I was wondering if a CSM Daemon Prince with the Black Mace and Combat Familiar upgrade, would the two additional Str 4 AP- be turned into AP2 Fleshbane because of the Black Mace?

The rule description of Combat Familiar didn't specify it is a separate entity/model but instead adds 2 more attacks to the profile.

Similarly, can the 2 attacks from the Combat Familiar be contributed to Smash attack?

Thanks!

Additional thoughts..

RAI: I think it should be just two extra Str 4 Ap-
RAW: It would be Str4 Ap2 (Being MC), does not benefit from Black Mace
But I have seen others claiming it adds 2 more Black Mace attacks.

Thoughts?

RAW it seems it's str 4ap2

HIWPI str 4ap-

All attacks made are AP2, all of them.

Smash alters the S of the model, whcih bears no relation to the Combat Familiars strength of attack

The entry for combat familiar, page 67 of the Chaos marine codex, states that it makes two additional attacks at Strength 4, AP - . Think that is pretty straight forward to how you treat these additional attacks, as the special rule itself is telling you to treat them as AP - and strength 4. There is nothing in the special rule giving you permission to combine it with other war-gear or other special rules that came prior to it. It tells you how to resolve these attacks and if you resolve them in any other way, well you have not followed the rule as written.

I could also point out that, if you do combine the two special rules, then they would be in conflict and codex trumps basic rule book.

The smash rule, when written, could not take all situations where you would be granted additional attacks with their own stat line into account. If you read the smash rule you will see that hammer of wrath is not allowed to be resolved at AP 2. At the time of writing this was probably the only attack, presented in the very same format as combat familiar, that could be viewed as 'allowed for smash' but was not designed to work with it. It only stands to reason that additional special rules will come into play, either not yet disclosed or even thought up by the game workshop writers.

That is why the codex trump rule exists after all....

JinxDragon wrote:
The entry for combat familiar, page 67 of the Chaos marine codex, states that it makes two additional attacks at Strength 4, AP - . Think that is pretty straight forward to how you treat these additional attacks, as the special rule itself is telling you to treat them as AP - and strength 4. There is nothing in the special rule giving you permission to do combine it with other war-gear or special rules, so you treat it independent of everything else. It tells you how to resolve these attacks and if you resolve them in any other way, well you have not followed the rule as written.

I could also point out that, if you do combine the two special rules, then they would be in conflict and codex trumps basic rule book.

So then, by your logic, the Black Mace is also treated as only AP4 on a Daemon Prince?

No.

ALL attacks made by the model are treated as AP2 due to Smash.

They wouldn't get Fleshbane - because that rule only coincides with attacks made with the weapon itself, not the model's other attacks.

Iranna.

There is no conflict when it is a weapon profile, as the rules are already written so special rules have higher priority and can adjust weapon profiles freely.

The real debate could be, with the way combat familiar is written, does it equal a weapon profile even if it isn't put in it's own little formatting bubble like all other weapon profiles?

That raises more questions, such as the fact you can only chose one melee weapon to attack with. If it was a profile in and of itself, an opponent could argue that all attacks need to use said weapon profile in order to benefit from the 2 additional attacks. This would clearly make combat familiars useless for at least 90% of the situations, so I feel it would be incorrect. Maybe that is why it is a special rule and not a weapon profile. It still means that this special rule is applied last, over-writing any special rule in the basic rule book that would be in direct conflict with this rule.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Why I believe it is a direct conflict comes from the modifier section of the book, somewhere around page 6 I believe:
Weapon profiles are the base numbers you start with, modifiers provided by special rules adjust those base numbers.

Smash rule is as: Set AP to 2.
Combat familiar is as : Set Strength 4, Set AP -

We now have two special rules telling us to use a different AP value in the attack. Both are 'set to' modifiers so they come last in the equation. As both are being applied at the very same time, with different values, there is a direct conflict. This is covered by page 7 of the basic rule book, allowing set modifiers in the codex to be applied after set modifiers in the basic rule book.

If you find fault in this, explain to me how a rule saying to use AP - and AP 2 is not in direct conflict as I clearly can't see it.

Specific vs general

Combat Familiar has a general rule about hte attacks it makes, whcih is true for all models it is attached to

The more specific MC rule, applicable only to MCs who take the familiar, sets that valie to AP2.

What page in the rule book tells me how to determine if something is a 'general' rule or if it is a "specific" rule?

Because I would argue that it is being very specific in highlighting that these attacks:
1) Do not count towards the models base attacks
2) Use a specific Strength score regardless of the models base score
3) Use a specific AP score instead of the models base score

The rule book tells us how to determine if something is a base rule or an advanced rule, on page 7, which is as close to generic vs specific that I can find while flicking through said rule book. Within such descriptions it points out that all rules which apply to an individual model are considered to be advanced. This is clearly an advanced rule as only models with access to the combat familiar special rule benefit from it.

That same section gives permission for advanced codex rules to over-write advanced basic rule book rules if they happen to be in conflict.

So the very specific Black Mace is overridden "just because"?

JinxDragon wrote:
What page in the rule book tells me how to determine if something is a 'general' rule or if it is a "specific" rule?

Because I would argue that it is being very specific in highlighting that these attacks:
1) Do not count towards the models base attacks
2) Use a specific Strength score regardless of the models base score
3) Use a specific AP score instead of the models base score

The rule book tells us how to determine if something is a base rule or an advanced rule, on page 7, which is as close to generic vs specific that I can find while flicking through said rule book. Within such descriptions it points out that all rules which apply to an individual model are considered to be advanced. This is clearly an advanced rule as only models with access to the combat familiar special rule benefit from it.

That same section gives permission for advanced codex rules to over-write advanced basic rule book rules if they happen to be in conflict.

I'm sorry but I do disagree.

In fact I find that Smash is much more advanced of a rule than combat familiar.

Nos,

You are dodging the question, I have stated the rules which supported my conclusion. I simply request you do the same so I can see how you came to said conclusion. It could even lead to me adjusting my own thoughts on the matter to fit a better RAW as I would have more information to form a different opinion over. Right now, from the rules I have seen printed on the pages I have quoted, you do not have permission to apply smash to combat familiar.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the black mace - It doesn't even come into play in this situation I was describing but let me address it just so you can't say I am dodging your question:

Applying black mace to combat familiar:
Special rules on weapons can only be evoked if the weapon is used in that very moment. Should the attacks be coming from something else, another weapon or a special rule for example, then it doesn't matter what additional weapons the model is am carrying. For example: I can not simply claim instant death in every situation where wounds are inflicted simply because one weapon my model wields has instant death, even if I am opting to use said weapon. I have to show that the wounds being inflicted come from the weapon in question, and not by an adjacent model with close combat weapons lacking said rule, which is determined by breaking successful attacks down into their own pool as per page 15.

It is the same for all weapons being used in combat, you need to show that the hit and wounds where derived from the weapon in question. Even if combat familiar is not a special rule generating it's own unique attacks, but a weapon profile, I still can't apply special rules found in the black mace. In such a situation the attacks are not coming from the Black Mace and any special rules I could evoke on the Mace itself is invalid. Just like every other situation where you can have multiple weapons attacking.

As for the black mace and applying advanced rules from the basic rule book:
Unless otherwise stated in the codex, all weapons follow the rules laid out in the weapon section of the rule book. This includes allowing special rules to adjust what the weapon does, as highlighted by the fact weapons may generate additional special rules to be included on top of the already existing special rules a model might have. It even tells you to refer to the special rule section of the book itself, which goes on to detail how and when special rules adjust the situation in question. Everything points to weapons being adjusted by special rules, though I do admit it isn't out right stated.

In closing:
The situation I am addressing is not a special rule adjusting a weapon, but a special rule trying to be applied to another special rule. Now I am more then willing to ponder on the possibility that combat familiar is meant to be a weapon profile, because it is something I am not certain on to be truthful as it has the right wording but lacks the same format. Should it be a weapon profile, then the conflict with smash does vanish, but additional problems do occur. So I am more then willing to play devil advocate on that argument, for nothing more then to help me better understand what would occur if it is a profile and not a special rule.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jd,

Show me where in the rule book it informs you how to determine which rule is more advanced then another?

Because I come to the conclusion that combat familiar is 'more advanced' because page 7 states codex advanced rules trump basic rule book advanced rules.

Precedant with Hammer of Wrath attacks would seem to suggest that they would be made at AP-.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Precedant with Hammer of Wrath attacks would seem to suggest that they would be made at AP-.

Except Hammer of Wrath (or Smash) specifically states that HoW do not get Smash benefits.

Jinx -- no, your argument is that a Codex rule overrids the rulebook

So Smash, the BRB rule, is overridden by Black Mace setting the profile of AP4. That is the only possible way you can be consistent with your argument that CF AP- overrides the AP2 from Smash.

CF is an attack. All Attacks made by the MC are resolved at AP2. So while the CF may have a profile AP-, when you actually resolve the attacks they are AP2

Isn't this just a case of specific vs general. The Smash rule specifies the attacks over rule the AP of any weapon wielded hence the Mace is AP2. Chaos Familiar is not a weapon so the general rule that MCs smash at Ap2 is over ruled by the more specific rule that the attacks an MC makes with its familiar are AP-.

JinxDragon wrote:


Jd,

Show me where in the rule book it informs you how to determine which rule is more advanced then another?

Because I come to the conclusion that combat familiar is 'more advanced' because page 7 states codex advanced rules trump basic rule book advanced rules.

I feel it isn't.

Just saying that in this case it would be both ap- and 2 from smash.
There is no clash.
It's similar to the black mace on a MC, the BM is ap4 and the MC is ap2 when it swings what ap is it?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:


Jd,

Show me where in the rule book it informs you how to determine which rule is more advanced then another?

Because I come to the conclusion that combat familiar is 'more advanced' because page 7 states codex advanced rules trump basic rule book advanced rules.

I feel it isn't.

Just saying that in this case it would be both ap- and 2 from smash.
There is no clash.
It's similar to the black mace on a MC, the BM is ap4 and the MC is ap2 when it swings what ap is it?

It is both, simultaneously, and thus resolved at the best AP.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:


Jd,

Show me where in the rule book it informs you how to determine which rule is more advanced then another?

Because I come to the conclusion that combat familiar is 'more advanced' because page 7 states codex advanced rules trump basic rule book advanced rules.

I feel it isn't.

Just saying that in this case it would be both ap- and 2 from smash.
There is no clash.
It's similar to the black mace on a MC, the BM is ap4 and the MC is ap2 when it swings what ap is it?

It is both, simultaneously, and thus resolved at the best AP.

Sounds similar to it being ap- and ap2

It can not be both at the same time, as one rule says to set to - while the other says to set to 2. If you opt one over the other, then you have not resolved both as written. This means there is a direct conflict as you can not successfully resolve both rules without ignoring a section of one or the other. As one of the rules comes from the codex, and the other comes from the basic rule book, we have been informed which one we are to ignore. That makes it a bit hard to make an argument that states you have the option to select both.

