Ranged Poison

[Seahawk]

Here's an interesting topic that has come up elsewhere: Do ranged attacks (shooting) that are poisoned get to reroll the to-wound?

 

The only rules for poisoned weapons are in the close combat weapons section: "In addition, if the Strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat."

 

Now, for nearly all ranged poisoned weapons, they've gone from SX to S1; however, the Eversor Assassin's pistol is S4 and Poison (2+).

 

Is it too much of a stretch to say that such a poisoned ranged weapon gets to reroll to wound against T4 and less?

[greatcrusade08]

even thought it makes sense, RAW'ers will point out the rules state close combat specifically

[Hellios]

Here's an interesting topic that has come up elsewhere: Do ranged attacks (shooting) that are poisoned get to reroll the to-wound?

 

The only rules for poisoned weapons are in the close combat weapons section: "In addition, if the Strength of the wielder is the same or higher than the Toughness of the victim, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls to wound in close combat."

 

Now, for nearly all ranged poisoned weapons, they've gone from SX to S1; however, the Eversor Assassin's pistol is S4 and Poison (2+).

 

Is it too much of a stretch to say that such a poisoned ranged weapon gets to reroll to wound against T4 and less?

 

With GC here... Also it says the strength of the wielder so I can use the S3 of my DE with my splinter weapons if I wish. Where this might be an issue is if 6th edition actually allows pistols to be used in combat... However that obviously has no relevance now and may never have any.

[King Willy]

I think the re roll represents actually hitting the target hard enough to damage them with the same damage as the poison, but for simplicity of gameing you always wound with the poison.

 

Not a stretch with a ranged weapon but I don't think it's intended as such.

[ShinyRhino]

I was always under the impression that there was no reroll for ranged poisoned weapons, as the reroll is stated as being used for close combat weapons, not ranged weapons.

[breng77]

Well as far as RAI goes, I might go with yes otherwise why are almost all poisoned ranged weapons S x or S1. You could argue that GW does not want them to get a re-roll so they lower the strength. The only other reason would be so that they cannot harm Vehicles (which could be the intent I suppose). That said there is not RAW support for this, furthermore it will never really come up. Teh eversor is the only unit I can think of where it matters (and no one really runs him...).

[Spacefrisian]

You reroll with poison if the strength of any weapon (blade or gun) is equal or higher than the targets toughness. No other mentions as where and how is made.

 

page 42 brb.

 

Yes you actually wield a gun and yes it sometimes has a strength value.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

If only pistols were covered by the rules on p42 when not used in CC.

[JamesI]

The reroll to wound is listed as "in close combat only". Now that could likely change come 6th edition.

[DarkGuard]

I'm going to say what I said in a recent thread about poisoned shooting attacks on another forum, there are no poisoned shooting rules in the BRB. There are poisoned combat rules, but no shooting ones, so the strength of the gun or the wielder of the gun is irrelevant, you wound on that roll to wound, no re-rolls. If the gun has a strength, it is likely there for the purposes of vehicles and armour penetration.

 

An example is rending. You've got rending in both (unlike poison), but while both are very similar, activating on a to wound roll of a 6, both act differently. Shooting attacks upon activation are auto-wounds with AP2, combat attacks auto-wounds as a power weapon. Sounds pretty much the same, but not. Those who have been to Tempus Fugitives campaigns may have remembered Primarch armour being a 1+ save. In this case the rending shooting attack will allow a save, the power weapon wouldn't. So while similar, they are still different.

 

The same with poisoned. You have some ranged weapons that are "poisoned" in that they require a fixed number to wound, but yet there are no poisoned ranged weapons rules, you just roll to wound on that number. Then you have poisoned close combat attacks that require a fixed number to wound, but re-roll all failed to wound rules where S>=T, similar rules, but still different.

[breng77]

An example is rending. You've got rending in both (unlike poison), but while both are very similar, activating on a to wound roll of a 6, both act differently. Shooting attacks upon activation are auto-wounds with AP2, combat attacks auto-wounds as a power weapon. Sounds pretty much the same, but not. Those who have been to Tempus Fugitives campaigns may have remembered Primarch armour being a 1+ save. In this case the rending shooting attack will allow a save, the power weapon wouldn't. So while similar, they are still different.

 

Except that 1+ save is not in the base rule set, so using it as a difference is not really all that relavant. There is funcionally no difference betweeen AP 2 and Power weapon in the base rules except that AP values don't exist in hand to hand.

 

Like i said this question is largely irrelevant because no shooting attack with poison, has a strength (except the Eversor apparently) high enough for it to get a reroll, and if my opponent was playing with the eversor I would probably grant him the re-roll on his 1 shot (I think), 12" range pistol, if he gets close enough to acutally make use of it.

[Seahawk]

Yea, it's just a regular bolt pistol with Poison 2+.

 

I think that there was no reason for GW to switch all the SX stats to S1, other than to satisfy the community in regards to "what strength is this gun in regards to rerolls and etc," implying that the poison bullets would get to reroll if they met the requirements.

[breng77]

I agree, unless GW feels that poisoned weapons should not effect vehicles, because vehicles cannot be poisoned.

[DarkGuard]

An example is rending. You've got rending in both (unlike poison), but while both are very similar, activating on a to wound roll of a 6, both act differently. Shooting attacks upon activation are auto-wounds with AP2, combat attacks auto-wounds as a power weapon. Sounds pretty much the same, but not. Those who have been to Tempus Fugitives campaigns may have remembered Primarch armour being a 1+ save. In this case the rending shooting attack will allow a save, the power weapon wouldn't. So while similar, they are still different.

