Hammer of Wrath questions

The Hammer of Wrath rule seems simple enough but I have some questions about it

If you roll the combat drug for re-roll failed to wound, does that attack get to be re-rolled as well?
It's at their base strength but does an Arena Champion or Helliarch with a venom blade still wound on a 2+?

For our Cronos/Tallos does assualting through cover reduce that attack to initiative 1?

basically: hammer of wrath is an impact attack that isnt done by the model so i wouldnt allow rerolling to wound with it.
if it is at their base strength, why would they get the venom blade bonus? When you hit someone with a car, but have a rocketlauncher, do you get to hit the person with the rocket or the car?
do talos/cronos have move through cover?

Seshiru wrote:

If you roll the combat drug for re-roll failed to wound, does that attack get to be re-rolled as well?

No, but it needs a FAQ although the intent is clear the hammer of wrath rule is poorly worded.

Seshiru wrote:

It's at their base strength but does an Arena Champion or Helliarch with a venom blade still wound on a 2+?

No, but it needs a FAQ although the intent is clear the hammer of wrath rule is poorly worded.

Seshiru wrote:

For our Cronos/Tallos does assualting through cover reduce that attack to initiative 1?

Yes, as all units that move through cover when they charge attack at I1. Although the move through cover special rule lets you ignore dangerous terrain tests and roll extra dice for moving through cover it does not let you ignore it and therefore your initiative is still reduce to 1.

I dont see any problem with hammer of wrath

It states that you use the model's strength. so a venom blade will not effect HoW as you are just using the base strength (so S3 hits)

As for the drug. You are doing an attack, and the drug allows you to re-roll to wound rolls, so yes, you re-roll to wound them.

Shadows Revenge wrote:

I dont see any problem with hammer of wrath

It states that you use the model's strength. so a venom blade will not effect HoW as you are just using the base strength (so S3 hits)

As for the drug. You are doing an attack, and the drug allows you to re-roll to wound rolls, so yes, you re-roll to wound them.

Agreed. Didn't post this yet, cause I don't have the rulebook here. But these were my thoughts aswell.

Well hopefully they will FAQ it soon, last night I found out I'm not the only one struggling with it monstrous creatues with thunder hammers or force weapons are eager to know whether or not they get their benefits if you fail to save that wound

FAQ what?

Seshiru wrote:

The Hammer of Wrath rule seems simple enough but I have some questions about it

If you roll the combat drug for re-roll failed to wound, does that attack get to be re-rolled as well?

Yes. Why not?

Seshiru wrote:

It's at their base strength but does an Arena Champion or Helliarch with a venom blade still wound on a 2+?

No. You give the answer yourself. It's at base strength as per the Hammer of Wrath rule (stupid name btw). Nót the regular assault rules.

Seshiru wrote:

For our Cronos/Tallos does assualting through cover reduce that attack to initiative 1?

Yes. Why not?

My argument favors the fact that you can use special weapons and rules with your ADDITIONAL ATTACK.

HoW pg. 37
...it makes one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model’s unmodified Strength with an AP of -. This Attack is resolved during the Fight sub-phase at the Initiative 10 step..."

If you noticed the "A" in attack is capitalized so it refers to the Attack characteristics. Meaning it’s a normal attack that just has to be unmodified strength, AP set to AP-, and Initiative 10.

Example:
Let’s say a BA Captain has a JP and TH. He decides to use the HoW Rule. HoW grants 1 additional attack to the model which can only be done at I10, Unmodified S, and the TH AP2 becomes TH AP-. The rest of the TH rules apply except unwieldy because I1 has been overridden by the I10 for this one attack.

I think you're reading more into a capital letter than is intended.

@Kayto_Karite: The HoW UR specifies exactly how it should be used: "one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model's unmodified Strength with an AP of -." It's explicit. This is how the whole rulebook works. By telling explicitly what you can and can't do. This tells you exactly that next to your other attacks you can make 1 more attack. This attack is done at I10 (so probably 1st attack of sequence) and is done at the unmodified S of the model at AP -. It really can't be said more simple and explicit than this.

Your logic is flawed, sorry. In your example you follow some rules (the TH rules) and ignore other rules (the HoW rules) to get to the conclusion you want.

Furthermore, any term in the book is capitalized. SRs get capatilized, see Hatred on the same page for example. So I can't follow you on that one either.

@Count Adhemar: I would agree if the word Strength, Initiative, and Attack twice. All of these refer to the characteristics on a model.

@tlronin I see what your getting, so because it states "resolved at " under HoW, then its only a ( S AP- I10 Attack.)

My confusion was that I understood additonal Attack was similar to the +1 Attack that is granted from charging or having two CC weapons.

Also I understand SRs get capatilized, it wouldnt make sense if it wasn't. Hatred and hatred can be two different things. That's becide the point of this topic anways.

tlronin wrote:

@Kayto_Karite: It's explicit. This is how the whole rulebook works. By telling explicitly what you can and can't do. This tells you exactly that next to your other attacks you can make 1 more attack.

