of a decent example;

A Wood Elf Spellsinger with the Glamourweave Kindred.
Would shots from her Longbow count as magical attacks?
Yes.
How do we know?
The book tells us that it includes ranged attacks, the banner of Murder doesn't?


that wouldn't be needed though it's just a reminder. her ranged attacks would still be magical even if it didn't have the specific mention since the rule makes all her attacks magical. it's a clarification of a rule not a adendum to the rule.

it's like saying i wear only red clothing. my shirt is red.

Draconian77
29-06-2009, 20:38
If you go with the idea of "it must specifically say ranged attacks are included", then I counter with, "it must specifically say close combat attacks are included" ;)

Apart from consensus says that it doesn't need to say "It must specifically say close combat attacks are included." ;)

There are plenty of items and abilities that let you re-roll hits/ wounds or add extra effects. Warrior Priest Prayers are one, giving AP is another. Don't worry about it.

I'm not really worried about this particular question, more about the attitude of players in general. I thought we played in a prohibitive ruleset where if it doesn't say you can, you cannot. Somewhere along the way(I think when RAW was first mentioned?) that attitude seems to have changed. Lots of abusive things can come of this without timely FAQ's and well...GW...mumble+grumble+groan...:D

@Stripsteak: Doesn't read like a clarification to me to be honest. If it made all of her attacks magical then they wouldn't bother to tell us, or at least that would be my viewpoint. (Sounds logical enough anyway...)

xragg
29-06-2009, 23:51
Its a clarification so strangleroot, Orion's bow, Wild Rider character's bows, and Glamourweave character's bows are clearly magical attacks. If not, the FAQ released much later then the book, would make all their ranged attacks not magical. If not for a statement like that, I am sure ppl would argue whether the forest spirit rule only made the weapons magical (meaning the attack wouldnt be) or if the whole attack was magical.

I really dont see how this proves or disproves anything to do the banner of murder. If anything, you could cite numerous entires that state something only applies to close combat attacks, and draw a parallel from that. Trying to create a parallel in how they write their rules is sure to fail, since it is well known GW has no consistency in how they write their rules. Sometimes they beat it like a rented mule, other times they contradict themselves.

Trying to argue RAI is also sorta weak, considering most ap weapons are ranged. If ap was rare for ranged weapons other then special cases, I could see the RAI argument, but that just isnt so.

stripsteak
30-06-2009, 00:29
@Stripsteak: Doesn't read like a clarification to me to be honest. If it made all of her attacks magical then they wouldn't bother to tell us, or at least that would be my viewpoint. (Sounds logical enough anyway...)

sorry this just broke my brain and i can't find the words to respond properly.

Draconian77
30-06-2009, 02:00
Judging by those attempts at grammar and civility I'm not entirely convinced that I want to read such a response.

You can disagree without being rude...:eyebrows:



Trying to argue RAI is also sorta weak, considering most ap weapons are ranged. If ap was rare for ranged weapons other then special cases, I could see the RAI argument, but that just isnt so.

Sigh...I shouldn't need to argue RAI, that's the sad thing.

Everyone still ignores comments about a prohibitive ruleset and multiple cases where RAW is clearly not supported by consesus(Caledors Bane(Pre-Faq), Potion of Strength, Pendant of Khaeleth(Pre-Faq), Stream of Bile+Icon of Seeping Decay, Rending Sword, etc)

Ap being common on ranged weapons is essentially irrelevant, this harks backs to the old days when the Ap rule generally(generally!) was synonymous with "blackpowder weapons". (Insert: Rain Lord)

It's only in recent years that we got to see it commonly on combat units such as Slaanesh Daemons. Actually, if you want to see something interesting you should check page 35 of the DoC book under the Keeper of Secrets special rules and page 39 of the DoC book under the Daemonetters special rules. A cookie to anyone who sees what I see.

stripsteak
30-06-2009, 03:50
I could come up with some witty response, but that's not really my style. I'll simply ask that if you are going to ask me not to be rude you do not preface this with veiled insults against my education or decorum. I meant no disrespect to you and if you saw some then I apologize. I sat and started writing out multiple responses but could not find the words, and this resulted in the beginning of a headache. It had been a long day so it was not entirely related to anything you have said. the presence of the quote was because I had initially intended to respond and hence had hit the quote button. i did not mean it as any attack against you.

but i'll attempt to find the words again. You are saying that statement A's definition is implicitly dependent on statement B. The presence of statement B is enough to implicitly change the meaning of A and A would have a different meaning were B not present. And in fact A would not require B to be said if B was not said.

all of my clothes are red. with this statement we have defined that all my clothes are red, all of them. this includes my shirt and pants. adding this in does not negate that i have already established this in the previous statement. nor does it mean that previously 'all my clothes' did not include my shirt and pants.

Drachen_Jager
30-06-2009, 04:52
I'm sure looking through the army books you could find lots of things where the wording is generic enough to apply to shooting or magic aswell. (Rending Sword, Sword of Justice, Stream of Bile+Standard of Seeping Decay, etc)

At least the Rending Sword of the ones you mentioned is very clear "A character with the rending sword may re-roll failed to wound rolls."

There's nothing vague about that.

