TDA Wolf Lords with Frost Blades

[Grimtooth]

I would say that you actually read the rule of the Frost Blade, especially the last sentence:

 

"....., all frost blades or frost axes are power weapons that add +1 strength to the USERS Strength.

 

If you are using a bolter or a wolf claw, you are not using the frostblade hence do not get the +1 Strength. It is not a passive strength bonus as some of you may want it to be, the wording specifically points out "user", not "model equipped". If you are not using it, you are not getting the Strength.

[Decoy]

Blarg, I am undone. My mind filled in "Wielder", not "user". Too many pen and paper RPGs for me, it seems. As Page 42 states, "which weapon to use", making Ramses right, and making me withdraw the question.

[Decoy]

Addendum: Actually, after re-reading the dex, while Frost Blade does say "User", Wolf Claws do indeed say "Wielder". This brings life back to the original argument, just switched around.

 

Frost Blade gives +1 Strength while used

 

Wolf Claws allow rerolls in Close Combat while "wielded", meaning the Frost Blade would reroll to-hit or to-wound, granted by the sheer virtue of wielding the Wolf Claws.

 

Thoughts, Ramses?

[stinkenheim]

you can only use one special weapon at a time.

 

if you use the frost blade you gain the bonuses fro it (+1 tr)

if you use te Wolf Claw you gain the bonuses from it (re-rolls)

you cannot use both weapons to get both sets of bonuses as it is against the rules just like you cannot use the Wolf Clw to allow you to re-roll failed shooting attempts.

 

The frost blade woul also never affect the strength of a ranged weapon as per the rule book where it states ranged weapons use their own profiles an are not affected by the models stats.

[Decoy]

*Face. Palm.* Stink, and to everyone else who thinks that there's SOMETHING in here regarding ranged weaponry... I made it -explicitly- clear that I wasn't referring to ranged weapons. I directly stated that in my post. C'mon, guys. Reading comprehension is a good thing.

 

In regards to the CCW issue...

 

I just happened to be meandering through the rulebook in pursuit of fodder for the "Devil's Advocate" post, and I came across the incongruity. The +1 Strength is granted by -using- the Frostblade, as Ramses pointed out. However, there is no such restriction in the Wolf Claws; they simply must be wielded, not "used". As per the phrasing on page 42 of the BRB, "When it is thir turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to -use-." Frostblade explicitly states that it must be USED, as per it's ruling. However, the Wolf Claws, page 60, state that...

 

 

"A Wolf Claw is a lightning claw that allows the wielder (<--keyword) to either re-roll his To Hit rolls or re-roll his To Wound rolls. - the owner must choose at the beginning of each Close Combat phase."

 

Now, I can't help but think that this phrasing is purposeful. After all, if I'm locked in combat with a Bloodthirster AND a squad of ... say... Nurgle Marines, I may not know what I'll use as a Close Combat Weapon until after the results of a higher-I character. However, what -will- be known is whether I'll be re-rolling To-Hit or To-Wound. With those High-T things around me, I'll likely be rerolling To-Wound.

 

Since the Wolf Claw Reroll MUST be declared -BEFORE- combat, and since the weapon does NOT require to be "Used" but simply "Wielded", it fairly clearly lays out that I can use the rerolls on any weapon that I'm -using-, not just the Wolf Claws.

 

Using the Frost Blade, we get the +1 Strength.

 

Wielding the Wolf Claws, we get the rerolls.

 

 

(As a side note, this is HEAVILY against RAI, but I'm playing a bit of Devil's Advocate on my own. No way I'd do this or even condone it. Just seeking out the RAW.)

[Grey Mage]

Decoy. You confuse me.

 

In one way, you ARE right about the passive-confering-strength.. (S5 bolter? Would love to have that..)

 

How about this: Frostblades, by all means, count as close combat weapon. Wolf Claw also counts as close combat. But, the wording itself IS rather confusing. It only says +1 Strength and reroll to hit and wounds (JUST reroll. No close-combat and things like that..). And I lost my sentence right there. Completely lost it.

 

How about a little help, oh great Grey Mage? :P

Oh its very simple- you can only gain the benefits of one CCW that you are wielding.