I agree that presumably no other special rules are supposed to apply to the HoW attack, but I don't see how you can say it's explicit. The point is that the BRB does not say either that other special attack rules can or cannot be used.

It could have said 'unmodified S, AP -, and no other special rules' if that's what was intended - then it would be explicit. But it could have said 'unmodified S, AP - and any special rules the model's attacks usually have'. Since it doesn't say either way, it's not explicit: there's legitimate scope for questioning and need for FAQing.

@Ben_S: My logic for it being explicit is that it tells you exactly what you CAN do. Which is in this is an attack at the unmodified strength, as opposed to telling you all the other things that you can't.

Think about traffic. If a certain parking space is for trucks only, would I make a sign that says: "No personal vehicles, no airplanes, no trains, no scooter, no motorcycle, no ... and so on... is allowed to park here, trucks can only park here"? Or would it suffice to say: "Only trucks can park here"?

The SR HoW tells you exactly how to use it. Don't bring other stuff into it. You're thinking this rule over way too hard. Makes you read stuff that's not there.

I started to read all the posts in this topic again. I caught something you said before. I would like to see if you can explain the logic in your statements.

Quote :

FAQ what?
Seshiru wrote:
The Hammer of Wrath rule seems simple enough but I have some questions about it
If you roll the combat drug for re-roll failed to wound, does that attack get to be re-rolled as well?

Yes. Why not?
Seshiru wrote:
It's at their base strength but does an Arena Champion or Helliarch with a venom blade still wound on a 2+?

No. You give the answer yourself. It's at base strength as per the Hammer of Wrath rule (stupid name btw). Nót the regular assault rules.

You stated that you can use the combat drug special rule that lets you reroll to wound but at the same time you can't use the SR Poisoned from the BRB. Can you clear that up for us? What makes combat drugs different from the SR Poinsoned that the Venom Blade has?

@Kayto: My logic in regard to this is that HoW says something about how 'to wound' an enemy model. Namely by using your unmodified Strength. The CC let's you reroll your wounds, regardless of the attack which is made. Wether it's by HoW or by a 'normal' attack with for instance your Venom Blade. Therefor it is my understanding that the effects of CC are in use.

@tlronin: Ok I'm starting to understand your logic a bit. I have a few more questions to help me further understand your logic.

Now for the Venom Blade, it has the SR Poisoned. Which rule supercedes the other, HoW at unmodified Strength or SRs Poisoned always wounding on a fix number unless a lower result will be required?

What if the unit had SR Poisoned instead of a weapon with Poisoned?

Does HoW additional Attack never uses Wargear or CCW?

if we had a unit that had both HoW attacks and the unit itself has SR Poison (so something like... jump plaguebearers) then yes, you would get the poison rule for HoW attacks, sadly we dont have anything like that.

Infact the only thing I can think of that comes close are the new Screamers, but if you check out their special rules, their lamprey bite only works on their attacks, so your HoW attacks arent S5 AP2, they are just at S4 I10 AP-

@Shadows Revenge

If you agree at SR Poisoned on unit affects HoWs additonal Attack. Would you agree that all SRs work with HoWs addtional Attack?

Also, what is your opinion on Wargear and CCW with SRs affecting HoWs additional Attack?

Kayto_Karite wrote:

@tlronin: Ok I'm starting to understand your logic a bit. I have a few more questions to help me further understand your logic.

Now for the Venom Blade, it has the SR Poisoned. Which rule supercedes the other, HoW at unmodified Strength or SRs Poisoned always wounding on a fix number unless a lower result will be required?

Your normal attacks with the Venom Blade and the additional attack, which HoW granted to you in the first place, should be resolved according to it's rules which is unmodified strength. So it's not really a matter of superceding, that is IMHO where you got it wrong. The HoW attack has nothing to do with your normal attacks.

Kayto_Karite wrote:

What if the unit had SR Poisoned instead of a weapon with Poisoned?

Same.

Kayto_Karite wrote:

Does HoW additional Attack never uses Wargear or CCW?

Correct.

Quote :

Kayto_Karite wrote:

Does HoW additional Attack never uses Wargear or CCW?


Correct.

Ok I may be wrong because I don't have the codex on hand at the moment only the BRB.

Isn't Combat Drugs cosidered Wargear?

If Combat Drug is a wargear then according to your answer you shouldn't be allowed to use the effect of Combat Drugs.

Shadows Revenge wrote:

if we had a unit that had both HoW attacks and the unit itself has SR Poison (so something like... jump plaguebearers) then yes, you would get the poison rule for HoW attacks, sadly we dont have anything like that

A Helliarch with a Venom Blade?

There is a difference.

Model with a CCW that has SR Poisoned - Helliarch w/ VB
Model with SR Poisoned - Beast of Nurgle

Kayto_Karite wrote:

Quote :

Kayto_Karite wrote:

Does HoW additional Attack never uses Wargear or CCW?


Correct.

Ok I may be wrong because I don't have the codex on hand at the moment only the BRB.

Isn't Combat Drugs cosidered Wargear?