Yet that is focused on just the conflict between Combat Familiar and Smash. I do have to admit this has created a very interesting logic trap thanks to the fact weapon profiles are 'advanced' rules as well. Page 7 has nothing on how you deal with such a situation, as far as it is concerned there is only three types of rules: Basic, advanced and codex. I shall open a new post to see if I can get some insight on how we resolve this trap, using nothing but the rules as written.

However, in a pure rule based discussion you have to show me where your getting permission to use one rule over the other when requested, particularly if it goes counter to section of the book telling us how to deal with such conflicts.

"All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2 (unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)."

There you go, you're attacking with an AP 4 weapon, resolving it as AP 2 according to the Smash rule, because it is a close combat attack.

I'm discussing the combat familiar attacks, not the black mace attacks.

The combat familiar is a special rule which grants you two additional attacks, resolved with a stated strength and AP that could be different to the base stats for the rest of the combat phase. As a special rule, being found within a codex, it has a higher priority then any special rule found in the base rule book. Therefore, by page 7, we do not have permission to assign smash to this special rule in order to change the AP from - to 2. I'm not even sure you would be allowed to do so in any case, even without page 7, because of the terminology found within the combat familiar section of the rule book. It goes to great lengths pointing out that the combat familiar is separate from 'it's master' but also states that any individual model plays no part in the game.

The Black Mace is a completely different problem, one that highlights the fact the priority section of page 7 needs to be revised as it doesn't address all situations. This problem stems from the fact weapon profiles are advanced rules from the basic rule book itself. Page 7 only gives us permission to discard rule when a conflict occurs between the rule book and codex, or basic and advanced rules. It fails to address how you prioritize advanced rules that might create conflicts with advanced from the same book, leaving us with only the 'golden rule' to fall back on.

If you want to address that issue, please see the thread I created as I would be more then willing to hear what you have to say on that particular situation.

So what if page 7 should be changed, all combat attacks from a MC are AP2, this wargear gives it more attacks. Yes it's a different strength but any wargear or weapons that you give a MC will alter either it's strength or may have an ap value. The rules have clearly stated that it is all attacks, case closed.

How is it not a conflict if I have one rule stating AP 2 and another stating AP -?

That is the core of the argument I keep putting forth. We can not resolve the smash rule without changing the AP to 2 and we are not following the combat familiar rule if we do not resolve it at AP - . As we have two different special rules telling us two different things, we have a conflict. That seems like the exact situation described on page 7 when it highlights that advanced rules from the codex and rule book may clash. It tells us exactly what to do in that situation, and it isn't pick and chose the parts of both rules which we desire.

The rest of smash doesn't apply as it refers to the model's strength. If the weapon's profile was based on the model's strength then it would matter but not in this case.

JinxDragon wrote:
How is it not a conflict if I have one rule stating AP 2 and another stating AP -?

Why is that a conflict? You've already decided that AP2 can coexist (and supersede) AP4.
What's different about this one?

The model is making the attacks. So str4 ap-. Spelled out pretty clear in z codex.

Yeah, how about some rules next time? Those pesky tenets...

Jinx - you are told they RESOLVE AT AP2. That is a set modifier. There is no "set to" AP-, just some additional attacks you make.

Which, according to Smash, are resolved at AP2

There is no other RAW way to read it. NOne.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
CF is an attack. All Attacks made by the MC are resolved at AP2. So while the CF may have a profile AP-, when you actually resolve the attacks they are AP2

I feel like this is the best thing someone's said regarding this point.

RESOLVE AT AP2. That is a set modifier. There is no "set to" AP-, just some additional attacks you make.

And this doesn't make sense. "Modifiers" (in the BRB sense of the word, on p2) apply to "a model's characteristics," which do not include a weapon's AP value.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
CF is an attack. All Attacks made by the MC are resolved at AP2. So while the CF may have a profile AP-, when you actually resolve the attacks they are AP2

I feel like this is the best thing someone's said regarding this point.

RESOLVE AT AP2. That is a set modifier. There is no "set to" AP-, just some additional attacks you make.

And this doesn't make sense. "Modifiers" (in the BRB sense of the word, on p2) apply to "a model's characteristics," which do not include a weapon's AP value.

By that reasoning the Black Mace will also be AP4, because the smash "do[es] not include a weapon's AP value".

The Black Mace is AP 4, doesn't stop the attack from AP 2. Smash is not a modifier, it just says to resolve attacks at AP 2, so a Daemon Prince attacking with a Black Mace will strike at AP 2, the same way it would with an ordinary AP - CCW. If the AP of the weapon did override the AP 2 granted by Smash the first part of Smash would be irrelevant, as every weapon has some sort of AP value.

As far as Combat Familiar goes, I don't own the CSM codex so I don't know the exact wording, but if it just grants the model AP - attacks and doesn't specify that they must be resolved as AP - or in some other way prevents the Smash USR from taking effect, those extra attacks would be resolved at AP 2.

Lungpickle wrote:
The model is making the attacks. So str4 ap-. Spelled out pretty clear in z codex.

The model? You mean the MC?
Could you re-read the actual Smash rule instead of what it seems you're pretending it is?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The Black Mace is AP 4, doesn't stop the attack from AP 2.

That's my point.

Sadly I can't find any fault in the rules, following RAW the attacks should be AP2.
RAI / HIWPI the attacks should be AP - (but that's just my opinion).

I do agree that page 7 causes a problem for smash being applied to weapon profiles from other books. There might be a way around it, the writer of that paragraph may have envisioned some solution, but I am at a loss to what it is. It is clear that the intent of smash was to be applied to all weapon profiles, Black mace included. I am still curious how we are meant to resolve the situation, but willing to simply accept the whole 'it is broken, please ignore page 7' in this situation.

I still am no convinced on combat familiar.

It can not be viewed as a weapon profile, though formatted so very close with the addition of the word Melee, because that would create additional problems if you start treating it as such. After all, even monstrous creatures are limited to using one weapon profile during each assault phase. It has to be viewed as a specific special rule granting you these additional attacks and telling you how to resolve them. This means we do have two special rules telling us to resolve the attack at two different AP values. If we apply specific vs generic, I would state smash is a more generic rule as it is applied to ever other attack being made while this one is telling you how to resolve the bonus attacks, using specific numbers.

This is supported by the rest of the paragraph which hasn't even been discussed. It goes to great lengths to describe how the combat familiar is separate from 'it's master.' It gives you permission to even place it on it's own base and informs you how the rules go about treating this model. Everything in the section indicates that the combat familiar is meant to be resolved separate to the 'master.' It would even fix the whole 'is it a weapon profile' question as the attacks are coming from a separate model.

These are not simply 'additional attacks....'

Except its rules say that "A model ...makes two additional attacks". Meaning its not the familiar making the attacks. Being a weapon or not doesn't matter - permission was granted to make more attacks.

And I don't understand your double standard of - vs AP 4. Why does smash override one but not the other?

rigeld2 wrote:

And I don't understand your double standard of - vs AP 4. Why does smash override one but not the other?

I think it has something to do with the nature of the attacks. The Black Mace (for example) does not itself make attacks--the DP does, and so the DP's AP2 overrides the BM's AP4. Since the Familiar is the one making the AP- attacks, the AP is not changed. BM uses the model's Attack characteristic; Familiar has 2 attacks, thus making it look like its own model (which can even be represented on the table!)

HOWEVER, this may be a holdover in thinking from 5e. All weapons have a Str now, be it User, x2, +1, or whatever. The Familiar is treated exactly like a weapon in this case, I think, with a set Str of 4. So, thus, the AP is changed to 2, because of the MC's Smash.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Since the Familiar is the one making the AP- attac.

This is not true. The rules specifically state the model who own the CF is the one making the attacks.

The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

What rule? I thought the DP's attacks were made at his Str, and due to Smash AP2, what overrides this?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Since the Familiar is the one making the AP- attac.

This is not true. The rules specifically state the model who own the CF is the one making the attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

Just read my entire post, eh? I don't end at this claim. In fact, I go on to debunk it.

The Chaos familiar rules over ride this and state the attacks are S4. Just like a relic blade makes a SM attacks S6 (regardless of modifiers or his own strength). You no longer attack at your own strength in cc but at ygr strength of your weapon.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Since the Familiar is the one making the AP- attac.

This is not true. The rules specifically state the model who own the CF is the one making the attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

Just read my entire post, eh? I don't end at this claim. In fact, I go on to debunk it.

So you start off with a false premise and then "debunk" it with incorrect rules (the familiar is not a weapon)?

So what's your point?

 Iranna wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
The entry for combat familiar, page 67 of the Chaos marine codex, states that it makes two additional attacks at Strength 4, AP - . Think that is pretty straight forward to how you treat these additional attacks, as the special rule itself is telling you to treat them as AP - and strength 4. There is nothing in the special rule giving you permission to do combine it with other war-gear or special rules, so you treat it independent of everything else. It tells you how to resolve these attacks and if you resolve them in any other way, well you have not followed the rule as written.

I could also point out that, if you do combine the two special rules, then they would be in conflict and codex trumps basic rule book.

So then, by your logic, the Black Mace is also treated as only AP4 on a Daemon Prince?

No.

ALL attacks made by the model are treated as AP2 due to Smash.

They wouldn't get Fleshbane - because that rule only coincides with attacks made with the weapon itself, not the model's other attacks.

Iranna.

the HOW attack is not considered for smash.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

What rule? I thought the DP's attacks were made at his Str, and due to Smash AP2, what overrides this?

The Combat Familiar rules. I've cited the page already.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Since the Familiar is the one making the AP- attac.

This is not true. The rules specifically state the model who own the CF is the one making the attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

Just read my entire post, eh? I don't end at this claim. In fact, I go on to debunk it.

So you start off with a false premise and then "debunk" it with incorrect rules (the familiar is not a weapon)?

So what's your point?

My point was that not understanding Jinx's double-standard was silly. With a bit of thought, I came to a potential understanding of it. It was based on incorrect rules, but I still could see where he was coming from--something that you refuse to do quite a bit of the time (like right now!)

I'd rather not put my words in their brain. Also, the rules are pretty clear here so it's pretty hard for me to not understand them.

I won't say the rule was applied incorrectly, page 7 is pretty straight forward in this regard.

I will admit that, on further reflection of page 7, that this rule makes no sense when you actually try and apply it. It fails to address the conflicts that occur between rules in the very same book. It also creates additional problems when you try and apply rules that branch from basic rule book to codex. The weapon profile issue brought up here is a good example, where we wouldn't be able to modify said profile with anything per-existing special rules that the model already has.

So I will forget that page 7 even exists from now on.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

What rule? I thought the DP's attacks were made at his Str, and due to Smash AP2, what overrides this?

The Combat Familiar rules. I've cited the page already.

So the Combat familiar rules over ride the Str 6?

They specify Str 4?