It can't be much clearer unless they specifically said magic and shooting. Clearly it applies to all attacks made by that character. I think it's a mistake, but the rule is very clear and how can we as players decide which rules are intentional and which are just thoughtlessly worded (unless of course they FAQ the thing!)?

sulla
30-06-2009, 06:48
Sigh...I shouldn't need to argue RAI, that's the sad thing.



It never even occurred to me that it wouldn't work on both ranged and cc weapons. I just play the rule as I see it. What makes you so sure it is intended to only work on cc weapons?

Gazak Blacktoof
30-06-2009, 08:17
Sulla, that's what I'm wondering too. People have flippantly argued that certain magic weapons give silly bonuses to all attacks, but they only do so in order to be able to point a finger at GW. The same applies to the potion of strength, nobody sensibly claims it affects the character's mount too.

I can't see the same silliness applying to interpretations about the banner of murder. There's no indication as to the localisation of its effect as there is with a weapon or potion, both of which clearly only grant a bonus to the person wielding or drinking it.

xragg
30-06-2009, 08:33
Right, but do we as players need the rules to say "In close combat only?"


Yes. To respond to one of your first statements, that without RAW to back it up, does indeed introduce an argument over RAI. The arguments your offering open up many other magic items to neutering. Do you want the Drakenhof Banner to only apply the regeneraton rule during the close combat phase? I dont see how you can limit one banner to only work during the cc phase, and let the other work during every phase. Nothing in the ap rules state it should only apply to close combat unless stated otherwise, so where exactly are you getting your RAW that limits ap? I really feel your argueing RAI, which you are free to have your RAI interpretaion, but I even feel the RAI supports ap during every phase for the murder banner.

Draconian77
30-06-2009, 18:14
Ok, so most of you agree that it needs to say "In close combat only." for you to only apply it in close combat only. Now, I'll just put up some examples and you can make of them what you will.

I take it no one actually checked out Pg35 and Pg39 of the DoC book but I'll explain it anyway:

Under the Keeper of Secrets special rules it lists "Armour Piercing (close combat attacks)."

Now, go to the Herald of Slaanesh' entry on page 39. "Armour Piercing."

The "(close combat attacks)." clause has been left out. Now, does this mean that the Herald of Slaanesh can cast Slicing Shards and inflict an Armour Piercing modifier on top of D6 S5 hits? You think it's logical that the Herald of Slaanesh has stronger spells than the Keeper of Secrets?

Or do we as players assume that it doesn't need to say "(close combat attacks.)" and that we should just play it in a way that makes senses. (The magic being the same ignoring any of the models special rules that are vague enough to apply to anything, as brought up earlier in this thread GW rules are badly worded and inconsistent.)

How about another example then...

The Standard of Seeping Decay.
"Models in this unit may re-roll failed to wound rolls."
(This is a standard so may be the best thing to compare the BoM with.)

How about that? Do we assume that this allows the Herald of Nurgle to re-roll the S5 hits from the Rancid Visitation spell? Does it allow him to re-roll failed "to wound" rolls using his S4 breath weapon attack? (Stream of Bile)
You think it's logical that the Herald of Nurgle has stronger spells than the Great Unclean One?

All of you seem to think yes, but surely when a rule is vaguely worded and seems to be applicable to everything because it excludes and/or specifies nothing then the correct course of action is not to use it in a way that would be as advantageous to you as possible.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, this game is a prohibitve ruleset, as far as I'm concerned if it doesn't tell you that you can you cannot whereas you guys all think that if it doesn't say you cannot then you can.

As a usual courtesy I'll respond per person;

@stripsteak: No offense intended.

@Drachen: The Rending Sword isn't vague I agree, but how many people do you know who use it's effect on spells and shooting? Clearly it's an oversight by GW. The odds of it getting FAQ'd are minimal as we all know.

@Sulla: Essentially its the fact that WHFB is a prohibitive ruleset. It doesn't say that we can use it on spells or ranged attacks so therefore we can't. (However a lot of common sense must be used when iterpreting such a ruleset, nobody claims that something like a Handgun says it can't hurt a Giant because it doesn't say that it can! :angel:)

@Gazak: Surely if people are willing to admit that GW make mistakes(Potion of Strength) then we could come to the same conclusion with the BoM using my examples above?

@xragg: Well essentially I am arguing RAI and no, even using RAI the Drakenhof Banner wouldn't work like that. (Although that is beside the point.)
I am not using RAW to limit Ap, I'm just using common sense. I hope that the Herald of Slaanesh example is enough to sway you.

Gazak Blacktoof
30-06-2009, 18:43
Yep GW make mistakes, I'm not sure there's reason to assume this one of them. I don't have access to the full rules for the examples you're giving but I'll give you my impressions based on what you've posted.

Herald of Slaanesh: Mistake- it should probably be identical to the keeper of secrets.

Standard of Seeping Decay: I'd apply it in the same way as I would the banner of murder.


I've said it before but its relevant so worth repeating, I treat spells as being self-contained- none of the rules applicable to the model casting them transfer over. I consider the spell to be doing the damage rather than it to be a weapon wielded by the wizard.

Draconian77
30-06-2009, 18:49
Herald of Slaanesh: Mistake- it should probably be identical to the keeper of secrets.

Standard of Seeping Decay: I'd apply it in the same way as I would the banner of murder.


I've said it before but its relevant so worth repeating, I treat spells as being self-contained- none of the rules applicable to the model casting them transfer over. I consider the spell to be doing the damage rather than it to be a weapon wielded by the wizard.