If Combat Drug is a wargear then according to your answer you shouldn't be allowed to use the effect of Combat Drugs.

Ok. My answer wasn't complete. Sorry. Wargear which effects how 'to wound' roll then. Because that's settled in the HoW. But the effect of Combat Drugs which says you can reroll failed 'to wound' rolls doesn't interfere with the 'unmodified strength' rule of the HoW. So IMHO that is how it should be played.

It's less clear to me than the Venom Blade thing. But again, by RAW the CC has effect.

p.s.: As for the comments about models with poisoned SR... IMHO still no effect. The HoW overrules this if you will. It overrules this by saying quite clear that you resolve it's additional hit against the unmodified S of the model. Crisp and clear.

tlronin wrote:

@Ben_S: My logic for it being explicit is that it tells you exactly what you CAN do. Which is in this is an attack at the unmodified strength, as opposed to telling you all the other things that you can't.

Think about traffic. If a certain parking space is for trucks only, would I make a sign that says: "No personal vehicles, no airplanes, no trains, no scooter, no motorcycle, no ... and so on... is allowed to park here, trucks can only park here"? Or would it suffice to say: "Only trucks can park here"?

Ok, the discussion's moved on a bit since I was last here, but the point I was making is that an FAQ is necessary because the rules don't say either way (and this applies also to things like poison and combat drugs). Your earlier post said the BRB tells you what you CAN AND CANNOT do - thus, where the BRB doesn't say either way, it's simply unclear.

Your parking sign analogy is flawed. 'Only trucks can park here' may be less explicit, but clearly implies no cars (etc). The more appropriate analogy is a sign that says 'trucks can park here' - this tells you nothing about whether cars can park here. (Different answers to that may be appropriate in different contexts.) That's essentially what we have here: the BRB tells you to use unmodified strength, but doesn't say either that you may or that you may not use combat drugs (etc). Hence we really need an FAQ because the rules don't say anything either way.

FWIW, as I said in my earlier post, I agree with your conclusion - I don't think a HoW attack should be able to use combat drugs, poison, etc (RAI) - but my point was merely that this isn't explicit or even clear (in RAW), hence the discussion here

Ben_S wrote:

tlronin wrote:

@Ben_S: My logic for it being explicit is that it tells you exactly what you CAN do. Which is in this is an attack at the unmodified strength, as opposed to telling you all the other things that you can't.

Think about traffic. If a certain parking space is for trucks only, would I make a sign that says: "No personal vehicles, no airplanes, no trains, no scooter, no motorcycle, no ... and so on... is allowed to park here, trucks can only park here"? Or would it suffice to say: "Only trucks can park here"?

Ok, the discussion's moved on a bit since I was last here, but the point I was making is that an FAQ is necessary because the rules don't say either way (and this applies also to things like poison and combat drugs). Your earlier post said the BRB tells you what you CAN AND CANNOT do - thus, where the BRB doesn't say either way, it's simply unclear.

Your parking sign analogy is flawed. 'Only trucks can park here' may be less explicit, but clearly implies no cars (etc). The more appropriate analogy is a sign that says 'trucks can park here' - this tells you nothing about whether cars can park here. (Different answers to that may be appropriate in different contexts.) That's essentially what we have here: the BRB tells you to use unmodified strength, but doesn't say either that you may or that you may not use combat drugs (etc). Hence we really need an FAQ because the rules don't say anything either way.

FWIW, as I said in my earlier post, I agree with your conclusion - I don't think a HoW attack should be able to use combat drugs, poison, etc (RAI) - but my point was merely that this isn't explicit or even clear (in RAW), hence the discussion here

I wanted to stop, 'cause I don't think we're going to agree that it's pretty clear in the rulebook. But I need to correct a few things, because you are interpreting me incorrectly (don't know why I NEED to... Human psyche is a fickle thing).

Forget the analogy. I'll just quote what I said yesterday ('cause we're going in circles anyway):

"The HoW SR specifies exactly how it should be used: "one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model's unmodified Strength with an AP of -." It's explicit. This is how the whole rulebook works."

Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't even really say 'can', that's a word I brought in to the discussion. Which I regret now. We shouldn't make more of this rule than what it says right there... All you need to know is right there, in the rulebook.

- So to everything that dictates how to resolve 'to wound' rolls I say: No. Things like venom blades, Poisonous SR, etc... The HoW SR prevents the use of these by saying explicitly 'unmodified Strength'. Crisp and clear.
--> To clarify even further, if you rolled the +1 S Combat Drugs you couldn't use it for your HoW Attack. Again: unmodified Strength. So the HoW SR prohibits this.

- To the effect of the Combat Drugs (reroll wounds) I say: Yes. You misquoted me there. There's nothing in the hoW SR which prohibits the effect of this drug roll. Needed to correct this. I said you cán actually use this effect of our Combat Drugs.

I think the biggest error I make is telling you all that it's nót confusing. Apparantly you experience this rule differently than I do and I can't change that for you. So I'll leave it at that. We have a consensus of how to use the rule now and that's more important I think.

.
.
.

We do have a consensus right?