 

Except that 1+ save is not in the base rule set, so using it as a difference is not really all that relavant. There is funcionally no difference betweeen AP 2 and Power weapon in the base rules except that AP values don't exist in hand to hand.

 

Like i said this question is largely irrelevant because no shooting attack with poison, has a strength (except the Eversor apparently) high enough for it to get a reroll, and if my opponent was playing with the eversor I would probably grant him the re-roll on his 1 shot (I think), 12" range pistol, if he gets close enough to acutally make use of it.

 

A 1+ save is in the base rule set. You have armour saves, they can be 6+, 4+, 3+ etc, and 1+. Of course everyone knows a roll of a 1 fails, so a 1+ save seems no different to a 2+ save, until you consider AP1 and AP2 weapons. So AP2 and power weapon hits are different, it just never comes into play, which also applies to ranged shooting attacks.

[Hellios]

An example is rending. You've got rending in both (unlike poison), but while both are very similar, activating on a to wound roll of a 6, both act differently. Shooting attacks upon activation are auto-wounds with AP2, combat attacks auto-wounds as a power weapon. Sounds pretty much the same, but not. Those who have been to Tempus Fugitives campaigns may have remembered Primarch armour being a 1+ save. In this case the rending shooting attack will allow a save, the power weapon wouldn't. So while similar, they are still different.

 

Except that 1+ save is not in the base rule set, so using it as a difference is not really all that relavant. There is funcionally no difference betweeen AP 2 and Power weapon in the base rules except that AP values don't exist in hand to hand.

 

Like i said this question is largely irrelevant because no shooting attack with poison, has a strength (except the Eversor apparently) high enough for it to get a reroll, and if my opponent was playing with the eversor I would probably grant him the re-roll on his 1 shot (I think), 12" range pistol, if he gets close enough to acutally make use of it.

 

A 1+ save is in the base rule set. You have armour saves, they can be 6+, 4+, 3+ etc, and 1+. Of course everyone knows a roll of a 1 fails, so a 1+ save seems no different to a 2+ save, until you consider AP1 and AP2 weapons. So AP2 and power weapon hits are different, it just never comes into play, which also applies to ranged shooting attacks.

 

I would say the rules are able to incorporate 1+ save but as they stand now there is no 1+ save, it isn't even described in the rules as it is in fantasy. Hell Theoretically you could have a 0+ or -1+ save as well and that would present no real problems but no real unit has such a save and such a situation isn't described as far as I can remember in any of the rule books.

 

The closest thing I can think of to this is I have been in 3+ fortified cover with a unit that gets a +2 bonus to cover saves... However a 1+ cover save is no different from a 2+ cover save except maybe against Tau when they can reduce your cover save if I remember correctly.

 

Really quotes from the rule books would be best if people want to argue about this...

[SeattleDV8]

Ahem BRB pg. 24 Maximum Save

However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. A roll of 1 always fails.

[DarkGuard]

Ahem BRB pg. 24 Maximum Save

However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. A roll of 1 always fails.

 

My bad, I don't have my BRB with me so I'm going from memory.

 

Still stand by my conviction that poisoned shooting attacks don't get re-rolls as there are no poisoned shooting attack rules that say that.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Yea, it's just a regular bolt pistol with Poison 2+.

 

I think that there was no reason for GW to switch all the SX stats to S1, other than to satisfy the community in regards to "what strength is this gun in regards to rerolls and etc," implying that the poison bullets would get to reroll if they met the requirements.

 

I was always under the impresion the SX to S1 was to make poisoned weapons compatable with armor penitration rules.

[Hellios]

Yea, it's just a regular bolt pistol with Poison 2+.

 

I think that there was no reason for GW to switch all the SX stats to S1, other than to satisfy the community in regards to "what strength is this gun in regards to rerolls and etc," implying that the poison bullets would get to reroll if they met the requirements.

 

I was always under the impresion the SX to S1 was to make poisoned weapons compatable with armor penitration rules.

 

Don't snipers count as S3 against vehicles?

[DarkGuard]

Yea, it's just a regular bolt pistol with Poison 2+.

 

I think that there was no reason for GW to switch all the SX stats to S1, other than to satisfy the community in regards to "what strength is this gun in regards to rerolls and etc," implying that the poison bullets would get to reroll if they met the requirements.

 

I was always under the impresion the SX to S1 was to make poisoned weapons compatable with armor penitration rules.

 

Don't snipers count as S3 against vehicles?

 

Yes, but that could have been why other "poisoned" ranged weapons are given a strength value now, as one could argue their hellfire rounds being S3 against vehicles (not that it matters though with no rending). Or clarity that they're not S4 against vehicles like most bolt weapons, I made that mistake once (along with the mistake that a Drop Pod is AV12).

[Blckbuster]

The reroll to wound is listed as "in close combat only". Now that could likely change come 6th edition.

 

unless I have a different edition of the book the line you put it quotes does not appear

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

You're technically right, in that those words don't appear on p.42 in that order but the cumulative effect of the wording under "NORMAL CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS" and "Poisoned weapons" on p42 is to give effect to JamesI's post, ie the re-roll to wound is applicable in close combat only.