Well, whilst that is my attitude aswell by RAW we are probably both wrong.
But I mean, if we are both willing to go against RAW in these cases why is it so mind boggling that I'm going against RAW on the BoM issue and on other issues such as the Potion?

Is this because re-rolls to wound on a spell from a magical banner is unheard of? It's just as rare as Ap on your ranged weapons from another magical banner, I can assure you of that much at least. ;)

You assume that the Heralds spells are a mistake generated by vaguely worded rules(and quite rightly so in my opinion) but you will not consider the possibility of the BoM being the same thing?

Hmm...it seems that you play by both RAW and RAI, a strange position to be in. Although it does make for an interesting discussion. :D

Gazak Blacktoof
30-06-2009, 19:05
I judge everything on a case by case basis and try to argue the case for what I think is reasonable. I feel that being aware of what the rules say is important but I often consider that the start of a discussion rather than the end.

My thought process is also different for general mechanics and specific issues regarding conflicts with isolated rules. Mechanics are often rather abstract, but so long as they flow well I'm generally happy with RAW. In an isolated case that wont impact the wider game "what feels right" is more important.


In the end its down to you and the person on the other side of the board to decide what's right at the time.

There you go, a glimpse into my mind. I hope that wasn't too scary.:p

xragg
30-06-2009, 19:32
To me, it seems every example you gave Drac has to do with characters gaining a special rule from another source. Characters and their interactions with magic items and/or special rules have always created quandaries. I firmly believe handbows would gain the ap rule from the murder banner. Now ask me if a sorceress spell in the unit would gain ap, thats another issue. A very hairy issue in my eyes. Anytime you deal with characters and intervening rules, you have to look at each case by case, sorta how Gazak described. Characters and special rule interactions usually tend to raise the most questions as the rules are way to generic to possible cover all the endless possibilities.

Draconian77
30-06-2009, 20:06
Ok, now I feel that we are getting somewhere. (The glimpse into Gazaks mind notwithstanding...;))

Indeed a case by case basis is definately the best approach, RAI and RAW are not also applicable, they are just the most common forms of expression of thought when it comes to the rules of this weird and wondrous game.

Gazak used a term that I'm a big fan off, self contained.
He believes that spells are self contained even though this isn't explicity stated, I also believe this by the way. However I also believe that ranged weapons are self contained. This is why they have their own profile after all, in short, even though a model gains the Ap rule, it's weapon does not. (A logical progression of spells not benefitting to my mind)

xragg raises an excellent point aswell. Lets say that we do allow the Handbows and Lifetaker to gain the Ap benefit from the model itself. Would this then extend to Chillwind, Doombolt and Bladewind?

So the question is; Where/when do we stop applying the benefits of items/banners/rules to models/items/spells?

The answer which I have always used is "When it gives you as little an advantage as possible whilst remaining logical."
(Obviously whats logical changes on a case to case basis.)

So to my mind the Rending Sword only works in combat, the Potion of Strength only applies to the character not his mount and the magical banners effects(Decay/Murder) only apply to close combat attacks.

What would everyone elses view on this be?
EDIT: As an aside, I doubt there is a right or wrong answer to this.

chivalrous
30-06-2009, 21:38
So the question is; Where/when do we stop applying the benefits of items/banners/rules to models/items/spells?...

What would everyone elses view on this be?

I think there is an equally valid question of where do we start applying these rules?
As you've stated, "even though a model gains the Ap rule, it's weapon does not."
Can we apply this to handweapons? or do models have to fight barehanded?

From this point, do we allow other close combat weapons carried by the unit carrying the banner, let's say Halberds or Great weapons?
Do Black Guard or Executioners receive the extra benefit or do these units have to fight with hand-weapons to gain the benefit.

Next jump, do mounts benefit from the rule?

Onto the next, do characters wielding magical weapons benefit? Normally magical weapons do not benefit from rules that mundane weapnos would, but as the weapon isn't affected and the model is would a character with the Crimson Death get -4AS rather than the -3? Actually, this is an argument against Lifetaker getting AP :)

What I would say in support of the unit's weapons getting AP against the unit's models getting AP and against spells getting AP is that AP is a Special Weapon Rule, rather than a Special rule.


As an aside, I doubt there is a right or wrong answer to this.
*chuckles* IT's an interesting and entertaining discussion though :)

Draconian77
30-06-2009, 21:55
I think there is an equally valid question of where do we start applying these rules?
As you've stated, "even though a model gains the Ap rule, it's weapon does not."
Can we apply this to handweapons? or do models have to fight barehanded?

Well, interestingly enough I had this discussion scant moments ago with someone else.

Generally speaking, a model attacks using it's Ws, S, I, A, Weapons and Special Rules. So a model with Ws3, S3, I3, A3, a Halberd and Armour Piercing would make 3 S4 attacks inflicting a -2 save.

The best proof I can offer you of this is a Daemonette. If the Ap rule did not apply to her attacks she would not inflict the -1 save modifier.

From this point, do we allow other close combat weapons carried by the unit carrying the banner, let's say Halberds or Great weapons?

Opinion: yes. :D

Do Black Guard or Executioners receive the extra benefit or do these units have to fight with hand-weapons to gain the benefit.

