PDA

View Full Version : Beastmen Hunting Spear



tonylatorre
28-02-2010, 20:00
Is Hunting Spear from Beastmen army book a "throw weapon"? Or is like a bolt thrower?

Description is the same as a throw weapon, we can move and shoot and stand & shoot. Description only says that one time the spear hit, resolve as a Bolt thrower, no mention to "is fired like a bolt thrower or crossbow"...

So throw weapon has no penalties and with BS3 always hits on 4+ (+1 large target).

Or we need to apply all shoot modificators? (move, long range, etc...)

Atrahasis
28-02-2010, 20:01
The Hunting Spear does not have the "Thrown Weapon" rule.

Nurgling Chieftain
01-03-2010, 01:25
It only becomes like a bolt thrower once it hits.

As to whether or not it's a thrown weapon, you'll find plenty of disagreement. :cool:

DarkTerror
01-03-2010, 02:18
Hunting Spear is technically not a thrown weapon and should be treated as such. However, once the Beastmen FAQ comes out most people are certain it will become a thrown weapon. Until that time of course, follow the rules as written.

tw1386
01-03-2010, 06:25
Eh, most people know that in reality it is a thrown weapon. Otherwise it's not worth taking at all at 50 points.

Everybody in my local group has agreed to it being a thrown weapon after I read the entry to them. Anybody else who wants to argue that is just being a pain the **** and these are the players you want to avoid for the most part becasue they want to squeeze every advantage and nitpick everything just to get a win.

Necromancy Black
01-03-2010, 06:44
Eh, most people know that in reality it is a thrown weapon. Otherwise it's not worth taking at all at 50 points.

Everybody in my local group has agreed to it being a thrown weapon after I read the entry to them. Anybody else who wants to argue that is just being a pain the **** and these are the players you want to avoid for the most part becasue they want to squeeze every advantage and nitpick everything just to get a win.

So because I don't agree it's a thrown weapon because it doesn't have the thrown weapon rule I'm nitpicking to get a win? But because "most people know" that it should have the rule you not nitpicking for a win at all?

I follow your logic perfectly.

For those interested in what it says, it's not given as a thrown weapon. Play how you want but don't go feeling contempt towards people who want to play by straight RAW.

Nurgling Chieftain
01-03-2010, 07:26
RaW is, it's thrown. And that's a rule, not descriptive text.

Basically, the argument against it being a thrown weapon goes like this: "It's a weapon that's thrown, not a thrown weapon." The notion that GW consistently holds its rules writing to that sort of technical specificity seems laughable to me. As an assumption on which to claim what "RaW" is, it's far too shaky to hold any kind of solid argument.

Onidan
01-03-2010, 07:50
RaW is, it's thrown. And that's a rule, not descriptive text.

Basically, the argument against it being a thrown weapon goes like this: "It's a weapon that's thrown, not a thrown weapon." The notion that GW consistently holds its rules writing to that sort of technical specificity seems laughable to me. As an assumption on which to claim what "RaW" is, it's far too shaky to hold any kind of solid argument.

Sadly it doesnīt work that way with GW rules.

Yes, it would make sense for it to be a thrown weapon.

Sword of Might (or all other magical weapons that have no further Rules like Great Weapon, Lance etc.), for example, is a weapon held in a hand, yet no hand weapon, even if it would make sense in this case as well.

Only magical weapons were it states "Hand Weapon" before the actual Rule part and the lore part are treated so, though. Pretty similar case.

Itīs simply a matter to be resolved in a FaQ. Until then itīs better to clear it up in your gaming group.

That being said, I wouldnīt mind it being a thrown weapon. But other people have different interpretations of rules.

minionboy
01-03-2010, 08:17
Sword of Might (or all other magical weapons that have no further Rules like Great Weapon, Lance etc.), for example, is a weapon held in a hand, yet no hand weapon, even if it would make sense in this case as well.

So when it's ability is negated by something along the lines of the Chaos Rune Shield, you're arguing that the Sword of Might does not end up being used as a Hand Weapon.

I'm sorry, but when a weapon states that it is thrown in a sentence about it's rules, then anyone arguing that it isn't a thrown weapon is only reading the second half of the sentence.

Onidan
01-03-2010, 08:42
So when it's ability is negated by something along the lines of the Chaos Rune Shield, you're arguing that the Sword of Might does not end up being used as a Hand Weapon.

I'm sorry, but when a weapon states that it is thrown in a sentence about it's rules, then anyone arguing that it isn't a thrown weapon is only reading the second half of the sentence.


*sigh*
I donīt have my book with me rigth now (Iīll try to provide a page and exact quote once I return home), but the rule book states something along these lines:


Magic weapons always ignore any special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon.

So, it might be argued that the Spear is a thrown weapon (I donīt have the book and thus canīt check the wording), and I didnīt even say itīs not, only thatīs a matter for the FaQ. If youīd red the rest of my post youīd have seen that I wouldnīt mind it being played as a thrown weapon.

The Sword of Might however is indeed no Hand Weapon for the purpose of getting an additional attack from an additional hand weapon, or the H+S Bonus, and does not gain that rule even if the magical portion of the weapon gets negated.

It should in addition be noted that all other magical weapons which have some other weapon rules attached outright state so. "It counts as a magical great weapon", "It is a magical shortbow" etc. So unless the spear does so as well (the words "Thrown Weapon" in that order appear in the rule part of the text) it is still a matter of RaW vs. RaI and interpretation.

minionboy
01-03-2010, 08:52
I read your whole post, and I wasn't disagreeing with anything other than the logic you posted including the Sword of Might.

Luckily, I play with people that have a shred of common sense and nobody I personally know has argued that it isn't a thrown weapon. I can only assume those that do are the ultra competitive folk that I am bored to death of playing against.

