Reducing attacks

[Guest]

But for your BA, yeah, techpriests are strong. That's a S9 ap1 melee weapon. And I think the BA one can take a jump pack (my DA and the SM can't do this). The SW one with the thunderwolf is strong too, since those can get base strength 5 for S10 ap1 melee weapons.

[spagunk]

But for your BA, yeah, techpriests are strong. That's a S9 ap1 melee weapon. And I think the BA one can take a jump pack (my DA and the SM can't do this). The SW one with the thunderwolf is strong too, since those can get base strength 5 for S10 ap1 melee weapons.

 

They take jump packs in lieu of servo arms as it is a full on replace but it's a nice mobile repair.

"OPTIONS:

• May upgrade servo-arm to servo-harness…25 pts

• May instead replace servo-arm with a jump pack…free"

 

Bikes are better though since you have Jink, +1 toughness and all the other good things. More expensive though but you still get your servo-arm.

[AbusePuppy]

Can you find rules that support this? I can find rules against it....

 

So in grenades, page 180, it clearly states

 

Meanwhile, Hammer of Wrath, page 165, clearly describes itself as an attack. And to confirm that hammer of wrath is an attack, the rules for Smash, page 171, start with

 

which clearly confirms that hammer of wrath is considered a close combat attack.

 

Hammer of Wrath is an attack, yes. Specifically, it is an ability that makes an attack. Using a grenade replaces a model's normal attacks with the single attack with the grenade- it does not replace bonus attacks such as Hammer of Wrath, Stomp, Melta Cutters, etc- that is the difference between a bonus attack and a normal attack. (note that this is also different from something that gives you a bonus to your attacks characteristic.)

 

Do you think that if you choose to use a grenade on a model with Hammer of Wrath, the grenade would strike at Initiative 10? If you are replacing it with a grenade, why would it not?

[Guest]

Hammer of Wrath is an attack, yes. Specifically, it is an ability that makes an attack. Using a grenade replaces a model's normal attacks with the single attack with the grenade- it does not replace bonus attacks such as Hammer of Wrath, Stomp, Melta Cutters, etc- that is the difference between a bonus attack and a normal attack. (note that this is also different from something that gives you a bonus to your attacks characteristic.)

 

Do you think that if you choose to use a grenade on a model with Hammer of Wrath, the grenade would strike at Initiative 10? If you are replacing it with a grenade, why would it not?

Go read the grenade entry again. Page 180, left hand side, all in bold

 

A model can use such a grenade as a Melee weapon, but can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks on its profile or any bonuses. 

[Guest]

As for when it happens, it descibes itself as a melee weapon, so you'd follow the rules for that. Your melta bombs (which are consider a type of grenade...) are unwieldy, so would resolve at intiative 1, while your other grenades would resolve at your normal intiaitive. You would not get to act at initiative 10, unless that is your normal intiative, if you swapped all your attacks for a grenade. 

[Guest]

Although there doesn't seem to be a clear rule on this, I've always assumed you declared your melee weapon selection before intiative steps of the fight sub-phase. Otherwise, you'd kinda act on multiple initiative steps if you had multiple melee weapon options, since you'd be able to choose on the fly. 

 

For example, if I had an initiative 5 model with a Lightning claw and a Power fist. I would choose at the start, which intiative step I intended to act on, I5 or the unwieldy I1. I don't get to pick which weapon to use at intiative 5, I don't think. I think I could still opt to split the attacks between the two intiative steps.

[spagunk]

Am I too far gone to point out that hammer of wrath doesn't use a melee weapon so can't be swapped for a grenade?

[Guest]

Am I too far gone to point out that hammer of wrath doesn't use a melee weapon so can't be swapped for a grenade?

It being a close combat attack is what makes it eligible, not that it's a melee weapon. 

 

You are correct to think that hammer of wrath isn't a melee weapon, but that doesn't apply to the arguement above. 

[AbusePuppy]

As for when it happens, it descibes itself as a melee weapon, so you'd follow the rules for that. Your melta bombs (which are consider a type of grenade...) are unwieldy, so would resolve at intiative 1, while your other grenades would resolve at your normal intiaitive. You would not get to act at initiative 10, unless that is your normal intiative, if you swapped all your attacks for a grenade. 

 

But, if as you contend, Hammer of Wrath is one of your melee attacks why can't you choose to use the grenade profile? You are making melee attacks at multiple different steps and replacing all of those attacks, why would one take precedent over another? And why couldn't, for example, a model with Smash chose to resolve their Hammer of Wrath attack as a Smash attack instead?

