So did the SW FAQ answer your questions?

[Kenmichi]

It doesn't, it's one of the few questions left unanswered which means that the question either: wasn't viewed as an obvious problem or decided to leave the interpretation up to the players. Personally I think it's very clear how it works, straight from the codex: "...a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged weapon..." As there is not another melee weapon that can be used at range like this then who is to say just because it's thrown it loses its special abilities? Look at the character throwing the hammer, look at the hammer's melee stats, then look at the ranged profile. How could the hammer not stun?

 

It doesn't stun, the profile just says it has a 6" range, Strength 10, and AP value of 1. Only in close combat does the stun effect take place.

 

A thunder hammer is a weapon that has a stun effect, period. If it didn't retain its stun effect the ranged attack would not be called a 'thrown thunder hammer' or it would say that Arjac has a device that simulates a 6" str 10 ap 1 attack.

[Ominous Anonymous]

It stuns in close combat, the shooting profile makes no mention of the stun effect, and you're taking hyperbole and fluff text to make a bad jump in logic in how the weapon works.

[Schertenleib]

Sorry to drag up a point from several pages ago....

 

In regards to Scouts. The BEL entry says that when the scouts outflank this is how they do it. The FAQ says that he SoTH allows the IC to join an outflanking Scout unit. If the IC could join a Codex Marine Scout unit he would outflank using the standard rule, but as that is not how Wolves outflank why would they have to use the standard?

[Aurick]

The question is if Wolf Scouts can outflank WITHOUT using BEL.

 

I'm not sure that they can.

[Wispy]

I'm told when scouts outflank with a Ic with Saga of the Hunter, he can join the unit and outflank with them.

 

I'm also told when scouts out flank, they do "this."

 

The first rule enables the IC to something with the Wolf Scouts. Still not good enough IMO, but I'd say the FAQ is enough justification to make the argument in a friendly game.

[Ominous Anonymous]

I'm honestly undecided on the OBEL issue now. I blame this thread.

[Wildfire]

I agree- WBB shouldnt work on a Stasis bomb. But they did cover Jaws- the model is removed from the table.

 

In order to make a WBB roll the necron model must still be on the table. Thus, jaws=no WBB.

 

Stasis bomb has the same wording: removed from play.

 

Is anyone else suprised/upset that it took , i believe, the longest FAQ todate for any army book/codex ever to fix these minor problems?

 

Surprised, no. I'm used to GW sending out poorly written rulebooks. I'm reasonably pleased that the did it so quickly and completely, although that is mitigated by the fact that they need such large FAQs in the first place.

 

And yeah, the TWM S bonus and Arjacs thrown hammer needs to be clarified as well.

[Kenmichi]

It stuns in close combat, the shooting profile makes no mention of the stun effect, and you're taking hyperbole and fluff text to make a bad jump in logic in how the weapon works.

 

The shooting profile doesn't need to make mention of the stun effect because it's still a thunder hammer. A thunder hammer is a thunder hammer is a thunder hammer. A thunder hammer without a stun effect is not a thunder hammer. I'm not basing the ruling on fluff, the fluff is merely a way to understand the RAI, but even the RAW supports this, the codex ever so clearly says that this is a thunder hammer that is thrown with the following damage profile. In fact the damage profile further supports the notion that the stun effect is retained. Arjac's base strength value is 5(doubled to 10 in close combat) and thunder hammers ignore armor saves, the ranged profile is str 10 with AP 1.

 

If you don't want to use Arjac that way, that's fine. But don't expect all of your Space Wolf opponents to agree with you as this is obviously a rule that is still in contention, though personally I don't understand why it's an issue.

[Wildfire]

the codex ever so clearly says that this is a thunder hammer that is thrown with the following damage profile

 

Exactly why RAW says no stun. The profile does not say anything about it.

[Ominous Anonymous]

The shooting profile doesn't need to make mention of the stun effect because it's still a thunder hammer. A thunder hammer is a thunder hammer is a thunder hammer. A thunder hammer without a stun effect is not a thunder hammer. I'm not basing the ruling on fluff, the fluff is merely a way to understand the RAI, but even the RAW supports this, the codex ever so clearly says that this is a thunder hammer that is thrown with the following damage profile. In fact the damage profile further supports the notion that the stun effect is retained. Arjac's base strength value is 5(doubled to 10 in close combat) and thunder hammers ignore armor saves, the ranged profile is str 10 with AP 1.

