Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

puma713 wrote:There is nothing between Defenders React and Fighting a Close Combat, so I disagree that there is a point in time between them when actions can take place. The actions are either a part of Defenders React or Fighting a Close Combat. Otherwise, we're creating time points that don't exist and that only we understand. If they're not outlined in the rulebook, how are the other hundreds of thousands of players supposed to know that this sub-step that is not defined anywhere exists?

It is defined in the HG and CF rules.

CF inserts itself between Defenders React and Fighting a Close Combat, I am not creating that point in time, CF does that for us.

So does HG, as this is the only logical point in time where they could be used, due to Fighting a Close Combat detailing how to make swings at Initiative value, and defenders react being moves to get into combat.

SPecial rules create new points in time all the time - Feel No Pain does the same thing between failing a save and immediately removing a model.

DeathReaper wrote:

puma713 wrote:There is nothing between Defenders React and Fighting a Close Combat, so I disagree that there is a point in time between them when actions can take place. The actions are either a part of Defenders React or Fighting a Close Combat. Otherwise, we're creating time points that don't exist and that only we understand. If they're not outlined in the rulebook, how are the other hundreds of thousands of players supposed to know that this sub-step that is not defined anywhere exists?

It is defined in the HG and CF rules.

CF inserts itself between Defenders React and Fighting a Close Combat, I am not creating that point in time, CF does that for us.

So does HG, as this is the only logical point in time where they could be used, due to Fighting a Close Combat detailing how to make swings at Initiative value, and defenders react being moves to get into combat.

Good luck. Literally 10 pages ago he tried the same argument.

puma713 wrote:They could occur at the same time, if they were both attacks.

Now I would like to know where this is coming from. The whole thing that is at issue here is timing and that's why cf vs cf is a relevant issue.

Since cf is a cc attack, and since you are equating that 'blows' = 'attacks', then cf vs cf would create an infinite loop that could never resolve itself. There really is nothing in the rules about resolving cc attacks that go off before I10 simultaneously, just cc attacks that go off at the same initiative.

The unfortunate thing is there is no set 'order or operations' for 40k as it's very loosely defined. The only thing that is obvious is that cf is supposed to be resolved before cc attacks are resolved and so is hg.

And sorry I am joining this conversation late.

DeathReaper wrote:
So does HG, as this is the only logical point in time where they could be used, due to Fighting a Close Combat detailing how to make swings at Initiative value, and defenders react being moves to get into combat.

You're suggesting that the 6 pages (from pages 34-39) under Fighting a Close Combat are only about "making swings at Initiative value"? Page 33 is a summary, not a definition. And even that summary is a part of "combat".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:SPecial rules create new points in time all the time - Feel No Pain does the same thing between failing a save and immediately removing a model.

I disagree with both statements. Feel No Pain happens as soon as you suffer an unsaved wound. That means it is a part of whatever phase you're in where you suffered said unsaved wound. If you suffered an unsaved wound in close combat, it is obviously a part of close combat (it is even wrapped up in the "initiative-step" summary on page 33, just before "their opponent takes saving throws as required"). It is not a part of some mystery time-warp that is neither defined nor supported anywhere in the rules. You're saying that as soon as you suffer the unsaved wound, you suddenly remove yourself from whatever phase you're in to roll the dice, then return to the phase.

That is both illogical and unfounded.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:The only thing that is obvious is that cf is supposed to be resolved before cc attacks are resolved and so is hg.

Exactly. How can HG go off before any attacks, if it is going off the same time as an attack?


We want to keep going in circles here? Or just call it?

Logically (not by GW logic) they should go at the same time

GW just wrote it off as a closecombat attack, so for now HG takes precedence

just wait a few months for them to change it , and heck maybe it'll all be TOTALLY different in 6th thats mostly likely coming out soon?