Opinion: They can use any weapons+any special rules that they have. So again, S4 Ap for BG, S6 Ap for Executioners.

Next jump, do mounts benefit from the rule?

Opinion: Tough one...(Damn you Chivalrous! :D) Mounts benefit from all Psychology rules...thats not really applicable here. Mounts generally have seperate attack profiles and rules but they are part of the same model. Hmm, honestly if I had to cast a vote one way or the other I would say yes, the mounts gain armour piercing.

Onto the next, do characters wielding magical weapons benefit? Normally magical weapons do not benefit from rules that mundane weapnos would, but as the weapon isn't affected and the model is would a character with the Crimson Death get -4AS rather than the -3? Actually, this is an argument against Lifetaker getting AP :)

This is my point aswell. The character with the Sword of Might would be Armour Piercing but the Lifetaker would not be. Did you stumble upon the correct answer?

What I would say in support of the unit's weapons getting AP against the unit's models getting AP and against spells getting AP is that AP is a Special Weapon Rule, rather than a Special rule.

That use to be the case but nowadays we cannot say that. Daemonettes do not have Armour Piercing hand weapons, they have the Ap special rule. If the Banner of Murder said something along the lines off "All weapons in the unit gain the Armour Piercing rule" then we would be in this predicament.

*chuckles* IT's an interesting and entertaining discussion though :)

A lot of fun indeed. :p

At least my position seems to have been changed from "wrong" to "annoying".

Hmm...I'm not really sure if thats an improvement. :angel:

sulla
30-06-2009, 22:18
I take it no one actually checked out Pg35 and Pg39 of the DoC book but I'll explain it anyway:

Under the Keeper of Secrets special rules it lists "Armour Piercing (close combat attacks)."

Now, go to the Herald of Slaanesh' entry on page 39. "Armour Piercing."

The "(close combat attacks)." clause has been left out. Now, does this mean that the Herald of Slaanesh can cast Slicing Shards and inflict an Armour Piercing modifier on top of D6 S5 hits? You think it's logical that the Herald of Slaanesh has stronger spells than the Keeper of Secrets?

Or do we as players assume that it doesn't need to say "(close combat attacks.)" and that we should just play it in a way that makes senses. (The magic being the same ignoring any of the models special rules that are vague enough to apply to anything, as brought up earlier in this thread GW rules are badly worded and inconsistent.)

How about another example then...

The Standard of Seeping Decay.
"Models in this unit may re-roll failed to wound rolls."
(This is a standard so may be the best thing to compare the BoM with.)

How about that? Do we assume that this allows the Herald of Nurgle to re-roll the S5 hits from the Rancid Visitation spell? Does it allow him to re-roll failed "to wound" rolls using his S4 breath weapon attack? (Stream of Bile)
You think it's logical that the Herald of Nurgle has stronger spells than the Great Unclean One?

All of you seem to think yes, but surely when a rule is vaguely worded and seems to be applicable to everything because it excludes and/or specifies nothing then the correct course of action is not to use it in a way that would be as advantageous to you as possible.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, this game is a prohibitve ruleset, as far as I'm concerned if it doesn't tell you that you can you cannot whereas you guys all think that if it doesn't say you cannot then you can. Since armour piercing is a quality of weapons, I would apply it to any and all weapons the herald has, unless otherwise noted. Spells are not weapons so I find it hard to justify giving her spells AP. Can't see how this would ever be an issue.

As for your second example, I agree, this is poorly written and it could be argued that spell effects get a reroll. I'm in agreement with you here about not applying a model's rules to his/her spells. As guidance in this, I would cite the daemon FAQ where tzeench daemons, despite having the special rule; flaming attacks, do not get to apply this to their spells.


@Sulla: Essentially its the fact that WHFB is a prohibitive ruleset. It doesn't say that we can use it on spells or ranged attacks so therefore we can't. (However a lot of common sense must be used when iterpreting such a ruleset, nobody claims that something like a Handgun says it can't hurt a Giant because it doesn't say that it can! :angel:)

Sure, but the warhammer ruleset permit all weapons to be armour piercing so it seems to me you are trying to introduce an artificial prohibition where none exists. (Not trying to attack you personally here, I just genuinely don't see why you are drawing a distinction when none exists in the rules). Armour piercing is applied to weapons, not models. It's a weapon rule, not a special rule.

Draconian77
01-07-2009, 00:22
Since armour piercing is a quality of weapons, I would apply it to any and all weapons the herald has, unless otherwise noted. Spells are not weapons so I find it hard to justify giving her spells AP. Can't see how this would ever be an issue.

To be honest, that does not seem to be the case anymore with regards to Ap being a quality of weapons and not a special rule. Daemonettes do not have Armour Piercing Hand Weapons for example, they just have Armour Piercing in their special rules.(How can you say Ap isn't a special rule by the way?) (Or maybe a better example would be the KoS who explicity states that it has Ap in close combat, not connected to any weapon whatsoever) Armour Piercing seems to be treated more like Poison now, it can apply to either close combat attacks, ranged weapons or both.

As for your second example, I agree, this is poorly written and it could be argued that spell effects get a reroll. I'm in agreement with you here about not applying a model's rules to his/her spells.

So a Herald off Nurgle could re-roll his combat attacks, and his breath weapon but not his spells? To be honest, you have made a distinction where none exists.

