Furious charge and relic blades

[greatcrusade08]

OK heres the thing, i was in a discussion topic recently and it was sugested that Relic blades were not given strength bonuses from furious charge..

I shot it down as nonsense and rules lawyering, but after some thought i realised it is a valid point of contension..

 

So heres the main points of arguments..

 

A relic blades attacks are resolved at strength 6!

 

Furious charge gives you +1 Strength,

 

But if a relic blade is always resolved at S6 then by RAW the strength bonus shouldnt affect it...

 

Please discuss, its driving me a little nuts!

 

GC08

[Brother Gothard]

Hmm, yes, I see the problem. Well, let me think on this one.

 

Pg 99, C:SM:

A relic blade is a power weapon whose hits are resolved at Strength 6.

 

Pg 75, BRB:

In a turn in which they assaulted into combat they add +1 to both their Initiative and Strength characteristics when attacking in close combat...

 

The section on pg 38 of the BRB detailing "rolling to wound" is no help either at all, since mentions only that "in most cases...you use the strength on the attacker's profile...some close combat weapons give the attacker a Strength bonus." This is not in fact the case with Relic Blades.

 

Since Furious Charge adds to the characteristic of the attacker, not the strength of the attack, and Relic blades are resolved at Strength 6, regardless of the characteristic of the attacker, I must conclude that Relic Blades do not benefit from Furious Charge, and, regardless of a model having Furious Charge, Relic Blade hits are resolved at Strength 6. Though at +1 Initiative, clearly.

 

I dont see any way around that one at all. It may not even be an oversight, since they specifically mention that it does not count as an additional close combat weapon because of its "size and weight" and not due to its being a two-handed weapon, for which there is a specific stipulation in the BRB that they do not get additional CCW status. Clearly, GW is not known for its specificity of rules, so this may just be 'poetic license' by the writers. In either event, certainly Relic Blades are Str 6 and that is final! B) :)

[WarpSpawn]

On the other hand, surely it is reasonable to suggest that the model's S characteristic is 6, when attacking with the relic blade. Close combat weapons do not typically have they own strength value, they modify or replace owner's strength (such as with the witchblade, though that is a little bit clearer in how it is written).

 

Therefore, the model's strength with the relic blade is 6. 6+1=7 (funnily enough).

[Praeger]

The way I see it is like this - no mater what the models S, it would still always be S6.

 

Weapon when used gives S6 - if it was modeled on a S10 model (for example) it would still strike at S6 due to its exact rule.

 

Bit of a wierd one though...

[greatcrusade08]

On the other hand, surely it is reasonable to suggest

 

Exactly how i saw it, but in the world of RAW Brother Gothard is also correct...

I guess it depends on the player, ultimately i agree with you and although i dont use them myself i wouldnt stop my opponents using this.

 

Perhaps this need to go in the grey area :(

 

GC08

[WarpSpawn]

Well, the thing is, there is nothing to suggest that the S6 is unmodifiable. It says hits "are resolved at strength 6", not hits are "are always resolved at strength 6", hence there is no reason to believe that this value is exempt from modifiers, positive or negative.

 

Furthermore, wounding in close combat is done by comparing the model's strength characteristic with the enemy's toughness (page 38). Whilst it does acknowledge that some weapons will modify this value, you would still have to consider the modified value to be the model's strength characteristic for the rolling to wound rules to be satisfied. There is nothing in the codex to explicitly (or even implicitly in my opinion) override this.

[Mal]

I expect one of the problems with that argument is the fact that codex trumps rule book...

 

The rule book says its the characters stat thats is used, but the codex says its resolved at Str 6, it mentions nothing about it being a modifier or even using the characeters stat (where other weapons that give modifiers do)..

 

From a purely RAW perspective I would say that a relic blade will always resolve at strength 6 because thats what it rule says.

(It doesn't need the word 'always' there for you to know it resolves at str 6)

[JamesI]

I don't think this is what is intended, but until there is a FAQ, the rule seems clear enough. Furious charge has no effect on a relic blade.

[greatcrusade08]

From a purely RAW perspective I would say that a relic blade will always resolve at strength 6 because thats what it rule says.