Onidan
01-03-2010, 08:54
I that case I apologize ^^

Interpretation can be a bit... misleading *cough*

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
01-03-2010, 09:54
Luckily, I play with people that have a shred of common sense and nobody I personally know has argued that it isn't a thrown weapon. I can only assume those that do are the ultra competitive folk that I am bored to death of playing against.

No, you can assume a multitude of other conclusions, but the safest one is that people who think it is not a thrown weapon just read and understand the entry differently than you do. That way you're not putting your own opinions and beliefs on someone else.

Ultimate Life Form
01-03-2010, 10:19
GW finally need to get the fluff outta the rules.

Something is a thrown weapon if it has the 'Thrown Weapon' rule, it's actually pretty easy. Only because you don't like it doesn't mean you can just make something up. I'm waiting for you to throw a tantrum and claim it is a Thrown Weapon.

Milgram
01-03-2010, 11:02
So when it's ability is negated by something along the lines of the Chaos Rune Shield, you're arguing that the Sword of Might does not end up being used as a Hand Weapon.

yes. a sword of might that is negated is not a hand weapon. but every model is assumed to wear a hand weapon of some kind. as the character wears no more magical weapon, he is free to use any other weapons he wears with him. unless he is in an ongoing combat, he might choose to wield his hand weapon instead of his no more magical sword of might, that does not confer him any special rules. if he is in an ongoing combat, he will fight with a weapon without any type that works like a magic weapon with the exception that it does not have any special rules and is not magical. so no 'parry' bonus for a non-magical sword of might.

the spear is not thrown as he does not have the rule 'thrown weapon'. which might or might not be changed in an errata - I really don't know whether it should have the rules of a thrown weapon or not. It's like the ushabti not having two handed weapons - they obviously have two handed weapons if you look at the models, but they do not have the special rules for them.


btw: the stone thrower has 'throw' in his name - though it is not a thrown weapon. terradons can throw stones - that are not a thrown weapon. the ogre hunter throws a spear as well - and iirc it does not count as a thrown weapon.

Ultimate Life Form
01-03-2010, 11:21
terradons can throw stones - that are not a thrown weapon.

Actually, the rule is called 'Drop Rocks'.

Remember the old Lustrian saying, "It has two kinds of droppings, neither of which is particularly pleasant." :p

minionboy
01-03-2010, 11:21
yes. a sword of might that is negated is not a hand weapon. but every model is assumed to wear a hand weapon of some kind. as the character wears no more magical weapon, he is free to use any other weapons he wears with him. unless he is in an ongoing combat, he might choose to wield his hand weapon instead of his no more magical sword of might, that does not confer him any special rules. if he is in an ongoing combat, he will fight with a weapon without any type that works like a magic weapon with the exception that it does not have any special rules and is not magical. so no 'parry' bonus for a non-magical sword of might.

the spear is not thrown as he does not have the rule 'thrown weapon'. which might or might not be changed in an errata - I really don't know whether it should have the rules of a thrown weapon or not. It's like the ushabti not having two handed weapons - they obviously have two handed weapons if you look at the models, but they do not have the special rules for them.


btw: the stone thrower has 'throw' in his name - though it is not a thrown weapon. terradons can throw stones - that are not a thrown weapon. the ogre hunter throws a spear as well - and iirc it does not count as a thrown weapon.

Stone Thrower has "throw" in it's name, but a name is not a rule.

Terradons drop rocks, they do not throw.

The ogre spear is actually a "Harpoon Launcher," which is even modeled like a crossbow.

So again, we refer to the RULE sentence in the weapon description that says how it is used and what range it has. It is THROWN with a range of 24".

Also, I should add that the Chaos Rune Shield says the magic weapon should be used as a normal weapon of it's type, so I'm wondering what normal weapon the Sword of Might is reduced to. It must be reduced to some sort of weapon as the CRS states, you tell me what kind it should be (flail?).

Milgram
01-03-2010, 11:28
yeah. but if we wait a bit, I am sure I can come up with a correct example of a thrown/not thrown weapon. :)

my terradon error came out of the german btw: throw/drop -> werfen/abwerfen

minionboy
01-03-2010, 11:32
yeah. but if we wait a bit, I am sure I can come up with a correct example of a thrown/not thrown weapon. :)

Death Globe/Brass Orb, but these have their own specific rules (odd that only the globe is a magic weapon). That's about the closest thing I can come up with after reading through my army books.

Atrahasis
01-03-2010, 15:12
The Bow of Loren is "fired" as many times as the model has attacks, therefore it must be a blackpowder weapon!

jrodrag
01-03-2010, 17:39
The Bow of Loren is "fired" as many times as the model has attacks, therefore it must be a blackpowder weapon!

Uh, you also fire bows. The terms fire and shoot are synonymous in this case.

People can play it either way they want. However, if in a game where someone payed 50 points for something they assumed worked a certain way, for instance a thrown weapon that hits on a 4+ most of the time, I would certainly not ruin thier day by telling them that it didn't work that way and to go home and cry if they didn't like it. The entry is very ambiguous. No it does not have the rule "thrown weapon". However, aruguing either case as a finality is just silly.

One last thing, if you are sure something is going to be FAQ'd in a certain way, why would you not play the rules of that thing that way before the FAQ. It's like saying I know what the right way to do it should be, but until I am forced to by nobody I won't do it.

Ultimate Life Form
01-03-2010, 17:42
With GW, I would be VERY careful about being sure something will be FAQ'd in a certain way.

LaurentleBete
01-03-2010, 18:36
It is THROWN with a range of 24 inches. Therefore it is THROWN. I don't really think it can be more clear then that?

Atrahasis
01-03-2010, 21:54
Uh, you also fire bowsNo, you "loose" arrows.