I just think its awesome how you admit what you're saying essentially breaks the game, but don't care because it works in this specific instance.

puma713 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
So does HG, as this is the only logical point in time where they could be used, due to Fighting a Close Combat detailing how to make swings at Initiative value, and defenders react being moves to get into combat.

You're suggesting that the 6 pages (from pages 34-39) under Fighting a Close Combat are only about "making swings at Initiative value"? Page 33 is a summary, not a definition. And even that summary is a part of "combat".

Seeing as the section details how to make attacks in Initiative order, and under 'Fighting a close combat' it immediately starts talking about "How effective creatures are in close combat depends almost entirely on their physical characteristics- in other words how fast, strong..." (P.35)

Immediately talks about how fast they are (I.E. what Initiative they strike at) so yes I am suggesting the 6 pages are only about making swings at initiative value(and the resolution of the combat.). I think it is quite clear that is what this section details.

So I posted a logical solution to the problem, yet people are still arguing. What gives?

For the expected strength of each power, having HG not prevent CF does not change much. HG still stops Crowe's normal attacks.

Another point not mentioned in line with my last post - if the CF attacks counted as being in close combat, there would be no need for the statement that the wounds count as having been done in close combat. "Before blows" does not put the timing outside of combat, but neither does it put it in combat. If it had an initiative of I10, it would be in combat. Unfortunately for Tyranid players, it does not.

This entire argument hinges on when the CF attacks occur. Before combat or in combat.

CF vs. CF - there is no problem. Both powers are done at the same time, the wounds count as occurring in close combat. There is no 'who kills who first' scenario, so there is no conflict.

Ok this is the whole thread in a short line

HG only stops attacks, thats it, not psychic powers or tests or anything else but attacks in ensuing combat

CF is a psychic power that makes models suffer a wound on a 4+...thos unsaved wounds count as tho they were caused from CCAs

The GK FAQ is not changing anything or that entry would be in the errata section changing it to a CCA no a power that causes wounds as tho its from an attack, if this was the case then Crowe's CF would rend and ignore armor saves, also each purifier wound be able to cast it, meaning a 10 man unit can cast it 10 times without a psychic test.

roll up, it, its self, is not an attack...it would be like a cop being told to look for a minivan as a suspect vehicle and he pull over a crossover, not the same thing.

CF in rules and in fluff are ment to hit the attacking unit as they charge, blinded by fire the grey knight come out of nowhere and kill in a hurricane of death.

This argument, again, dosent matter...in a friendly game, or before the game starts you and your opposition agree on how it would work then its cool...but at a tournament don't be surprised if the judges laugh at you...myself and 6 other games were stopped because of HG and Brain Mines...HG took a little longer to figure out but still lets CF go off.

In short...its however you want to play...but dont relie on a broodlord getting close enough since mind strike missles can be rained on in the first turn, a Inquisitor can take that thing that gives its squad a BS of 10 when fireing at a unit with a psyker in it...a Genestealer squad could be a waste of 300+ points at the same time if Crowe gets the attack his 150pts is going to wipe out alot of models in that squad since he hits at 6 and the broodlord will be reduced to I1, also CF plus his ability to hit every model in BtB...its going to be ugly.

DK wrote:The GK FAQ is not changing anything or that entry would be in the errata section changing it to a CCA no a power that causes wounds as tho its from an attack, if this was the case then Crowe's CF would rend and ignore armor saves, also each purifier wound be able to cast it, meaning a 10 man unit can cast it 10 times without a psychic test.

This is not true. FAQs can and do change rules. The first three that come to mind are the SitW FAQ, St. Celestine's FAQ, and the Venomthrope Spre Cloud FAQ.

Page 47 – Mephiston, Transfixing Gaze
“At the start of the Assault phase…”
should read
“At the start of the Assault phase, after assault moves
have been made, but before blows have been struck…”

Blows has been used here also, to jump in on this circular argument.

so to me Blow==attacks

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:Page 47 – Mephiston, Transfixing Gaze
“At the start of the Assault phase…”
should read
“At the start of the Assault phase, after assault moves
have been made, but before blows have been struck…”

Blows has been used here also, to jump in on this circular argument.

so to me Blow==attacks

definition of blow (as in strike)
A powerful stroke with a hand, weapon, or hard object.

where is CF does it say its a hand, weapon or hard object?

