PDA

View Full Version : Pirhanablade + Steghelm



Methios
28-10-2013, 09:56
So on Lustria they are saying that the above combination would cause d3 impact hits with d3 to wound.
I was under the impression that impact hits go off the base strenght of the model not counting any items it may wield?

Methios
28-10-2013, 13:50
Anyone? :(

warplock
28-10-2013, 14:30
There's nothing prohibiting it in the rules as far as I can see. If the Piranha Blade is worded so that 'the bearer causes d3 wounds' or something along those lines, then it should work. Thunderstomps and Breath Weapons are prohibited from benefiting from any special rules, but it seems that Impact Hits aren't.

Bottom line: RAW, it works, but I would never actually use this in a game - GW just suck at writing rules and the intent is clearly for the blade to causes d3 wounds, not the bearer. I would perceive anyone using this combo as gaming the system, even though it's 'legal'.

MOMUS
28-10-2013, 14:39
Oh lustria online! Havent been on there in ages....

Well they would say that over there wouldn't they ;) I think impact hits don't benefit from item special rules/abilities, its been ruled for example (in some tournaments) that a daemon prince doesn't get to use the soul feeder on his thunderstomp.

MOMUS
28-10-2013, 14:42
The actual wording is: the wielder has the multiple wounds (D3) and AP special rules NOT wounds inflicted by the weapon....

Which makes it seem as if they would stack as long as impact hits can be affected by outside means, but its a bit :cheese: same as the ASF sword greater daemon shenanigans

Methios
28-10-2013, 14:50
The exact disciption is: The wielder has the Multiple Wounds (d3) and Armour Piercing special rules. So i gues RAW the impact hits do get d3 wounds.

Spiney Norman
28-10-2013, 15:04
The exact disciption is: The wielder has the Multiple Wounds (d3) and Armour Piercing special rules. So i gues RAW the impact hits do get d3 wounds.

Yes, so you can be assured that it will be legal at least until the first FAQ comes out and they clarify the wording. Its pretty obvious that its not supposed to work that way

Wesser
28-10-2013, 15:52
Yea RAW it is legal

Of course anyone pulling anything like that on me then I'll start "playing" the same way.

Anyone claiming this just ain't worth playing though

Blkc57
28-10-2013, 15:55
The exact disciption is: The wielder has the Multiple Wounds (d3) and Armour Piercing special rules. So i gues RAW the impact hits do get d3 wounds.

With that wording then you CANNOT give your impact hits d3 wounds. The weapons wording means that it only works when the blade is striking someone in close combat, it needed to say "Bearer" for it to work at other times like impact hits. Yes I know it sounds silly, but the wording "Wielder" vs "Bearer" is the only distinction that GW gives us to figure out which weapons are only when striking and which weapons are all the time like Fencers blade.

as per the FAQ:

Q: Does a weapon that gives a bonus to a characteristic only give that bonus when being used to attack a model?(p4) A: Most weapons, including magic weapons, state when the bonus is given. For example, a model with the Fencer’s Blades will always have Weapon Skill 10 whilst a model with a great weapon will only have +2 Strength when striking an enemy in close combat. When a weapon does not say when the characteristic bonus applies, then it only applies when striking, or being struck, in close combat.

3eland
28-10-2013, 16:54
With that wording then you CANNOT give your impact hits d3 wounds. The weapons wording means that it only works when the blade is striking someone in close combat, it needed to say "Bearer" for it to work at other times like impact hits. Yes I know it sounds silly, but the wording "Wielder" vs "Bearer" is the only distinction that GW gives us to figure out which weapons are only when striking and which weapons are all the time like Fencers blade.

as per the FAQ:




Although I agree with you that the close combat attacks would only benefit and that the wording wielder is different than bearer, your example does not have any impact. That specific FAQ is only about characteristics being effected by magical weapons and has nothing to do with special rules given to a model from a special weapon. Case in point is Biting Blade "Close combat attacks made by the Biting Blade are armour piercing." That weapon specifically states the Armour Piercing rule is only given against close combat attacks.

I asked my gaming buddies how they would rule and they say they would allow it but it would be extremely cheesy (which I agree) and so I will not be trying to combo it in any LM list I write.

Blkc57
28-10-2013, 17:42
That specific FAQ is only about characteristics being effected by magical weapons and has nothing to do with special rules given to a model from a special weapon.

No, my friend, you are missing the important point held within the FAQ. That GW holds a distinction between the words Wielder and Bearer. I apologize but I didn't make it clear why I was quoting the FAQ. You see GW separates out the Fencer's Blade to say that its rules apply all the time due to its wording, the only wording difference present within the Fencer's Blade is that they declare the "bearer" gains the benefit. All other characteristic weapons say wielder. Thus the implication is that Bearer means "all you have to do is have the weapon in your possession" and Wielder means "you have to actually be swinging it in combat". So if a weapon uses the word Wielder as the Piranha Blade does, then you are swinging it in combat.

yeknoMehT
28-10-2013, 17:47
I suppose you could also give the blade to a slann and make all his spells multiwound and AP? (Shudder... Soul Quench boosted 4D6 S4 AP D3 wounds hits...) Why GW... WHY?!