"Firing" applies solely to weapons that use ... erm... fire as a trigger.

Of course, if we're going to interpret words differently, then "thrown" is just an English term for launching a projectile using your arm, and not an in-game term with any rules weight ;)

decker_cky
01-03-2010, 22:58
There's about 20 definitions for fire as a verb, and one of them is even to hurl a projectile, so GW could have been clear by having you fire the hunting spear at a target. ;)

And even if you hold your definition...crossbows ruin your example.

HammerToe
01-03-2010, 23:20
i say its a thrown weapon all the way. it specifically says thrown

Atrahasis
02-03-2010, 07:54
There's about 20 definitions for fire as a verb, and one of them is even to hurl a projectile, so GW could have been clear by having you fire the hunting spear at a target. ;)

And even if you hold your definition...crossbows ruin your example.

The point I'm making is that "fire" only applies to other missile weapons because its colloquial use has expanded with time.

You won't catch an expert in firearms and ranged weaponry making that "mistake" - crossbows and bows "loose" arrows. Only firearms (ie gunpowder weapons) are "fired".

Just because we use a word doesn't mean that any and all connotations of that word apply - the "Thrown Weapon" rule does not apply to any weapon that is thrown, it applies to weapons with the "Thrown Weapon" rule.

Milgram
02-03-2010, 08:04
and why go the extra mile to mention how the spear is used in close combat as a spear when not mentionning it to actually be a thrown weapon? it's clarified on one side but not on the other? why mentionning 'note that it can be fired after moving but not after marching and it can be used for stand&shoot' but not that you would not get penalties for move&fire or long range? it just doesn't make sense to bring up some points and not mentionning others.

btw: it also does not have the 'one use only' rule - which would be logical as well for a weapon that is unique and thrown. or does the character have up to 12 hunting spears in his back pack?

Ultimate Life Form
02-03-2010, 08:13
btw: it also does not have the 'one use only' rule - which would be logical as well for a weapon that is unique and thrown. or does the character have up to 12 hunting spears in his back pack?

Yeah, I think that's a fair trade-off. It's a thrown weapon, but can be used only once. :D

Why are you staring at me like that? Hey, it wasn't me who started pulling rules outta his hat that simply aren't there under the guise of 'logic'.

Griefbringer
02-03-2010, 08:15
btw: it also does not have the 'one use only' rule - which would be logical as well for a weapon that is unique and thrown. or does the character have up to 12 hunting spears in his back pack?

Perhaps the Gor-mart chain does not sell them individually, but only in packs of a dozen, due to manufacturer stipulations.

Of course this has led to a rather high mortality amongst the ungor clerks (saying "no" to Mr Beastlord on a shopping spree is never a smart idea), so now the Gor-mart has started to hire minotaurs instead to staff their magic weapons department. After the minotaurs ate a few of the more obnoxious wargors, the rest have stopped complaining about the requirement to buy them in packs of a dozen.

Besides, you can always use the spare spears as barbeque sticks for the traditional after-battle barbeque.

Ultimate Life Form
02-03-2010, 08:22
Perhaps the Gor-mart chain does not sell them individually, but only in packs of a dozen, due to manufacturer stipulations.

Of course this has led to a rather high mortality amongst the ungor clerks (saying "no" to Mr Beastlord on a shopping spree is never a smart idea), so now the Gor-mart has started to hire minotaurs instead to staff their magic weapons department. After the minotaurs ate a few of the more obnoxious wargors, the rest have stopped complaining about the requirement to buy them in packs of a dozen.

Besides, you can always use the spare spears as barbeque sticks for the traditional after-battle barbeque.

Yeah, then again that would explain the steep price. :rolleyes:

Milgram
02-03-2010, 09:11
Hey, it wasn't me who started pulling rules outta his hat that simply aren't there under the guise of 'logic'.

and neither was I. :)

Braugi
02-03-2010, 11:33
No, you "loose" arrows.

"Firing" applies solely to weapons that use ... erm... fire as a trigger.

Of course, if we're going to interpret words differently, then "thrown" is just an English term for launching a projectile using your arm, and not an in-game term with any rules weight ;)

I hate to tell you, but the term 'firing a bow' is actually very common terminology. For instance, here are a few websites that use the terminology specifically:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/learning/hunter_education/homestudy/archery/

Note that it talks specifically about firing a bow

http://toysoldiermarket.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1878

a quick web search shows multiple native american mini's 'firing a bow and arrow', this is one such listing

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.00100300900g006

Note the headings : Fire a Bow and Arrow

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-valentines-cupid-firing-bow-and-arrow-image5180750

Here, cupid is 'firing' a bow and arrow...



While the term 'firing' may be derived from early firearms, the term has been in widespread usage for any shooting apparatus for quite some time.

Braugi
02-03-2010, 11:37
The point I'm making is that "fire" only applies to other missile weapons because its colloquial use has expanded with time.

You won't catch an expert in firearms and ranged weaponry making that "mistake" - crossbows and bows "loose" arrows. Only firearms (ie gunpowder weapons) are "fired".

Just because we use a word doesn't mean that any and all connotations of that word apply - the "Thrown Weapon" rule does not apply to any weapon that is thrown, it applies to weapons with the "Thrown Weapon" rule.

Thats not true at all...there are plenty of people who are considered 'experts' that you'll see on TV, ESPN, ESPN2 etc that are firearms and archery experts, mostly hunters and such, that use the term 'firing the bow' with regularity. Now, competitive archers at the highest levels may not use the term, but like it or not, the term has expanded far beyond applying to only things that use a trigger or powder.

Milgram
02-03-2010, 12:45
only because many people use it makes it the correct term? I can come up with some sites that publish wrong terms all day long. and I'm not even native to english (as you might have guessed...).

go on. make a quick search on that site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_%28weapon%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery

do you find the word 'fire'?

explorator
02-03-2010, 13:56
The Hunting Spear does not have the "Thrown Weapon" rule.

