Seahawk Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 So, the Singing Spear says: "Like witchblades, singing spears wound on a 2+, but when rolling to damage a vehicle they have a Strength of 9. When thrown, singing spears have the following profile:" R: 12" S: X AP: 6 Assault 1 The problem is that witchblades no longer auto-wound on a 2+, but have Armorbane and Fleshbane instead. Yea, with Fleshbane they wound on a 2+, but that's a separate special rule now, not a characteristic of the witchblade like it was before. So, does a Singing Spear now get Fleshbane and Armorbane "like a witchblade", or does it just stick to it's basic profile and not wound on a 2+ in close combat? Does it even have a close combat profile anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrayCatt Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I would argue they still wound on a 2+. The "like witch blades" part of the rule is extraneous, rather than part of the rule IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morollan Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I would argue they still wound on a 2+. The "like witch blades" part of the rule is extraneous, rather than part of the rule IMO. I agree. The rule for Singing Spears specifically states "singing spears wound on a 2+". End of, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Agreed. It doesnt say "As a witchblade with the following additional profile" and witchblades do in fact still wound on a 2+ do the fleshbane. GW often cites the effects of its rules over the rule itself- remember the dedicated transport notations in many old books? That was a small nightmare. Thankfully this one seems pretty straightforward. It does however mean that the Singing Spear is better against armor than its Witchblade cousin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy-xc Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 It does however mean that the Singing Spear is better against armor than its Witchblade cousin. Eh? Hows that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 It does however mean that the Singing Spear is better against armor than its Witchblade cousin. Eh? Hows that? Str 9 vs Str 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share Posted October 18, 2012 S3 + 2D6 (witchblade) and S9 + D6 (singing spear). The blade has a 59% of doing damage to AV10. The spear has a 100% chance to do it. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy-xc Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Well this sucks... Ill have to remodel my eldar warlocks... hehe... and then probably late next year I'll get a new Eldar codex and likely regret my alterations. So I'm just gonna try and confirm this, both the witchblade and sing spear have fleshbane, but while the witchblade has armobane, the spear doesnt which is why you have the S3+2d6 vs the S9+D6? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Well this sucks... Ill have to remodel my eldar warlocks... hehe... and then probably late next year I'll get a new Eldar codex and likely regret my alterations. So I'm just gonna try and confirm this, both the witchblade and sing spear have fleshbane, but while the witchblade has armobane, the spear doesnt which is why you have the S3+2d6 vs the S9+D6? Thanks. Yup, and I wouldnt rework them all the way after all the witchblade does get an extra attack over the spear, and the spear could be FAQd any day now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.