PDA

View Full Version : The Hunter’s Spear like a bolt?



Krankenstein
30-12-2006, 18:31
Lore of Beast spell “The Hunter’s Spear” “goes through the ranks in the same way as a missile from a bolt thrower”

Exactly how much like a bolt thrower missile? Does it lose a pip of strength with each rank, or is it just the “straight through the ranks, stops if it doesn’t kill” movement that’s emulated by the spell?

Festus
30-12-2006, 18:44
Hi

exactly like a Boltthrower Bolt (ie. S6, penetrates ranks if it kills, loses 1S per rank penetrated). The spell even tells you to look up the BT rules specifically in its description :eyebrows:

Festus

Krankenstein
30-12-2006, 19:06
Hi
The spell even tells you to look up the BT rules specifically in its description :eyebrows:


And I did, as you can tell from my post. :eyebrows:

How do you determine that "exactly" mean what you say, and (for sake of argument) doesn’t go the step further and do D3 damage, which is also in the “Damage” paragraph like the “lose one pip of strength” bit.


And please note, I’m not arguing one way or the other here. I’m looking for a well-founded answer.

Festus
30-12-2006, 19:15
Hi

How do you determine that "exactly" mean what you say, and (for sake of argument) doesn’t go the step further and do D3 damage, which is also in the “Damage” paragraph like the “lose one pip of strength” bit.
The S, Range, and Damge (D3) are not properties of the way the Boltthrower works, but properties of the weapon.
None apply to the spell, as this is given in its description. That the Spell causes an S6 hit just like a Bolt is coincidental, the range is different (24" to 48") and the Damage is not multiplied by D3.

The way Bolts penetrate ranks is:

A Bolt hits a target, causes damage, if it kills it travels to the next rank, subtracting -1S in the process, causes damage again, if it kills again...
repeat until the bolt fails to kill, you run out of ranks, or the S of the shot is 0.

See p. 90 of the BRB for this. Especially the summary of the BT rules...

... and why do you think that it should do anything else? This is what bolts do, and this is what is referenced in the spell's description. The profile of the spell's missile is given in the spell, as the BT's is given in the Boltthrower's rules under PROFILE - not very surprising I might add.

Festus

Krankenstein
30-12-2006, 19:22
Hi
and why do you think that it should do anything else?

I don't, as I just stated.

Festus
30-12-2006, 19:41
Hi

I know that curiosity killed the cat, but what the heck... I might as well ask...

Out of genuine interest: Why did you ask then in the first place?
If you are looking for a specific answer it might be helpful to uncover the motives for what seems - in retrospect - a pointless question, much like Troll-bait...

Festus

Griefbringer
30-12-2006, 20:04
I presume that he just wanted to make sure that his own interpretation of the rule was correct, so that he would not later on get into trouble with it.

Krankenstein
30-12-2006, 21:58
Hi
Out of genuine interest: Why did you ask then in the first place?
If you are looking for a specific answer it might be helpful to uncover the motives for what seems - in retrospect - a pointless question, much like Troll-bait...


I have never picked Lore of Beasts, but I have the option of picking it, so I read the lore again, this time without assumptions. Having done that, I then considered: what if one of my units where hit with a Hunter's Spear? What could my opponent claim, and what could I say to my defence, should I not wish to be hit by Str. 6 all the way through the ranks?

You see the thing about assumptions, in life and in Warhammer, is that other people may not share them. At all.

Speaking of assumptions; Festus you have now assumed that my question was troll-bait, that I was lobbying for a specific ruling, and that I hadn’t read up on the specific rules before I asked the question. All out of thin air. Now this makes me wonder if you might not also just assume that Hunter’s Spear work, say, 75% like a bolt thrower and not 50% or 100%. This might be good enough for you, but if my elite unit gets hit by a Hunter’s Spear I would like something better to defend myself with than “Festus of the Internet assumes the strength goes down, and he backs it up with smug sarcasm!”

Festus
31-12-2006, 00:15
Hi

Speaking of assumptions; Festus you have now assumed that my question was troll-bait, that I was lobbying for a specific ruling, and that I hadn’t read up on the specific rules before I asked the question. All out of thin air. Now this makes me wonder if you might not also just assume that Hunter’s Spear work, say, 75% like a bolt thrower and not 50% or 100%. This might be good enough for you, but if my elite unit gets hit by a Hunter’s Spear I would like something better to defend myself with than “Festus of the Internet assumes the strength goes down, and he backs it up with smug sarcasm!”
See the difference between the following two emoticons (description)

:rolleyes: (Roll Eyes (Sarcastic))

:eyebrows: (Raisedbrow)

I do not assue anything - you know what they say about ass-u-me, don't you?
The only one assuming here seems to be someone else... but htis belongs into PM's and not in this thread.