 

Frost blades add +1 to the users strength. Since you also have to be wielding the Wolf Claw to gain the benefits you can only ever get the benefit of one of these items.

 

And, you never get the +1 A because you are armed with two different special close combat weapons, as per BRB pg. 42.

 

And for those of you who are being dense, and saying wielding something isnt using it:

 

wield [wiːld]

vb (tr)

1. to handle or use (a weapon, tool, etc.)

 

Its the same thing.

 

In other words, I think youd be an idiot to shell out the points for both of these on one model.

[Grimtooth]

Addendum: Actually, after re-reading the dex, while Frost Blade does say "User", Wolf Claws do indeed say "Wielder". This brings life back to the original argument, just switched around.

 

Frost Blade gives +1 Strength while used

 

Wolf Claws allow rerolls in Close Combat while "wielded", meaning the Frost Blade would reroll to-hit or to-wound, granted by the sheer virtue of wielding the Wolf Claws.

 

Thoughts, Ramses?

 

To wield something is to handle or use a weapon or tool, esp with control. So I would still say that you have two different special weapons, and that you need to choose which one to use that turn of combat. You are either using the FB and getting +1 Str or you are wielding the wolf claw and getting the chance to re-roll hits/wounds.

[Jarl Bloodwolf]

I can see both arguments as fair and to me the only way that this would be solved would be to prupose the question to the folks over at GW and see what they say

[Decoy]

Well, if we're bringing definitions into it, Wield is also defined as "To command, rule over; to possess or own". Indeed, the Wolf Claw is possessed by the Lord in question, but he is not "using" it. I can be "wielding" a nail in one hand, but that does not mean I am "using" it while "using" the hammer to nail it in. But then we get into Semantics, and by that point, we're already spiraling into the realm of absurd when it comes to arguing rules in 40K.

[Grimtooth]

Well, if we're bringing definitions into it, Wield is also defined as "To command, rule over; to possess or own". Indeed, the Wolf Claw is possessed by the Lord in question, but he is not "using" it. I can be "wielding" a nail in one hand, but that does not mean I am "using" it while "using" the hammer to nail it in. But then we get into Semantics, and by that point, we're already spiraling into the realm of absurd when it comes to arguing rules in 40K.

Yes, to wield power, a wolf lord would indeed is possessed of a wolf claw. However it doesn't change the fact that in order to fulfill the definition such as wielding power, you need to be using that power.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wield

 

Even in all the definitions and examples given where they use wield as to command, rule over, to possess or own, the subject of the verb is using whatever he is wielding.

[TiguriusX]

Did I accidentally spawn a round of definition wars in the Fang?

 

Decoy if you want to start another Devil's Advocate type thread I'll go round and round on the rules with you until you are content. I'm not comfortable side tracking another poster's thread with the detailed analysis

 

That being said...a power fist also says "user" in the rules for what it is worth

[Decoy]

Sorry for the sporadic back-then-gone sort of responses, I'm between houseworks when I post.

 

Anyways, I noticed that while I was looking through, Tigurius.

 

Axe Morkai says Used.

Foehammer says Used.

Powerfist says Used.

Thunderhammers use Powerfist rules which say Used.

 

 

Yet Wolf Claws say "Wielded"? Rather an odd time for the wording to suddenly become ambiguous, if it's meant to be used as other Close Combat weapons.

[Spacefrisian]

Hammertime

 

Rulebook Page 42 last alinea

Rulebook Page 42 last alinea

Rulebook Page 42 last alinea

Rulebook Page 42 last alinea

Rulebook Page 42 last alinea

Rulebook Page 42 last alinea

Rulebook Page 42 last alinea

Rulebook Page 42 last alinea

 

No No No No No No you cant use both special weapon bonuses so stop this nonsense.

[Spacefrisian]

Double hammertime

[Decoy]

Frisian, repeating something doesn't make it true. :(

 

"Must choose which weapon to USE". We've gone over this. The Claws need not be used, simply wielded, which is done by buying them as wargear. Every other major CCW in the game states that it has to be USED to get it's benefit, but the Wolf Claws do not. Simply that they must be wielded.