Sure, but the warhammer ruleset permit all weapons to be armour piercing so it seems to me you are trying to introduce an artificial prohibition where none exists. (Not trying to attack you personally here, I just genuinely don't see why you are drawing a distinction when none exists in the rules). Armour piercing is applied to weapons, not models. It's a weapon rule, not a special rule.

The problem is(as far as I can see) is that the Banner of Murder does not grant the weapons the Ap rule, just the models themselves(Like Daemonettes). If it only grants the rule to the models themselves then it shouldn't really apply to any ranged weapons present in the squad as you shouldn't add a units special(or magic item) rules to missile weapon profiles or spells effects.

More food for thought;

The Assassins entry says that he has Poisoned Attacks and on page 95 that this applies to both his combat attacks and his handbow attacks.
Firstly an example of a specific rule so no RAI or RAW is necessary, secondly it reinforces my point that combat attacks(general) benefit from model special rules whereas ranged attacks with weapons must specify. (It does say handbow(s) rather than ranged attacks/missile attacks)

Secondly, in the most recent Druchii FAQ the question was asked as to whether or not Lifetaker was Armour Piercing. The answer to paraphrase was "It's profile is quite clear." I think this further reinforces my point that a weapons profile and specific rules are the only thing that should be taken into account when firing a missile weapon. The BoM does not add Ap to the weapons profile after all.

As I said earlier, I doubt there is a water-tight interpretation to be made, but I like to think that using it and other vaguely worded abilities/items/rules/etc at their least powerful is sporting and honourable. ;)

jrodrag
01-07-2009, 01:46
It is surely not entirely clear what the implication should be. But I for one would be in the camp of allowing all attacks made by the unit to be armor piercing, as the banner description reads. This would include both ranged and h2h attacks. It would not include spells as they are not, in my book or in the majority of thier uses, "attacks". This would meant that magic weapons used by characters/champions in the unit would benefit from AP if they did not already as AP does not seem to stack. That's my take after reading the posts for those that care :).

sulla
01-07-2009, 06:14
More food for thought;

The Assassins entry says that he has Poisoned Attacks and on page 95 that this applies to both his combat attacks and his handbow attacks.
Firstly an example of a specific rule so no RAI or RAW is necessary, secondly it reinforces my point that combat attacks(general) benefit from model special rules whereas ranged attacks with weapons must specify. (It does say handbow(s) rather than ranged attacks/missile attacks)Because poisoned attacks are a special rule affecting a model, not his weaponry, and because DE assassins have 2 different missile weapons they can purchase, it was probably neccessary to specify what was and wasn't poisoned. Normally this is not neccessary because poison is an ability of the creature, not something that coats (some of) their weapons.


Secondly, in the most recent Druchii FAQ the question was asked as to whether or not Lifetaker was Armour Piercing. The answer to paraphrase was "It's profile is quite clear." I think this further reinforces my point that a weapons profile and specific rules are the only thing that should be taken into account when firing a missile weapon. The BoM does not add Ap to the weapons profile after all.


The lifetaker faq has no relevance at all. Of course a lifetaker does not have ap. It is not listed as a repeater crossbow in it's entry.

Draconian77
01-07-2009, 13:07
Because poisoned attacks are a special rule affecting a model, not his weaponry,

~To be honest you have yet to prove that Armour Piercing is purely a weapon special rule.(Yes, Ap is listed as a weapon rule in the BrB but the BrB also says that Saurus have a 6+ Scaly Skin save, the Brb(sadly) tends to be out of date as soon as a new army book for that edition is printed.)

~You mean to say any weapon used by a model with the Armour Piercing rule gains the Armour Piercing rule itself?

~But where does it say this in the rules?

~Models like Daemonettes do not have an Armour Piercing hand weapon, they have a hand weapon and the Armour Piercing special rule. We clearly have moved past the point where Ap is just a weapon rule representitive of blackpowder.

The lifetaker faq has no relevance at all. Of course a lifetaker does not have ap. It is not listed as a repeater crossbow in it's entry.

I think you missed the point. I know that the Lifetaker doesn't have Ap, what I'm saying is that:

1: They say use the profile.
2: The Banner of Murder gives Ap to the model.(Not his weapons)
3: The profile still does not say that it(Lifetaker) has Ap.
4: Hence the banner doesn't affect ranged weapons.

I hope that makes what I was trying to say a little clearer.

EvC
01-07-2009, 13:37
That Lifetaker counterpoint is completely stupid Draconian, you're only going to make yourself look like a complete idiot if you persist with it. Yes, I'm being needlessly offensive here (And my pointing it out should indicate that I don't actually mean to offend here, just to stop you in your tracks ;) ), but sometimes people need a slap in the face to pull themselves together. Apply the same reasoning to a "hand weapon" carried by a model with the Lifetaker and you come up with the conclusion that hence the banner doesn't affect ANY weapons. Which would be retarded.

Once again, I direct you to the Empire Warrior Priest Prayer which grants re-rolls to hit and wound. Many have fumed that there is no way this could possibly apply to ranged attacks like magic- yet, it clearly does by the wording, and the Empire FAQ confirmed it for us as well. Same with things like the Standard of Seeping Decay- I encountered an opponent using it and also the Nurgle breath weapon attack, and was a little taken aback, but when he pointed out that's what it said, I just said, "Ahh, like the Warrior Priest Prayer, I understand" and then shuddered at how nasty a combo that would be combined with the Staff of Nurgle.

