Lightning Claws in C:Chaos Space Marine

[Cmdr Shepard]

The Rulebook Lightning Claws states they have AP3. However the C:CSM entry does not refer to the Warhammer 40k Rulebook but says they ignore armour.

I checked the FAQ and there is no reference on Lightning Claws.

Usually Codex supersedes Rulebook when conflicts arise but CSM lightning claws maybe a controversial rule.

 

What do you think about it?

[Valkyrion]

Same wording in Codex Dark Angels too, both 4th ed codices. The later ones say refer to the rulebook.

 

For the time being I can't see it being anything other than the Codex ruling, as codex trumps rulebook.

 

 

Actually - what does 'functionally the same' mean?

If a weapon that has a profile in the rulebook is written out longhand in the codex, but with different rules, is the codex 'functionally the same' as the rulebook as the weapon (in this case Lightning Claws) is 'functionally the same'. (i.e one set of lightning claws should function the same as another set of lightning claws, regardless of origin)

[Feste]

Lightning Claws have an entry in the BRB, and that section states that it's a reference.

 

It's also worth pointing out that the Codex doesn't list Flakk missiles, and as Codex trumps BRB... :rolleyes:

[Cmdr Shepard]

As I said this is another problematic matter.

Personally I think they are AP3 for everyone but I believe this matter will create controversies on the gaming table...

[pingo]

Actually - what does 'functionally the same' mean?

If a weapon that has a profile in the rulebook is written out longhand in the codex, but with different rules, is the codex 'functionally the same' as the rulebook as the weapon (in this case Lightning Claws) is 'functionally the same'. (i.e one set of lightning claws should function the same as another set of lightning claws, regardless of origin)

It says the new profile format is functionally the same, not the profile.

 

Longhand would be 'This is a power axe which adds +1 Strength'.

 

In the new profile format, you just get the same data but presented in tabular form.

[Valkyrion]

Until it was FAQ'd, assault cannons, whirlwinds, vindicators and so on differed from book to book depending on the codex.

 

in this instance, lightning claws have their own codex specific special rules for DA and CSM.

 

The profile for lightning claws in codex dark angels would read;

Range -

S as user

AP * see special rules

Type: Melee, shred, specialist weapon, * ignores armour.

 

As it stands they ignore armour and can only be paired with another lightning claw to gain +1 attack, not any other 'specialist weapon'.

 

Doesn't it?

[thade]

Don't all of the FAQs now say "This Codex was for an older version of the rules" and "Some of the weapons are written out in longhand; don't worry, they are functionally the same"?

 

So Lit Claws for them are Lit Claws for us, one and the same?

[Feste]

It says that you need to consult the Reference section of the rulebook for an up to date list of Unit Type and Vehicle Hull Points. No reference to Weapons but the intention is clear I think.

[thade]

No reference to Weapons but the intention is clear I think.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Immediately after that sentence you're referring to, it says this:

 

"You'll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out in longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document."

It doesn't say that Lit Claws are AP2 anywhere in the C:SM FAQ, so the intention is very clear indeed. ;)

 

EDIT: Clarification.

[pingo]

"You'll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out in longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document."

It doesn't say that Lit Claws are AP2 anywhere in the C:SM FAQ, so the intention is very clear indeed. ;)

Sorry, I have to revisit my earlier point here. I emboldened the relevant part.

 

The FAQs talk, very specifically, about "weapon profile format".

 

This is not the same thing as "weapon profile".

 

The weapon profile is the data pertaining to the weapon (i.e. Strength, AP, etc.).

 

The weapon profile format is the little table in which this data is presented in the Rulebook.

 

What the FAQs are saying is that in older Codexes, some weapons (usually melee weapons) do not use the tabulated format to present the data. Rather they are written out in a "longhand" format.

 

The profiles are the same in these cases. The format the data is presented in is different, however since the data is identical, the "longhand" format is functionally equivalent to the "weapon profile format".

 

---

 

However, if the CSM FAQ doesn't change the fact that LCs 'ignore armour' or however it's put, then that's a simple case of Codex trumps Rulebook. Nothing to do with weapon profile formats or that point in the FAQ.

[thade]

If you're saying that "the weapons (and/or weapon profiles) are functionally identical between codex and BRB unless stated otherwise", then I agree. Lit Claws are presented as Strength of user, AP3 in the BRB; no reason to assume they're otherwise without a Codex FAQ telling us so.

[Valkyrion]

So...DA and CSM lightning claws do in fact ignore armour?

[pingo]

So...DA and CSM lightning claws do in fact ignore armour?

If their Codexes say so, then yes.

 

I wouldn't play it that way myself. But RAW it would be pretty solid.

[Captain Idaho]

Bet a serious amount of money that 99% of all tournament organisers in the country would say it's a Lightning Claw as said in the rule book. :huh:

[thade]

Bet a serious amount of money that 99% of all tournament organisers in the country would say it's a Lightning Claw as said in the rule book. ;)

Right. Meaning what's in the codex is functionally identical to what's in the BRB; that's what I'm saying. @_@ The codex says "it ignores armor", which is (according to the FAQ) the written out form of "AP3". It's not specific as to what types of armor it ignores and - honestly - a little confusing, but I think we all know TOs will come down on anybody trying to assert that their Lit Claws "ignore armor" a la 5th Ed.