(It doesn't need the word 'always' there for you to know it resolves at str 6)

Actually yes it does, this is the crux of the argument, if it doesnt state always, then it lets us believe it can be used otherwise. i.e in conjunction with bonuses.

If it said only ever resolves at or always resolves at, then there would be no confusion.

 

GC08

[yergerjo]

Yet still furious charge will add +1 to a Powerfist or Power Claw after the doubling.

[Chucku]

Yet still furious charge will add +1 to a Powerfist or Power Claw after the doubling.

 

But that's only because a Powerfist doubles the Str attribute of the wielder for strikes and by the multiplier/additive rule you double then add the Furious Charge bonus. The Relic Blade does not reference the wielder's Str attribute, just that the attack is resolved as Str 6. Hence the difference.

[yergerjo]

Yet still furious charge will add +1 to a Powerfist or Power Claw after the doubling.

 

But that's only because a Powerfist doubles the Str attribute of the wielder for strikes and by the multiplier/additive rule you double then add the Furious Charge bonus. The Relic Blade does not reference the wielder's Str attribute, just that the attack is resolved as Str 6. Hence the difference.

 

Vs Also the Orks Big Choppa which adds +2 to the wielder's strength. The BC states the addition, whereas the RB says Str 6 period. I'm inclined to agree that it's 6 regardless.

[Brother Gothard]

On the other hand, surely it is reasonable to suggest that the model's S characteristic is 6, when attacking with the relic blade. Close combat weapons do not typically have they own strength value, they modify or replace owner's strength (such as with the witchblade, though that is a little bit clearer in how it is written).

 

Therefore, the model's strength with the relic blade is 6. 6+1=7 (funnily enough).

The problem with that is that the Relic Blade does not say that it modifies the owner's Strength characteristic; it merely resolves the hit at Strength 6. While this is somewhat atypical for close combat weapons, that neither proves that it does modify the users strength, nor does it disprove that the Relic Blade has its own Strength value. So, unfortunately, this argument is not sufficiently 'tight' to propose an alternate reading (for me anyway).

 

Well, the thing is, there is nothing to suggest that the S6 is unmodifiable. It says hits "are resolved at strength 6", not hits are "are always resolved at strength 6", hence there is no reason to believe that this value is exempt from modifiers, positive or negative.

 

Furthermore, wounding in close combat is done by comparing the model's strength characteristic with the enemy's toughness (page 38). Whilst it does acknowledge that some weapons will modify this value, you would still have to consider the modified value to be the model's strength characteristic for the rolling to wound rules to be satisfied. There is nothing in the codex to explicitly (or even implicitly in my opinion) override this.

It is immaterial whether the S6 is unmodifiable. Its hits are resolved at Str 6, and if there were a rule that added +1 Strength to an attack, this would certainly modify the Relic Blade's strength. However, Furious Charge adds +1 to the attacker's Strength characteristic. It says nothing about the strength of an attack. So its the combination of poorly written Furious Charge rules and poorly written Relic Blade rules that creates this specific problem, whereby the two are fully incompatible.

 

As to the second part of your post, it is not the case that you "still have to consider the modified value to be the model's Strength characteristic." There is nothing in the rules that requires this to be how wounds are resolved. Allow me to refer to the following quote from the BRB.

 

From pg. 38, BRB, Rolling to Wound section:

In most cases, when rolling to wound in close combat, you use the Strength on the attacker’s profile

In most cases, your argument, WarpSpawn, holds up. However, this is not most cases. This is a case, outside most cases, where the weapon provides an explicitly defined Strength value to use to resolve the attack. It does not modify the characteristic, it specifies a value. Nor does the Rulebook require that close combat attacks be resolved at modified or unmodified Strength characteristics. You just compare the Strength of the attack to the Toughness of the defender.

 

So, no, your argument does not work for me, again :P

[WarpSpawn]

The way I see it though, you really need to provide some evidence that S6 is not the model's S characteristic for close combat attacks. My justification for this is simple: the natural state ofaffairs is to compare the model's S characteristic with the enemy's T, which includes modified S values (eg powerfists), and also outright changes to S value (eg witch blades). If we are going to deviate from this norm and consider that S6 is not the model's S characteristic, I would personally like something rather more explicit in establishing this separation than "resolved at S6".