All I did was giving an answer to the question, encompassing all there was to it. I even repeated my answer to give a more detailed reasoning for it. But that was not what you asked in the first place. You simply asked
...how much like a bolt thrower missile?
And I answered
...exactly like a Boltthrower Bolt I even gave you the specifics
(ie. S6, penetrates ranks if it kills, loses 1S per rank penetrated)Nice'n'simple.

Complaining that you don't like my answer won't bring you anywhere, I am afraid, as I am not dependent on you liking my answer.

Well, enough from me to you, I daresay.

Festus

Krankenstein
31-12-2006, 10:31
Well, enough from me to you, I daresay.

Festus

And thank you for that, at least.


Any other takers on that central follow-up question?


In abstract form:

How do you know exactly how much like a bolt thrower a Hunter’s Spear is?


In the form of an example:

Bob’s just hit you Chosen Khorne knights in the flank with a Hunter’s Spear total power. He gleefully starts to obliterate your entire unit with strength 6, because as he says: “Hunter’s Spear is like a bolt thrower, but not completely like a bolt thrower. That’s why the spell tells us that Hunter’s Spear have S6 and no save. To make it distinct from a bolt thrower which have (looks up profile) S6 (– 1 per rank), D3 damage, No Armour Saves.”

And then you go “…..”

DeathlessDraich
31-12-2006, 11:40
Sorry, Krankenstein the rule seems clear enough for me.

Krankenstein
31-12-2006, 12:32
Yeah, but how do you argue it to someone who disagree?

ZomboCom
31-12-2006, 13:30
You tell them that penetrating like a bolt thrower includes the strength decreasing.

Since this is entirely hypothetical anyway, can we just leave it at that?

Krankenstein
31-12-2006, 13:48
I suppose we will have to.

But I can’t help but thinking. If people are so certain about this, there ought to be an argument that would be irrefutable, seeing as how the case is certain.

Makaber
31-12-2006, 14:12
The Hunter’s Spear “goes through the ranks in the same way as a missile from a bolt thrower” means it goes through ranks in the same way as a missile from a bolt thrower. Somebody would have a hard time arguing how this includes the inclution of a whole lot of properties from a bolt thrower completely unrelated to the penetrating of ranks.

End of *******' story.

Krankenstein
31-12-2006, 14:24
Somebody would have a hard time arguing how this includes the inclution of a whole lot of properties from a bolt thrower completely unrelated to the penetrating of ranks.

End of *******' story.

Hypotetical Bob: "Hell Yeah!"

Krankenstein: "Uh, which properties get's included?"

crossorion
31-12-2006, 16:25
The ones in the bolt thrower summary. I see the part where you are getting confused is the profile of the bolt thrower, which is merely a unit entry as oppose to the actual bolt thrower rules.

A bolt thrower could do D6 wounds if it is included in the profile, but if being a complete ****, I could tell the other player using such a bolt thrower that it only does D3 wounds because the 'bolt thrower' in the rulebook only has D3...so far do you get my point?. The weapon profile is completely irrelevant to the spell.

The wording of the spell indicates it is fired like a missile from a bolt thrower. treat it as if the wizard was the bolt thrower and that the spell gives him a strength 6 bolt. It doesn't do D3 wounds because it isn't stated in the spell that it works like a bolt thrower from the Ork and Goblin Army book or suchlike. Just like a missile fired from an unstatted bolt thrower.

alextroy
31-12-2006, 17:17
Point them to the Bolt Thrower Summary on page 90 of the rulebook. Note that step 1 is covered by the successful casting of the spell. Ask them to explain how the spell keeps it's strength if you follow these rules.

EvC
31-12-2006, 18:28
Does the spell description say it's S6 and No Armour Saves? If so, then for someone to assume that the D3 wounds part of the Bolt Thrower rules also applies would be a bit of a reach.

Basically, there's a distinction between the method (Rank-penetrating) and the damage (Specified by the spell).

alextroy
31-12-2006, 18:41
The spell does say S6 with No Armor Saves.

Krankenstein
01-01-2007, 10:31
A bolt thrower could do D6 wounds if it is included in the profile, but if being a complete ****, I could tell the other player using such a bolt thrower that it only does D3 wounds because the 'bolt thrower' in the rulebook only has D3.