Blkc57
28-10-2013, 17:56
I suppose you could also give the blade to a slann and make all his spells multiwound and AP? (Shudder... Soul Quench boosted 4D6 S4 AP D3 wounds hits...) Why GW... WHY?!

Well that would be another reason why that interpretation would be rather ridiculous, if they didn't define what "Wielder" meant, that would mean that a weapon's special rules apply all the time including to spells cast.

3eland
28-10-2013, 18:23
No, my friend, you are missing the important point held within the FAQ. That GW holds a distinction between the words Wielder and Bearer. I apologize but I didn't make it clear why I was quoting the FAQ. You see GW separates out the Fencer's Blade to say that its rules apply all the time due to its wording, the only wording difference present within the Fencer's Blade is that they declare the "bearer" gains the benefit. All other characteristic weapons say wielder. Thus the implication is that Bearer means "all you have to do is have the weapon in your possession" and Wielder means "you have to actually be swinging it in combat". So if a weapon uses the word Wielder as the Piranha Blade does, then you are swinging it in combat.

Ah, my apologies, I thought your point was the characteristic modifier. I take back my comment!

theunwantedbeing
28-10-2013, 19:00
Armour piercing applies.
As it applies to any attack made by a model with the rule (the model has the rule from the blade).

Multiple wounds doesn't apply.
It requires the attack to have the special rule, which it doesn't...only the model(wielder) does.

Remember that attacks by the "wielder" have the special rules from the weapon, not just attacks from the weapon.

The GW FAQ doesn't apply as the question is only about weapons that provide a bonus to characteristics, not weapon effects in general (stupid I know).

So that's the answer :)
If you don't like it, house rule something else.

eg.
Piranha Blade
Armour Piercing. Multiple wounds (D3).

Magically no issues at all from that way of wording the item.

Blkc57
28-10-2013, 19:08
The GW FAQ doesn't apply as the question is only about weapons that provide a bonus to characteristics, not weapon effects in general (stupid I know).


Guys, don't fixate on the question of the FAQ, look at the answer and see what GW is saying. "Wielder" is not the same as "Bearer" in that answer. That is the crux of the FAQ's relationship to the question of the Piranha Blade and Stag Helm interaction. Bearer allows you to apply the bonus at all times, wielder does not.

Thus the FAQ allows us to set a series of important criteria to encapsulate the definition of the words, such as bearer being passive and wielder being active use. Go to the definition of the words themselves:

Wield
1. to exercise (power, influence, etc.).
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; employ actively.

Bear

1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
3. To transmit at lagre
5. To have as a visible characteristic
etc etc

Now you may believe that this level of dictionary distinction borders on autistic obsession. And you are probably right, but its a distinction that GW includes.

Wielder defines that you are striking with it and using it. The Piranha Blade states that the wielder has multiple wounds special rule, thus you have the multiple wounds rule when you are swinging actively with the weapon during your normal attacks, but not passively with impact hits using the helm.

Necromancy Black
28-10-2013, 21:42
Agreed, GW seem to have made wielder and bearer different. The FAQ mentions that a weapon with bearer works all the time, while great weapons whos wording I believe has "wielding" in it, doesn't work unless attacking with the weapon.

Wesser
28-10-2013, 21:56
Agreed, GW seem to have made wielder and bearer different. The FAQ mentions that a weapon with bearer works all the time, while great weapons whos wording I believe has "wielding" in it, doesn't work unless attacking with the weapon.

Nah, I'll eat the Whole damn Lizardman book if GW has put as much as one second of thought into standardization of Words.

"Wielder", "user", "bearer" and "character with the..." Means the exact same thing in GW.... well and to me as well for that matter.


It's like arguing on the difference between "beheading" and "decapitation". When someone starts a semantics lesson in regards to rules either is pretty good solution to a pretty ugly attempt to ruin my game

Blkc57
28-10-2013, 22:37
Wesser, I would also love to declare that GW isn't smart enough to parse language so, but the fact is they did in that FAQ which is why I brought it up in the first place. Like I said, I don't try to drag things down to such a level of semantics, but GW did bring it down to that level to explain the Fencer's Blade, therefore it's only right to apply the same standard to a similar situation as the one the OP mentioned. I can't really see how this is a "pretty ugly attempt to ruin your game" unless your game enjoyment was predicated on being able to abuse the Piranha Blade's wording.

I don't mean to have my previous post come off as a "semantics lesson", I'm just giving my reasoning for commenting that in my opinion the wording of Piranha Blade has specific language in it ("wielder") that means that it only applies when striking and not at other times such as impact hits.