Guess what else that page specifies, AP-...

Why are you overriding the AP and not the Str?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

What rule? I thought the DP's attacks were made at his Str, and due to Smash AP2, what overrides this?

The Combat Familiar rules. I've cited the page already.

So the Combat familiar rules over ride the Str 6?

They specify Str 4?

Guess what else that page specifies, AP-...

Why are you overriding the AP and not the Str?

Smash says that all Melee attacks are made at AP2.
STR has no such rule.

Which of course does not matter as the AP is specified for the attacks, and since the Combat familiar is not a weapon we use its own statline for the attacks and do not look at the models special rules at all, as the CF does not say to add in rending etc... from the model.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Which of course does not matter as the AP is specified for the attacks, and since the Combat familiar is not a weapon we use its own statline for the attacks and do not look at the models special rules at all, as the CF does not say to add in rending etc... from the model.

It says the model makes the attacks.
Smash says that all CC attacks the model makes are AP2.

Since the model is making the attacks, and those two attacks are part of all attacks, they must be AP2 or you are breaking the Smash rules.

AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook.

Codex Trumps Rulebook as there is a direct conflict.

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook.

Codex Trumps Rulebook as there is a direct conflict.

AP values aren't conflicting.
Or is the Black Mace AP4?

If its AP2 why are you applying a double standard?

It is not a double standard. The two have very different wording.

The combat familiar is not a weapon, and as such has its own profile to make its attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not a double standard. The two have very different wording.

The combat familiar is not a weapon, and as such has its own profile to make its attacks.

So what if it's not a weapon. It has a profile to resolve attacks at and smash talks about attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook.

Codex Trumps Rulebook as there is a direct conflict.

Not really a conflict. The MC would be the one making the attacks, all of his attacks are ap2 due to smash.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook.

Codex Trumps Rulebook as there is a direct conflict.

Not really a conflict. The MC would be the one making the attacks, all of his attacks are ap2 due to smash.

But the Chaos Familiar attacks are AP- so there is clearly a conflict. How could you possibly claim otherwise?

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not a double standard. The two have very different wording.

The combat familiar is not a weapon, and as such has its own profile to make its attacks.

The combat familiar does not make any attacks, ever.

Combat familiar adds two attacks to the owners Attacks profile. These additional attacks are of course treated the same way as the rest of the attacks on the profile. If used with a generic close combat weapon, then S4, AP-. If used with a Black Mace, then S4(fleshbane), AP-. If used by a Monstrous Creature, then S4, AP2.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

 FlingitNow wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook.

Codex Trumps Rulebook as there is a direct conflict.

Not really a conflict. The MC would be the one making the attacks, all of his attacks are ap2 due to smash.

But the Chaos Familiar attacks are AP- so there is clearly a conflict. How could you possibly claim otherwise?

It's AP2 and AP- at the same time, which is functionally the same as being AP2. Not a conflict.

GeneralCael wrote:
Combat familiar adds two attacks to the owners Attacks profile. These additional attacks are of course treated the same way as the rest of the attacks on the profile. If used with a generic close combat weapon, then S4, AP-. If used with a Black Mace, then S4(fleshbane), AP-. If used by a Monstrous Creature, then S4, AP2.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

You don't seem to have grasped it either. At no point would the Combat Familiar attacks gain Fleshbane from the mace. These are not attacks added to the owners profile, nor can these attacks be made with the mace.
These are completely separate attacks, made by the Model.

 grendel083 wrote:
These are not attacks added to the owners profile, nor can these attacks be made with the mace.

You cannot just make Things up. "The Model makes two additional attacks...." clearly indicates, that the owning model does, indeed, add two attacks to the attacks, the model already has. If the model is using a Black Mace, there is nothing indicating that the Black Mace effects is not included in all attacks.

 grendel083 wrote:

These are completely separate attacks, made by the Model.

No, they are not. "The Model makes two additional attacks....". If these attacks were seperate, the text would (obviously, imo) say The Model makes two seperate attacks.

It's AP2 and AP- at the same time, which is functionally the same as being AP2. Not a conflict.

Sorry what? AP2 and AP- can be at the same time. Now you're just making things up. Why is this functionally the same as AP2? I can certainly make my save against them as AP- says that yet I also can not make my save against them. How do you resolve that?

 FlingitNow wrote:

It's AP2 and AP- at the same time, which is functionally the same as being AP2. Not a conflict.

Sorry what? AP2 and AP- can be at the same time. Now you're just making things up. Why is this functionally the same as AP2? I can certainly make my save against them as AP- says that yet I also can not make my save against them. How do you resolve that?

The same way you resolve making a save against a Monstrous Creature attacking with an AP - basic close combat weapon, or a model wielding an AP - weapon that ignores armour saves. Do you have permission to make your armour save against the AP-? Yes. Do you have permission to make your armour save against the AP 2/Ignore save weapon? No. Under a permissive ruleset; if at least one factor denies you permission to make an armour save, you cannot, regardless of other factors giving you permission, unless it is explicitly stated that they override factors that would otherwise deny permission. (exampli gratia. Hammer of Wrath attacks per the FAQ)

GeneralCael wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
These are not attacks added to the owners profile, nor can these attacks be made with the mace.

You cannot just make Things up. "The Model makes two additional attacks...." clearly indicates, that the owning model does, indeed, add two attacks to the attacks, the model already has. If the model is using a Black Mace, there is nothing indicating that the Black Mace effects is not included in all attacks.

I'm making nothing up. The model makes two additional attacks is very different from the model gaining two attacks. The Combat Familiar attacks are not part of the models profile.
They most certainly are not made with the Black Mace. The Combat Familiar has its own weapon profile, see the rule concerning "More than one Weapon" on p51.

 grendel083 wrote:

These are completely separate attacks, made by the Model.

No, they are not. "The Model makes two additional attacks....". If these attacks were seperate, the text would (obviously, imo) say The Model makes two seperate attacks.

As above, they're made with a separate profile. These are not attacks made with the Black Mace, so would not gain Fleshbane. If the model had a standard CCW in addition to the Mace, attacks made with the CCW would not gain Fleshbane. Same thing here.

 grendel083 wrote:
These are not attacks made with the Black Mace, so would not gain Fleshbane. If the model had a standard CCW in addition to the Mace, attacks made with the CCW would not gain Fleshbane. Same thing here.

Of course attacks made with a generic CCW would not get Fleshbane from the Black Mace, AS IT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WEAPON! It's a completely irrelevant comparison, as the Combat Familiar is NOT a weapon.

 grendel083 wrote:
The model makes two additional attacks is very different from the model gaining two attacks. The Combat Familiar attacks are not part of the models profile.
They most certainly are not made with the Black Mace. The Combat Familiar has its own weapon profile, see the rule concerning "More than one Weapon" on p51.

What is the difference between "adding" and "gaining" two additional attacks?
Having a Strength and AP value is not the same as being a weapon. A Combat Familiar is not a weapon!

GeneralCael wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
These are not attacks made with the Black Mace, so would not gain Fleshbane. If the model had a standard CCW in addition to the Mace, attacks made with the CCW would not gain Fleshbane. Same thing here.

Of course attacks made with a generic CCW would not get Fleshbane from the Black Mace, AS IT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WEAPON! It's a completely irrelevant comparison, as the Combat Familiar is NOT a weapon.

It has a profile, Str4 AP- Melee attacks
That is very different to just adding 2 attacks to the models profile. Exactly what makes you think these attacks can be made with the Black Mace?

What is the difference between "adding" and "gaining" two additional attacks?
Having a Strength and AP value is not the same as being a weapon. A Combat Familiar is not a weapon!

It's not "gaining two additional attacks"
It's "making two additional Str4 Ap- Melee Attacks"

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

It's AP2 and AP- at the same time, which is functionally the same as being AP2. Not a conflict.

Sorry what? AP2 and AP- can be at the same time. Now you're just making things up. Why is this functionally the same as AP2? I can certainly make my save against them as AP- says that yet I also can not make my save against them. How do you resolve that?

The same way you resolve making a save against a Monstrous Creature attacking with an AP - basic close combat weapon, or a model wielding an AP - weapon that ignores armour saves. Do you have permission to make your armour save against the AP-? Yes. Do you have permission to make your armour save against the AP 2/Ignore save weapon? No. Under a permissive ruleset; if at least one factor denies you permission to make an armour save, you cannot, regardless of other factors giving you permission, unless it is explicitly stated that they override factors that would otherwise deny permission. (exampli gratia. Hammer of Wrath attacks per the FAQ)

Well let's look at what you've said. First you've compared this to a CCW which high lights a rule error. I advise you re read smash as it specifically covers ccws wielded by models with smash. It does not cover extra special rules that grant separate attacks. Smash over rules the ap of a cc wielded by the MC because and ONLY because it specifically allows. Ap2 allows you to ignore peoples armour ap- prevents you from ignoring someone's armour so by your reasoning it should also be AP- that wins...

A weapon can not be both AP2 and AP- they are mutually exclusive. An attack can only have 1 ap value, which is it? Please give an answer based in actual rules.

The familiar adds the str 4 ap - attacks, what is so hard to read there?

it is not a weapon, and it is NOT granting +2 attacks,

it does what its rule says, IE grants 2 attacks at str 4 ap -

smash doesnt override it at all, nor conflict with it, they are separate attacks just like a servo harness

 easysauce wrote:
RAW only says it applies to weapons,
assuming that smash applies to all wargear and attacks and modifies the set value under the familiar rules is not RAW.

That's absolutely incorrect.

BRB Page 42 wrote:All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2 (unless it's attacking with an AP1 weapon).

As you can see the actual rules (instead of what you pretend) do not say it applies only to weapons. It explicitly says all of the close combat attacks the model makes.
Who makes the combat familiar attacks?

AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook that says all attacks are made at AP2.

page 7 states that Codex >Rulebook when there is a conflict.

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook that says all attacks are made at AP2.

page 7 states that Codex >Rulebook when there is a conflict.

Why is it a conflict here but not on the Black Mace?

Please answer that question - you've dodged it again.

Yup 2'additional attacks at str 4 ap-. Don't waste the points buying for your daemon prince.

Otherwise it would have said 2 additional attacks with the attack profile for str, ap and weapon type of the buyer.

Smash disagrees with you. Perhaps you have rules to back up your assertion?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook that says all attacks are made at AP2.

page 7 states that Codex >Rulebook when there is a conflict.

Why is it a conflict here but not on the Black Mace?

Please answer that question - you've dodged it again.

Because the mace is a weapon and Smash specifically addresses weapons.

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook that says all attacks are made at AP2.

page 7 states that Codex >Rulebook when there is a conflict.

Why is it a conflict here but not on the Black Mace?

Please answer that question - you've dodged it again.

Because the mace is a weapon and Smash specifically addresses weapons.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
RAW only says it applies to weapons,
assuming that smash applies to all wargear and attacks and modifies the set value under the familiar rules is not RAW.