[spagunk]

So i keep reading this rule and all I see is that you get to make one additional attack that hits automatically using the model's base strength and no modifiers. It doesn't say bonus, just one additional attack at I10.

 

So it's not a bonus, it is just an attack.

[Guest]

But, if as you contend, Hammer of Wrath is one of your melee attacks why can't you choose to use the grenade profile? You are making melee attacks at multiple different steps and replacing all of those attacks, why would one take precedent over another? And why couldn't, for example, a model with Smash chose to resolve their Hammer of Wrath attack as a Smash attack instead?

Are you for real? I am not clear how you are getting this from what I've said in the thread.

 

Hammer of wrath is clearly one of your attacks, but it doesn't use a melee weapon and can't be normally swapped for melee weapon attack. Hammer of Wrath also doesn't make the model have intiative 10, it does create a bonus attack that is resolved at that step. Just like unwieldy weapons are resolved at step 1, though a more accurate comparison would be the tyranid tail weapons since they are additional attacks like the old servo arms and hammer of wrath. Swapping all attacks for a grenade would include hammer, but would resolve as normal for melee weapon, which in turn, resolves as per that models intiative unless the grenade profile alters it otherwise (as melta bombs do).

 

Regarding Smash, it's specific that smash doesn't apply its ap2 to hammer of wrath. The second bit, where it swaps all attacks for a double strength swing, is poorly written, and could be interpreted to include hammer of wrath, but you'd still resolve as per your intiative order. That's actually my third topic for this one, but I was waiting to discuss that until this one was more resolved. 

[Guest]

So i keep reading this rule and all I see is that you get to make one additional attack that hits automatically using the model's base strength and no modifiers. It doesn't say bonus, just one additional attack at I10.

 

So it's not a bonus, it is just an attack.

So when it says the model only ever makes one attack when you swap for a grenade, you think that a hammer of wrath model could make 2 attacks? Or do you mean that a hammer of wrath models can't use grenades since they can't reduce their attacks?

[AbusePuppy]

Are you for real? I am not clear how you are getting this from what I've said in the thread.

 

Hammer of wrath is clearly one of your attacks, but it doesn't use a melee weapon and can't be normally swapped for melee weapon attack. Hammer of Wrath also doesn't make the model have intiative 10, it does create a bonus attack that is resolved at that step.

 

Why can't it be swapped? If you are replacing all your attacks- of which Hammer of Wrath is one- why is the resulting "replacement attack" made at some other Initiative, and not Initiative 10?

 

I'm playing devil's advocate here. If you contention is "this is what the rules exactly say" then you have to be able to defend your own suppositions from a similar contention. If you believe that Hammer of Wrath is just another attack that a model makes, I think there are a lot of outcomes of that assumption that you need to be prepared to defend.

[Guest]

Why can't it be swapped? If you are replacing all your attacks- of which Hammer of Wrath is one- why is the resulting "replacement attack" made at some other Initiative, and not Initiative 10?

 

I'm playing devil's advocate here. If you contention is "this is what the rules exactly say" then you have to be able to defend your own suppositions from a similar contention. If you believe that Hammer of Wrath is just another attack that a model makes, I think there are a lot of outcomes of that assumption that you need to be prepared to defend.

So then do you think that the grenade should resolve at initiative 10 if hammer is amoung the replaced attacks?

 

I don't mind that interpreation, if you can find rules backing, but I'm not seeing the connection, other than you saying you are playing devil's advocate. I'm not trying for a particular outcome, I just noticed very odd rules interaction and it's very contrary to how I, and most others, play, so I posted it, with the intention of getting it disproved. So far, seems like the hammer does actaully swap with all the other attacks for the grenades, which is contrary to how I've been playing and frankly counter productive for my marines and most other armies.

 

Still, I like following the rules, if they can be followed. 

[AbusePuppy]

I think bonus attack is different from a normal attack- while this isn't explicitly specified in the rulebook, there are lots of things that are never explicitly specified. "Attacks" is an ambiguous term, as is "all [your] attacks" and it doesn't necessarily mean literally every attack the model makes. Language always requires a certain amount of interpretation, and if the nigh-universal conclusion of people is "I don't think that is what the rule is intended to do" then it's worth considering that perhaps the universal assumption is the correct one.