Wesser
28-10-2013, 22:58
Problem is that we have is a problem due to some inconsistent choice of Words between writers try to force a rule interpretation that doesn't make sense.

Does the Stegadon Helm have socket for the Piranha blade for when he's charging? And can the wielder (Bearer, user, who cares?) then pluck it out for more mundane use afterwards.

Then you got a FAQ that as usual is open to interpretation simply because if you want it to, any rule is open semantic jammering. I desperately try to look for the "facts" you mention, but all I find is a FAQ'er who tries to explain that weapon aren't used for spreading butter, as helm ornaments or use as makeshift bridges. The warhammer rules doesn't cover every situation, so sometimes we must use consensus based on common sense. The Whole Piranha blade/steg helm issue is one of semantic rule pushing with not a spark of fact or common sense

Blkc57
28-10-2013, 23:12
I'm a little confused Wesser, are you agreeing that the Steg Helm and the Piranha blade don't work together? Or are you saying they do? because the first part of your statement seems to imply that you find anyone who argues for the Piranha blade to apply to impact hits to be silly, but then your second statement takes the argument that we are trying to say proves your point and spits on it do to it being based on a semantics ruling of an FAQ.

furrie
29-10-2013, 09:31
I'm a little confused Wesser, are you agreeing that the Steg Helm and the Piranha blade don't work together? Or are you saying they do? because the first part of your statement seems to imply that you find anyone who argues for the Piranha blade to apply to impact hits to be silly, but then your second statement takes the argument that we are trying to say proves your point and spits on it do to it being based on a semantics ruling of an FAQ.

I think he means that as written it works, but that it probably wasn't the idea and as so it will probably will be faq'ed so that it doesn't work.

Wesser
29-10-2013, 10:58
Yea, but mostly I was just rambling because I'm annoyed people actively dig for stuff that really really obviously aren't intended

MOMUS
29-10-2013, 15:07
Yea, but mostly I was just rambling because I'm annoyed people actively dig for stuff that really really obviously aren't intended


But at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
Using 90pts of your oldbloods item allowance just to get this combo? Unlikely.

Dark Side Duke
29-10-2013, 16:38
Yea, but mostly I was just rambling because I'm annoyed people actively dig for stuff that really really obviously aren't intended

Have to stop you there. Who are you to determine how it was intended? Its not cheating. Everyone likes to win or to be the one to come up with a crazy combo. This is just another case of someone taking advantage of so more shotty writing by GW.

donaldtroll
03-11-2013, 06:15
aww come on with all this cheese crap

it is one of the few fun item combos that can challenge the standard oldblood builds... if someone got mad at me for playing that IF (note the IF) that is the way it works RAW, then I would say they have a pretty skewed concept of both balance and fun... Dawnstone, heavy armour wardsave, great weapon and other tricksters is so much better that it is laughable really

Wesser
04-11-2013, 10:17
Have to stop you there. Who are you to determine how it was intended? Its not cheating. Everyone likes to win or to be the one to come up with a crazy combo. This is just another case of someone taking advantage of so more shotty writing by GW.

Alright, I'll admit I can't read the writer's mind

Let me instead put like this:

- To ME it makes no sense at all that your weapon and your helmet interacts like this. I also think then anyone applying this interpretation (and I'll insist on calling it that) really isn't acting in good faith.

End result (assuming I'm the opponent): I'm either picking up my dolls and leaving because I don't wanna play games of that sort, or next time I'll turn up with as much cheese as I can cram into a list complete with whatever semi-creative interpretation. Does either strike you as a desirable outcome?

You are of course at liberty to say that I'm both overreacting, and that the combo really isn't that powerful which is probably true, but the hairs on my neck just automatically stand on end when I see this kind of behavior. It's precisely the same issue as with the DE Cauldron/shooting/magic problem

Dark Side Duke
04-11-2013, 11:39
Alright, I'll admit I can't read the writer's mind

Let me instead put like this:

- To ME it makes no sense at all that your weapon and your helmet interacts like this. I also think then anyone applying this interpretation (and I'll insist on calling it that) really isn't acting in good faith.

End result (assuming I'm the opponent): I'm either picking up my dolls and leaving because I don't wanna play games of that sort, or next time I'll turn up with as much cheese as I can cram into a list complete with whatever semi-creative interpretation. Does either strike you as a desirable outcome?

You are of course at liberty to say that I'm both overreacting, and that the combo really isn't that powerful which is probably true, but the hairs on my neck just automatically stand on end when I see this kind of behavior. It's precisely the same issue as with the DE Cauldron/shooting/magic problem

Respectable. I guess I'd prefer to play against someone who's got some nasty combos just to know if I could beat them. But I'm not much of a recreational player, only getting games in at tournaments for the most part. I can understand what you're saying, its just that fluffy games don't sound fun to me.

Rake
05-11-2013, 14:20
Strongest argument imho is the Slann argument. Get high magic and watch your Soul Quench ANNIHILATE all monsters/monstrous infanty/cavalry...