[Requiem of the Wolf]

Frisian, repeating something doesn't make it true. :(

 

"Must choose which weapon to USE". We've gone over this. The Claws need not be used, simply wielded, which is done by buying them as wargear. Every other major CCW in the game states that it has to be USED to get it's benefit, but the Wolf Claws do not. Simply that they must be wielded.

It is Odd....And Yes I suppose you COULD make an arguement for it allowing you to reroll with hit or wound for the other weapon. I think it would fall under the same classification as a joking statement made by an opponent yesterday "Prayer of the Machine Spirit allows a Land Raider to shoot one more weapon then it could normally,so since it was wrecked rather then destroyed,the weapon is still intact,and thus I COULD shoot you with it" To which I responded "Yes,by sheerest technicality you COULD be able to do that. By the same logic,I COULD kick you in the balls so hard they burst. Just because it is technically possible to do something,Doesn't mean that it is a wise idea"

 

After which we both laughed hilariously and got back to our game.

[Black2Jack1]

Addendum: Actually, after re-reading the dex, while Frost Blade does say "User", Wolf Claws do indeed say "Wielder". This brings life back to the original argument, just switched around.

 

Frost Blade gives +1 Strength while used

 

Wolf Claws allow rerolls in Close Combat while "wielded", meaning the Frost Blade would reroll to-hit or to-wound, granted by the sheer virtue of wielding the Wolf Claws.

 

Thoughts, Ramses?

 

Sorry if maybe this has been brought up, but doesn't Wolf Claw('s) mean that you are wielding A Wolf Claw on Each hand. So not getting the re-roll to hits or wounds? Which unless Space wolves also mutated a new arm, be impossible to also have a frost blade?

[TiguriusX]

Addendum: Actually, after re-reading the dex, while Frost Blade does say "User", Wolf Claws do indeed say "Wielder". This brings life back to the original argument, just switched around.

 

Frost Blade gives +1 Strength while used

 

Wolf Claws allow rerolls in Close Combat while "wielded", meaning the Frost Blade would reroll to-hit or to-wound, granted by the sheer virtue of wielding the Wolf Claws.

 

Thoughts, Ramses?

 

Sorry if maybe this has been brought up, but doesn't Wolf Claw('s) mean that you are wielding A Wolf Claw on Each hand. So not getting the re-roll to hits or wounds? Which unless Space wolves also mutated a new arm, be impossible to also have a frost blade?

 

 

WC is singular but you can buy 2

[Black2Jack1]

TiguriusX!

 

 

Oh so I get A re-roll in close combat even if I only have Wolf Claws in one hand and the other has a Bolt Pistol?

[TiguriusX]

Oh so I get A re-roll if I only have one claw and the other hand has a Bolt pistol?

 

 

Yup...WC and any of the following is good combo:

Combi-weapon

SS

Second WC (this grants A+1)

[Grey Mage]

Frisian, repeating something doesn't make it true. :P

 

"Must choose which weapon to USE". We've gone over this. The Claws need not be used, simply wielded, which is done by buying them as wargear. Every other major CCW in the game states that it has to be USED to get it's benefit, but the Wolf Claws do not. Simply that they must be wielded.

Wielding a weapon is using it. The two words are used interchangeably in the BRB, so why not in our codex?

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Perhaps this might help a bit, Michaelus? Attempting to summarize for ya.

"Frostblades are a Close Combat weapon. However, a character armed with a Frost Blade does not need to be in Close Combat to gain a +1 Strength, as the +1 Strength gain is passive.

Wolf Claws are a Close Combat weapon. A Character armed with a Wolf Claw does not get a bonus attack from TCCW unless armed with two Wolf Claws. A model armed with Wolf Claws may reroll all To-Hit or all To-Wound rolls, player's choice."

Therefore, the Frostblades are a passive Stat increase, exactly as Thunderwolves. This, in turn, allows for Strength 5 Wolf Claws, as the Frost Blade's passive ability does not necessitate using it in close combat to get the bonus. (Gods help you if you throw it on a TWM Lord, meaning S6 Wolf Claws, by the same token.)

 

Under Frost blade; "+1 to user's strength"

 

User. Very clear.