[appiah4]

Bet a serious amount of money that 99% of all tournament organisers in the country would say it's a Lightning Claw as said in the rule book. <_<

Right. Meaning what's in the codex is functionally identical to what's in the BRB; that's what I'm saying. @_@ The codex says "it ignores armor", which is (according to the FAQ) the written out form of "AP3". It's not specific as to what types of armor it ignores and - honestly - a little confusing, but I think we all know TOs will come down on anybody trying to assert that their Lit Claws "ignore armor" a la 5th Ed.

 

You can't just take ignores armor and interprete it to mean it is AP3.

 

Tycho's Dead Man's hand also 'ignores armor'. It's basically accepted to be AP2.

 

While I agree that the cases are as different as they are similar (Dead Man's Hand is a unique weapon, this is a special weapon with updated rules) this still needs to be addressed in a FAQ.

[*Furyou Miko]

Well, Tycho hasn't been FAQed, but neither does it say (as in the case of Hunter-killer missiles) "Use the profile in the Warhammer 40k rulebook".

 

A cross reference, Warscythes' stats are detailed in the codex themselves. The Warscythe also stated "Ignores armour saves", and has been FAQed to be AP1. The Rod of Covenant was a power weapon, but was FAQed to be +1 S, AP2 Unwieldy.

 

Thinking about it, this doesn't help - two of the three power weapon-like objects in the Necron book were FAQed (Hyperphase Swords were 'power weapons', they were not FAQed because it's obvious that a sword is a sword), but then it specifically says in the BAngels book that for some things (Hunter-killer Missiles, Dozer Blades, Searchlights and Smoke Launchers) "use the rules in the rulebook".

[Feste]

I wouldn't use Necrons as a guide to deal with old Codices. They're obviously written with at least some idea of 6th in mind, so I'd almost see their FAQ as a 'Now here's the real rules'.

 

I don't think it does need FAQing really. I think everyone here agrees that whatever the rules currently say, they should be AP3. I'd really want to hear someone trying this on in a tournament.

[pingo]

I'd really want to hear someone trying this on in a tournament.

Someone will. But they'd have to make sure to bring their white curly wig.

[Morollan]

I'd really want to hear someone trying this on in a tournament.

Someone will. But they'd have to make sure to bring their white curly wig.

 

And a nice thick skin to help them cope with the scorn and derision that will rightfully be aimed their way for being this cheesy.

[King Willy]

I say none chaos players should deal with it.

 

It'll be fixed in a couple months or hopefully weeks hehe.

 

Boneswords are the same after all and they won't be fixed as far as I know.

[King Willy]

Double posted

[Morollan]

I say none chaos players should deal with it.

 

It'll be fixed in a couple months or hopefully weeks hehe.

 

Boneswords are the same after all and they won't be fixed as far as I know.

 

Boneswords are a bit different because they are unique to Tyranids. You're not going to get a situation where two players are using the same wargear in different armies and using different rules.

[thade]

You're not going to get a situation where two players are using the same wargear in different armies and using different rules.

I hate to bring this up, but...this is not true. Let's not forget Daemonhunter Force Weapons and all other Force Weapons throughout 5th Ed, prior to the C:GK drop.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the takeaway here: LC in the Chaos Codex don't say "We're AP1/2"...they say "They ignore armor" which - now that we have specific AP values for power weapons - is not specific enough to override anything. Does it mean they ignore body armor? Vehicle armor? Does it ignore wargear that is fluff-wise armor, thus at times negating Invuln Saves (terminator armor fully ignores) or FNP (the 'armor' that Temple Assassins all wear confers FNP). What is being ignored?

 

Well, fortunately, the BRB saves us by specifying that LCs are AP3.

[King Willy]

The brb also specifies that missile launchers get flakk but it doesn't override the codex.

 

Your reading to much into ignores armour, vehicles never get an armour save so it doesn't ignore what isn't there, armour still means armour saves, even if we have hull points and stuff, they always specify something that effects vehicle armour as penetration.

Because by that logic, a lot of none faq stuff that ignores armor but isn't a power weapon is going to ignore all that stuff.

 

At the end of the day, Codex still trumps BRB, even if your meant to use the latest rules an official GW FAQ updates a codex to be the latest edition of the rules.

 

Besides, it used to be that Chaos Termies didn't have relentless they could move and shoot then assault with heavy and rapid fire weapons yet all loyalist termies could, it's just a flaw in the system, no two codices will be on the same level, especially so early in the new edition, hell maybe they'll release the new dex and keep the same wording, explain it as just better older tech or warp taint or made from bunny ears stolen from berzerkers.

 

If it says see the main rule book, then see the main rule book, otherwise Chaos gets a fun little perk over loyalists for at least a while longer.