Draconian77
01-07-2009, 14:19
That Lifetaker counterpoint is completely stupid Draconian, you're only going to make yourself look like a complete idiot if you persist with it. Yes, I'm being needlessly offensive here (And my pointing it out should indicate that I don't actually mean to offend here, just to stop you in your tracks ;) ), but sometimes people need a slap in the face to pull themselves together. Apply the same reasoning to a "hand weapon" carried by a model with the Lifetaker and you come up with the conclusion that hence the banner doesn't affect ANY weapons. Which would be retarded.

I agree, but my point is exactly that!

The rule is out of date, vaguely written, badly worded, etc, etc.
It's 7 line of text(2 of which are an example) which mentions neither models nor attacks! It is clearly no longer (exclusively)a weapon special rule and yet that is where it is to be found in the BrB. The possibilty of a model having the rule rather than a weapon having the rule doesn't even exist in the rulebook. :)

Why then, is it so hard to understand that I would not apply it to ranged attacks or spells?

As far as I'm concerned using it for ranged attacks gives my opponent full permission to use it for spell effects not to mention abusing other vaguely worded rules like the Rending Sword and Potion of Strength. Some players are ok with that but some are not.

The only point I want people to take away from this discussion is that it is perfectly reasonable for a person not to think that it applies to shooting attacks aswell.

Once again, I direct you to the Empire Warrior Priest Prayer which grants re-rolls to hit and wound. Many have fumed that there is no way this could possibly apply to ranged attacks like magic- yet, it clearly does by the wording, and the Empire FAQ confirmed it for us as well. Same with things like the Standard of Seeping Decay- I encountered an opponent using it and also the Nurgle breath weapon attack, and was a little taken aback, but when he pointed out that's what it said, I just said, "Ahh, like the Warrior Priest Prayer, I understand" and then shuddered at how nasty a combo that would be combined with the Staff of Nurgle.

Thats one players attitude, anothers might be entirely different.

More than that, doesn't that open up other possible abuses?

Do you allow the Herald to re-roll failed to wound rolls with his spells?

Do you allow Greyseers with Weeping Blades to inflict D3 wounds with their Warp Lightning?

Do you allow the Rending Sword and Sword of Justice to affect combat, ranged attacks and spells? Or do you stop at combat and ranged attacks for no other reason than its what you believe is correct? If you believing that this is correct is right, then why is it wrong that I stop the Banner of Murder at combat attacks only?

These are all hypotheticals, I'm just making a point. I still don't believe that there is a right or wrong answer which means that I think its best to talk it over with someone before the game. I just don't want people to be surprised if they hear "no" every now and then.

That seems to be the logical end of the argument, or at least I can't see it developing much past this point.
(And no offense taken EVC, that Lifetaker example was meant to draw out the hand weapon example that you gave. I'm having too much fun to be offended and I know that you're not one of malicious spirit from other posts/threads.)

EvC
01-07-2009, 15:38
Surely the simplest and therefore best interpretation would be that if a model is granted armour piercing attacks then this applies to all its weapons. Simple and effective. The only possible grey area I would see from there is whether this would apply to chariot impact hits or not (If the BoM states mounts are not affected, this greay area does not exist), if placed on a BSB riding a chariot.

Rending Swords and the like, I really wouldn't mind them affecting things other than close combat attacks- in the case of the Warriors' sword for example, this would be the only reason to take it! However it's a fairly obvious interpretation that sword effects only ever apply when you are using them, so it could go either way. However FAQ precedence has indicated fairly solidly that if they are talking about a weapon, then it applies to attacks made with that weapon (See Starcrusher in the Warriors of Chaos FAQ), and if talking about a general ability, then they mean all the attacks or dicerolls (See Warrior Priests in the Empire FAQ).

I just don't see why you would think that a banner that makes the owners' weapons nastier would only ever apply to a weapon used in close combat though? It just doesn't follow. Some people might say "no", but they'd be wrong. Sometimes there are right and wrong answers, and people often believe in the wrong answer, simply because they're wrong as well.

It all comes down to the permissiveness of the rules, really. It's like the oft-asked question, "Can I cast spells while my Wizard is in combat/ wearing armour/? It doesn't say that I can!". When in fact you look at the rules, and they say a Wizard can cast spells, therefore a Wizard can cast spells [except in situations where he is forbidden, which are listed]. Banner of Murder is exactly the same. The models now have AP attacks. It doesn't need to state whether it's close combat attacks, shooting attacks, both or neither- it's already told you.

Draconian77
01-07-2009, 17:51
Surely the simplest and therefore best interpretation would be that if a model is granted armour piercing attacks then this applies to all its weapons. Simple and effective. The only possible grey area I would see from there is whether this would apply to chariot impact hits or not (If the BoM states mounts are not affected, this greay area does not exist), if placed on a BSB riding a chariot.

From where I'm standing the simplest and best solution is to let it apply to only close combat attacks.(Can we stop this pointless back and forth? We both know a circle when we see one) As an aside, the BoM does not exclude mounts so the Chariot issue could arise, although its an unlikely occurence.

Rending Swords and the like, I really wouldn't mind them affecting things other than close combat attacks- in the case of the Warriors' sword for example, this would be the only reason to take it!