 

Also, if S6 is not the model's S characteristic, who/what does it belong to? RAW draws no distinction between the model and their CC weapon so any S value used in CC must belong to the model (I do consider this different to shooting weapons that have their own profile, irrespective of the model's stat line).

 

I have also yet to see any real evidence that S6 is unmodifiable. 40K is full of rules that establish the base value of something but, in the absense of anything saying that value cannot be changed, any relevant special rule that comes along can modify it.

[Mal]

The way I see it though, you really need to provide some evidence that S6 is not the model's S characteristic for close combat attacks. My justification for this is simple: the natural state ofaffairs is to compare the model's S characteristic with the enemy's T, which includes modified S values (eg powerfists), and also outright changes to S value (eg witch blades). If we are going to deviate from this norm and consider that S6 is not the model's S characteristic, I would personally like something rather more explicit in establishing this separation than "resolved at S6".

 

Also, if S6 is not the model's S characteristic, who/what does it belong to? RAW draws no distinction between the model and their CC weapon so any S value used in CC must belong to the model (I do consider this different to shooting weapons that have their own profile, irrespective of the model's stat line).

 

I have also yet to see any real evidence that S6 is unmodifiable. 40K is full of rules that establish the base value of something but, in the absense of anything saying that value cannot be changed, any relevant special rule that comes along can modify it.

 

We've not said its unmodifiable... you can modify until your heart content... however when resolving the attack... it'll be at str 6 as stated in the rules fo the relic blade.

 

The wording of the rule as kindly quoted by Brother Gothard from BRB p.38 it clearly states that in most cases the characters strength stat is used... however the relic blade makes no mention to either the characters strength or any modifiers it gives....

What this means is that the relic blade doesn't give a modifier in the traditional sense, it instead used a seperate charactic of strength 6 when resolving.

 

Clearly the relic blade is one of those cases where it is unlike most cases and the characters strength is not used.

 

But all that aside, we do not need to prove that the relic blade uses the characters strength with a modifier because its rules make no mention of either the characeters strength or a modifier.

 

Im not saying thats what was intended, because we cannot know what was intended, all we have is the rules as written which state quite clearly that the relic blade resolves at Str 6.... Its possible that int eh next FAQ they change this to the relic blade giving +2 to the characters Strength charastic... but until they do all hits from the relic blade resolve at Str 6.

[Brother Gothard]

EDIT: posted this after Mal, so, here's the TL:DR version of my post:

WHAT MAL SAID!

 

@ WarpSpawn: I see how your argument works now.

 

1- Relic Blade strength "counts as" (or otherwise is considered to be) the Strength characteristic of the model. You seem to see this as being required by the rules.

2- Thus, since the Relic Blade strength 6 IS modifiable (and here I agree with you), Furious Charge modifies the user's Strength characteristic, and therefore modifies the Relic Blade's strength of 6, which gets a result of 7.

 

However I believe 1 is false. Since 1 is false, 2 is also false.

 

The way I see it though, you really need to provide some evidence that S6 is not the model's S characteristic for close combat attacks. My justification for this is simple: the natural state ofaffairs is to compare the model's S characteristic with the enemy's T, which includes modified S values (eg powerfists), and also outright changes to S value (eg witch blades). If we are going to deviate from this norm and consider that S6 is not the model's S characteristic, I would personally like something rather more explicit in establishing this separation than "resolved at S6".

I am sorry, but I do not see the burden lying on me. Yes, the "natural state of affairs" is to compare a models Strength characteristic to blah blah. Modified or not, whatever. Yes I agree. But this is not normal, because this CCW has special rules that override that "normal state of affairs" (which is EXPLICITLY provided for in the rulebook, and you agree to this I think). Relic Blades are NOT a modification of the users Strength characteristic simply because they are not. They resolve hits at strength 6. Other weapons that DO modify Strength characteristics explicitly say so. Powerfists double the users Strength char, poisoned weapons always wound on X "regardless of" a users Strength char. Same for witch blades and rending and whatever have you. There is no mention of modifying the Strength characteristic in the Relic Blade rules, so therefore they do not modify it. And that there is a "normal state of affairs" for close combat is overridden by the Relic Blade's special rules.