**** or not, you could in fact claim no such thing. The general bolt thrower entry is overruled by specific entries in army books, because they are special rules (which always acts as exceptions to main rules) and because they are later written rules (which shows us that writer effected an actual change, with eyes open, because he knew the main rule already).

It is not always hard to argue a rules question.


Does the spell description say it's S6 and No Armour Saves? If so, then for someone to assume that the D3 wounds part of the Bolt Thrower rules also applies would be a bit of a reach.

Let me make it clear: I very much doubt anyone would argue (seriously) that Hunter’s Spear does D3 wounds. It’s more of a counter/mock argument, like this:

Bob: “Well, the Hunter’s Spear does S6 all the way.”
Axel: “No, Hunter’s Spear does S6 – 1 pr rank, exactly like a bolt thrower.”
Bob: “Exactly like a Bolt Thrower? Does it do D3 damage then?”
Axel: “No, no.”
Bob: “So only exactly as much like a Bolt Thrower to save your Chaos Chosen Khorne Knights fat &%£!”


Basically, there's a distinction between the method (Rank-penetrating) and the damage (Specified by the spell).

Quite so. I’m just looking for that killer argument that makes plain why a Hunter’s Spear is 75% like a Bolt Thrower, and not 50%.

Because if I had to argue it in the heat of battle, I would probably end up with a desperate and convoluted comparison with other 8+ spells (like Fiery Blast), their kill potential and game balance. Hardly convincing stuff.

Anyway, I never thought this thread would end up like a meta-discussion on “how do you argue rules in warhammer”. I though I would just get a simple answer, like on the “Questing character joins unit (reroll psyc)” thread.

Latro
01-01-2007, 11:15
Quote: "... The spear then goes through the ranks of the target in the same way as a missile from a bolt thrower."

The line-thingie coming from me of course.

Since the amount of wounds, starting strength, colour of the bolt, etc etc etc ... has nothing to do with the actual case here, why debate about it with your hypothetical opponent? Let him talk all he wants, but in the end the spell will function 100% like a bolt thrower when it comes to going through the ranks ... all the other bits are covered in the spell itself and have nothing to do with going through the ranks.

... and a happy new year to you all!

:cool:

EvC
02-01-2007, 14:19
Yes, well done Latro. Now that I have the rulebook in front of me, that is pretty much exactly what I would have said :D

BloodiedSword
02-01-2007, 17:24
Which is exactly what Festus said in his second post, and less clearly in his first.

This argument seemed pretty irrefutable to me from the offset, so I don't know what Krakenstein is trying to argue.

I mean, of course if I'm playing someone and it goes like this -

Opp - "It says in the same way as a Bolt Thrower, but is S6, so it's S6 all the way and D3 wounds"
Me - "But it doesn't work like that. Look, it says here how it works and it's nothing like that" (i.e., invoking "irrefutable argument")
Opp - ".. but I don't think it works like that!" (argument refuted)
Me - .. no answer.

No argument is so sound that it cannot be refuted by sheer blockheaded stubbornness, so there's no point trying. Festus's argument was more than sound enough for anyone who can understand rules however, and if it doesn't convince your opponent then it is your opponent at fault, not the argument.

Krankenstein
02-01-2007, 19:45
Opp - "It says in the same way as a Bolt Thrower, but is S6, so it's S6 all the way and D3 wounds"


But that was never the argument.


Anyway, as far as I can now tell, the answer is "a".

Hunter's spear inflict "A" strength 6 hit, no armour saves. If it was to inflict several S6 hits it would have to say so. Pretty simple, I guess.

This thread has however yielded a treasure trove of argumentation techniques, from judo to jedi mind trick. Even in these times of RAW it would seem that a WFB player needs his debating skills as much as ever.

Thank you all.

T10
03-01-2007, 10:51
The Hunter’s Spear “goes through the ranks in the same way as a missile from a bolt thrower” means it goes through ranks in the same way as a missile from a bolt thrower. Somebody would have a hard time arguing how this includes the inclution of a whole lot of properties from a bolt thrower completely unrelated to the penetrating of ranks.

End of *******' story.

The fact that a Bolt Thrower hit deals Strength 6, D3 Wounds and ignores armour saves can be disregarded as those are properties of a Bolt Thrower artillery piece. The spell does not inherit these traits, much in the same way that it doesn't provide the caster with a crew.