Right, but surely you acknowledge that some players do not play it that way because from a RAI point of view, it doesn't make sense.

However it's a fairly obvious interpretation that sword effects only ever apply when you are using them, so it could go either way. However FAQ precedence has indicated fairly solidly that if they are talking about a weapon, then it applies to attacks made with that weapon (See Starcrusher in the Warriors of Chaos FAQ), and if talking about a general ability, then they mean all the attacks or dicerolls (See Warrior Priests in the Empire FAQ).

As a general rule of thumb I like to take things on a case by case basis rather than using similar FAQs as the last word. Besides, that point of view allows Heralds of Nurgle to re-roll failed to wound rolls with their spells, etc, etc, etc. It's not an ideal solution.

I just don't see why you would think that a banner that makes the owners' weapons nastier would only ever apply to a weapon used in close combat though? It just doesn't follow.

I really can't see where the problem is, I find the idea of a magical banner giving a weapon armour piercing ludicrous. But again this is just opinion vs opinion.

Some people might say "no", but they'd be wrong. Sometimes there are right and wrong answers, and people often believe in the wrong answer, simply because they're wrong as well.

That's awfully conceited of you. (Or maybe egotistical would be a better word...)
~We know that the rule is vague. (Both Ap and the BoM)
~We know that in similar cases such vaguities lead to differences of opinions.
(Some people say that the Potion of Strength applies to mounts, etc)
~We know that its up to each player/group/organisation/publisher to say how it's going to be played.

Anything else is a fallacy.

It all comes down to the permissiveness of the rules, really. It's like the oft-asked question, "Can I cast spells while my Wizard is in combat/ wearing armour/? It doesn't say that I can!". When in fact you look at the rules, and they say a Wizard can cast spells, therefore a Wizard can cast spells [except in situations where he is forbidden, which are listed].

That's a strawman.

Banner of Murder is exactly the same. The models now have AP attacks. It doesn't need to state whether it's close combat attacks, shooting attacks, both or neither- it's already told you.

You mean to say that a rule excluding nothing is specific whereas I say that such a rule is vague, think about it, which is a more accurate viewpoint?

Pink Filler.

EvC
01-07-2009, 18:53
From where I'm standing the simplest and best solution is to let it apply to only close combat attacks.(Can we stop this pointless back and forth? We both know a circle when we see one) As an aside, the BoM does not exclude mounts so the Chariot issue could arise, although its an unlikely occurence.

It's a circle, but one consisting of everyone saying why this is the case, with good reasons and precedent, and you saying you disagree... just... because. And, damn your black soul, you're not even doing so to get an advantage for the army you play. How annoying ;)

I honestly do not know whether in this case the chariot impact hits should be counted as armour piercing. What do you think Draconian? They're close combat attacks, but they're not explicitly allowed... so whaddya say?


As a general rule of thumb I like to take things on a case by case basis rather than using similar FAQs as the last word. Besides, that point of view allows Heralds of Nurgle to re-roll failed to wound rolls with their spells, etc, etc, etc. It's not an ideal solution.

Yes, by this point of view, Heralds of Nurgle would indeed get to re-roll spell effects and the like. Very nasty, but also totally legal, as it's what the rules say.


I find the idea of a magical banner giving a weapon armour piercing ludicrous.

...well, if you find the very concept of the Banner of Murder to be ridiculous, then that doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it?


That's awfully conceited of you. (Or maybe egotistical would be a better word...)

Yeah. I can afford to be, however ;)


~We know that the rule is vague. (Both Ap and the BoM)

But it isn't ;)


~We know that in similar cases such vaguities lead to differences of opinions.

It is true that there are a few vague or confusing rules in the entirety of the game we play. Their existence does not make this a vahue or confusing rule however. That would be a major fallacy.


(Some people say that the Potion of Strength applies to mounts, etc)

That is based upon the concept of what counts as a "model", and is of course a separate matter entirely. This is only relevant if you are espousing the viewpoint that because an independent rule is unclear, so every rule may also be unclear. Huge fallacy.


~We know that its up to each player/group/organisation/publisher to say how it's going to be played.

And all the main ones have said it applies to shooting and close combat attacks.


That's a strawman.

No, it isn't, that's nothing like a straw man. It's an analogy, and a very good one. The fact I portray you as the guy asking if wizards can cast spells in armour is not flattering, but accurate ;) In either case, it's the same thing: the rules are clear, and the player is demanding that the rules say explicitly that the rule applies to shooting attacks/ wizards wearing armour. They don't need to say that. The rules are clear and broad enough to begin with.


You mean to say that a rule excluding nothing is specific whereas I say that such a rule is vague, think about it, which is a more accurate viewpoint?

The rule is certainly specific. The attacks made by the model are now AP. If they went to the trouble of listing all the attacks made by the model, that would not be adding specificity, it would be adding redundancy. I did write an example of this but it turned out far too patronising, so I had to delete it ;)

Draconian77
02-07-2009, 01:53
it's a circle, but one consisting of everyone saying why this is the case, with good reasons and precedent, and you saying you disagree... Just... Because. And, damn your black soul, you're not even doing so to get an advantage for the army you play. How annoying

oh come now, hardly befitting. Gazak and chivalrous where both in agreement with me the last time they posted(probably the reason that they haven't posted again), we all agreed that it was vague enough to be a point of discussion/vague enough to lead to a difference of opinions. (rather than agreeing its clearly one way or the other)

i honestly do not know whether in this case the chariot impact hits should be counted as armour piercing. What do you think draconian? They're close combat attacks, but they're not explicitly allowed... So whaddya say?

that's still interesting. If you want my case-by-case rai answer then no, the impact hits would not benefit from ap. If you want my raw answer you would probably(definately...) have to wait.

yes, by this point of view, heralds of nurgle would indeed get to re-roll spell effects and the like. Very nasty, but also totally legal, as it's what the rules say.

the only thing that tells me is that you play strictly by raw.
Which means that you are incapable of seeing a rai players point of view.