 

If you don't want to use Arjac that way, that's fine. But don't expect all of your Space Wolf opponents to agree with you as this is obviously a rule that is still in contention, though personally I don't understand why it's an issue.

 

Don't try and make it sound like burden of proof is on me, you're the one arguing for the obscure ruling. A thunder hammer is a special close combat weapon, the shooting profile does not have the stun effect. Foehammer's rule refer to it as a Thunder Hammer not because it affects the shooting profile, but because it lets the players know how it acts in close combat.

 

This isn't about RaI, the intended effect is clear: it's a thunder hammer that can double as an extremely short-range railgun. That's it.

[rahl02]

The shooting profile doesn't need to make mention of the stun effect because it's still a thunder hammer. A thunder hammer is a thunder hammer is a thunder hammer. A thunder hammer without a stun effect is not a thunder hammer. I'm not basing the ruling on fluff, the fluff is merely a way to understand the RAI, but even the RAW supports this, the codex ever so clearly says that this is a thunder hammer that is thrown with the following damage profile. In fact the damage profile further supports the notion that the stun effect is retained. Arjac's base strength value is 5(doubled to 10 in close combat) and thunder hammers ignore armor saves, the ranged profile is str 10 with AP 1.

 

If you don't want to use Arjac that way, that's fine. But don't expect all of your Space Wolf opponents to agree with you as this is obviously a rule that is still in contention, though personally I don't understand why it's an issue.

 

Don't try and make it sound like burden of proof is on me, you're the one arguing for the obscure ruling. A thunder hammer is a special close combat weapon, the shooting profile does not have the stun effect. Foehammer's rule refer to it as a Thunder Hammer not because it affects the shooting profile, but because it lets the players know how it acts in close combat.

 

This isn't about RaI, the intended effect is clear: it's a thunder hammer that can double as an extremely short-range railgun. That's it.

 

You are correct sir. Foehammer stating that's it's a thunder hammer is telling you how it's used in close combat. The only reason people are bitching about it stunning is they want to either a: use JotWW and snipe MC's who live, or B: strike first in close combat cuz they can't win with out it. Common Arjac can and will single handedly kill ANY Char / MC in close combat. Barring Eternal Warrior. This guy's a beast, and he's usually got 3-4 buddies with him.

 

edit: The best use for Arjac's hammer when thrown is to take out landraiders and assault the juicy bits inside. NUFF said.

[rodgambit]

If your going to argue RAW then I would go with the rulebook entry that clearly states the effects of a Thunderhammer. It does not say only in close combat and since we have a wolf character that is throwing a Thunderhammer then the effects would still take place regardless of it being in close combat or ranged.

[Kenmichi]

The shooting profile doesn't need to make mention of the stun effect because it's still a thunder hammer. A thunder hammer is a thunder hammer is a thunder hammer. A thunder hammer without a stun effect is not a thunder hammer. I'm not basing the ruling on fluff, the fluff is merely a way to understand the RAI, but even the RAW supports this, the codex ever so clearly says that this is a thunder hammer that is thrown with the following damage profile. In fact the damage profile further supports the notion that the stun effect is retained. Arjac's base strength value is 5(doubled to 10 in close combat) and thunder hammers ignore armor saves, the ranged profile is str 10 with AP 1.

 

If you don't want to use Arjac that way, that's fine. But don't expect all of your Space Wolf opponents to agree with you as this is obviously a rule that is still in contention, though personally I don't understand why it's an issue.

 

Don't try and make it sound like burden of proof is on me, you're the one arguing for the obscure ruling. A thunder hammer is a special close combat weapon, the shooting profile does not have the stun effect. Foehammer's rule refer to it as a Thunder Hammer not because it affects the shooting profile, but because it lets the players know how it acts in close combat.

 

This isn't about RaI, the intended effect is clear: it's a thunder hammer that can double as an extremely short-range railgun. That's it.

 

Burden of proof?? I'm presenting my side of how Foehammer works as you're presenting your side, nothing more. And like I said not everyone will read it the same way, this much is obvious seeing how adamant we are towards our interpretation and understanding. I feel like mine has more substance and you feel the same about yours.

[Venix]

Regarding the OBEL controversy/FAQ.

 

Rules as Written. (RAW)

The Space Wolf Codex states that Wolf Scouts have the ability to 'Outflank', which is conferred to them by the 'Scouts' special rule on pg74 of the BRB. The only way an IC, according to pg48 of the BRB can join a Wolf Scout Unit, and the unit still retain the ability (special rule) to Outflank, is by taking the Saga of The Hunter which confers the 'Outflank' special rule on pg94 of the BRB to the IC.