Good points on both sides (and a very interesting read overall) but I'm personally more convinced by the 'simultaneous' and 'ensuing combat' arguments that favour CF activating regardless of HG's influence.

It's pretty clear that there isn't going to be a formal proof either way, but that particular logic makes more sense to me. Perhaps it wil be more clear in the next edition?
DoW

DK wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:Page 47 – Mephiston, Transfixing Gaze
“At the start of the Assault phase…”
should read
“At the start of the Assault phase, after assault moves
have been made, but before blows have been struck…”

Blows has been used here also, to jump in on this circular argument.

so to me Blow==attacks

definition of blow (as in strike)
A powerful stroke with a hand, weapon, or hard object.

where is CF does it say its a hand, weapon or hard object?

....What i was inferring and/or implying was that for certain abilities after the defenders react/assault moves have been made is a "mini-step". so to argue has no rule basis but for the fact that special rules allow it be out side of the Initiative step.

i am still confused as to why you gave me the definition of blows. more or less because CF says before any Blows are struck. at no time did i call CF a Blow. (even though according to the faq it is a CCA)

i can however see how you could read it that way. but jsut to make it fancy cleansing flame could just be a giant flaming towel for all we know.

puma713 wrote:That's still not true, however. Both powers (including CF vs. CF) say "before attacks". So, they cannot be used simultaneously. It's case of Chicken vs. Egg. Meanwhile, if you use one CF before the other, then one of the two cannot be used and you're disallowing someone to use something that they're entitled to use.

So either way, the game breaks when you include CF vs. CF.

However, in this discussion, we're not talking about CF vs. CF. We're talking about CF vs. HG. We can still make these two function without breaking the game.

DeathReaper wrote:The BRB Defines what an attack is.

CF does not fall into this definition. (It is a psychic power that results in a close combat attack).

Therefore HG can not stop CF

jbunny wrote:OK so all of the Pro HG people, please answer the question of what happens when two CF's go against each other. So far NO ONE from that side as even addressed this issue.

Kitzz wrote:CF does NOT have the same wording as HG.

HG goes off before any attacks, while CF goes off before blows are struck.

If you interpret "blows are struck" to mean "all attacks are made" then I can see how you'd have trouble. But the more valid interpretation is that "blows are struck" means "all attacks in initiative order are made."

If CF is supposed to happen before all attacks, then, per the FAQ, it must go before itself. This is impossible, so obviously that interpretation is flawed. On the other hand, if CF is supposed to happen before the initiative ladder, then there is no problem whatsoever.

Basically Kitzz here is reiterating the same argument I made about three pages earlier, and they ignored me too, Kitzz.

CF goes off before blows are struck, not before all attacks. That's a good thing, because CF is itself an attack. We don't have a problem here. (Except that the thread is still going, but I'm numb by now.)

To be specific about what we need to do to resolve all inconsistencies:

The BRB verbiage on close combat uses the phrases "attack" and "blows" interchangeably. However, in the GK codex, the phrases "attack" and "blows" are used in such a manner that they CANNOT be interchangeable without a contradiction in CF's sequence sentence. The least damage to the rules is if we assume that as of the GK codex, they're not interchangeable. This is also rational b/c the GK codex introduces a slew of new treatments due to GW's inclusion of psychic powers in situations where they didn't previously exist. (And this isn't the only problem that comes of THAT, btw.) It's simplest to just recognize that the two later inputs, GK codex and FAQ, influence us to reinterpret CC blows and attacks as no longer equivalent.

All this is btw irrelevant to whether HG goes first, but it resolves "breakage".