warding staves and nemesis falchions

[chaplain belisarius]

Sorry for the stupid questions (dont have much free time so find it hard to keep up with FAQs!)

 

warding staves-2+save and is a power weapon-right? (what is its AP?)

 

Nemesis falchions-how many extra attacks do i get? what is the AP?

What is the AP of all the nemesis weapons? (im guessing its a 3+, except the hammer?)

 

thank you in advance! :)

[Marshall Bretton]

all nemesis weapons are "specialist force weapons" meaning they are str user ap 3 and use their own special rules (so deamon killing, halberds giving +2 i etc)

 

the falchions give +1 attack (you do not then get another extra attack for 2 cc weps, thats basically what it is)

 

the hammer specifically says it follows the rule for thunder hammers except it is also a force weapon, so str x2 ap2 etc

 

as far as i remember the warding stave just counts as a cc wep, not a force wep, so you get no attack bonus from it and it can't be used to instant death stuff.

[dswanick]

"Page 54 – Nemesis Force Weapons, Force Weapons.

Change the first sentence to read “Unless otherwise stated, all Nemesis weapons are Unusual Force Weapons, as detailed in

the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.”, C:GK FAQ

"Page 54 – Wargear, Nemesis Daemon Hammer.

Replace the first sentence of the second paragraph with the following profile:

Daemon Hammer - Sx2 AP2 Melee, Concussive, Daemonbane, Force, Specialist Weapon, Unwieldy.", C:GK FAQ

[Grand Master Caloth]

Recap: staves are ap3 and force weapobs that give 2++ in cc

[Brother Maikel]

as far as i remember the warding stave just counts as a cc wep, not a force wep, so you get no attack bonus from it and it can't be used to instant death stuff.

 

You're thinking of the Brotherhood Banner. The Warding Stave is a Nemesis Force Weapon just like the Sword, Halberd, Falchions and Hammer.

[jeffersonian000]

Oddly enough, the Brotherhood Banner does give you an extra attack, is for the model had 2 CC weapons.  : )

 

SJ

[soots]

just some clarification

is the warding stave considered unusual giving it ap 3 or is it classified under force stave giving it ap 4, +2 str with 2++ inv

 

also if the justicar, libby, gm have it equipped and they perils in cc do they get the 2++ save or no save?

im confused because the brb says no saves allowed when suffering a wound from perils (pg 67) but the faq states 

 

Q:Can the save granted by a Nemesis warding stave be taken

against all Wounds suf ered whilst the wielder is engaged in close

combat and not only against Wounds caused by close combat

attacks? (p54)

A: Yes.

 

so which ruling do we go by?

[Aethernitas]

The warding stave is classified as unusual force weapon and therefore grants AP3, the Force special rule and a 2++ in cc.

 

The FAQ just clarifies that we can also use the 2++ against psycic powers when in cc or a scattering template weapon as long as the model with the warding stave is in cc. It doesn't overwrite the fact that you can't take saves against peril of the warp to begin with. For that you can only use FnP from a apothacary if you so wish.

 

edit: typos

[soots]

just want to be sure that if i use for example a terminator justicar with a warding stave, he casts hammerhand in cc, he rolls double 1s, that he is allowed to take the 2++ save

[Brother Maikel]

Perils of the Warp (double 1's or double 6's) does not allow any saves, not even the warding stave's 2++.

 

The only protection you can get from it is Feel No Pain, which is explicitly called out in the BRB as not being a save.

[soots]

awesome thanks 

[dswanick]

Except, of course, for the argument based on pg.7 of the BRB which states that codex rules override BRB rules thus the codex rule granting you a 2++ against all wounds whilst in close combat would override the BRB rule against taking saves on Perils wounds...

[Aethernitas]

The FAQed codex entry states that you get a 2+ invulnerable save against any wounds taken while in cc. The BRB states that you can't take any saves of any kind against perils of the warp. FnP doesn't count as a save at all so you can take only FnP versus perils. It's pretty straightforward.

 

edit: added emphasis

[dswanick]

The FAQed codex entry states that you get a 2+ invulnerable save against any wounds taken while in cc. The BRB states that you can't take any saves of any kind against perils of the warp. FnP doesn't count as a save at all so you can take only FnP versus perils. It's pretty straightforward.

 

edit: added emphasis

Yeah and the BRB states that in the case of conflict, codex takes precedence - it is pretty straight forward. ;)

[Aethernitas]

Yeah and the BRB states that in the case of conflict, codex takes precedence - it is pretty straight forward.

So you are RAW lawyer type of guy.

