Questions pertaining runic weapons

[sigvals redfist]

Hello brothers,

 

In my army I like to channel the power of the elements and use two rune priests, which both wield runic weapons. My questions are if an enemy psyker is in both bubbles do I roll two dice or just one. Also since they are considered special force weapons will they always be base strength and AP 3, or can I model them as an axe and get the strength bonus, but still be AP 3. 

 

[dswanick]

Hello brothers,

 

In my army I like to channel the power of the elements and use two rune priests, which both wield runic weapons. My questions are if an enemy psyker is in both bubbles do I roll two dice or just one. Also since they are considered special force weapons will they always be base strength and AP 3, or can I model them as an axe and get the strength bonus, but still be AP 3.

The FAQs are your friends:

"Q: Can I attempt to use a Rune Priest’s runic weapon, a Wolf Tail Talisman and make a Deny the Witch roll to nullify an enemy psychic

power?

A: No. You can only make a single attempt to prevent an enemy psychic power, so choose your method carefully.", C:SW FAQ

 

"Page 36 – Runic Weapon.

Replace the fourth sentence with: “Furthermore, whenever an enemy model succeeds on a Psychic test within 24" of one or

more models with a Runic Weapon, roll a dice […]”.", C:SW FAQ

So only one roll/attempt regardless of source.

 

Runic Weapons are Unusual Force Weapons due to wounding Daemons on a 2+, therefore they are always S User/AP 3/I User

[Squark]

There's no way you're getting the strength bonus and staying AP 3 at initiative. The wording of the FAQ (That Njal Stormcaller uses a Runic Staff) suggests that you can use the profiles for force weapons (S+2 AP4 Concussive, S+0 AP3, S+1 AP2 Cumbersome), but as GW is incredibly lazy with FAQs (We still don't know if the emplacements actually have to be in contact with the Aegis Defense line or not), RAW technically indicates that they're just unusual force weapons. Ultimately, it comes down to how your metagame interprets the rules. Most of the crowd here falls on the latter side*, while my metagame and some other sites (Admittedly not as dedicated as this one) fall on the former.

[skeletoro]

Squark, I think your group's interpretation (allowing runic weapon variants) is almost definitely RAI, but I think it's pretty standard for online forums such as these to stick to the letter of the law and use RAW exclusively. I've noticed the same thing on the D&D character optimization forums, for instance. It makes it a tad easier for people to talk strategy/optimization etc when things are kept relatively black and white.

 

At least using RAW allows us to freely give our rune priests runic hammers and staffs without being stuck with AP4! Hammers are cool.

[Squark]

True, although Char op boards do have a better breakdown between practical optimization (Which is itself a very wide field) and theoretical optimization (Sticking your head in a bucket of water to go from -infinity HP to -1 via drowning exploits and the like*).

 

And don't knock the staff- S6 makes it the best monstrous creature killer for Rune Priests. Personally, though, I honestly wouldn't be sure if I'd classify a Hammer as an Axe or a Staff; Sure, it's blunt, but functionally it has more in common with an axe than a staff.

 

 

*3.5 D&D Character Optimization is, at it's most extreme, done mostly for the sheer hilarity of it. Anything classified as Theoretical Optimization is just poking fun at the idiosyncratic rules of the game and an exercise in the absurd (I.E. Building characters who can use the moon as a thrown object)

[Grey Mage]

True, although Char op boards do have a better breakdown between practical optimization (Which is itself a very wide field) and theoretical optimization (Sticking your head in a bucket of water to go from -infinity HP to -1 via drowning exploits and the like*).

 

And don't knock the staff- S6 makes it the best monstrous creature killer for Rune Priests. Personally, though, I honestly wouldn't be sure if I'd classify a Hammer as an Axe or a Staff; Sure, it's blunt, but functionally it has more in common with an axe than a staff.

 

 

*3.5 D&D Character Optimization is, at it's most extreme, done mostly for the sheer hilarity of it. Anything classified as Theoretical Optimization is just poking fun at the idiosyncratic rules of the game and an exercise in the absurd (I.E. Building characters who can use the moon as a thrown object)

Such as the infamous Pun Pun.

 

In any case... hammers would be staves, IMHO, as they are most closely related to Maces, wich are lumped with with staves.

[Squark]

 

True, although Char op boards do have a better breakdown between practical optimization (Which is itself a very wide field) and theoretical optimization (Sticking your head in a bucket of water to go from -infinity HP to -1 via drowning exploits and the like*).

 

And don't knock the staff- S6 makes it the best monstrous creature killer for Rune Priests. Personally, though, I honestly wouldn't be sure if I'd classify a Hammer as an Axe or a Staff; Sure, it's blunt, but functionally it has more in common with an axe than a staff.

 

 

*3.5 D&D Character Optimization is, at it's most extreme, done mostly for the sheer hilarity of it. Anything classified as Theoretical Optimization is just poking fun at the idiosyncratic rules of the game and an exercise in the absurd (I.E. Building characters who can use the moon as a thrown object)

Such as the infamous Pun Pun.

 

In any case... hammers would be staves, IMHO, as they are most closely related to Maces, wich are lumped with with staves.

True, I guess, although all that really goes to show is GW has very little understanding of how various melee weapons actually work. But then, given all the misnamed weapons we already have (The Glaive Encamarine of the Blood Angels is a sword or an axe depending on the model, while the Nemesis Force Halberd is... wait for it... a glaive >.>), that's not so surprising.

[skeletoro]

Yeah, to my knowledge, historical hammers tended to be more like a pick (or a can opener). Which is a bit axe-like, I guess.

 

If we had multiple versions of the runic weapon, I probably would avoid modeling them as hammers, ever. Runic hammers are cool, but it would be too ambiguous/confusing, I think.

 

Yeah, 3.5 was quite funny at times. A line of commoners 1 km long, a single cannonball, and a ton of actions to pass the cannonball next in line = one fast cannonball, if I remember correctly! :P

[Grey Mage]

Well theres Hammers, and then theres... hammers. Mauls, wich most thunderhammers resemble, really were fairly flat and used sheer mass to crush their way through things.

 

Anyways... different weapons were more or less effective against different types of armor- some things were better against chain, others plate, etc... for the sake of the game we have AP levels, so it must be simplified. And since marines are top dog usually, that means that things effective against plate get to be better AP.... logically.

[skeletoro]

Were mauls actual weapons used by anybody though? I guess I could google and look. Kinda lazy though, hehe :)

[Grey Mage]

Were mauls actual weapons used by anybody though? I guess I could google and look. Kinda lazy though, hehe

They were in fact, just not.... commonly. When yer a peasant, you use what you got. Same if yer a viking. And a Tetsubo is a similar idea...

Swinging big axes or hammers was alot of work. Far more than using a spear well, and in a very different fashion than a sword- swords usually will win an attrition fight, you can get more defense for less work with them, depending on the design of course. Axes, large hammers, they have to stay offensive to keep from getting gutted on the backswings.

Of course, Im not a professional historian, this is just free time research and elective credits talking.