 

Now, both the Wolf Scouts and the attached IC have the 'Outflank' USR and may still Outflank. However, we all know the confusion comes from the Wolf Scouts special rule on pg27 of the Space Wolf Codex, 'Operate Behind Enemy Lines', and whether or not they can still OBEL.

 

OBEL clearly states that if the Wolf Scouts (which now includes the IC as part of the unit) chooses to make use of its ability to 'Outflank', roll a dice to see where it enters play. (as normal) Instead of substituting a different rule in place of the existing rule 'Outflank' the roll to outflank is modified.

 

This rule purely modifies the dice roll for outflanking, nothing more. It is not a separate rule that gets nullified if there is an IC attached that has SoTH! The unit is not using a rule that the attached character does not already technically have! Therefore the entire unit and character still benefit from the effect of OBEL on the 'Outflank' USR!

 

Rules as Interpreted (RAI)

The mistake is to assume that the 'Outflank' rule is actually substituted in its entirety by OBEL as a separate rule, which is not correct. You are just adding a modifier to the parameters of an existing rule revolving around a dice roll. Without the ability to outflank in the first place, the scouts or the attached IC would not be rolling on the table provided by OBEL!

 

The FAQ states that Scouts plus attached IC with SoTH may Outflank. OBEL has no effect on whether or not the unit either may, or may not outflank as you can't use OBEL without actually outflanking, or the rule to 'Outflank' in the first place.

 

The confusion on "whether or not the unit can still OBEL" is because people are assuming that OBEL takes place of 'Outflanking', and not as an amendment to an existing rule that both the IC and the unit have.

 

The unit doesn't OBEL, it Outflanks. It's quite clear what the rule, and intention of the rule is stating "When you Outflank, modify the dice roll as such"

 

Think of it as an"always come in on any board edge of your choice" version of the Wolf Tooth Necklace's modification of the 'To-Hit' roll, but for 'Outflanking', for free.

 

Which is actually what it really is. A chance to come into battle where you want 2/3rds of the time, rather than 1/4th of the time.

[Ominous Anonymous]

If your going to argue RAW then I would go with the rulebook entry that clearly states the effects of a Thunderhammer. It does not say only in close combat and since we have a wolf character that is throwing a Thunderhammer then the effects would still take place regardless of it being in close combat or ranged.

 

Show me an instance where a shooting profile comes from a close combat weapon and gains the property of that special CCW and I'll take your argument seriously.

 

Burden of proof?? I'm presenting my side of how Foehammer works as you're presenting your side, nothing more. And like I said not everyone will read it the same way, this much is obvious seeing how adamant we are towards our interpretation and understanding. I feel like mine has more substance and you feel the same about yours.

 

Yes, your interpretation doesn't work. For all intents and purposes, the shooting profile is separate from the thunder hammer. It's simply a fluff basis for why Arjac would even have access to the ability in the first place. Unless he likes to crush the Archenemy with his minnnnnd! :rolleyes:

[rahl02]

I have to say read the profile for the weapon. Then think to your self does that profile represent a thunder hammer being thrown at your face. Now look at that profile again, then turn to the rulebook under the weapon types. You know the one that talks pistols, assault etc, then look for the special rules for it. Does it show ANYWHERE where on any page in the shooting weapons does there say ANYWHERE for a "stun" special rule.

 

Now look for Close Combat Special Weapons, wait there's the thunder hammer right there. Well it seems that the thunder hammer is a CLOSE COMBAT WEAPON, and not a RANGED WEAPON.

 

When they make a ranged weapon that stuns, I'll say that the Foehammer can stun. Until then anyone how says it does is just kidding themselves with heresy and lies.

[Kenmichi]

If your going to argue RAW then I would go with the rulebook entry that clearly states the effects of a Thunderhammer. It does not say only in close combat and since we have a wolf character that is throwing a Thunderhammer then the effects would still take place regardless of it being in close combat or ranged.

 

Show me an instance where a shooting profile comes from a close combat weapon and gains the property of that special CCW and I'll take your argument seriously.

 

There isn't any other instance, this is completely unique making that argument moot.

 

Burden of proof?? I'm presenting my side of how Foehammer works as you're presenting your side, nothing more. And like I said not everyone will read it the same way, this much is obvious seeing how adamant we are towards our interpretation and understanding. I feel like mine has more substance and you feel the same about yours.