There are no BRB psycic powers that are cast while processing cc - therefore the peril wound is not caused in cc and you get no 2++. Even the GK codex powers which are cast at the start of the Fight sub-phase are all cast before you even choose a specific close combat to process. Therefore no 2++ for a peril of the warp attack resulting from any psychic power. The only thing where one could argue that the 2++ applies is with the force weapon activation.

I'm don't like arguing RAW-style. Especially about rules that have one silly loophole cuz the FAQ-guy didn't deliver and apart from that isn't even worth thinking about twice when apllying RAI and a little common sense. I'd like to think that no referee would give you the pleasure of abusing that loophole.

[dswanick]

 

Yeah and the BRB states that in the case of conflict, codex takes precedence - it is pretty straight forward. ;)

Even the GK codex powers which are cast at the start of the Fight sub-phase are all cast before you even choose a specific close combat to process. Therefore no 2++ for a peril of the warp attack resulting from any psychic power. The only thing where one could argue that the 2++ applies is with the force weapon activation.

Incorrect. Dark Excommunication, Might of Titan, and Sanctuary are all cast during the Assault phase, whilst the Warding Staff protects against "all wounds caused in close combat" (ie, so long as the model is locked in cc, per the FAQ). So a model locked in CC, which casts any of those three powers, or fails a Force Weapon activation, or casts some future expansion Psychic power cast during the Assault phase could arguably get a save.

[IndigoJack]

I'm all for RAW when there is a gray area, but really, this is just a result of sloppy rule writing. There is no precedent for being allowed a invul save against perils in 6th ed, and really, you're only argument is codex>BYB. So RAW, yes, you could do it. However, it's a very WAAC thing to try and pull. No opponent would go for it, and no TO would allow it. This is a social game, and bending the rules to try and get an upper hand isn't going to win you many friends, and not likely going to win you many repeat opponents.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

There is no precedent for being allowed a invul save against perils in 6th ed

 

While not an Invulnerable save, Gost Helms still give Eldar Saves verus Perils.  So there is precdence for Codex rules giving saves versus Perils.

[IndigoJack]

which if I'm not mistaken, specifically say they can be used for perils.

[Gentlemanloser]

Back before 6th's Page 7 over rde of evil. ;)

 

Codex trumping rulebook, globally, with no restrictions (for example if page 7 said instead that a Codex will trump the rulebook only when it specifically mentions it will...) is stupidly powerful.

 

And leads to (among others) Warding Staves giving you a save versus perils in Close Combat.

[IndigoJack]

Like I said concerning RAW, I can see it being argued for. That doesn't make it any less wrong, and it's very WAAC. The evidence is very flimsy and it's directly contrary to the rule about no save being allowed against perils. Think about it, librarian with an invul save is not allowed to use it for perils, except in a very specific situation, and no other invul save in the game can be used against perils. The only argument you have for it is a line that says rulebook trumps codex. Given GWs track record, there is far more evidence suggesting sloppy rule writing, rather than getting an invul save against perils in a very specific situation.

[soots]

this is what confused me

warding stave grants the 2++ in cc, if i perils in cc is it "a wound in close combat" or completely different?

the way i saw it was for example

grey knight terminators + libby assault a squad of tacticals -> libby casts hammerhand, rolls 2 1s, suffers perils -> rolls for 2++ save because he is in close combat and suffered a wound while in close combat

i want to get this straightened out before i go to tournament and open a can of worms if this happens

[Gentlemanloser]

 

That doesn't make it any less wrong

 

It's not 'wrong' though.  You might not like it, or think it should work differently.  But that's currently the rules.

 

 

and it's directly contrary to the rule about no save being allowed against perils

 

But that's exactly what a Codex over ride is supposed to do.

 

Take Supporting Fire.

 

You *must* be the unit being charged, in order to make an Overwatch attack.

 

But there is exists a Codex rule that directly contradicts that.

[dswanick]

this is what confused me

warding stave grants the 2++ in cc, if i perils in cc is it "a wound in close combat" or completely different?

 

the way i saw it was for example

grey knight terminators + libby assault a squad of tacticals -> libby casts hammerhand, rolls 2 1s, suffers perils -> rolls for 2++ save because he is in close combat and suffered a wound while in close combat

 

i want to get this straightened out before i go to tournament and open a can of worms if this happens :geek:

Currently, by RAW and the FAQ, if your libby is locked in close combat - he gets a 2+ save from the staff. But as evidenced by the above exchanges, you'll probably encounter a fair bit of resistance to it. Best to ask a TO before the tourney begins.

[NoLifeKing]

This stuff again? There should be no argument about this whatsoever because the codex and the rulebook do NOT conflict with each other in this scene. The Staff gives you a 2++ save against wounds in close combat, and the rulebook says that no ++ saves can be taken against perils. Its like saying your terminators could take an armor save against plasma fire just because the codex says it gives the model a 2+ save.