I’ve noticed some differences in how Smite is presented (between the Chain Attack: Smite, Special Attack: Smite, and Special Attack: Combo Smite).
- Is the ommission of the “larger models are moved half distance” in the Chain Attack Smite intentional, given its presence in the other two rules?
- Is the ommission of the damage roll on the Smite Special Attack intentional given its presence in the other two rules?
Starting with Special Attack Smite (found on Kogan the Exile’s Tharn Axe), I always assumed the Smite would deal a POW 13 to the model hit, separate from any collateral.
But, moving on to the Woldwarden’t Rune Fist and the Xerxis Pillars of Halaak, it appears that the damage roll might need to be explicitly stated on the card in order to do damage other than the collateral??? Is this what is meant by the statement in the Slammed rules that says the damage roll is determined by the spell or attack that caused the slam?
And to top it all off, both special attack versions of Smite and Combo Smite have a distince restriction when larger models are hit, but the Chain Attack does not, meaning the chain attack model could launch a 80mm the full distance (Woldwarden vs Wyvern… lol).
For comparison, Woldwarden Rune Fist vs Kogan the Exile Tharn Axe:
The Pillar of Halaak:
Reference Slammed in the rules:
There have always been differences between different Smite abilities, so I would imagine that they are deliberate differences.
But, only an insider would be able to confirm it.
This is not official in any way, but I believe I know the rationale behind Chain Attack: Smite’s phrasing.
Chain Attack Smite gets you a free third attack. But, presumably, bringing weapon properties along for that attack could be too strong and/or give rise to confusing rules interactions. (Imagine, for example, if the weapon had Ram.)
That is (probably) why the Chain Attack version just specifies a melee attack, but not with the weapon, and specifies the “use the weapon’s POW” bit. Also, Chain Attack usually only appears on Cohort models, so I suppose it makes more sense for a warjack to slam an 80mm the full distance than it does for somebody else? (Menoth just really likes the Exemplar Seneschal, I suppose.)
The * Attack version has to be made with a weapon, and presumably it’s easier to balance as a result.
As for Smite vs. Combo Smite: Combo Smite usually appears when a model has two of the same weapon.
So on the Tharn axe, does the special attack do damage on the hit? Or does it just do a slam?
Because it is an attack made with the weapon, it’ll do damage like normal, and also slam the model hit.
Specifically, the slam movement resolves during Step 7 of the timing chart, “Resolve all other effects triggered by hitting or missing.”, and the damage rolls all resolve during Step 8.
That’s the hiccup though… the slammed rule says the damage roll is determined by the attack, and while the other slamming abilities say what that damage is (equal to the POW of the weapon), the axe doesn’t say this.
EDIT - unless the other weapons mean to apply a damage roll on the initial hit (step 8) AND on the slam (step 7)…
The slammed model was hit by the weapon; therefore the POW is the weapon’s POW, because nothing else tells us otherwise.
Chain Attack: Smite doesn’t say to use a weapon, it just says to make a melee attack; that’s why the POW has to be specified.
Combo Smite is still an attack with a weapon, so it doesn’t strictly need the line explaining the POW for the direct hit. It used to add to the damage roll, but no longer does so, and if I had to speculate a bit, that’s why it was rewritten with the “use the POW of the weapon” bit. But, it doesn’t really need it, in my opinion.
Smite (* Attack) had to include a line explaining the collateral damage, because otherwise there’s no way to determine the POW of the collateral damage. We can determine the POW of the damage roll against the target directly hit by the Smite * Attack just by looking at the POW of the weapon.
Hopefully that makes sense? I’m kind of in a hurry this morning.
I get that that’s probably the intent, but disagree with how it’s written.
We can have a difference of opinion.
Can someone please restate what the question is because when i read this thread it seemed like it may have been resolved