...well, if you find the very concept of the banner of murder to be ridiculous, then that doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it?

That was a typo on my part. Insert "ranged" before weapon for an accurate read.

yeah. I can afford to be, however ;)

Oh you...:p


but it isn't

you can't really claim this in the face of (as of yet to be refuted) evidence. Something tells me that you will anyway though...

and all the main ones have said it applies to shooting and close combat attacks.

do we have a comprehensive list at our disposal?
If you did you certainly would be amiss in keeping it to yourself. :)
I have to say, i checked bugmans brewery and most of their posters seem to think that you need to discuss it aswell. (ah, the wisdom of the longbeards :d)
I also did a search on druchii.net and found...nothing. Hmm, its been a while since i was last on druchii.net so maybe i'm just missing it.

the rules are clear and broad enough to begin with.

You are intelligent enough to know that rules always look clear and broad to one who is (stubbornly, both of us)supporting one position over another.

the rule is certainly specific. The attacks made by the model are now ap. If they went to the trouble of listing all the attacks made by the model, that would not be adding specificity, it would be adding redundancy. I did write an example of this but it turned out far too patronising, so i had to delete it ;)

Don't be absurd, a rule which is open to interpretation is vague... Heck, the very fact that i am here debating it means that it isn't specific! Or if you don't like that take on it, how about the fact that the question/thread needed posting in the first place?

"a unit with the banner of murder gains the armour piercing rule."

= vague.

"a unit with the banner of murder gains the armour piercing rule in close combat. This bonus does not apply to any mounts."

= specific.

t
..
~
>
?
L

For some reason my caps is on the fritz, irritating.

TheDarkDaff
02-07-2009, 09:45
Don't be absurd, a rule which is open to interpretation is vague... Heck, the very fact that i am here debating it means that it isn't specific! Or if you don't like that take on it, how about the fact that the question/thread needed posting in the first place?

"a unit with the banner of murder gains the armour piercing rule."

= vague.
This isn't really vague. Broad and all encompassing is a much more accurate description.


"a unit with the banner of murder gains the armour piercing rule in close combat. This bonus does not apply to any mounts."

= specific.

If that is what they want the rule to mean.

It really boils down to what is actually written. If you want a fair comparison of RAI then look no further than Heartseeker in the magic weapons section. "The character mat re-roll all failed rolls to hit and to wound in close combat." It stands to reason that the same formatting would be used by the same Author in the same book if he wanted the same conclusion. Gav used different wording in the rules which shows he intended them to work in different ways (one only in close combat with the other more open).

To be more to the point the only units this can make any difference to are Corsairs with Hand-bows and attached characters with missle weapons. Unless you want to argue that Armour Piercing is a weapon rule so must be on a weapon to work.

EvC
02-07-2009, 12:36
"Don't be absurd, a rule which is open to interpretation is vague... Heck, the very fact that i am here debating it means that it isn't specific! Or if you don't like that take on it, how about the fact that the question/thread needed posting in the first place?"

Another fallacy. Just because something is discussed, does not make it unclear. That's the reasoning espoused by people who believe that the Moon landings were faked. Note that the opening poster asked the question simply because he was unsure, but thought it was the way that we are saying.

It is specific. It's exactly like the "wizards casting spells in armour" discussion that crops up every now and then. The rules do not cover that explicit case, but the rules are still clear and specific to whether they can do it even in spite of the fact they don't list the specific case. And indeed since that question comes up quite often does that make it unclear? No, it just means a lot of people don't read their rulebook very well.

Jetty Smurf
06-07-2009, 03:07
Drac, just to clear up some things...

The reason you are saying the AP rule does not include ranged weapons is because of Lifetaker and magic?

Is/Are there any other reason/s why you read the rule to only apply to close combat weapons?

I am not arguing one way or the other (though I do have a fairly firm stance for one side), I just wanted to clarify your reasoning behind interpreting the rule to apply to close combat weapons only, and not, for example, ranged weapons only.

Lordmonkey
06-07-2009, 07:38
The AP rule just applies and is. How the bearing unit/model actually deals the hits is irrelevant, only that any hits it does deal gain AP.

If I am not mistaken, the AP rule deals with 'hits' as opposed to 'attacks'? This would imply that AP is not limited to close combat, otherwise, repeater crossbows would not modify the enemy armour save.

Someone previously posted the idea of using the Black Dragon Egg with the AP banner. This is a legitimate combination. It is also legitimate to use the banner to grant shooting and mounts the AP rule. (Can't say i'm sure about monstrous mounts etc because of the unresolved debate over "what is a model?").

If a model has AP then it has AP. I think the simplicity of the rule's wording makes the answer to this debate clear enough.