All you want to look at is the procedure for penetrating ranks, which involves working out a hit and proceding to the next rank as appropriate. The spell provides the details of the damage.

All in all there is a lot less abiguity to the spell than that High Elf "bolt thrower" bow...

-T10

DeathlessDraich
03-01-2007, 11:10
This may be off-topic but since you mentioned it T10,
Bow of Seafarer: I've interpreted this as exactly like a bolt - S6 reduced per rank, D3 wounds and no armour saves.

T10
03-01-2007, 12:39
At that cost it had better be! :)

-T10

ZomboCom
03-01-2007, 14:52
This may be off-topic but since you mentioned it T10,
Bow of Seafarer: I've interpreted this as exactly like a bolt - S6 reduced per rank, D3 wounds and no armour saves.

Yes, the bow of the seafarer is a longbow that resolves hits as if from a bolt thrower.

The key difference is that a hit from it is counted as a bolt thrower hit, not just penetrating ranks like one.

Galadrin
03-01-2007, 16:08
Kranken, the spell list uses the word "exactly", which is an absolute. Exactly means 100% (if it were any less similar, it wouldn't be exactly the same). If anyone argues with you about this in a game, there is a BIG HINT to never play another game of Warhammer with said person.

Basically look at it like this: what is telling your opponent that the spell works differently? Is it because the rules clue him or her in a different direction, or is it more likely that he or she is looking for an unfair advantage? The answer should be obvious.

Good luck if you have an opponent like that!

Edit: Treat opponents that stubbornly misinterpret rules in their favor as if they had completely out-of-the-blue made up the rule. Would you stay at a table if the player across from you decided his Chosen Khorne Knights should be able to fly and shoot handguns? That is exactly as legitimate as misreading a very clear rule just so you can get some advantage.

Krankenstein
03-01-2007, 19:54
Basically look at it like this: what is telling your opponent that the spell works differently? Is it because the rules clue him or her in a different direction, or is it more likely that he or she is looking for an unfair advantage? The answer should be obvious.


I don’t think that is obvious at all. Many players play Warhammer to win (I have played opponents who didn’t care though; a long 4 hours it was). The rules are not always intuitive. The rules are certainly complex and extensive. Previous editions still haunt our memories. Could an opponent, in a fit of enthusiasm, misread a rule? Sure, but that does not necessarily equal dishonesty.

Furthermore, it might just be that it isn’t your opponent who is seeing the world through tinted glasses.

ZomboCom
03-01-2007, 19:58
Krankenstein: Let me get this straight...

You agree with our reading of the rule, but you think that a hypothetical opponent might disagree, by misreading it?

Surely anyone could misread any rule? Surely this is just trolling?

Krankenstein
03-01-2007, 20:12
Krankenstein: Let me get this straight...

You agree with our reading of the rule, but you think that a hypothetical opponent might disagree, by misreading it?

Surely anyone could misread any rule? Surely this is just trolling?

The Hunter’s Spear issue have, for me, been resolved some time ago, as I have clearly written.

I’m just responding to any meta-discussion points I find interesting. Like you calling me a troll although you do not really understand what’s going on in the thread. Now I don’t know you and you don’t know me, so who cares? But it is kind of interesting that you should pop up with your troll accusation post just after I have written about the dangers of branding opponents as “cheats” or “rules lawyers” just because they disagree with you. I see a parallel here.

ZomboCom
03-01-2007, 20:33
Sorry, but you have spun this thread out to two whole pages, despite agreeing with the conclusions reached, based soley on the idea that a hypothetical opponent might misinterpret the rule.

Any rule is open to misinterpretation, and many much moreso than this relatively clear one.

I am not accusing you of being a troll, I just fail to understand the reason for the continuation of this thread. The only one I can think of is trolling, but I'd be glad to be proved otherwise.

Festus
03-01-2007, 22:37
Hi

Why did you ask then in the first place?
If you are looking for a specific answer it might be helpful to uncover the motives for what seems - in retrospect - a pointless question, much like Troll-bait...

Surely this is just trolling?

I am not accusing you of being a troll, I just fail to understand the reason for the continuation of this thread. The only one I can think of is trolling, but I'd be glad to be proved otherwise.
And I happen to think that this proof can be extremely hard to find... ;)

Festus

Krankenstein
04-01-2007, 15:02
I am not accusing you of being a troll, I just fail to understand the reason for the continuation of this thread. The only one I can think of is trolling, but I'd be glad to be proved otherwise.

But it is you who continue the thread.