 

Yes, your interpretation doesn't work. For all intents and purposes, the shooting profile is separate from the thunder hammer. It's simply a fluff basis for why Arjac would even have access to the ability in the first place. Unless he likes to crush the Archenemy with his minnnnnd! :rolleyes:

 

Explain how an interpretation "doesn't work", interpretations by nature are completely subjective like opinions. A thunder hammer that is a thunder hammer that can be used as a ranged attack is still a thunder hammer. Perhaps there is a reason the ranged profile doesn't include the "stun", GW does not refer to the effect as a "stun" and couldn't, or simply didn't out of sheer laziness/forgetfulness (wouldn't be the first time), simplify the effects into a single word to be included. Maybe the effect was simply implied like many things in warhammer have been and are now, even with codex FAQs we're still left to make house rules.

[Athalus]

your throwing a thunder hammer right down the throat of your enemies! its a thunder hammer that hits them, so it would stand to reason that it has the effects of a thunder hammer. Why would it lose its stun and other abilities while still retaining the others (double str, ap 1)? I guess its just a table top decision when ya play him. His 188 pts :cuss, 188 pts! he better freaking stun when he throws his hammer, since he doesn't give stubborn...

[Ominous Anonymous]

Coincidental don't prove an argument. You've got absolutely nothing to stand on.

[Kenmichi]

Coincidental don't prove an argument. You've got absolutely nothing to stand on.

 

And neither does circumstantial denial.

 

Ominous for the sake of this thread I suggest we drop it. If you want to chat more with me I'll be more than willing to via PMs, email, or AIM if you use that.

[Ominous Anonymous]

[Ominous for the sake of this thread I suggest we drop it. If you want to chat more with me I'll be more than willing to via PMs, email, or AIM if you use that.

 

Fair enough.

[SamaNagol]

By RAW it is entirely impossible to prove either way whether Arjac's Hammer stuns. It says it is a Thunder Hammer which can be used as a ranged weapon with the following profile. That does not remove it's status as a Thunder Hammer. And Thunder Hammers have clearly defined effects.

 

What I would ask is, if it was St7 AP2 in its profile would you argue that it was in fact St10 with no saving throws were allowed because it says so in the THammer profile? If yes, then you would believe it would Stun. If no then you don't believe it would stun.

[lordsloth]

Foehammer (leaving stunning out of it for now:

Melee: doubles strength bonus, ignores armor

Ranged: flat 10 str, ap1

 

They have literally nothing in common. In melee you dont get +1 on the vehicle table because its not ap1, it just has a power field. In ranged you get str10, regardless of strength score. Yes it both happens to be 10 but you get there in a different way. Yes they both happen to ignore suits of armour but you get there in a different way. So theres no reason ranged would stun unless the ranged profile specifically says so (in which case it would stun, but they both got there in a different way).

 

The foehammer's rules do not say "throws his thunderhammer up to 10 inches and resolve damage accordingly", it says "throws his thunder hammer and this is what it does: str10 ap1 assault1 10inch".

 

There is no stun. Claiming that there is would be the exception to the way range profiles work and would therefore require an explicit statement involving the actual word 'stun' in the section of the foehammer. And there isnt, so it doesnt.

 

The reason they didnt faq it is probably because they forgot. But honestly it doesnt need to be faq'd it's clear as day how the rules work RAW.

 

RAI is an entirely different matter ofcourse, But since theres no way to proove RAI short of an actual statement from the person that wrote (and therefore intended) the rule, we cant really say yes or no definitively on that one.

[Grey Mage]

I agree- WBB shouldnt work on a Stasis bomb. But they did cover Jaws- the model is removed from the table.

 

In order to make a WBB roll the necron model must still be on the table. Thus, jaws=no WBB.

 

Stasis bomb has the same wording: removed from play.

 

Is anyone else suprised/upset that it took , i believe, the longest FAQ todate for any army book/codex ever to fix these minor problems?

 

Surprised, no. I'm used to GW sending out poorly written rulebooks. I'm reasonably pleased that the did it so quickly and completely, although that is mitigated by the fact that they need such large FAQs in the first place.

 

And yeah, the TWM S bonus and Arjacs thrown hammer needs to be clarified as well.

Well according to the Necron Codex the model has to be on the table in order to get a WBB roll, so if its removed... it cant.

[Wildfire]

I understand that, Grey Mage. That's exactly what I'm saying. They've contradicted that rule with the Last Laugh, but stated nothing one way or the other with Jaws. Both have the same wording. I'm not saying I don't know what RAW is, just that it's going to cause confusion with Last Laugh having a different effect with the same wording.