Lamprey's Bite on the Charge

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm home now, as seeing as no one else obliged;

 

Number of Attacks (BRB, Page 24);

 

 

Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as
indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following
bonus Attacks:

. +1 Charge Bonus: <snip>

. +1 Two Weapons: <snip>

. Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules
and wargear that confer extra Attacks.

 

Special Rules, Hammer of Wrath (BRB Page 37)

 

 

it makes one additional Attack

 

HoW is a Special Rule.  It is included in the number of attacks a unit can 'normally' make.  In addition, HoW describes itself as an additional attack, and not some sort of seperate attack the unit possesses.

 

HoW is an additional, 'normal' attack a unit with the HoW special rule is allowed to make.

 

Exactly like the bonus attack from Charging, or using Two Weapons.

 

(This is really the meat of the discussion, the whole 'normal' arguement was an effort to show how pointless it is to try to use terms undefined by 40K in rule discussions)

 

Lamprey's Bite (C:CD Page 41)

 

 

A Screamer can substitute all of its normal close combat attacks for a single special attack with the following profile

 

If HoW isn't classed as a 'normal' attack, then neither is the bonus attack granted for charging.  Or any bonus attacks granted by special rules, Psychic Powers or Wargear allied/attached units might have joined the Screamers.

 

Which they would then get, in addition, to the single Lamprey's Bite.

 

Edit: If all the LB rule is replacing is the base A statisitc, the rule should have said so implicitly.  It doesn't.

[WG Capt. Iagn Thunderclaw]

Exactly my point!!

 

The "Normal" attacks are those described in the Characteristics of the Unit.  This is the same as normal movement, unmodified strength, normal toughness, and number of attacks, unmodified initiative and unmodified leadership.

 

"Bonus" attacks such as those for charging are augmentations to the "Normal" attacks.  In just such manner as bonus strength from a force axe / power axe, or any boons from magical augmentation or warlords leadership.

 

All such boosts are beyond the basic description of those described in the "Normal" description of the unit and should be applied as described in the special rules for charging, fighting challenges, claiming leadership, etc.

 

IN the case of Lampreys Bite the description "Normally" replaces the desribed attack of S4 A3 described in the Unit Characteristics.  There is no mention of a penalty for "unorganized charge" or loss of charge bonus.

 

GW should really clear this whole debate up with a FAQ

[Lysere]

 

A Screamer can substitute all of its normal close combat attacks for a single special attack with the following profile

 

I think this line pretty much sums it up right there. If I remember I thought the rule for using grenades in close combat, as well as melta bombs have a similar wording to them.

 

Remember how modifiers work. First we do any multiplication, then any addition that may occur, when all that is done we then follow any gear that "sets" a stat. As Lamprey's Bite is a Codex rule and thus trumps any conflicts, and it specifically says ONE attack, then you get one attack.

 

The bonus for charging is only to attacks made with a "normal" attack. The rule makes it clear that you are not making your normal attacks but instead you get one attack.

[WG Capt. Iagn Thunderclaw]

Ah but it says that Lampreys Bite replaces the "Normal" attack and in effect becomes "normal" itself in this situation.  Why then would it not qualify for all the bonus'

[Nehekhare]

Exactly [NOT] my point!!

fixed.

 

bonus attacks from charge/2weapons/special rules (like hammer of wrath) are included in the number of attacks model 'normally' gets, as per the rules quoted above (brb p.24) - not only the (A) characteristic, nor does this have anything to do with disorganized charges.

 

Instead of your 'normal' number of attacks (A+boni+USRs), you simply get a single (1, i.e. one) lamprey's bite attack.

 

no extras, no hammer of wrath. either 1 lamprey only or everything else.

 

grenades are better worded: "can only ever make one attack, regardless of the number of Attacks in its profile or any bonuses"

[Captain Idaho]

People people people...

 

You're all barking up the wrong fungus mound. It's not a question of what does normal mean, but what does it refer to. In this instance context is important.

 

Lamprey's bite offers us to exchange all our normal attacks for an alternative single attack. Since it uses the word normal, all you have to do is identify what is normal in this context.

 

Normal when assaulting is counting your attacks and bonus attacks. Then we exchange them.

