Kharn the Betrayer vs. Skimmers

[Cheredanine]

wait till we start on "what sort of goon do you have to be to let Kharn get near your fast skimmer?"

[MVBrandt]

I don't know, I think it's pretty cut and dry.

It doesn't say "all attacks," it says "always."

Always implies every situation, no matter what, if it is close combat.

This seems penultimate.

Heck, even in the rules for Kharne is gives a distinction for his weapon as working differently vs. vehicles for armor pen. No distinction for attacks to hit.

- always -

[tarzen]

Versus skimmers ALWAYS count as having moved more than 6" vs CC

One rule doesn't say it overrules the other, that's the thing. And as I said before, GW isnn't like PP with its wording. If it says you strike at init 1 with a powerfist, you ALWAYS strike at init 1, even when in cover, because it says you strike at init 1 (doesn't need to say always for it to be true). That alone shows that kharne doesn't get it without a d6...

wait till we start on "what sort of goon do you have to be to let Kharn get near your fast skimmer?"

So, you're saying I should let that sleeping bear lay? Dang, I was going to to a run down of all the skimmers in the game, vs the points of them, vs kharnes points....blah, blah, blah. And then throw in the eldar cheese/gay comment that seems to always be mentioned with skimmers. Oh and my so and such list would totally pown that blah blah.....snicker.

[MVBrandt]

Actually, PF doesn't mention I1. It simply says you always strike last (hence overriding things like assaulting into cover). This overrides init rules and cover rules without having to explicity say so, b/c it's an always clause.

For skimmers, they also never use the word "always" for need-to-hit on moves over 6". No one EVER hits on a 2+ in combat on the weapon tables in the BGB, yet Kharne "always" hits on a 2+ ... the same table pages saying that the basic "moved over 6" table overrides this rule (or even needs a dice to determine) also say that you NEED x to hit when your WS is y and their WS is z. Kharne's rule certainly overrides that, nobody is arguing otherwise, so why wouldn't it override the other "needs to hit" tables? Basically, there's a double standard being applied that says "It's ok for Kharne's always to overrule vs. infantry, but absolutely not ok for it to override vs. vehicles." There's no logic or rule that says ALWAYS doesn't apply ... always. If you claim that b/c the BGB table refers to vehicles hit on "x" in "y" situation his rule doesn't apply to it, then this also applies to infantry tables using weapon skill. His rule doesn't say "regardless of weapon skill" after all. It just says "always on a 2+," so therefore by the same silly argument being used for fast vehicles you can't override the basic infantry WS rules, since it doesn't say "regardless of."

Really, guys ...

[tarzen]

Let me put it this way MVB, where in kharnes rules does it say he hits skimmers on a 2+?
Here'e the thing, it doesn't. Plain and simple.

While I have no problem playing that way, his rules don't specify that things with special rules are overriden by his ability.

To argue "well, it says he always hits on a 2+, so that means always" isn't consistant with GWs rules. if you would like examples of this, I'd be more than happy to cite several.

Now, if they had worded it like swooping hawks and intercept, I would agree out of hand, but they didn't, so until then, d6 or talk pregame.

[MVBrandt]

Without meaning to be belligerent at all, my simple response is "where in Kharne's rules does it say he hits other infantry with the same WS on a 7?" It doesn't.

It doesn't feel the need to include any specifics b/c he literally hits anything and everything ALWAYS on a 2+ in close combat. If the rule requires a specific mention of what he hits on a 2+, it would be quite lengthy, or they would at least include the exceptions to the rule.

It does not say he hits vehicles that moved 6" or less on a 2+, vehicles that didn't move at all on a 2+ (would he only hit on 2+ instead of automatically?), vehicles that moved over 6" on a 2+, imperial guardsmen or other infantry on a 2+, independent characters on a 2+, monstrous creatures on 2 +, or any of that. It desn't say he "hits all infantry on a 2+." It doesn't say "he hits all non-vehicle units on a 2+."

It says always. Do you really need it to explicitly state each unit type he hits on a 2+ instead of simply keeping it to "always?"

In other words, the argument is that because it doesn't specifically say he hits skimmers on a 2+, you have to revert to the BGB. If that argument is even reasonable, then because it doesn't specifically say he hits any specific unit or unit type on a 2+, you have to revert to the BGB for infantry and other tables as well, and the rule is meaningless ... just a flowery little thing that can be overruled by semantics.

[tarzen]

Without meaning to be belligerent at all, my simple response is "where in Kharne's rules does it say he hits other infantry with the same WS on a 7?" It doesn't.

I understand what you are saying.

It doesn't feel the need to include any specifics b/c he literally hits anything and everything ALWAYS on a 2+ in close combat. If the rule requires a specific mention of what he hits on a 2+, it would be quite lengthy, or they would at least include the exceptions to the rule.

you mean like the swooping hawks rule? Again, GW is bad with rules, we all know that. The game is based on permissive rules, therefore if it says we can do something, then, and only then, can we.

It does not say he hits vehicles that moved 6" or less on a 2+, vehicles that didn't move at all on a 2+ (would he only hit on 2+ instead of automatically?), vehicles that moved over 6" on a 2+, imperial guardsmen or other infantry on a 2+, independent characters on a 2+, monstrous creatures on 2 +, or any of that. It desn't say he "hits all infantry on a 2+." It doesn't say "he hits all non-vehicle units on a 2+."

well, can you argue that he would hit automaticly against a stationary vehicle? I could argue that CC versus a vehicle is an assault, not CC, as by the wording used in the rules. This alone makes a HUGE distinction rules wise.

It says always. Do you really need it to explicitly state each unit type he hits on a 2+ instead of simply keeping it to "always?"

