Wolf tooth neckless

[Grizwald714]

This came up in a tourney i played in a couple weeks ago. If I have an ic with a wolf tooth neckless can I use it to hit a dreadnought in close combat with a meltabomb because I don't think u can use against against anything that doesn't have a weapon skill but dreadnoughts does but the debate was weather or not a melt a bomb attack was considered a close combat attack. The guy I was playing against said it wasn't cause was basically throwing a bomb but I think it is since It happens surfing the cc and u r in base to base. And the judge wasn't sure either so we rolled a dice to decide witch I lost.

[Simo429]

it takes place in the assault phase so it is a close combat attack

[Marshal Wilhelm]

You get the 3+

Was this what the designers meant when coming up with the Necklace rule? Did they even consider grenades in combat? Probably not. This gives a toe hold for people to get offended and distressed over. In their opinion at least :)

However, the rules very clearly show that you do get the 3+

 

see pg 73 of the BBB

It happens in the Assault phase.

[dswanick]

Grenades and melta bombs can be used against a walker. A model will only manage to score a hit with a grenade against a walker on the roll of 6. However, if a walker is already stunned or immobilised at the start of the Assault phase, the attackers roll to hit based on the normal comparison of WS.

In dose combat, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits on the roll of a 3+ regardless of comparative Weapon Skills.

Page 62, Wolftooth Necklace, replace the last sentence with: Against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+.

My group and I ran into this problem yesterday. As the RAW is not specific, we reasoned that since the WS is only compared if the dread is immobilized/stunned then the basic rule implies that the WTN would only work then. However the Errata wording could be interpreted as implying that it just works, anytime, because the dread has a WS even if you're not compairing against it - but that's far from conclusive. As a result we went with the apparent intent of the original wording.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

My group and I ran into this problem yesterday. As the RAW is not specific, we reasoned that since the WS is only compared if the dread is immobilized/stunned then the basic rule implies that the WTN would only work then. However the Errata wording could be interpreted as implying that it just works, anytime, because the dread has a WS even if you're not compairing against it - but that's far from conclusive. As a result we went with the apparent intent of the original wording.

 

This is what I think Phil Kelly would have meant, but that is RAI and some don't like that :)

[dswanick]

Heck, I didn't like it either. I still killed the dread but it was more of a nail-biter, thank god for The High King (Preferred Enemy).

[TiguriusX]

Heck, I didn't like it either. I still killed the dread but it was more of a nail-biter, thank god for The High King (Preferred Enemy).

 

Please tell me I am reading this incorrectly...

 

Your opponent didn't let you use the WTN with a MB because he didn't think it was "close combat" but he was ok with using preferred enemy to reroll MB?

 

Does your opponent know the preferred enemy rule is also limited to "close combat"

[dswanick]

Heck, I didn't like it either. I still killed the dread but it was more of a nail-biter, thank god for The High King (Preferred Enemy).

 

Please tell me I am reading this incorrectly...

 

Your opponent didn't let you use the WTN with a MB because he didn't think it was "close combat" but he was ok with using preferred enemy to reroll MB?

 

Does your opponent know the preferred enemy rule is also limited to "close combat"

Nope, he was questioning if WTN can change the roll needed when grenade rules of all sorts in close combat against a mobile dread don't compare WS. As I mentioned earlier, the original wording of the rule only worked when compairing weapon skill, the errata update changes that wording, butis somewhat vague, it doesn't clearly specify what do do when attacking a model with a WS but not using compared WS to determine the to-hit number. There was no debate as to if it was/wasn't close combat, we all agreed to this.

[JamesI]

By RAW, the WTN makes a meltabomb hit on a 3+ against a dread or other vehicle with a weapon skill.

 

Not sure this is RAI, but it is clearly RAW.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

This came up in a tourney i played in a couple weeks ago. If I have an ic with a wolf tooth neckless can I use it to hit a dreadnought in close combat with a meltabomb because I don't think u can use against against anything that doesn't have a weapon skill but dreadnoughts does but the debate was weather or not a melt a bomb attack was considered a close combat attack. The guy I was playing against said it wasn't cause was basically throwing a bomb but I think it is since It happens surfing the cc and u r in base to base. And the judge wasn't sure either so we rolled a dice to decide witch I lost.