 

Regarding Hammer of Wrath... It's obviously not a normal attack but a special attack. That's why it's at a separate initiative value and quantified in the special rules section as not being adjusted by weapons etc. It's not considered normal in this context because you wouldn't be making your attacks which you exchange with Hammer of Wrath. It's also a special rule allowed by vehicles in the Assault phase, yet the vehicles aren't allowed to attack in close combat, so it can't be normal in ANY sense of the word, let alone this context.

 

It's not even in need of an FAQ. I just don't understand the culture of trying to pick apart rules on a loop hole that 40K players are obsessed with.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

Normal when assaulting is counting your attacks and bonus attacks. Then we exchange them.

 

But Cap, the rules quite clearly state HoW is an additional 'bonus' attack. ;)

[Captain Idaho]

Overwatch are additional bonus attacks. It's context that matters, not the literal definition behind the meaning of the word.

 

What is normal when you go to make your attacks in close combat?

[Nehekhare]

Overwatch are additional bonus attacks. It's context that matters, not the literal definition behind the meaning of the word.

 

What is normal when you go to make your attacks in close combat?

 

overwatch shots are not classified as attacks at all.

 

"normal" in the context of close combat is the numer of attacks on p.24, which include:

- (A) characteristic

- charge bonus attack

- 2 weapon bonus attack

- other bonuses (explicitly including attacks gained from USRs, such as the "additional attack" granted by Hammer of Wrath)

 

you exclude HoW from those "normal" close combat attacks based on the assumption that:

a ) special is not normal (false, see above)

b ) HoW somehow is more "special" than other USRs, which necessitates to invent a whole new set of criteria for the grades of normality we are to assume for each special rule in addition to the rules written in the brb. (ambiguous, subjective and unnecessary)

[Captain Idaho]

Haven't the rule book with me to engage in a quality discussion here, but if there is an explicit explanation as to what "normal attacks" are and it includes HoW attacks, then that is conclusive. You don't get the bonus.

 

However you're looking at the context of the entire assault phase and not the context of the Lamprey's bite rules. It's referring to attacks made by the model, which is very specific. HoW is not an attack bonus I believe, you're assuming it is. I will have to check my rule book but I'm fairly sure this is not counted as a model's usual attacks.

 

It's a fairly moot point though because it's not a very powerful attack against any unit using Lamprey's bite, so I'd be happy to let it go either way.

[Nehekhare]

"normal" isn't defined anywhere in the 40k rules, that is what raised the argument in the first place. 

 

It doesn't really need to be, though. Without needing to make any assumptions of what "normal" may or may not mean, we get enough definitive information from the context in the lamprey's bite rules ("all of its [...] close combat attacks") to validate a reference to a model's number of attacks in CC (p.24).

 

When a phrase does not refer to a definition or rule, it does not invalidate other phrases in its context that do. it just doesn't matter.

 

Hammer of Wrath on the other hand is explicity stated to grant "an additional attack" (at I10/unmodified S/AP-), thus being included in the number of attacks (attacks gained from USRs) substituted for one lamprey's bite.

 

doesn't mean they'll not FAQ it otherwise, but these are the RAW for the time being.

[Captain Idaho]

If it says it grants an additional attack then I'm with you on whether HoW is also exchanged. After all, it fits the criteria for being in context of this "exchange" of attacks.

 

Which leads me back to my initial conclusion; it's pretty straight forward!

 

(incidentally I was initially referring to all posts generically in the topic)

[Gentlemanloser]

 

If it says it grants an additional attack then I'm with you on whether HoW is also exchanged.

 

/sadface

 

I posted that above, first post on this page of the thread.

[Lysere]

Regardless of whether or not you still get the HoW attack, it specifically says that the HoW attack is at the models unmodified strength value with an ap of '-'.

[Captain Idaho]

 

If it says it grants an additional attack then I'm with you on whether HoW is also exchanged.

 

/sadface

 

I posted that above, first post on this page of the thread.

Sorry, wasn't giving credit where it was due but making a sweeping statement.

 

But on the bright side, it's nice to both agree for once eh mate!

[Gentlemanloser]

:P

 

And none of this would ne necessary if GW actually wrote clear and robust rules.

[Lysere]

And none of this would ne necessary if GW actually wrote clear and robust rules.

That's like asking fish to fly to the moon. Try all you want it won't happen!

[WG Capt. Iagn Thunderclaw]

 

Overwatch are additional bonus attacks. It's context that matters, not the literal definition behind the meaning of the word.