The rules for the Hunting Spear specifically say it is thrown.

Yellow Commissar
02-03-2010, 15:26
The rules for the Hunting Spear specifically say it is thrown.

Yes it does indeed.

You know, this reminds me quite a bit of the thread last week regarding the Dwarf lord mounted on shield bearers.

I find it odd that the same people who claimed that the use of the word "mounted" in the description was enough for the Dwarf Lord to gain the "mounted" rule while here, the use of the word "thrown" is now not enough for the Hunting Spear to gain the thrown weopon rule.

I'm not claiming that either rule is clear, but I will tell you that I allow my friends to count thier Hunting Spear as a thrown weopon.

SilentCivilian
02-03-2010, 15:55
I for one will be using it as a thrown weapon until we get some official ruling other wise. Sadly i fully expect GW to rule that it is not. After all they cock things like this up all the time.

As for using the term "firing a bow" english for the most part is a messed up language. Its the only one i speak and to be honest people use words that may not be deemed correct all the time. Look at the number of teenage girls using the term literally all the time. I for one live in an area where all the wee neds constantly use the word like at the end of a sentence. When faced with something of this nature you have 2 options. Smile politely and accept you know what they intended the phrase to be used as or pull them up and correct every tiny mistake in their grammer.
I know which i go for life is short enough and i would rather get on with the game.

Milgram
02-03-2010, 16:00
I find it odd that the same people who claimed that the use of the word "mounted" in the description was enough for the Dwarf Lord to gain the "mounted" rule while here, the use of the word "thrown" is now not enough for the Hunting Spear to gain the thrown weopon rule.

the big difference is, that there is no such thing as a 'mounted rule'. you either are mounted or you're not. on the other hand side there is a special rule named 'thrown weapon'. and it is very similar to 'hand weapon' - only because you throw a weapon, it is not automatically a 'thrown weapon' as a weapon you have in your hand is not automatically a 'hand weapon'.

Yellow Commissar
02-03-2010, 16:20
the big difference is, that there is no such thing as a 'mounted rule'. you either are mounted or you're not. on the other hand side there is a special rule named 'thrown weapon'. and it is very similar to 'hand weapon' - only because you throw a weapon, it is not automatically a 'thrown weapon' as a weapon you have in your hand is not automatically a 'hand weapon'.

I don't see that much of a difference. Mounted is defined on page 55 (at least in relation to the weopon rules and according the Direwolf FAQ). A Dwarf lord clearly does not fit into this description.

I get the point that the Hunting Spear does not have "thrown weopon" listed as a special rule after, but it does state that it can be thrown. Is it not a weopon?

The listing does not tell us to shoot it as a Bolt Thrower. It just says to resove hits like one.

I believe that the phrase "It can be thrown with a range of 24" can be interpreted to mean that it is fired as a thrown weopon.

I just haven't found the Warhammer rules to be written in that clear of a style with special rules clearly defined and listed.

I am not saying that it is totally clear.

What I think we have here with the Hunting Spear is another situation not clearly covered. We therefore must interpret the rule and agree with our opponents about how to play it.

Trying to enforce range penalties upon my friends here does not seem to be in the best interest of having fun.

Atrahasis
02-03-2010, 17:36
but it does state that it can be thrown. Is it not a weopon?An axe thrown by a native american is a missile, and it's a tomahawk, but it isn't a tomahawk missile.

A weapon that fires shots in multiples does not follow the rules for multiple shots unless it has that rule.

A missile that is magical is not a magic missile.

Defined terms are applied only where they are invoked.

Milgram
02-03-2010, 17:41
I don't see that much of a difference. Mounted is defined on page 55 (at least in relation to the weopon rules and according the Direwolf FAQ). A Dwarf lord clearly does not fit into this description.

well, the dwarf lord doesn't fit the 'infantry' description either. it is not like the parenthesis give you a complete listing of all possible combinations. e.g. ā plaque furnace is not cavalry, not a monster and not a chariot by the rules. so it would be infantry according to page 55?

but I know you can see that there is a difference between a 'special rule' and a 'not that clearly defined rule'. me thinks that this discussion has a way different basis than the dwarf lord discussion. :)

@silentcivilian: one step further until godwin's law. :angel:

@atra: darn... sometimes I wish I was as eloquent in english as I feel I am in german. ;)

The_Bureaucrat
02-03-2010, 17:50
I wouldn't consider the FAQ answer to be garunteed either way (unlike shieldbearers)
If they had wanted it to be a thrown weapon they could have made the rules a lot clearer.
If they didn't want it to be a thrown weapon than they probably wouldn't have changed how its written.

RAW its a magical spear with a ranged attack.

In reality talk it over with your oppenent before the game.
If it is/you decide its a thrown weapon should also discuss whether its strength 5 or 6.

decker_cky
02-03-2010, 18:09
RAW its a magical spear with a ranged attack.

In reality talk it over with your oppenent before the game.
If it is/you decide its a thrown weapon should also discuss whether its strength 5 or 6.

Some slight corrections...

RAW it is a generic ranged weapon which counts as a spear in combat.

And it's clearly S6. Even if it's a thrown weapon, it's not a javelin or throwing axe, so it doesn't have a "S as user" type rule. Bolt thrower hits are at S6.

Palatine Katinka
02-03-2010, 18:10
I'm not sure which way this will go when it comes to an FAQ. To pull some examples from the Dark Elf book;

Caledor's Bane was described as a lance but it's rules didn't say it was so it didn't follow the rules for a lance and could be used on foot, until the errata said it's rules should read:
"Lance. +3 Strength on the charge instead of +2."