 

If that does not do it for you, then we will have to agree to disagree. Though I really do feel that your argument is too weak. You just shift the onus to me, claiming that there is a "natural state of affairs" and that Relic Blade's are an undue violation of it. Its like saying that because you cant see something means its not there. Sometimes you are right, sometimes not. This time, I think not.

 

Anyway, yeah, friendly agreement to disagree? :)

[greatcrusade08]

Ok the problem as i see it is:

Regardless of your stance the rule requires some interpretation, meaning either could be correct, and since RAI is of little use (unless someone knows Matt Wards intent), then we have a natural grey area within the rules..

An FAQ is probably the only way to sort this out for sure, and i think this is a good example to add to the stickied thread.

 

GC08

[Brother Gothard]

Ugh, how disgustingly gentleman-like of you. Can't we let it degenerate into ad hominem attacks and death threats?

 

Oh well, OK, I guess you're right GC08. Good summation! Though I entirely disagree with it ... :D ;)

 

We've all said our piece. I think its pretty clear that GW did not intend to make FC and RBs incompatible, however. I think GC08 is right, a FAQ is appropriate in either case.

[rockdeity]

yeah, truth is, you get enough benefit from the I bonus anyway. The S boost would just be gravy.

[Ming]

IMHO, the Relic Blade is strength 6 (rather than they SME regular S4). Furious charge would make it S7. There is nothing in RAW that indicate to me it would be unmodifiable. The strength is from it being large, heavy, and two handed. Similarly, a PF for an SME is S8, would become S9. Regardless, unless you are dealing with target toughness issues and instant death, the impact between a S6 or S7 is pretty hard to gauge, for typical T4 and T3 opponents. Probably not worth an argument.

 

The rule for furious means just that...the unit is putting a bit of extra effort in the hits, +1 to the impacts. The "power" in power weapon is not the source of the strength. The S comes from a combination of the mass of the weapon and the force at which it is moved. The ability for it to negate the armor of the target is the effect of the "power".

[Melissia]

That would be true, Ming, if it said +2 to strength (such as with the Blessed Weapon) instead of "resolved at strength 6". "resolved" indicates that the end result of the attack is S6 regardless of other attributes, because when something is resolved it is finished entirelly.

 

Basicly, the Relic Blade is poorly defined.

[PotMs]

I believe it is probably a oversight but untill then id say furious charge does NOT increase the str of relic blade attacks, its like saying 'this poisoned weapon wounds on a 3+ but i have furious charge so it must make it a 2+' ie wishfull thinking and uncompatable rulesets.

 

If in the codex it said powerfists were str8 we would have the same problem, but it says it doubles the str so FC works

[Mal]

saying a weapon hits at Str8 isn't so bad, you could add modifiers to that... but its the word 'resolved' that clinches it for the relic blade... you cannot add modifiers once its resolved.

[greatcrusade08]

What we are arguing about here, is the english language, and we know GW has already set a precedent in this matter, by not using the correct terminology on many occasions.

 

So my relic blade resolves it hits against you at S6, but when i have furious charge it gets a S bonus...

In this case you have two contradciting rules:

Furious charge....gives you +1S... easy to follow

Relic blade resloves at S6.....not so easy, it doesnt imply you cant add your strenth bonus on does it?

 

So on one hand you have the camp that says yes you add on the S bonus, its clearly written that Furious charge gives +1S

 

On the other you have the camp thats arguing against that with thier sole argument being the subjectiveness of a single word!

 

Which camp has the stronger case?

 

GC08

[Mal]

The relic blade makes to use of the S bonus, more to the point you still get a S bonus... its just not used.

 

All bonuses must be applied before the attack resolves... otherwise your adding a bonus to an attack that is no longer taking place...

Can we accept this?

 

Ok, the Relic Blade ALWAYS resolves at S6 since thats what it says in its rules. Even if it made use of the users S value, it would still resolve at S6.