 

What is normal when you go to make your attacks in close combat?

 

overwatch shots are not classified as attacks at all.

 

"normal" in the context of close combat is the numer of attacks on p.24, which include:

- (A) characteristic

- charge bonus attack

- 2 weapon bonus attack

- other bonuses (explicitly including attacks gained from USRs, such as the "additional attack" granted by Hammer of Wrath)

 

you exclude HoW from those "normal" close combat attacks based on the assumption that:

a ) special is not normal (false, see above)

b ) HoW somehow is more "special" than other USRs, which necessitates to invent a whole new set of criteria for the grades of normality we are to assume for each special rule in addition to the rules written in the brb. (ambiguous, subjective and unnecessary)

 

And again, no where in the BRB or in the Daemon Codex have i been able to find any definitive answer for what the term "normal" means.

 

You assume that your interpretation of  BRB pg 24 is "Normal" when it is very apparent based on 90+ posts that there is varying and diametrically opposed definitions of "Normal".

 

I contend that BRB pg 24 identifies "Normal" in the paragraph.  "Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated in its characteristics profile,"

 

Each model has a uniquely identified set of character profiles, strength, toughness, initiative, etc. 

 

The BRB pg 24 goes beyond by additional qualifies, "plus" and "bonus",

 

Plus means "having, receiving, or being in addition to what is anticipated "

 

Bonus is defined as "something in addition to what is expected or strictly due"

 

BRB pg 24 goes onto identify these additions to what is anticipated, expected or strictly due,

 

* Charge Bonus

 

* Two Weapons

 

*Special Rules

 

Definitively then, BRB pg 24a, Characteristics Profile "Normal"

 

further, BRB pg 24b, defines "additions to "Normal" universally given

 

Then Lampreys Bite gets the bonus for charging

 

Screamers get HOW at INI 10, at basic (characteristic strength) with - AP.  (As defined by the HOW Rule)

 

Keep in mind that other "Defined" Special Rules can modify these Bonuses by definition.  (Disordered Charges, Slime Trail, etc)

 

This whole debate can be settled if GW will read their own rules before they publish.  The lack of a defined term "Normal" anywhere creates confusion and slows down game play.

 

I dont have access to all codecies, so i do not know if there is another unit in the 40k Universe which has this special rule of exchanging all of its normal attacks for onespecial attack.  If there were we would have precedence on how to handle bonus attacks.

[Lysere]

 

 

Overwatch are additional bonus attacks. It's context that matters, not the literal definition behind the meaning of the word.

 

What is normal when you go to make your attacks in close combat?

 

overwatch shots are not classified as attacks at all.

 

"normal" in the context of close combat is the numer of attacks on p.24, which include:

- (A) characteristic

- charge bonus attack

- 2 weapon bonus attack

- other bonuses (explicitly including attacks gained from USRs, such as the "additional attack" granted by Hammer of Wrath)

 

you exclude HoW from those "normal" close combat attacks based on the assumption that:

a ) special is not normal (false, see above)

b ) HoW somehow is more "special" than other USRs, which necessitates to invent a whole new set of criteria for the grades of normality we are to assume for each special rule in addition to the rules written in the brb. (ambiguous, subjective and unnecessary)

 

And again, no where in the BRB or in the Daemon Codex have i been able to find any definitive answer for what the term "normal" means.

 

You assume that your interpretation of  BRB pg 24 is "Normal" when it is very apparent based on 90+ posts that there is varying and diametrically opposed definitions of "Normal".

 

I contend that BRB pg 24 identifies "Normal" in the paragraph.  "Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated in its characteristics profile,"

 

Each model has a uniquely identified set of character profiles, strength, toughness, initiative, etc. 

 

The BRB pg 24 goes beyond by additional qualifies, "plus" and "bonus",

 

Plus means "having, receiving, or being in addition to what is anticipated "

 

Bonus is defined as "something in addition to what is expected or strictly due"

 

BRB pg 24 goes onto identify these additions to what is anticipated, expected or strictly due,

 

* Charge Bonus

 

* Two Weapons

 

*Special Rules

 

Definitively then, BRB pg 24a, Characteristics Profile "Normal"

 

further, BRB pg 24b, defines "additions to "Normal" universally given

 

Then Lampreys Bite gets the bonus for charging

 

Screamers get HOW at INI 10, at basic (characteristic strength) with - AP.  (As defined by the HOW Rule)

 

Keep in mind that other "Defined" Special Rules can modify these Bonuses by definition.  (Disordered Charges, Slime Trail, etc)

 

This whole debate can be settled if GW will read their own rules before they publish.  The lack of a defined term "Normal" anywhere creates confusion and slows down game play.