That's absolutely incorrect.

BRB Page 42 wrote:All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2 (unless it's attacking with an AP1 weapon).

As you can see the actual rules (instead of what you pretend) do not say it applies only to weapons. It explicitly says all of the close combat attacks the model makes.
Who makes the combat familiar attacks?

See the BRB quote I provided. It does not refer to weapons only.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook that says all attacks are made at AP2.

page 7 states that Codex >Rulebook when there is a conflict.

Why is it a conflict here but not on the Black Mace?

Please answer that question - you've dodged it again.

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

Smash does no such thing. Smash specifies "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2."
This has been pointed out numerous times now, so left is only to assume you lack reading comprehension, or that you simply do not want to accept that the rule is as the BRB says it is.

GeneralCael wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

Smash does no such thing. Smash specifies "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2."
This has been pointed out numerous times now, so left is only to assume you lack reading comprehension, or that you simply do not want to accept that the rule is as the BRB says it is.

You might want to keep reading the Smash USR, because what you quoted is not the whole thing...

The very next bit is important "(unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)."(42)

This shows that a model attacking with a weapon uses AP2, unless the weapon itself is AP1, then it uses the weapon's AP, and not the models AP.

A model makes attacks with a weapon, in context, the Smash rules affect the models attacks with whatever weapon he is using to make attacks. Proven by the following quotes.

"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon." (51)
"I a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows" (51)

So a model either has a weapon, is treated as if he has a weapon or has more than one weapon. This is the basis in which the Close Combat, and consequently Smash, rules were written.

However the familiar is not a weapon so this does not apply because the Codex specifically states what AP the attacks are made at (AP-).

 DeathReaper wrote:

GeneralCael wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

Smash does no such thing. Smash specifies "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2."
This has been pointed out numerous times now, so left is only to assume you lack reading comprehension, or that you simply do not want to accept that the rule is as the BRB says it is.

You might want to keep reading the Smash USR, because what you quoted is not the whole thing...

The very next bit is important "(unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)."(42)

This shows that a model attacking with a weapon uses AP2, unless the weapon itself is AP1, then it uses the weapon's AP, and not the models AP.

However the familiar is not a weapon so this does not apply because the Codex specifically states what AP the attacks are made at (AP-).

So you're deliberately ignoring the "All of the close combat attacks" wording?

the monstrous model is not making the attacks, the wargear is,
thats why smash doesnt apply.

the attacks are not at the monsters strength, or ap, or use any of the monsters special rules.


the MODEL makes attacks with smash rules ect.

the WARGEAR makes the str 4 ap - attacks, just like servo harnesses, its separate from the model.

Except that the "wargear" as you put it in both examples uses the model's WS. It isn't separate from the model it is in addition to the normal attacks.

 easysauce wrote:
the monstrous model is not making the attacks, the wargear is,

Page 67 C:CSM disagrees with you.

the attacks are not at the monsters strength, or ap, or use any of the monsters special rules.

The bolded statement doesn't exist in the rules.

the MODEL makes attacks with smash rules ect.

the WARGEAR makes the str 4 ap - attacks, just like servo harnesses, its separate from the model.

Again, incorrect per page 67 C:CSM. Please base your discussions in actual rules instead of making them up.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

GeneralCael wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

Smash does no such thing. Smash specifies "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2."
This has been pointed out numerous times now, so left is only to assume you lack reading comprehension, or that you simply do not want to accept that the rule is as the BRB says it is.

You might want to keep reading the Smash USR, because what you quoted is not the whole thing...

The very next bit is important "(unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)."(42)

This shows that a model attacking with a weapon uses AP2, unless the weapon itself is AP1, then it uses the weapon's AP, and not the models AP.

However the familiar is not a weapon so this does not apply because the Codex specifically states what AP the attacks are made at (AP-).

So you're deliberately ignoring the "All of the close combat attacks" wording?

Not at all, just reading page 7 and noting that there is a conflict between this rule and the Smash rule, and realizing that the Codex trumps the BRB.

Had it been a weapon, then there are provisions for weapons as noted in the Smash rule, as the only AP that any weapon could have that would overwrite the AP2 is an AP1 weapon.

But, since the CF is not a weapon this does not apply.

Why does the model make the attacks at Str 4? the CF is not a weapon so Page 50, under the rules for Str, surely do not apply and the Codex says Str 4 which trumps the models Str. The same applies to the AP of the attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

GeneralCael wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

Smash does no such thing. Smash specifies "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2."
This has been pointed out numerous times now, so left is only to assume you lack reading comprehension, or that you simply do not want to accept that the rule is as the BRB says it is.

You might want to keep reading the Smash USR, because what you quoted is not the whole thing...

The very next bit is important "(unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)."(42)

This shows that a model attacking with a weapon uses AP2, unless the weapon itself is AP1, then it uses the weapon's AP, and not the models AP.

However the familiar is not a weapon so this does not apply because the Codex specifically states what AP the attacks are made at (AP-).

So you're deliberately ignoring the "All of the close combat attacks" wording?

Not at all, just reading page 7 and noting that there is a conflict between this rule and the Smash rule, and realizing that the Codex trumps the BRB.

Had it been a weapon, then there are provisions for weapons as noted in the Smash rule, as the only AP that any weapon could have that would overwrite the AP2 is an AP1 weapon.

But, since the CF is not a weapon this does not apply.

Why does the model make the attacks at Str 4? the CF is not a weapon so Page 50, under the rules for Str, surely do not apply and the Codex says Str 4 which trumps the models Str. The same applies to the AP of the attacks.

Obviously the model makes the attacks, all of the MC attacks are resolved at AP2 unless they're AP1. Are they not attacks made by the MC? If they are than they are AP2.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, just reading page 7 and noting that there is a conflict between this rule and the Smash rule, and realizing that the Codex trumps the BRB.

Page 7 applies when 2 rules contradict each other, unless the combat familiar rules specifically state that the extra attacks are resolved at AP -, rather than simply being AP - attacks, there is no contradiction, in the same way extra attacks granted by Warp Speed wouid be resolved at AP 2, so would these attacks.

Had it been a weapon, then there are provisions for weapons as noted in the Smash rule, as the only AP that any weapon could have that would overwrite the AP2 is an AP1 weapon.

You're heavily into Rules as Interpreted territory here. RAW that is only part of the Smash rule that applies to weapons, you're deliberately ignoring the phrase "all close combat attacks". Now if we were arguing RAI, there's actually a fairly strong case that the extra attacks would be unaffected by Smash, and I'm sure many people would play it that way, and you wouldn't need to try and the first part of Smash exclusively to weapons to have a good argument. But we're discussing RAI or HIWPI, we're discussing RAW.

But, since the CF is not a weapon this does not apply.

True, which means that if these attacks were AP 1 they'd be resolved at AP 2. But since they're not AP 1 it is irrelevant.

Why does the model make the attacks at Str 4? the CF is not a weapon so Page 50, under the rules for Str, surely do not apply and the Codex says Str 4 which trumps the models Str. The same applies to the AP of the attacks.

Because the Daemon Prince does not have a special rule that states "All close combat attacks made by the model are resolved at the model's Strength" the same does not apply to the AP because of the Smash rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, just reading page 7 and noting that there is a conflict between this rule and the Smash rule, and realizing that the Codex trumps the BRB.

What conflict?

Had it been a weapon, then there are provisions for weapons as noted in the Smash rule, as the only AP that any weapon could have that would overwrite the AP2 is an AP1 weapon.

Yes, Smash notes the only way to override the AP2. Is the CF AP1? No? Then it doesn't override.

But, since the CF is not a weapon this does not apply.

Irrelevant - it is absolutely part of all the close combat attacks the model is making.

Why does the model make the attacks at Str 4? the CF is not a weapon so Page 50, under the rules for Str, surely do not apply and the Codex says Str 4 which trumps the models Str. The same applies to the AP of the attacks.

There's no rule saying to use the DP STR for all attacks. There is a rule that says to use AP2 for all attacks. You're breaking the latter.

The conflict of Smash Vs. the CF rules.

One says AP2, the codex Says AP-.

Guess which one wins...

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

What rule? I thought the DP's attacks were made at his Str, and due to Smash AP2, what overrides this?

The Combat Familiar rules. I've cited the page already.

Could you clarify what part of the Combat Familiar rules override the DP's Str please. I seem to not understand exactly what you mean by this.

There's no rule saying to use the DP STR for all attacks. There is a rule that says to use AP2 for all attacks. You're breaking the latter.

And you're breaking the CF rule by resolving the attacks at AP2. One way or another you have to break a rule. Neither rule is more specific than the other (unlike for the BM), so codex trumps rulebook comes into play.

 FlingitNow wrote:

There's no rule saying to use the DP STR for all attacks. There is a rule that says to use AP2 for all attacks. You're breaking the latter.

And you're breaking the CF rule by resolving the attacks at AP2. One way or another you have to break a rule. Neither rule is more specific than the other (unlike for the BM), so codex trumps rulebook comes into play.

Actually I'd say smash encompasses CF quite nicely. They're attacks, the MC is making them, ao ap2.

Actually I'd say smash encompasses CF quite nicely. They're attacks, the MC is making them, ao ap2

But by being AP2 you're breaking the CF rule which states they are AP-. Do you agree if you have a rule that states you are AP- you are breaking that rule by making those attacks AP2?

 DeathReaper wrote:
The conflict of Smash Vs. the CF rules.

One says AP2, the codex Says AP-.

Guess which one wins...

How is that a conflict?

Could you clarify what part of the Combat Familiar rules override the DP's Str please. I seem to not understand exactly what you mean by this.

Where it specifies what STR to use. You can't have an attack with 2 STR values, so the CF wins.
You can have an attack with 2 AP values (as the Black Mace proves) so Smash wins.

You can have an attack with 2 AP values (as the Black Mace proves) so Smash wins.

Sorry what? How can you have 2 appears values and the black mace has 1 AP value so proves nothing. The mace is ap4 smash tells you that it over rules this to be AP2. Where are you getting your interpretation from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the strength thing is a misnomer. A models strength is irrelevant in CC in 6th end as you always use the weapons strength now. Granted most weapons reference the users strength. But there is nothing that makes you use a models strength in CC as a starting point anymore.

 FlingitNow wrote:

You can have an attack with 2 AP values (as the Black Mace proves) so Smash wins.

Sorry what? How can you have 2 appears values and the black mace has 1 AP value so proves nothing. The mace is ap4 smash tells you that it over rules this to be AP2. Where are you getting your interpretation from?

The Black Mace is an attack made by be model, so is resolved at AP2.
The Combat Familiar are attacks made by the model, why is it not AP2?

The Black Mace specifies AP4, but Smash makes it AP2.
The Combat Familiar specifies AP-, why does Smash not make it AP2?

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

You can have an attack with 2 AP values (as the Black Mace proves) so Smash wins.