On the other hand neither Crimson Death nor Lifetaker follow the rules of their basic weapon equivalents (halberd and repeater crossbow respectively).

I'd err on the side of caution and say that with its considerably greater range than a throwing axe or javelin it probably isn't supposed to ignore the long range modifier. Also, with its hitting power of a bolt thrower I'd think that being able to move and fire is a big enough benefit, let alone doing so without a -1 to hit.

Yellow Commissar
02-03-2010, 21:44
Defined terms are applied only where they are invoked.

Really? What page can I find that rule on?

Atrahasis
02-03-2010, 21:45
Oh please. It's a basic property of any ruleset that you only apply the rules when they tell you to.

Yellow Commissar
02-03-2010, 21:53
First you said "defined terms", now you are talking about rules.

I don't believe Warhammer has any clear rules about "defined terms".

Taureus
03-03-2010, 03:04
First you said "defined terms", now you are talking about rules.

I don't believe Warhammer has any clear rules about "defined terms".

That may very well be.

But they are clear when defining a "Thrown Weapon" within the ruleset. Lacking that term in it's description, it doesn't follow the rules for thrown weapons.

Khorneflakes
03-03-2010, 04:47
its a weapon you throw. all penalities apply

Peregijn
03-03-2010, 10:12
the FAQ means nothing:(:


The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste.

if you want a hard rule wait for the errata of the rule not the faq:angel:.

edit: so as long as it isn't clear: talk with your opponent about your interpretation of the rules and see if he agrees. if not. ask for a refund and change the spear for something els because if it isn't a thrown wapon it is not worth the 50 points.

Yellow Commissar
03-03-2010, 16:01
That may very well be.

But they are clear when defining a "Thrown Weapon" within the ruleset. Lacking that term in it's description, it doesn't follow the rules for thrown weapons.

I disagree. The Hunting Spear is quite clearly a "Magic Weapon". Just because they contract giving it the ability to be thrown with its range, does not necessarily mean that you don't use the "thrown weapon" rule to shoot it.

I'll admit that it is not entirely clear. What I think needs to factored in here though, is its practical application. Are you insisting that your friend take an additional -1 to hit for his already poor BS3 character? Or, are you trying not to take -1 to hit for your character? Is it the middle of the game? Has your friend already rolled to hit with the -1 affecting wether of not your general gets hit with it?

Coming from my perspective, (I don't play Beastmen and trying to discuss it before we play) I will totally allow it to be a thrown weapon.

The_Bureaucrat
03-03-2010, 19:38
I disagree. The Hunting Spear is quite clearly a "Magic Weapon". Just because they contract giving it the ability to be thrown with its range, does not necessarily mean that you don't use the "thrown weapon" rule to shoot it. This is under the assumption that every weapon thrown including magical weapons conforms to the "thrown weapon" rules. There are few well defined terms in warhammer "thrown weapon" is one of them.



I'll admit that it is not entirely clear. What I think needs to factored in here though, is its practical application. Are you insisting that your friend take an additional -1 to hit for his already poor BS3 character? Or, are you trying not to take -1 to hit for your character? Is it the middle of the game? Has your friend already rolled to hit with the -1 affecting wether of not your general gets hit with it?

Coming from my perspective, (I don't play Beastmen and trying to discuss it before we play) I will totally allow it to be a thrown weapon.
Practical considerations don't have any affect on the rules and even if they did I wouldn't call this cut and dry by any means. It still outranks the other mobile ballistas Ogre Hunters (being able to move and shoot), Stegadon ( Stand and Shoot, Str6) as well as have the advantage of being magical and a spear.

Yellow Commissar
03-03-2010, 22:16
This is under the assumption that every weapon thrown including magical weapons conforms to the "thrown weapon" rules. There are few well defined terms in warhammer "thrown weapon" is one of them.

I am not making that assumption. What I am saying is that when the rule for the spear says "It can be thrown with a range of 24" that it is being given the "thrown weapon" rule.

Milgram
04-03-2010, 05:20
as mentionned before: pg121, magical weapons do not follow the special rules of mundane weapons of the same type unless it is not written differently in their description.

last thing I gonna say to this topic.

Taureus
05-03-2010, 02:40
I am not making that assumption. What I am saying is that when the rule for the spear says "It can be thrown with a range of 24" that it is being given the "thrown weapon" rule.

I can understand what you're trying to get across here.

Having the text read as it does, yes you could try to argue for it counting as a having the "thrown weapon" rule. But your opponent would have to agree with you, otherwise it does not have that rule.

The weapon must have "thrown weapon" in it's description, just as it must have "spear" or "lance" in order to either fight in 2 ranks/gain +1 Strength when mounted, or gain +2 Strength on a charge. Simply saying that the weapon can be thrown (how else would you use a spear at range...) is not enough in this case.

Khorneflakes
05-03-2010, 03:42
if only they had said fired.:D


now that ive reread it it does give the impression its a thrown weapon. otherwise its a 50 point item that hits on a 6+ assuming youve moved and at long range.

under missile weapons the closest rule for it would be javelin, as its none of the others. and under the special weapon rules thrown weapon is also the closest plus the last sentence is similar to the wording under the spear entry in the beast book

Taureus
05-03-2010, 03:50
It will more than likely be addressed in the Errata/FAQ article.

Either an entry in the Errata giving it the "thrown weapon" rule. Or as an entry in the FAQ saying that it isn't a "thrown weapon."

Warp-Juicer
05-03-2010, 06:52
I love RAW arguments.
Because an item in the woodelf book says "reroll any failed dispel attempts", some wood elf players take that to mean they can reroll double ones despite the fact that it needs to say it specificly, as per that rule -_-

Cambion Daystar
05-03-2010, 06:59
now that ive reread it it does give the impression its a thrown weapon. otherwise its a 50 point item that hits on a 6+ assuming youve moved and at long range.