 

I dont have access to all codecies, so i do not know if there is another unit in the 40k Universe which has this special rule of exchanging all of its normal attacks for onespecial attack.  If there were we would have precedence on how to handle bonus attacks.

Cato Sicarius I think has something somewhat similar but they don't say normal, they simply replace with a single attack.

 

Like I mentioned at one point it would probably be best to look at it the same way we look at I changes.

 

Since I don't know their statline lets say you have 4 attacks. You then charge into Combat. First off you get a HoW attack at I 10 because this is done separately and is granted by a different rule. Now it comes down to your turn to swing. You had 4 A, then charged so +1 for a total of 5. Now let's say you decide to use Lamprey's Bite, which has a specific number of attacks that it sets you to, and that is 1. Anytime we deal with set modifiers they are always done last. So your A value goes from 5 to 1.

 

That is how I read the rule, what makes sense to me, and what will probably not lose you friends over the ensuing debate.

[Captain Idaho]

Normal is a subjective word that depends on context. The context is individually explained and defined in each rule. In the case of Lamprey's Bite, it is saying you have a choice between the normal attacks you'd make, or a single Lamprey's Bite attack. Does it not quantify you can make a single Lamprey's Bite attack, to further explain exactly what is going on?

[Gentlemanloser]

Then Lampreys Bite gets the bonus for charging

*If* it worked as you suggested, Lamprey's bite would not get a 'bonus' attack for charging. Remember Codex > BRB and LB is a *single* Attack.

 

If the 'bonus' attacks are not replaced, then the Screamers recieves those, at thier usual S/AP in addition to the single LB attack. In addition to any Special rules that grant attacks, at whatever S/AP values those rules provide.

 

 

But, you're arbitrarily seperating our the rule on page 24.

Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as

indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following

bonus Attacks:

This is a signle statement. If the A characteristic provides the 'normal' attacks a mini makes, so do the 'plus the following' section.

[Nehekhare]

You assume that your interpretation of  BRB pg 24 is "Normal" when it is very apparent based on 90+ posts that there is varying and diametrically opposed definitions of "Normal".

 

again:

 

No. I do not assume anything. I merely acknowledge that there is no rules definition of "normal".

 

Nevertheless, there is a definition of "all of its close combat attacks": the number of attacks on p.24 (which include bonuses like USRs, see the quote above).

 

The rest of your long post is an elaborated attempt to proove your assumption of what "normal" is supposed to mean by mixing rules phrases with personal interpretations. Unless you are able to quote the rules that explicitly state what you say the aforementioned phrases mean, none of this is valid.

[WG Capt. Iagn Thunderclaw]

 

The rest of your long post is an elaborated attempt to proove your assumption of what "normal" is supposed to mean by mixing rules phrases with personal interpretations. Unless you are able to quote the rules that explicitly state what you say the aforementioned phrases mean, none of this is valid.

 

 

There is no rule which explicitly states available to quote.  That leavesimplications which can be randomly interpreted by each user. 

 

Since GW has not defined "normal" prior to the lampreys bite rule hopefully the FAQ will do so.

[WG Capt. Iagn Thunderclaw]

 

Then Lampreys Bite gets the bonus for charging

*If* it worked as you suggested, Lamprey's bite would not get a 'bonus' attack for charging. Remember Codex > BRB and LB is a *single* Attack.

 

If the 'bonus' attacks are not replaced, then the Screamers recieves those, at thier usual S/AP in addition to the single LB attack. In addition to any Special rules that grant attacks, at whatever S/AP values those rules provide.

 

 

But, you're arbitrarily seperating our the rule on page 24.

>Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as

indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following

bonus Attacks:

This is a signle statement. If the A characteristic provides the 'normal' attacks a mini makes, so do the 'plus the following' section.

 

 

 

I am simply using grammer, syntax and dictionary definitions to parse the supplied statement on BRB pg 24.

 

Using the literal, grammatical, and historic sense of the rule

[Gentlemanloser]

So is the comma being used as a seperation of clause, or to join an item in a list?