Helga 1 feat and charges

If a model charges and elects to make a slam is the slam damage boosted from the charge?

The line that is causing confusion is “instead of making a normal damage roll”.

I believe you still get the charge damage as the movement of the model (moving > 3 inches) is what causes the damage roll to be boosted right? This can create situations where if the model then contact something else you can get an additional damage die.

I have seen this question pop up on both Reddit and discord and would like an official answer so I can point to it here.

The special text of the feat overrides the normal damage roll rules, including the special bits of charging.

The “instead of making a normal damage roll” instructs you not to resolve this normally. Normally, the damage roll of your charge attack would automatically be boosted due to the charge rules, but if you use Helga 1’s feat to slam the model, you instead slam the model and deal a damage roll equal to the attack’s POW.

The feat does not prevent you from boosting damage (because it doesn’t say “cannot be boosted” or anything like that), so you can boost your slam damage roll as usual. Also, as you pointed out, collisions could add an additional die to the roll.

(I wanted to address this part separately.)
That isn’t quite right. :slightly_smiling_face: Hopefully this won’t sound tautological, but charging and meeting all the required conditions for charging is how you get the boosted charge damage roll. :slightly_smiling_face:

Models can move >3” in many different ways, and the movement itself doesn’t do anything at all in regards to boosting damage. Movement is movement; it is not damage. :slightly_smiling_face:

Charging, moving 3+”, ending your movement with your charge target in your melee range, making a charge attack with a melee weapon, etc, essentially doing exactly what the charge rules say without having another special rule tell you otherwise.: that’s charging, and charging itself gives the boosted damage roll against the charge target. :slightly_smiling_face:

Conceptually, “building up momentum while charging forward” is how the boosted damage is justified and rooted in an intuitive concept. But the actual charge attack rules are how it actually works. Does that make sense? :slightly_smiling_face:

Yes that is what I meant by charge, making a Charge and also moving the 3" minimum to get the damage dice. As you can make a charge that moves only 1" and not get the boost. I have seen people argue both for what you are saying and what I am saying this edition. I am going to wait for an official ruling on this one.

This looks like a job for @elswickchuck . :slightly_smiling_face:

Yea I’m not trying to be a jerk. I would just like a concrete answer that isn’t opened to interpretation as I’m taking her to a big event.

So whats the main question

It seems as though the question is “if the model moved 3” at least or more then is it still boosted as a charge attack would be"

If thats the question then yes

Sorry buy was wanting to double check if there was a second part brought up due to discussion

1 Like

The question is “Does ‘instead of suffering a normal damage roll’ mean you don’t get boosted charge damage if you choose to slam with Helga’s feat?”

I strongly believe the answer is “Yes”, because otherwise the “instead of” clause kind of is meaningless. :sweat_smile: I would think the language would say “in addition to” if the intent were that you’d get the charge bonus, or weaponmaster, or whatever.

To make it simple

  • War hog declared a charge under Helga’s feat.
  • Moves 8" fulfilling the 3" charge requirement for boosted damage.
  • Rolls to hit and succeeds.
  • Rather than simply roll damage they elect to slam the target utilizing the Feat.

Is the damage suffered by the target 3d6 or 2d6 (before anything like weapon master or colliding with something that would further add dice).

It used to be you got everything on the charge using her feat. Slaughterhousers could wind up with 5d6 damage if you slammed their target into something.

1 Like

And to be fair, it worked that way because of an infernal ruling.

Does the ruling still stand?

“Instead of a normal damage roll” in this case means “Instead of using the POW of the weapon or ability creating the roll,” not that you don’t apply any outside modifiers to it.

This makes a lot of sense here. Probably what caused the initial infernal ruling in the first place? Either way I will def wait for a confirm or deny from Mr Elswick

This is the correct line of reasoning