It is a 50 pts magical, mobile boltthrower, thats also a magical spear in combat. Still doesn't sound too bad, altough there are much better choices in the book. I think it is very nice as a suprise on a character on a flank to harpoon some tasty knights.

dino31
05-03-2010, 08:24
In my opinion, i won't use the Hunting Spear as thrown weapon but i will let the other side to do this if he want.

Although it's unbelievable for a 50pts weapon and said it is "thrown" but not a thrown weapon.

But is it possible for a large creature as Carnosaur but NOT a large target ??!
Sometimes rules is a rules, can I say all the models has defined it is large so i say it is a large target ?

I just can say it is a fxxx mistake made by GW and wait for the FAQ.

Atrahasis
05-03-2010, 09:37
I love RAW arguments.
Because an item in the woodelf book says "reroll any failed dispel attempts", some wood elf players take that to mean they can reroll double ones despite the fact that it needs to say it specificly, as per that rule -_-

That rule applies to casting, not dispel. It's important to know what the rules say before you mock other people's interpretations of them, otherwise you can look foolish.

Lotn
05-03-2010, 13:59
So to all you people out there in disbelief that the Hunting Spear is not thrown, what is the range since you believe that the sentence "It is thrown with a range of 24"." is part of the fluff?

Griefbringer
05-03-2010, 14:30
I don't think that anybody is claiming that it is not thrown.

Discussion is about whether it has the weapon special rule "Thrown Weapon" as described on BRB page 55.

General Squeek Squeek
05-03-2010, 15:35
First, let me put on my crazy conspiracy hat....... done!:D

I swear it seems like GW puts out these rules that could go either way on purpose. That way if a BS4 boltthrower hero seems to powerful they can always faq it and say "its not a thrown weapon, it doesn't have the Thrown weapon rule". On the flip side if they find everyone finds it a overpriced worthless piece of junk they can faq it to say "of course its a thrown weapon. He throws it doesn't he? DuH". Either way they don't have to make a decision for the first few months until they see how the army plays.

Another good example of the top of my head would be 40k tyranids and whether their weapons stack. By writing very unclear rules and having obscure intent, they get a few extra months after the book comes out to decide how they want to balance it.

Griefbringer
05-03-2010, 15:44
Should there also be a particular "Gorlord with Hunting Spear" model released, that might accidentally lead to a revised errata being issued.

rtunian
05-03-2010, 15:56
sorry, i don't own a beastmen book, so i have to piece together from what people post. if i comprehend correctly, it's rules are: it is a 50 pt magic item, that is not labeled "thrown weapon", but specifically says that it can be stand & shoot, as a bolt thrower w/ range of 24", and also is specifically said to be used in combat?

if it is not a thrown weapon, but it can be used as stand & shoot, then it may not shoot in the shooting phase, but still be used as s&s if charged, because that is what the rules for it specifically say. rules are permissive. a range would be listed, because a range has to be listed... at some specific point on the battlefield, a panic test might be triggered by a stand & shoot: either at the full range of the shot, or where the charging models start from, whichever is closer (assuming the charge is from more than 1/2 charge range away)

as for how the thrower could conceivably use it in close combat after throwing... if he is only allowed to throw it as a stand and shoot, then he could presumably pull it back out of the model that charged him :p (unless it panicked doh!)

but again i dont know exactly what the rule says, i just give my unsolicited opinion based on what others have posted.

willowdark
05-03-2010, 16:10
Interestingly enough, of all the people who assume it's a Thrown Weapon, it never occurs to any of them that it might be "one use only."

It's described as being thrown, which implies being a "Thrown Weapon," but throwing also implies 'sending away,' which implies 'gone.'

But, It's not a One Use Only Item, because such things have to be clearly labled. I can extrapolate from the description of the item that it is One Use Only just as much as anyone can that it is a Thrown Weapon, but nobody wants to hear that because that would make the item worse and "Thrown Weapon" would make it better.

Just playing Devil's advocate. I'd prefer it to be "Thrown" as well, but that's not what it says. RAW vs RAI is particularly bad in this case because GW has such a poor track record.

decker_cky
05-03-2010, 16:55
Thrown weapon rules cover that don't they? They assume you have enough to last the battle.

Falkman
05-03-2010, 20:10
Yes they do, but this weapon does not have the Thrown Weapon rule.
What willowdark means is that if it's ok to justify the Thrown Weapon rule simply because the spear is "thrown", then why isn't it ok to justify the One Use Only rule, because if he "throws" it, it's not coming back.

Dartzstrong
06-03-2010, 01:00
No, you "loose" arrows.

"Firing" applies solely to weapons that use ... erm... fire as a trigger.

Of course, if we're going to interpret words differently, then "thrown" is just an English term for launching a projectile using your arm, and not an in-game term with any rules weight ;)

You Loose arrows
You shoot bullets
You fire people on celebrity apprentice

YOU'RE FIRED! :)

Unhelpful...I know. :)

Voss
06-03-2010, 01:29
I read your whole post, and I wasn't disagreeing with anything other than the logic you posted including the Sword of Might.

Luckily, I play with people that have a shred of common sense and nobody I personally know has argued that it isn't a thrown weapon. I can only assume those that do are the ultra competitive folk that I am bored to death of playing against.

The problem is, by asserting it this way, you come across exactly the same- the ultra-competitive player angling for any advantage.

The general rule is if a magic item does not specify a specific weapon rule in its description, it does not have it. This does not. It counts as a spear in close combat because that is specified. Should count as a thrown weapon as well? Quite probably, but you'll find that many people willing to make a similar argument over weapons in their army books as well.