 

Frisian, repeating something doesn't make it true. :P

 

"Must choose which weapon to USE". We've gone over this. The Claws need not be used, simply wielded, which is done by buying them as wargear. Every other major CCW in the game states that it has to be USED to get it's benefit, but the Wolf Claws do not. Simply that they must be wielded.

 

"They allow the wielder to cut four times instead of once with each strike.... .... allow the wielder to re-roll....

 

How is this mysterious to you? Yes, wielder has different possible meanings.

 

wield |wēld|

verb [ trans. ]

hold and use (a weapon or tool) : a masked raider wielding a handgun.

• have and be able to use (power or influence) : faction leaders wielded enormous influence within the party.

 

It is very clear by the SW entry which meaning of wield is to be used, yes?

 

Oh hang on, in ancient Sumerian texts, to wield meant just have the option of bringing it. BONUS, you don't have to even buy the thing now!!!!111!!

 

+++

 

No wonder some SW players rule that TW mounts make you s5 => 10. You use the most narrow possible spiders web of a possibility to create even a mote of a chance of it being your way, and come up with assertions that it must be true. No. You just want it to be true and so rule in your own favour.

 

Think of it like this. If your foe had some dubious rules and came to the conclusion that he was right, you wouldn't think he was a jerk?

Rule x, fifty fifty, yes that goes my way

Rule y, fifty fifty, yes that goes my way, too

Rule z, fifty fifty, yes that goes my way, that one's mine

etc.

 

If a rule is unclear, always rule against yourself. Take rounding of numbers as an illustration; 7.5. Is it 8 or is it 7? We can see that it is more than 7, above and beyond it in fact. It certainly is not 8, though.

Some SW are rounding up. Have some integrity and only claim what is there. If you are only winning because you giving yourself advantages that are not there, if you'd spend some time thinking about how to play better instead of being morally elastic with rules interpretations, you'd get a better return and wouldn't be seen as some lawyer always ruling in their own favour.

 

+++

 

I hope BT get a new Codex with rubbish rules written that could go either way. Then I could model being self-deprecating, and you could see that you don't have to be fearful and nervous like a hyena scoffing down as much as he can at a kill sight. Take what is given to you and pinch no more.

[TiguriusX]

No wonder some SW players rule that TW mounts make you s5 => 10. You use the most narrow possible spiders web of a possibility to create even a mote of a chance of it being your way, and come up with assertions that it must be true. No. You just want it to be true and so rule in your own favour.

 

Think of it like this. If your foe had some dubious rules and came to the conclusion that he was right, you wouldn't think he was a jerk?

Rule x, fifty fifty, yes that goes my way

Rule y, fifty fifty, yes that goes my way, too

Rule z, fifty fifty, yes that goes my way, that one's mine

etc.

 

If a rule is unclear, always rule against yourself. Take rounding of numbers as an illustration; 7.5. Is it 8 or is it 7? We can see that it is more than 7, above and beyond it in fact. It certainly is not 8, though.

Some SW are rounding up. Have some integrity and only claim what is there. If you are only winning because you giving yourself advantages that are not there, if you'd spend some time thinking about how to play better instead of being morally elastic with rules interpretations, you'd get a better return and wouldn't be seen as some lawyer always ruling in their own favour.

 

+++

 

I hope BT get a new Codex with rubbish rules written that could go either way. Then I could model being self-deprecating, and you could see that you don't have to be fearful and nervous like a hyena scoffing down as much as he can at a kill sight. Take what is given to you and pinch no more.

 

I hope when the new BT codex comes along you can remove the rod from your backside.

 

Brother Decoy isn't crusading for his rule. This was his original question

What happens when you combine that with a Wolf Claw? I see no rule saying that you can't get a S5 Wolf Claw out of it. I'm pretty sure there's a rule against it SOMEwhere, but for the life of me, I cannot find it for the life of me.

He was starting a discussion on rule interpretation.

[Requiem of the Wolf]

I hope when the new BT codex comes along you can remove the rod from your backside.

That would require some seriously epic surgery. I mean we are talking a Magna-Grapple attached to the back of a Land Raider type of Surgery.

[Grey Mage]

Marshal Willhelm isnt usually uptight, and frankly hes no different than most fang members when it comes to being a bit Rawr at rules-lawyering.

 

Her probly just missed the devils-advocate thing going on... chill guys.