By GW, yes. If it was PP, then no. A power weapon allows no saves. A weapon that negates your ap allows no saves, yet there are cover saves and invulnerable saves that make the idea of no saves obsolete. Again, would you like a list of all the times GW has poorly written a rule? Or would you prefer to discuss the fact thatby the rules, there is nothing in kharnes rules that says he negates skimmers?

Can he pen SMF? how about ap1 hits, do they? what wins out in a unstoppable force vs immovable wall arguement? Simple answer, d6, or talk about it pregame.

In other words, the argument is that because it doesn't specifically say he hits skimmers on a 2+, you have to revert to the BGB. If that argument is even reasonable, then because it doesn't specifically say he hits any specific unit or unit type on a 2+, you have to revert to the BGB for infantry and other tables as well, and the rule is meaningless ... just a flowery little thing that can be overruled by semantics.

can you find anything in the rules that says he doesn't hit infantry on a 2+? Cause several have been pointed out as far as skimmers go

So, with all that said, let me say that I understand where you are coming from, it's not that I disagre from a play stand point, but the rules don't support the claims.

[MVBrandt]

We're getting circular.

There are no arguments other than "fluff" that state Kharne would not hit a skimmer on a 2+ other than "refer to the skimmers in close combat rules." BTW, the BGB does refer to close combat w/ skimmers, it does not just call it assault.

The same argument could be used to state that Kharne would not hit any other units in close combat on a 2+, referring to the BGB's standard close combat rules/tables utilizing weapon skill, whereby you NEVER hit on a 2+ in close combat.

From the p.o.v. of someone who doesn't even play Kharne, and would not use special characters even if he did, I can't see any reasonable argument other than "for argument's sake" that supports Kharne's rule not applying to skimmers for some reason. I also do not want to imply bias, but I know you have a great # of Eldar, and are referring to skimmers, as opposed to "vehicles moving over 6"." An important distinction, b/c skimmers don't have ANY special rules about close combat hitting them ... they are just always counted as moving over 6". So the question then in a rules (and screw the fluff, their rules rarely follow the fluff precisely) sense is can Kharne hit a vehicle moving at high speeds? The only rationale argument that would not also render him incapable of hitting infantry at 2+ is a fluff based one ... namely "come on he can't hit a flyer just b/c he is good with an axe." Well, an extremely skilled warrior with a giant powerful axe can probably nail a moving rhino or land raider, right? That's the the rule is based on - that a fast moving vehicle is extremely hard to hit.

Anyway, I won't continue to debate this exhaustively ... but I will call the rules boys to see what their take on it is.

[Uzi-99]

Actually, PF doesn't mention I1. It simply says you always strike last (hence overriding things like assaulting into cover). This overrides init rules and cover rules without having to explicity say so, b/c it's an always clause.

--- Sorry MVB, must correct you here... 4thEd quite specifically mentions Initiative 1 on page 46, right column, "Power Fist / Claw", last sentence in the paragraph. It also explicitly mentions ignoring special rules, wargear, cover, etc. =)

Though yes, it still is an "always" clause.

[Moglun]

well, can you argue that he would hit automaticly against a stationary vehicle? I could argue that CC versus a vehicle is an assault, not CC, as by the wording used in the rules. This alone makes a HUGE distinction rules wise.


By GW, yes. If it was PP, then no. A power weapon allows no saves. A weapon that negates your ap allows no saves, yet there are cover saves and invulnerable saves that make the idea of no saves obsolete. Again, would you like a list of all the times GW has poorly written a rule? Or would you prefer to discuss the fact thatby the rules, there is nothing in kharnes rules that says he negates skimmers?

Can he pen SMF? how about ap1 hits, do they? what wins out in a unstoppable force vs immovable wall arguement? Simple answer, d6, or talk about it pregame.

can you find anything in the rules that says he doesn't hit infantry on a 2+? Cause several have been pointed out as far as skimmers go

So, with all that said, let me say that I understand where you are coming from, it's not that I disagre from a play stand point, but the rules don't support the claims.

Sorry Tarzen, but I'm going to stand against you on this one.

The rules for hitting in CC are divided into two sections: Vs models with WS, and vs vehicles without. Kharne's rule does not specify that it does not work against enemies with no WS, so one must assume that 'always' encompasses them as well. The argument has been put forth that skimmers and the like are not in CC and so don't meet the criteria for Kharne, but this was been debunked by references to non-WS vehicles in CC in the book. At the risk of sounding like a broken record: There is absolutely no reason that you would disregard one section of these hitting rules and not the other. If Kharne does not overrule the vehicle section, then he must not overrule the WS section either - otherwise you're applying the special rule arbitrarily and inconsistently.

I think it bears mentioning that while we keep talking about skimmers, this argument actually pertains to ALL vehicles. Which means that, RAW, Kharne will not automatically hit an immobilized vehicle.

Yes, there are lots of ugly rules, but examples are irrelevant in this situation unless they pertain directly. Rules such as power weapons vs cover saves and this discussion are independent of each other and must be judged independently, by their own merits.

Only Kharne's hitting is referenced, his AP is not changed in any way, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. As to AP1 vs SMF... I thought that was addressed in a FAQ or somesuch, but I could be mistaken. But again, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

To answer your question: Does anything indicate that Kharne would NOT hit infantry on a 2+? No... except the rules for rolling to hit in the BGB, which are the same rules you are using to decide what skimmers are hit on. Vehicle to hit rules are no more an unstoppable force than opposed WS to hit rules are. Again: How is it reasonable, logical, or RAW to apply one aspect of these CC rules and not the other?


Boy oh boy, this one just keeps going and going...

EDIT: You know what I don't get? Why don't power weapons count as AP1 for armor penetration? It just makes sense...