Nurgling Chieftain
06-03-2010, 01:32
The general rule is if a magic item does not specify a specific weapon rule in its description, it does not have it.That rule does not exist. If it did exist, this weapon would also not constitute a missile weapon, as that is not specified either, and you would never be able to use it as such in the first place.

Voss
06-03-2010, 07:19
That rule does not exist. If it did exist, this weapon would also not constitute a missile weapon, as that is not specified either, and you would never be able to use it as such in the first place.

Nonsense- the Hunting Spear does specify how you shoot it. Its part of the rules for the item.

Loq-Gor
06-03-2010, 09:19
So to all you people out there in disbelief that the Hunting Spear is not thrown, what is the range since you believe that the sentence "It is thrown with a range of 24"." is part of the fluff?

Not a single person said this. The problem is not the suggestion that "thrown with a range of 24" is fluff. The problem is that the rule is not "thrown" it is "thrown weapon." I acknowledge that GW may make this a "thrown weapon" in the errata/faq. I also certainly acknowledge that this is another example of a confusingly written rule. But the confusion here comes from the assumption that the rule was left out or that GW is being capricious in its labeling of rules. I have found that when there actually is a defined rule in the BRB they stick to it. Its when you get into gray areas that you have problems (like magic attack or a special ability of a magic weapon). The rules of this weapon simply do not state that it is a "thrown weapon." Personally I would simply insist on dicing it off if it was so contentious.

Feel free to assume that I am just trying squeeze all I can out of the rules to assure a win. Of course making that kind of assumption about another person says more about you than them.

MalusCalibur
06-03-2010, 15:48
I swear it seems like GW puts out these rules that could go either way on purpose. That way if a BS4 boltthrower hero seems to powerful they can always faq it and say "its not a thrown weapon, it doesn't have the Thrown weapon rule". On the flip side if they find everyone finds it a overpriced worthless piece of junk they can faq it to say "of course its a thrown weapon. He throws it doesn't he? DuH". Either way they don't have to make a decision for the first few months until they see how the army plays.

That there is an incredibly insightful thought. I think you're on to something...

As for the Spear, well, it's a spear that the character throws at his target (thats fairly obvious from its description), so it is reasonable to assume it is a thrown weapon. However, at the same time, it does not have the 'Thrown Weapon' rule explicitly. So it is also reasonable to assume that it is not a thrown weapon.

As such, get an agreement with your group/friends as to which it is, and play it that way until an 'official' source clarifies it. That would be a far better approach than arguing the ins and outs of the English language, and trying to get into the designers heads.

stiltjet
06-03-2010, 17:43
Puh, reading this thread made me a bit sad.

Seems obvious enough to me that the writers of the book would have put something along the lines of the item being a "thrown weapon" had they intended it to work that way. As for most magical weapons it has itīs own rules. Beastman players may think this is sad, and try to make people stating this seem like rules lawyers, but to me those people themselves seems like the ones trying to bend the rules to gain advantages.

A mobile bolt thrower can come in handy sometimes, without using the "thrown weapon" rule. It is possible to stand still and shoot, to avoid that 6+ chance of hitting at long range. If it is, or is not, worth 50 points, now that is up to the player alone. However, I really do not like it when people try to bend the rules in their own favour. It does not make for a good game.

Harwammer
06-03-2010, 18:03
stiltjet: I don't think people are trying to bend the rules, they are just interpreting it that way; its not suprising since the word 'thrown' is actually used in the weapon's description.

Its not entirely without justification for them to intuit a rule that isn't noted; in the past it was common to have to deduce whether an attack was considered flaming or not without notation which the hunting spears situation could well be comparable to.

Edit: Just reread your post stiltjet, I'm not sure if I read you right as I'd say use of the word "thrown" in the weapons description is actually something along the lines of the item being a "thrown weapon", so I'm not sure if your post is meant to be mock sadness or what:S

Yellow Commissar
06-03-2010, 18:26
Seems obvious enough to me that the writers of the book would have put something along the lines of the item being a "thrown weapon" had they intended it to work that way.

Yah, maybe they would have said something like "it can be thrown with a range of 24". :rolleyes:

And no, this cheesy rules lawyer is not bending the rules to my own advantage. I don't play Beastmen. In fact, I just played against them last night....with a thrown Hunting Spear!

I guess, therefore, that I am "bending" the rules to my opponents advantage. :rolleyes:

stiltjet
06-03-2010, 18:42
I probably should not have posted in this thread at this time. My Beastman army book is on is on itīs way to me now, by mail, but I have not read it.

I got the impression from reading the posts in the thread that the rules for the weapon did not mention it being a "thrown weapon". I can see the other side of the argument also. As the word "thrown" is used in itīs description.

Sorry if I made some readers angry or anything, it was not my intention. I just did not like the tone in some parts of the thread. Sorry if my post had a bad tone in it too.

I will try to check out the exact wording of the magic itemīs wording before posting again.. And I will try to keep it nice.. I really enjoy playing this game..

stiltjet
06-03-2010, 19:03
Discussions or takes on the Hunting Spear issue are held also at:

http://www.gameempire.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3689

http://www.gameempire.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3682&st=0

http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=88941&hl=

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=68457

Having now read the entry for the item I can very well see where people are coming from stating that they think the Hunting Spear should be treated as a thrown weapon. I would be willing to play it like that also, even though I can see the other side of the argument (people wanting a bit more solid evidence than the wording "it can be thrown" to believe the "thrown weapon rule" is intended to be used). It would really have helped if GW had written the rule in a less ambiguous way.

stiltjet
06-03-2010, 19:53
From the Warhammer Forum (http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=68457):

"Does the "Hunting Spear" follow the rules for Thrown Weapons?
Commentary : The text says that the spear is "thrown", but it lacks the special rule "Thrown Weapon", which is required for a weapon to follow those rules.
S. Warhammer Armies:Beastmen pp92"

I think this citation sums up the argument very well for the side that thinks the Hunting Spear is not supposed to follow the rules for "Thrown Weapons". I can see the logic behind the reasoning, but the use of the word "thrown" makes it hard to really know for sure.