Sorry what? How can you have 2 appears values and the black mace has 1 AP value so proves nothing. The mace is ap4 smash tells you that it over rules this to be AP2. Where are you getting your interpretation from?

The Black Mace is an attack made by be model, so is resolved at AP2.
The Combat Familiar are attacks made by the model, why is it not AP2?

The Black Mace specifies AP4, but Smash makes it AP2.
The Combat Familiar specifies AP-, why does Smash not make it AP2?

The black mace and smash are in conflict (ap4 vs ap2). Smash tells us it effects the ap of weapons. It is therefore the more specific rules as it specifies how to resolve this conflict, so it makes the mace ap2.

Likewise smash and CF are in conflict (ap2 vs ap-). Neither rule specifies how it interacts with the other rule thus neither rule is more specific. So we have to look to another way to resolve the conflict. The rulebook helpfully tells us in this situation Codex trumps Rulebook, thus the conflict is resolved in favour of the CF.

FlingitNow: Smash does not specify that it affects the AP of weapons, it affects the AP of "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks" and is affected by "an AP 1 weapon". You are either misreading or misrepresenting the rules to suit your own argument.

It does indeed specify weapons. Also if it did not effect the AP of weapons it would effect nothing. It states that only weapons that are ap1 are not changed to ap2. Does it specify all other special rules? It does not so only attacks made with weapons are effected or attacks that don't specify AP or attacks that specify they are effected by smash. CF does not fall into any of these categories.

Please quote where it states that it only affects weapons.

It doesn't I've never said it does. It says all attacks and specified it over rules weapons AP. CF attacks are effected hence the conflict. Hence the need to resolve the conflict...

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

You can have an attack with 2 AP values (as the Black Mace proves) so Smash wins.

Sorry what? How can you have 2 appears values and the black mace has 1 AP value so proves nothing. The mace is ap4 smash tells you that it over rules this to be AP2. Where are you getting your interpretation from?

The Black Mace is an attack made by be model, so is resolved at AP2.
The Combat Familiar are attacks made by the model, why is it not AP2?

The Black Mace specifies AP4, but Smash makes it AP2.
The Combat Familiar specifies AP-, why does Smash not make it AP2?

The black mace and smash are in conflict (ap4 vs ap2). Smash tells us it effects the ap of weapons. It is therefore the more specific rules as it specifies how to resolve this conflict, so it makes the mace ap2.

Likewise smash and CF are in conflict (ap2 vs ap-). Neither rule specifies how it interacts with the other rule thus neither rule is more specific. So we have to look to another way to resolve the conflict. The rulebook helpfully tells us in this situation Codex trumps Rulebook, thus the conflict is resolved in favour of the CF.

What conflict? There is no conflict.
The Mace isn't Ap2 because of a conflict. The Smash rules state how this is handled.
The attacks are Ap2 no matter what the Ap of the weapon, with the exception of Ap1.
Following a rule that covers this situation does not cause a conflict.

Grendel are you saying that 1 rule telling you that you are ap4 and another telling you that you are ap2 are not in conflict? Sorry but how on earth can you claim that?

So how are you both AP4 and AP2? Or are you saying AP4 and AP2 the same thing?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Grendel are you saying that 1 rule telling you that you are ap4 and another telling you that you are ap2 are not in conflict? Sorry but how on earth can you claim that?

So how are you both AP4 and AP2? Or are you saying AP4 and AP2 the same thing?

How is a model with BS5 Snap Shooting at BS1. Are you saying snap shots are a rules conflict?
The Mace is AP4, attacks made with it are AP2 thanks to smash. A rule covers this, just as a rule covers Snap Shots. Neither are a conflict, as we have rules that tell us how to cover it.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FlingitNow: Smash does not specify that it affects the AP of weapons,

All attacks are made with weapons, so in context the Smash rule applies to weapons.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FlingitNow: Smash does not specify that it affects the AP of weapons,

All attacks are made with weapons, so in context the Smash rule applies to weapons.

Which means that the Combat Familiar attacks are made with weapons meaning that the Smash rule applies.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The conflict of Smash Vs. the CF rules.

One says AP2, the codex Says AP-.

Guess which one wins...

How is that a conflict?

Umm...

AP2 AP-

and the fact that Codex (AP-) trumps Rulebook.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The conflict of Smash Vs. the CF rules.

One says AP2, the codex Says AP-.

Guess which one wins...

How is that a conflict?

Umm...

AP2 AP-

and the fact that Codex (AP-) trumps Rulebook.

Again - how is that a conflict? Is there a rule that says an attack can only have one AP value?
And why is Smash allowed to override a codex rule in one place (Black Mace) but not another (Combat Familiar)? You've already presented an argument that both attacks are made with weapons.

How is a model with BS5 Snap Shooting at BS1. Are you saying snap shots are a rules conflict?

Yes they are a conflict. One rule is saying bs5 the other Bs1. Snap shot is the more specific rule and therefore it wins the conflict.

The Mace is AP4, attacks made with it are AP2 thanks to smash. A rule covers this, just as a rule covers Snap Shots. Neither are a conflict, as we have rules that tell us how to cover it.

Yes there is a conflict one rule says Ap4 the other Ap2. Fortunately smash tells us how to resolve this conflict just as the snap shot rule does.

Pretty much every special rule creates a conflict as it changes an existing rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:

How is a model with BS5 Snap Shooting at BS1. Are you saying snap shots are a rules conflict?

Yes they are a conflict. One rule is saying bs5 the other Bs1. Snap shot is the more specific rule and therefore it wins the conflict.

Then by your logic no model selected from a Codex is ever reduced to Bs1 due to Snap Shots.
Since the Codex Bs would trump the BRB Bs1.
This is completely false.
Following a rule is not a conflict. We are told how to handle this, thus creating no conflict.
The game wold be broken beyond repair following your conflict logic.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Umm...

AP2 AP-

and the fact that Codex (AP-) trumps Rulebook.

Again - how is that a conflict? Is there a rule that says an attack can only have one AP value?
And why is Smash allowed to override a codex rule in one place (Black Mace) but not another (Combat Familiar)? You've already presented an argument that both attacks are made with weapons.

It is a conflict because you are told to resolve at 2 different AP values, which you can not do. You have to pick one.

I think you miss understand how a permissive ruleset works. I've covered how the conflict is first resolved (specific over rides general). In the case of smash vs CF I've illustrated why this isn't the case and why it is the case for the black mace vs smash. Do you have any rules that support your side of the argument other than you wanting to ignore parts of the CF rule because you don't like them?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Umm...

AP2 AP-

and the fact that Codex (AP-) trumps Rulebook.

Again - how is that a conflict? Is there a rule that says an attack can only have one AP value?
And why is Smash allowed to override a codex rule in one place (Black Mace) but not another (Combat Familiar)? You've already presented an argument that both attacks are made with weapons.

It is a conflict because you are told to resolve at 2 different AP values, which you can not do. You have to pick one.

Please answer the bolded question.
And no - the CF rules do not say to "resolve" the attacks at a specific AP value. Smash does.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think you miss understand how a permissive ruleset works. I've covered how the conflict is first resolved (specific over rides general). In the case of smash vs CF I've illustrated why this isn't the case and why it is the case for the black mace vs smash. Do you have any rules that support your side of the argument other than you wanting to ignore parts of the CF rule because you don't like them?

Permissive has nothing to do with this. And you've illustrated nothing with any rules support.
Both the Mace and the Familiar have an Ap. 4 and - respectively.
Both are close combat attacks made by the model.
Both come from a codex not a rulebook.

Yet you claim one gains the Ap2 from smash but not other, with nothing to justify the difference.
You're presenting a double standard without support.

If its a conflict as you claim then the mace must also be Ap4 and gain no benefit from Smash.

Grendel read my posts again there is no double standard. Your questions have been answered with rules.

Do you have a rules argument that means either:

1) Smash wins the conflict with CF
Or
2) You have permission to ignore part of the CF rule.

Your mace straw man has been debunked. Do you have an actual rules argument?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Umm...

AP2 AP-

and the fact that Codex (AP-) trumps Rulebook.

Again - how is that a conflict? Is there a rule that says an attack can only have one AP value?
And why is Smash allowed to override a codex rule in one place (Black Mace) but not another (Combat Familiar)? You've already presented an argument that both attacks are made with weapons.

It is a conflict because you are told to resolve at 2 different AP values, which you can not do. You have to pick one.

Please answer the bolded question.
And no - the CF rules do not say to "resolve" the attacks at a specific AP value. Smash does.

Because the Black Mace is a weapon, that is why the codex does not trump the BRB because smash deals specifically with attacking with weapons.

I never said the CF was a weapon, in fact I said it was not a weapon so smash does not apply.

Here is what I said.

DeathReaper wrote:A model makes attacks with a weapon, in context, the Smash rules affect the models attacks with whatever weapon he is using to make attacks. Proven by the following quotes.

"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon." (51)
"I a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows" (51)

So a model either has a weapon, is treated as if he has a weapon or has more than one weapon. This is the basis in which the Close Combat, and consequently Smash, rules were written.

However the familiar is not a weapon so this does not apply because the Codex specifically states what AP the attacks are made at (AP-).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Grendel read my posts again there is no double standard. Your questions have been answered with rules.

Do you have a rules argument that means either:

1) Smash wins the conflict with CF
Or
2) You have permission to ignore part of the CF rule.

Your mace straw man has been debunked. Do you have an actual rules argument?

Looking back over your posts, I see you've cited rules with no relevance.
You've failed to prove there's a conflict.
You've failed to give reason why the Mace is not also Ap4

But to answer your questions:
1) there is no rules conflict. And if there is the mace is also Ap4
2) nothing's been ignored, the CF is an attack made by the model, all attacks made by the model are Ap2, all rules satisfied, no conflicts.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because the Black Mace is a weapon, that is why the codex does not trump the BRB because smash deals specifically with attacking with weapons.

But it's a conflict, according to you, and codex trumps BRB in all cases where there's a conflict. Correct?

The CF is additional attacks the model makes. Agreed?
All attacks are made with weapons. Agreed?

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Grendel read my posts again there is no double standard. Your questions have been answered with rules.

Do you have a rules argument that means either:

1) Smash wins the conflict with CF
Or
2) You have permission to ignore part of the CF rule.

Your mace straw man has been debunked. Do you have an actual rules argument?

Looking back over your posts, I see you've cited rules with no relevance.
You've failed to prove there's a conflict.
You've failed to give reason why the Mace is not also Ap4

But to answer your questions:
1) there is no rules conflict. And if there is the mace is also Ap4
2) nothing's been ignored, the CF is an attack made by the model, all attacks made by the model are Ap2, all rules satisfied, no conflicts.

1) So you've posted no rules that smash wins the conflict. As for the mace straw man that has been debunked I'll take any further mention of that without new evidence as you conceding.
2) So you're ignoring that CF says the attacks are AP- with no rules allowing you to do so...