 

Everyone else answered the question, so far as this can be answered (RAW says X, but likely isn't the intended result), so let me just give you some other advice. Most web browsers nowadays can get spell checker plug-ins. Please use these so I won't have to be subjected to misspellings like 'neckless' again.

 

And just so you know, I mistyped 'intended' up there and spelled 'misspelling' wrong, both of which I saw and corrected because of the plug-in.

[TiguriusX]

Heck, I didn't like it either. I still killed the dread but it was more of a nail-biter, thank god for The High King (Preferred Enemy).

 

Please tell me I am reading this incorrectly...

 

Your opponent didn't let you use the WTN with a MB because he didn't think it was "close combat" but he was ok with using preferred enemy to reroll MB?

 

Does your opponent know the preferred enemy rule is also limited to "close combat"

Nope, he was questioning if WTN can change the roll needed when grenade rules of all sorts in close combat against a mobile dread don't compare WS. As I mentioned earlier, the original wording of the rule only worked when compairing weapon skill, the errata update changes that wording, butis somewhat vague, it doesn't clearly specify what do do when attacking a model with a WS but not using compared WS to determine the to-hit number. There was no debate as to if it was/wasn't close combat, we all agreed to this.

 

Ok...I was confused because of this

the debate was weather or not a melt a bomb attack was considered a close combat attack

You had the right argument by showing the ERRATA from the FAQ changed the rule language and removed "comparative"

The other argument you needed was codex specific rules override the basic rule book (i.e., they create exceptions to the rules)

 

I'm a patent attorney in real life so I love these kinds of discussions on rules and the problems people run into with opponents. If you want to keep going just let me know. Otherwise I'll stop now :D

[dswanick]

Heck, I didn't like it either. I still killed the dread but it was more of a nail-biter, thank god for The High King (Preferred Enemy).

 

Please tell me I am reading this incorrectly...

 

Your opponent didn't let you use the WTN with a MB because he didn't think it was "close combat" but he was ok with using preferred enemy to reroll MB?

 

Does your opponent know the preferred enemy rule is also limited to "close combat"

Nope, he was questioning if WTN can change the roll needed when grenade rules of all sorts in close combat against a mobile dread don't compare WS. As I mentioned earlier, the original wording of the rule only worked when compairing weapon skill, the errata update changes that wording, butis somewhat vague, it doesn't clearly specify what do do when attacking a model with a WS but not using compared WS to determine the to-hit number. There was no debate as to if it was/wasn't close combat, we all agreed to this.

 

Ok...I was confused because of this

the debate was weather or not a melt a bomb attack was considered a close combat attack

You had the right argument by showing the ERRATA from the FAQ changed the rule language and removed "comparative"

The other argument you needed was codex specific rules override the basic rule book (i.e., they create exceptions to the rules)

 

I'm a patent attorney in real life so I love these kinds of discussions on rules and the problems people run into with opponents. If you want to keep going just let me know. Otherwise I'll stop now :D

Actually, your second quote isn't a quote of me, it's a quote of the OP Grizwald. :P

 

Also, I probably shouldn't have relented so easily. We were playing Apoc, and later on this guys teammate tried to claim that my WG squad didn't get cover saves against an Orbital Bombardment asset from they crater they were in because "our group has never played that craters give a save" even though everyone had been making difficult terrain tests for them all morning.

[TiguriusX]

Actually, your second quote isn't a quote of me, it's a quote of the OP Grizwald. :D

 

LOL...so it is.

 

That clears up my confusion :P

[Growler67]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v457/tyggrr65/Gaming/ordogrammaticus.jpg

 

Can we move on now?

[Grimtooth]

This argument has come up on several forums and the sides are still the same DESPITE errata changing the wording of the rule.

 

By the first wording of the rule and the specific inclusion of comparitive, the WTN would not work because it is comparing weapon skills and is rendered useless by the dreadnoughts rule.

 

However the errata removes the comparison. Now you are only to check if the model has a weapon skill. No comparison to be overruled by the dreadnought rule, just a characterisitc check of whether it is present or not.

 

The errata'd WTN no longer works despite comparitive WS, it works when a WS characteristic is present.