Are there any analogues from other army books that can be used to try to settle the issue? I.e. magic items that, in their descriptions, have words or phrases that could be interpreted as refering to rules in the main rulebook, but where this is very much up for debate? Has there been any FAQ:s answering any good analogues to the issue related to the Hunting Spear?

Harwammer
07-03-2010, 15:43
Are there any analogues from other army books that can be used to try to settle the issue? I.e. magic items that, in their descriptions, have words or phrases that could be interpreted as refering to rules in the main rulebook, but where this is very much up for debate? Has there been any FAQ:s answering any good analogues to the issue related to the Hunting Spear?

Throwing axes effectively have strength bonus without actually referencing the 'strength bonus' rule

It may be worth looking at the OnG choppaz rule to see how they deal with strength bonus there too.

Flame cannon 's rules mention it shoots fire but doesn't have the flaming attack rule. It was FAQed to have flaming attacks (note despite the wording of the FAQ the Dwarf army book was supposedly written with 7th ed in mind).

DoC Tzeentch spells are flame based and were deemed to have flaming attacks by errata.

stiltjet
07-03-2010, 18:40
Flame cannon 's rules mention it shoots fire but doesn't have the flaming attack rule. It was FAQed to have flaming attacks (note despite the wording of the FAQ the Dwarf army book was supposedly written with 7th ed in mind).

DoC Tzeentch spells are flame based and were deemed to have flaming attacks by errata.

After reading those two sections I can understand why people are expecting an errata stating the Hunting Spear follows the rules for "Thrown Weapons".

Are GW publishing erratas or FAQ:s on their website, or how do they usually communicate their take on issues like this one?

Griefbringer
07-03-2010, 18:54
Are GW publishing erratas or FAQ:s on their website

Yes. Here is a list of them:

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

However, they usually take a while to come out.

stripsteak
07-03-2010, 23:55
Yes. Here is a list of them:

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

However, they usually take a while to come out.

very much a while. skaven are still waiting for theirs. but glancing through the beast book i think they have fewer issues so maybe it'll come out first.

Souppilgrim
08-03-2010, 19:10
First, let me put on my crazy conspiracy hat....... done!:D

I swear it seems like GW puts out these rules that could go either way on purpose. That way if a BS4 boltthrower hero seems to powerful they can always faq it and say "its not a thrown weapon, it doesn't have the Thrown weapon rule". On the flip side if they find everyone finds it a overpriced worthless piece of junk they can faq it to say "of course its a thrown weapon. He throws it doesn't he? DuH". Either way they don't have to make a decision for the first few months until they see how the army plays.

Another good example of the top of my head would be 40k tyranids and whether their weapons stack. By writing very unclear rules and having obscure intent, they get a few extra months after the book comes out to decide how they want to balance it.
That has crossed my mind too. Although I think the simplest answer is that GW has people writing rules that other companies would only have writing fluff.

Metal_ash
26-03-2010, 03:13
Well this is really simple...The hunting spear do not have the rule THROW WEAPON, not do it have the text - counts as a javelin on it and therefor for now it ain't. Even if the fluff on it say it is thrown it do not count as a thrown weapon.
On other magical weapons it always says exactly what type of weapon it is counted as if not just a simple handweapon.
So for now it is NOT counted as a thrown weapon even if it is thrown.
No where on the hunting spear does it say it is counted as a thrown weapon when used.

Linoosthelost
26-03-2010, 09:06
skaven are still waiting for theirs.

No theyīre not...:)

Grupax
26-03-2010, 09:56
jeez, give the beasties a break :p

It's like arguing that eternal hatred doesn't count as hatred for banner of balance -
good things that's cleared up, their answer was:
"Yes, it does count as Hatred (we thought that the name ‘Eternal Hatred’ was a bit of a giveaway)"

Milgram
26-03-2010, 10:21
but 'demon prince' attacks are not magical for WoC. same principle, different solution.

Harwammer
26-03-2010, 13:04
but 'demon prince' attacks are not magical for WoC. same principle, different solution.

Really? Does the DP entry ever mention 'magic' with respect to combat?

I know the spear mentions 'throw' with respect to range attacks.

Mentioning a word tied to a rule makes a big difference here.

Milgram
26-03-2010, 14:51
I was referring to grupax post.

however, the whole thread is through I'd say. there is no need to revive it.

and the conclusion of the thread so far: RAW it is not thrown, even if this was the intention. the FAQ may state otherwise.

Harwammer
26-03-2010, 15:08
I was referring to grupax post.


I know, but 'eternal hatred' includes the word hatred, whereas the same can't really be said of the DP's (non) magic attacks. Its not quite same principle as it seems there is wording skewering the decision of the ruling.

Milgram
26-03-2010, 17:32
'eternal hatred' works with an item that refers to 'hatred'. so 'demon prince' might as well work with a special rule that refers to 'demon'. read the rule in the DoC book.

there are two ways you can interpret this:


a) WoC demon princes are not demons, the same way as giant slayers are not giants.
b) the eternal hatred solution has no meaning for the spear discussion at all.

Jerrus
31-03-2010, 22:59
So even if it's a "thrown" weapon, it's not a "thrown weapon"?

Taureus
01-04-2010, 07:14
So even if it's a "thrown" weapon, it's not a "thrown weapon"?

Precisely.

Don't you just love GW and their clarity at writing rules/items. :shifty:

Yellow Commissar
01-04-2010, 12:14
So even if it's a "thrown" weapon, it's not a "thrown weapon"?

Not clear by rule, but I can say that it is more fun to play it as a thrown weopon.