Please actually make a rules argument as you why you are ignoring CF or why smash over rules it or concede.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because the Black Mace is a weapon, that is why the codex does not trump the BRB because smash deals specifically with attacking with weapons.

But it's a conflict, according to you, and codex trumps BRB in all cases where there's a conflict. Correct?

It is a conflict, but one that the BRB specifically addresses so the BRB has the more specific rule in the case of Smash Vs. a weapons AP.

The CF is additional attacks the model makes. Agreed?

It seems that way, I have not the Chaos codex at hand, but from what I have read in this thread it seems that way.

All attacks are made with weapons. Agreed?

Clearly not.

The CF is not a weapon and the models makes attacks because of it.

The model does not get the benefit of fleshbane on these attacks because of the black mace, is that correct?

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) So you've posted no rules that smash wins the conflict. As for the mace straw man that has been debunked I'll take any further mention of that without new evidence as you conceding.

It's not been debunked, and please look up what a Strawman is. Also as the rules cover this citation there is no conflict.
Both the mace and the CF have an Ap. Correct?
Both are close combat attacks made by the model. Correct?
Smash states all close combat attacks made the model are Ap2 (unless already Ap1). Correct?
You say there is a conflict, with the Codex trumping the Smash rules. Correct?
So if the CF is Ap - the Mace must also be Ap4 as both are from a codex.
How can one benefit but the other not. This has not been addressed in any of your posts.

2) So you're ignoring that CF says the attacks are AP- with no rules allowing you to do so...

You're ignoring the Mace is AP4. Please address the points above.

Please actually make a rules argument as you why you are ignoring CF or why smash over rules it or concede.

There you go, rules arguments above. Please provide the same for the questions above.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because the Black Mace is a weapon, that is why the codex does not trump the BRB because smash deals specifically with attacking with weapons.

But it's a conflict, according to you, and codex trumps BRB in all cases where there's a conflict. Correct?

It is a conflict, but one that the BRB specifically addresses so the BRB has the more specific rule in the case of Smash Vs. a weapons AP.

Smash does not only address weapons - it addresses, and I quote, "all attacks". You're inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules.

The CF is additional attacks the model makes. Agreed?

It seems that way, I have not the Chaos codex at hand, but from what I have read in this thread it seems that way.

So you haven't even read the rules you're discussing?

All attacks are made with weapons. Agreed?

Clearly not.

The CF is not a weapon and the models makes attacks because of it.

The model makes additional attacks. The CF rules are silent on if it's with a weapon or not. Which you'd know if you'd read the CF rules.

The model does not get the benefit of fleshbane on these attacks because of the black mace, is that correct?

I'd say that's arguable but not the point of this discussion. Feel free to open a new thread to discuss that if you wish.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because the Black Mace is a weapon, that is why the codex does not trump the BRB because smash deals specifically with attacking with weapons.

But it's a conflict, according to you, and codex trumps BRB in all cases where there's a conflict. Correct?

It is a conflict, but one that the BRB specifically addresses so the BRB has the more specific rule in the case of Smash Vs. a weapons AP.

Smash does not only address weapons - it addresses, and I quote, "all attacks". You're inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules.

Only if you ignore the context in which the Smash rule was written.

Smash only addresses weapon because the CC rules are written assuming a model is using a weapon to attack with. Smash does not cover attacks that are not made from weapons like the CF's attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash only addresses weapon because the CC rules are written assuming a model is using a weapon to attack with. Smash does not cover attacks that are not made from weapons like the CF's attacks.

Thats not right.
Smash effects "All close combat attacks", mentions nothing about weapons.
The CF is described as a Close Combat Attack.

Grendel as already stated specific over rules general first. The smash rule specifies it over rules the AP of weapons. It does not specify it over rules the AP of CF so it does not. Thus we have to resolve the conflict in the order presented in the rulebook. So:

1) yes both the BM as CF have an AP.
2) yes both are CC attacks made by the model
3) yes smash makes all cc attacks AP2
4) yes there is a conflict and as neither rule is more specific codex trumps rulebook.
5) no the BM is ap2 as smash is more specific as has been explained to you repeatedly.
6) yes I have addressed that repeatedly.
7) I'm not ignoring the BMs Ap4. This is a conflict with smash. That Smash specifies it wins.

Again no new points. Just a bunch of stuff already covered with the part that debunks your argument completely ignored yet again... Is this you conceding?

 FlingitNow wrote:
The smash rule specifies it over rules the AP of weapons.

Ah I think I see the mistake.
Smash does not overrule the Ap of weapons.
If you look at the rule, it overrides "All close combat attacks".
If it was only weapons, you might have a point. But it doesn't.

Please double check the rules for Smash, then review your previous answers.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because the Black Mace is a weapon, that is why the codex does not trump the BRB because smash deals specifically with attacking with weapons.

But it's a conflict, according to you, and codex trumps BRB in all cases where there's a conflict. Correct?

It is a conflict, but one that the BRB specifically addresses so the BRB has the more specific rule in the case of Smash Vs. a weapons AP.

Smash does not only address weapons - it addresses, and I quote, "all attacks". You're inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules.

Only if you ignore the context in which the Smash rule was written.

Smash only addresses weapon because the CC rules are written assuming a model is using a weapon to attack with. Smash does not cover attacks that are not made from weapons like the CF's attacks.

Until you actually read the rule in question I'm done with discussing this with you. Your argument has no basis in rules - CF is not some magical non-weapon CC attack.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The smash rule specifies it over rules the AP of weapons.

Ah I think I see the mistake.
Smash does not overrule the Ap of weapons.
If you look at the rule, it overrides "All close combat attacks".
If it was only weapons, you might have a point. But it doesn't.

Please double check the rules for Smash, then review your previous answers.

Again I haven't said this. I've stated it effects all attacks and it specifies this over rules the AP of weapons unless they are AP1...

So it creates a conflict with any attack that has a defined AP, it specifies that it over rules the attacks made by weapons, thus always wins that type of conflict. With other conflicts you have to find another way to resolve them.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The smash rule specifies it over rules the AP of weapons.

Ah I think I see the mistake.
Smash does not overrule the Ap of weapons.
If you look at the rule, it overrides "All close combat attacks".
If it was only weapons, you might have a point. But it doesn't.

Please double check the rules for Smash, then review your previous answers.

Again I haven't said this. I've stated it effects all attacks and it specifies this over rules the AP of weapons unless they are AP1...

So it creates a conflict with any attack that has a defined AP, it specifies that it over rules the attacks made by weapons, thus always wins that type of conflict. With other conflicts you have to find another way to resolve them.

So you agree that Smash effects "All close combat attacks"?
And that the CF is a close combat attack?

So can you show why the Mace is more specific than the CF? And why the Mace should gain the benefit while the CF does not?

The mace is not more specific smash is more specific than the mace as covered in the smash rule (it specifically mentions weapons, if CF was a weapon smash would over rule it). This again has already been covered. Indeed this is covered in the very post you quoted.

So I assume this is your way of conceding whilst trying to save face. Well thanks for conceding.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The mace is not more specific smash is more specific than the mace as covered in the smash rule (it specifically mentions weapons, if CF was a weapon smash would over rule it). This again has already been covered. Indeed this is covered in the very post you quoted.

So I assume this is your way of conceding whilst trying to save face. Well thanks for conceding.

Again, Smash does not specify Weapons. Please read the actual rule.
It specifies all close combat attacks.
The CF is a close combat attack.

And as to your ridiculous statement about conceding, I'll assume you've conceded until you actually read the rules you're debating.

BRB wrote: All close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2 (unless attacking with an AP1 weapon).

Emphasis mine.

It specifies here how it interacts with weapons. It clearly applies to all attacks (whether made with weapons or not) and we know from this in the case where weapons are not AP1 Smash wins any conflict. When not using weapons smash is silent in how to resolve conflict.

CF also states "the model (daemon prince in this case) makes 2 additional attacks at str4 ap-". Smash encompasses all cc attacks. Since the DP is making the attacks, I'm really struggling to see the ap- side of the discussion.

 FlingitNow wrote:

BRB wrote: All close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2 (unless attacking with an AP1 weapon).

Emphasis mine.

It specifies here how it interacts with weapons. It clearly applies to all attacks (whether made with weapons or not) and we know from this in the case where weapons are not AP1 Smash wins any conflict. When not using weapons smash is silent in how to resolve conflict.

If we were talking about an Ap1 attack that wasn't a weapon, then congratulations you found a flaw in the rule.
But the CF is neither AP 1 nor a weapon. So the relevant part of the rule is:

BRB wrote: All close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2

It is a Close Combat Attack. So following the rule above, the attack is resolved at Ap2.

Attack is Ap4, resolved at Ap2. No conflict there. Rules followed.

I know you think that is a conflict, and because the CF comes from a Codex it should be Ap-
The Mace is Ap4, resolved at Ap2, conflict, codex wins, attack is Ap4.
Both are close combat attacks, neither are more specific than the other, and the Smash rule applies to "All close combat attacks", not just weapons.

A model with a combat familiar makes two additional Strength 4 AP- Melee Attacks
All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2 (unless it's attacking with an AP1 weapon).

Seems pretty straightforward to me. The rules for the Combat Familiar state that the model with that Chaos Reward is making two additional attacks. If that model has Smash, all of its attacks are AP2.

I think part of the confusion is that the remainder of the Combat Familiar rules talk about the Combat Familiar as if it were a separate entity. Someone got some fluff in their rules when stating the Combat Familiar doesn't need a separate model representing it.

I think the big question is:

"Does Smash only apply to close combat attacks made with weapons?"

 grendel083 wrote:
I think the big question is:

"Does Smash only apply to close combat attacks made with weapons?"

And the answer to that is "no".
Which is why the attacks are AP2.
This seems pretty simple to me, having followed this thread for 5 pages.

Basic Vs advanced Page 7 of the BRB.

Smash Vs Combat Familiar. Both are advanced rules(neither apply to all models, only those models with the specific rules).

There iv\s a Conflict between the Rules(Smash says all attacks are AP2, Combat familiar says the 2 addtitional attacks are AP-); therefore per BRB; you use the codex specific rule( AP-).

The Combat Familiar attacks would not benefit from the black mace, or any other Melee weapon stats/abilities, because it is a basic rule that states all attacks are made with the specified CCW, and the Combat familiar is absolutely an advanced rule telling you exactly what Melee statistics to use.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
CF also states "the model (daemon prince in this case) makes 2 additional attacks at str4 ap-". Smash encompasses all cc attacks. Since the DP is making the attacks, I'm really struggling to see the ap- side of the discussion.

Codex Overrides BRB, page 7.

Is it clear now?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
There iv\s a Conflict between the Rules(Smash says all attacks are AP2, Combat familiar says the 2 addtitional attacks are AP-); therefore per BRB; you use the codex specific rule( AP-).

Then the Mace must also attack at Ap4, instead oif the Ap2 of Smash.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
CF also states "the model (daemon prince in this case) makes 2 additional attacks at str4 ap-". Smash encompasses all cc attacks. Since the DP is making the attacks, I'm really struggling to see the ap- side of the discussion.

Codex Overrides BRB, page 7.

Is it clear now?

Only if there is a conflict. There is no conflict.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
CF also states "the model (daemon prince in this case) makes 2 additional attacks at str4 ap-". Smash encompasses all cc attacks. Since the DP is making the attacks, I'm really struggling to see the ap- side of the discussion.

Codex Overrides BRB, page 7.

Is it clear now?

Then a DP with black mace must strike at ap4 for the same reason?

No, as the mace is a weapon and the Context of Smash tells us that Smash overrides weapon's AP, unless the weapon is AP1.

CF is not a weapon, and the Codex trumps the BRB as there is nothing in smash that overrides something that is not a weapon.

No, smash says "all attacks" the only reference to weapons is a reminder that if a weapon is ap1, to use that instead.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, as the mace is a weapon and the Context of Smash tells us that Smash overrides weapon's AP, unless the weapon is AP1.

CF is not a weapon, and the Codex trumps the BRB as there is nothing in smash that overrides something that is not a weapon.

So we're ignoring the "All close combat attacks" part of smash?
The context is "all close combat attacks", not just weapons.
Unless you can prove that Smash does not apply to non-weapon close combat attacks.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
No, smash says "all attacks" the only reference to weapons is a reminder that if a weapon is ap1, to use that instead.

Do not ignore the context on which the CC rules were written. They assume all models attack with a weapon.

This is not the case with the CF as the CF is not a weapon. It is a special rule allowing additional attacks. But this leaves many questions.

Does the model get to use a weapon to make the extra attacks? among others. It really is not covered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, as the mace is a weapon and the Context of Smash tells us that Smash overrides weapon's AP, unless the weapon is AP1.

CF is not a weapon, and the Codex trumps the BRB as there is nothing in smash that overrides something that is not a weapon.

So we're ignoring the "All close combat attacks" part of smash?
The context is "all close combat attacks", not just weapons.
Unless you can prove that Smash does not apply to non-weapon close combat attacks.

Only Ignoring it because the rules on page 7, that state Codex Trumps BRB, tell us to ignore it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, as the mace is a weapon and the Context of Smash tells us that Smash overrides weapon's AP, unless the weapon is AP1.

CF is not a weapon, and the Codex trumps the BRB as there is nothing in smash that overrides something that is not a weapon.

So we're ignoring the "All close combat attacks" part of smash?
The context is "all close combat attacks", not just weapons.
Unless you can prove that Smash does not apply to non-weapon close combat attacks.

Only Ignoring it because the rules on page 7, that state Codex Trumps BRB, tell us to ignore it.

The rules on resolving conflicts does not tell us to ignore anything.
IF there is a conflict in the rules (which I disagree) then the AP would be -, but also the AP of the mace must be 4.
They only way you can have it both ways (Ap- for CF, AP2 for Mace) is if the Smash rule applies to weapons only.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
No, smash says "all attacks" the only reference to weapons is a reminder that if a weapon is ap1, to use that instead.

Do not ignore the context on which the CC rules were written. They assume all models attack with a weapon.

This is not the case with the CF as the CF is not a weapon. It is a special rule allowing additional attacks. But this leaves many questions.

Does the model get to use a weapon to make the extra attacks? among others. It really is not covered.

CF is not a weapon but the model is making the attacks, not the CF. And smash says "all close combat attacks made by the model".

OK just so I understand:
1. All close combat attacks are resolved at AP2 (Smash)
2. CF gives the model 2 attacks made at S4, AP-.
3. All attacks are made with a weapon.
4. Smash specifically states that HoW (which is a cc attack) is not affected by Smash.
5. You can only gain the benefit of 1 weapon at a time.
6. Am I missing anything?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
No, smash says "all attacks" the only reference to weapons is a reminder that if a weapon is ap1, to use that instead.

Do not ignore the context on which the CC rules were written. They assume all models attack with a weapon.

Nobody is making assumptions here except you. You are basically saying that it doesn't affect the familiar because of some imagined restriction that is found nowhere in the rules. You cannot say the rules "assume" things without evidence, otherwise you are arguing intent.

 Happyjew wrote:
OK just so I understand:
1. All close combat attacks are resolved at AP2 (Smash)
2. CF gives the model 2 attacks made at S4, AP-.
3. All attacks are made with a weapon.
4. Smash specifically states that HoW (which is a cc attack) is not affected by Smash.
5. You can only gain the benefit of 1 weapon at a time.
6. Am I missing anything?

Not 100% sure on 3, but yes.

 Happyjew wrote:
OK just so I understand:
1. All close combat attacks are resolved at AP2 (Smash)
2. CF gives the model 2 attacks made at S4, AP-.
3. All attacks are made with a weapon.
4. Smash specifically states that HoW (which is a cc attack) is not affected by Smash.
5. You can only gain the benefit of 1 weapon at a time.
6. Am I missing anything?

3, 4 and 5 (and 6) are all completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Also "resolved at ap2" does not create a conflict in the same way resolving a snap shot at bs1 does not create a conflict on a bs5 model.

I brought up 3 because it seems to have popped up recently. I'm trying to understand the AP- side.

 Happyjew wrote:
I brought up 3 because it seems to have popped up recently. I'm trying to understand the AP- side.

Fair enough. It looked like you were trying the age old trick of getting someone to agree to a premise and then using it to insinuate that they have agreed to a false conclusion drawn from those premises. Apologies for my bluntness on that

 grendel083 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, as the mace is a weapon and the Context of Smash tells us that Smash overrides weapon's AP, unless the weapon is AP1.

CF is not a weapon, and the Codex trumps the BRB as there is nothing in smash that overrides something that is not a weapon.

So we're ignoring the "All close combat attacks" part of smash?
The context is "all close combat attacks", not just weapons.
Unless you can prove that Smash does not apply to non-weapon close combat attacks.

Only Ignoring it because the rules on page 7, that state Codex Trumps BRB, tell us to ignore it.

The rules on resolving conflicts does not tell us to ignore anything.
IF there is a conflict in the rules (which I disagree) then the AP would be -, but also the AP of the mace must be 4.
They only way you can have it both ways (Ap- for CF, AP2 for Mace) is if the Smash rule applies to weapons only.

By virtue of Page 7, telling us that Codex Trumps rulebook tells us we have to ignore the BRB. If something says Str4 in the codex and something else says use the models Str, like the BRB, we have to ignore the users str because of P.7

So yes the rules do tell us what to ignore.

There is a conflict here because the CF is not a weapon. The mace is a weapon and, in context, Smash lets you override the codex AP4 from the mace because it is a weapon and Smash addresses weapons.

 DeathReaper wrote:
By virtue of Page 7, telling us that Codex Trumps rulebook tells us we have to ignore the BRB. If something says Str4 in the codex and something else says use the models Str, like the BRB, we have to ignore the users str because of P.7

So yes the rules do tell us what to ignore.

There is a conflict here because the CF is not a weapon. The mace is a weapon and, in context, Smash lets you override the codex AP4 from the mace because it is a weapon and Smash addresses weapons.

The context of Smash is not weapons, but all close combat attacks.
If you can prove that Smash applies only to weapons, then you have a very valid argument.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash addresses weapons.

Citation needed. This is simply not true RAW.

The mace, or any weapons are basic rules, the more advanced rule is the rule that all attacks whith weapons less than ap 1 are ap-.

You have a basic vs Advanced situation here, just because the Basic rule comes from a codex does not matter in the slightest.

Rules go: Basic(The rules that explain Movement, Shooting, and Melee), < Advanced(the rules that modify Movement, shooting, and Melee), < Codex(Rules that modify Movement, Shooting, or Melee that conflict with the advanced rules).

Basic rules state that Melee attacks use a weapon, and that you use that weapon's profile. Advanced rules state that all attacks by Smash are AP2 instead of their normal AP, unless they are already AP1. Just because the Codex weapon specifies a different AP does not change the Advanced rule, it is still following the basic rule. The advanced rule then modifies it(to AP2).

This is not a hard concept to follow: Is the rule in question Modifying a basic rule? if so then it is advanced.

The basic rules for melee attacks is that they follow the stats for the weapon used.

A Combat familiar is an entirely different set of attacks not covered by the Basic rules(it is not affected by effects that reduce attacks and it has its own profile); the combat familiar is its own advanced rule and is thus not effected by any of the basic rules, it does not use the profile of any weapons carried by the model.

However the AP of those attacks, made by a model, may be further changed via certain advanced rules.

The rule that all attacks made by a model are AP2 is more advanced that a rule that gives a weapon profile(S4 AP-) as weapon profiles are basic rules.

Kel - that's a very well thought out position, nicely put.
However all all relies on the theory that that the rules in question are in conflict.

Now Smash doesn't change the AP of a weapon or attack. At the end of the day the Mace is still AP4. But the rule deos tell you to resolve it at a different AP, in this case AP2.

Similar rules are Snap Shot and Unwieldly. The BS of a model is never changed, but the shot is resolved at BS1. Similar, the models inititative is never changed, but they swing at step 1.

You have an actual value, and a value that it is resolved at. This is not a conflict, but simply following a rule.

If these were conflicts then there are many times a codex would change the BS of Snap Shot.

Please show why following a rule is a conflict. I'm really not seeing any conflict in the Smash rules.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash addresses weapons.

Citation needed. This is simply not true RAW.

I have cited it, it is in this post:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/533892.page#5748675

So without going thru all the arguing has a conclusion been reached.

 grendel083 wrote:
Kel - that's a very well thought out position, nicely put.
However all all relies on the theory that that the rules in question are in conflict.

Now Smash doesn't change the AP of a weapon or attack. At the end of the day the Mace is still AP4. But the rule deos tell you to resolve it at a different AP, in this case AP2.

Similar rules are Snap Shot and Unwieldly. The BS of a model is never changed, but the shot is resolved at BS1. Similar, the models inititative is never changed, but they swing at step 1.

You have an actual value, and a value that it is resolved at. This is not a conflict, but simply following a rule.

If these were conflicts then there are many times a codex would change the BS of Snap Shot.

Please show why following a rule is a conflict. I'm really not seeing any conflict in the Smash rules.

Pretty much this. I don't see a conflict just a smooth transition. Otherwise the Black Mace would be a conflict as well.

yellowfever wrote:
So without going thru through all the arguing has a conclusion been reached?

Nope, come back next week.

 grendel083 wrote:
Kel - that's a very well thought out position, nicely put.
However all all relies on the theory that that the rules in question are in conflict.

Now Smash doesn't change the AP of a weapon or attack. At the end of the day the Mace is still AP4. But the rule deos tell you to resolve it at a different AP, in this case AP2.

Similar rules are Snap Shot and Unwieldly. The BS of a model is never changed, but the shot is resolved at BS1. Similar, the models inititative is never changed, but they swing at step 1.

You have an actual value, and a value that it is resolved at. This is not a conflict, but simply following a rule.

If these were conflicts then there are many times a codex would change the BS of Snap Shot.

Please show why following a rule is a conflict. I'm really not seeing any conflict in the Smash rules.

Smash, First sentence: All of the Close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2(unless it is attacking with an AP1 weapon).

It is the very first sentence that tells you it is modifying the attacks to be at a different AP(unless the AP of the attack is already better).

You are making your attacks.

Basic rules has the Black mace pipe up and say "OOh, I a the weapon you are making your attack with, therefore as a weapon you use my AP!"

Then the advanced rules for smash step in and say: "Sorry, but I am a More advanced rule regarding AP while maki8ng attacks, you are now AP2."

CF steps in and says: I am an advanced, codex-specific rule and I say you get to make 2 more melee attacks with my weapon profile."


The Mace is a weapon and thus a basic rule.
Smash is a special rule, thus an advanced rule and supersedes the basic weapon rule.
CF is a codex specific rule and thus negates the use of any weapons for it's bonus 2 attacks in favor of its own profile, which then has the AP modified to 2 by Smash as the basic rule of a weapon profile is superseded by the advanced rule of smash.

It is an inception thing, a rule within a rule that gets superseded by an outside rule.

We have many of these in 40k.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Smash, First sentence: All of the Close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2(unless it is attacking with an AP1 weapon).

It is the very first sentence that tells you it is modifying the attacks to be at a different AP(unless the AP of the attack is already better).

Not quite, it's saying the attacks are resolved at AP2, it's not modifying the AP of the weapon. AP of the mace remains at AP4, but any close combat attacks with it are resolves at AP2.
It's a subtle but important difference.

Similar to Snap Shots, the shots are Bs1, but the models ballistic skill is never modified.

It is exactly stating that it is modifying attacks.

But that still does not change the CF attacks.

The weapopn is not modified, how the attacks are resolved is.
The AP of the attack doesn't come into play (unless it's AP1).

Is it a close combat attack? Yes, then it's resolved at AP2
No rules conflict is created, as Smash tells us what AP the attack is resolved at.

And even if the AP of the weapon/attack was directly modified, then again there is no conflict as there is no longer two AP values, only one modified value.

Just for the sake of clarity, the blurb on page 7 informs us that basic rules are pages 10-31. Weapon profiles are not introduced until page 50 and are thus advanced rules - page 7 even uses a boltgun as an example of a "special kind of weapon".

tgjensen wrote:
Just for the sake of clarity, the blurb on page 7 informs us that basic rules are pages 10-31. Weapon profiles are not introduced until page 50 and are thus advanced rules - page 7 even uses a boltgun as an example of a "special kind of weapon".

You're quite right, thanks for pointing that out.
So all weapon profiles are in fact Advanced Rules.

It says basic trumps advanced, but the CF is not a basic rule either.

Neither Smash, Black Mace or Combat Familiar are basic rules.

Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

 McNinja wrote:
Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

When dealing with multiple modifiers, yes.
But we're not dealing with multiple modifiers.
And if we were, they would all be set modifiers.

 grendel083 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

When dealing with multiple modifiers, yes.
But we're not dealing with multiple modifiers.
And if we were, they would all be set modifiers.

Oh? And so what is Smash? It sets the AP value of the MC CC attacks to 2. The CF sets both the S and AP of the two extra attacks at S4 AP-. The specificity of the CF overrides the specificity of the Smash rule.

Reading page 7 again helps.

 McNinja wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

When dealing with multiple modifiers, yes.
But we're not dealing with multiple modifiers.
And if we were, they would all be set modifiers.

Oh? And so what is Smash? It sets the AP value of the MC CC attacks to 2. The CF sets both the S and AP of the two extra attacks at S4 AP-. The specificity of the CF overrides the specificity of the Smash rule.

Reading page 7 again helps.

Except Smash doesn't set the AP to 2, it simply resolves the attack as AP2. Just like Unwieldy weapons are resolved at Init 1, or Snap Shots are resolved at BS1.

 McNinja wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

When dealing with multiple modifiers, yes.
But we're not dealing with multiple modifiers.
And if we were, they would all be set modifiers.

Oh? And so what is Smash? It sets the AP value of the MC CC attacks to 2. The CF sets both the S and AP of the two extra attacks at S4 AP-. The specificity of the CF overrides the specificity of the Smash rule.

Reading page 7 again helps.

As I said, if you want to think of them that way, they're all set modifiers. Therefore redundant, as the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of multiple set modifiers.

Now what makes you think the CF is more specific than Smash? If you're going to say "because it's from a codex" then please don't, and look back at the other times this has been mentioned.
Because in that case the Black mace is also more specific than Smash, so must attack with its "set modifier" AP of 4.

 Happyjew wrote:
Except Smash doesn't set the AP to 2, it simply resolves the attack as AP2. Just like Unwieldy weapons are resolved at Init 1, or Snap Shots are resolved at BS1.

Also this.

 grendel083 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

When dealing with multiple modifiers, yes.
But we're not dealing with multiple modifiers.
And if we were, they would all be set modifiers.

Oh? And so what is Smash? It sets the AP value of the MC CC attacks to 2. The CF sets both the S and AP of the two extra attacks at S4 AP-. The specificity of the CF overrides the specificity of the Smash rule.

Reading page 7 again helps.

As I said, if you want to think of them that way, they're all set modifiers. Therefore redundant, as the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of multiple set modifiers.

Now what makes you think the CF is more specific than Smash? If you're going to say "because it's from a codex" then please don't, and look back at the other times this has been mentioned.
Because in that case the Black mace is also more specific than Smash, so must attack with its "set modifier" AP of 4.

 Happyjew wrote:
Except Smash doesn't set the AP to 2, it simply resolves the attack as AP2. Just like Unwieldy weapons are resolved at Init 1, or Snap Shots are resolved at BS1.

Also this.

They're still set modifiers. They modify that value to a set value. In the case of Unwieldy, they set the I to 1 regardless of anything, and Snap Shots are fired at the set value of BS1 until something like a piece of wargear in a codex overrides that set modifier by being more specific. Like how the CF entry specifies the S and AP of those two extra attacks.

yellowfever wrote:So without going thru all the arguing has a conclusion been reached.

Yes, two have, with one group concluding that combat familiar attacks are affected by Smash as per RAW, the other group concluding that combat familiar attacks aren't affected by Smash, and both groups repeatedly making the same arguments and thoroughly failing to convince the other side.

McNinja wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Except Smash doesn't set the AP to 2, it simply resolves the attack as AP2. Just like Unwieldy weapons are resolved at Init 1, or Snap Shots are resolved at BS1.

They're still set modifiers. They modify that value to a set value. In the case of Unwieldy, they set the I to 1 regardless of anything, and Snap Shots are fired at the set value of BS1 until something like a piece of wargear in a codex overrides that set modifier by being more specific. Like how the CF entry specifies the S and AP of those two extra attacks.

Not at all, otherwise models wielding Unwieldy weapons would be initiative 1 for characteristic tests (Jaws of the World Wolf, for instance) which is not the case.

McNInja - CF is not a set modifier, it is the initial profile

You are claiming something that is impossible - you cannot "set modify" your initial profile, otherwise everything is applied last - the profile of a normal CCW, for example, could never be altered under your contention.

Smash simply resolves your attack at AP2. ALL close combat attacks made by the model.

CF is a pair of Close Combat attacks made by the Daemon Prince, and therefore would be resolved at AP2. DRs contention that "all close combat attacks..." some how means "all close combat attacks made by weapons" has no basis in rules, contextual or otherwise. THat is simply made up.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash addresses weapons.

Citation needed. This is simply not true RAW.

I have cited it, it is in this post:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/533892.page#5748675

No, you claimed that because it specified AP1 weapons as an exception, it must only mean weapons. Then you started talking about context, which you have no backing for.

I can't believe this actually reached 6 pages...

I agree with nosferatu1001 on this one.

The CF gives extra attacks. They are CC. They are inflicted by an MC. MS's have Smash. Smash makes all their CC attacks AP2 (unless it's HoW or Ap1).

So the CF attacks are AP2.

The CF gives extra attacks. They are CC. They are inflicted by an MC. MS's have Smash. Smash makes all their CC attacks AP2 (unless it's HoW or Ap1).

So the CF attacks are AP2.

The good old circular logic argument. Look I can make the exact same argument mean the reverse:


The Smash makes attacks AP2. The CF gives extra attacks these are AP-. They are inflicted by an MC. These attacks are from the CF.

So the CF attacks are AP-.

One rule makes the attacks AP2 the other makes them AP-. The CF rule is not a weapon profile as some are trying to claim. It is a rule on how to resolve those 2 specific attacks, Smash still also covers these attacks hence you have a conflict.

Regarding the "codex rule trumping the rulebook rule", I think you are looking at it wrong. It's the codex Daemon Prince entry that specifies it has the Monstrous Creature rule. While that rule references the main rulebook, it is effectively granted to the model from the codex entry. Which means that Smash is also effectively derived from the codex entry, and should for all intents and purposes be treated as though it was a codex rule.

How do you know the DP is a monstrous creature with the Smash special rule? It says so in the codex.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The CF gives extra attacks. They are CC. They are inflicted by an MC. MS's have Smash. Smash makes all their CC attacks AP2 (unless it's HoW or Ap1).

So the CF attacks are AP2.

The good old circular logic argument.

I don't think that means what you think it means. A circular logic argument is one where the conclusion is used as a premise for said argument. For instance:
1. Everything written in 'Holy Bible' is true.
2. It is written in 'Holy Bible' that everything written in it is true.
C. Everything written in 'Holy Bible' is true.

Baktru's argument is a standard deductive argument, which, unlike yours, does not have obvious flaws in its reasoning.

Circular argument because his argument assumes that Smash over rules the AP of CF and that therefore the AP is 2. Which is the entire point he assumes the end result then deduces it from that assumption.

How is that not a circular argument.

Do we agree that smash says that AP of all CC attacks is 2?
Do we agree that CF says that its attacks are AP-?

If we agree these two premises we can move forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also in his argument he neglects to mention the relevant part of CF so a more accurate representation of his argument would be:

The Smash allows you to have your attacks to double their strength. The CF gives extra attacks these are AP-. They are inflicted by an MC. These attacks are from the CF.

So the CF attacks are AP-.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Circular argument because his argument assumes that Smash over rules the AP of CF and that therefore the AP is 2. Which is the entire point he assumes the end result then deduces it from that assumption.

How is that not a circular argument.

Seems like more of an assumed premise that the profile given by Combat Familiar doesn't interfere with the Smash rule's ability to resolve attacks at AP 2.

Do we agree that smash says that AP of all CC attacks is 2?
Do we agree that CF says that its attacks are AP-?

If we agree these two premises we can move forward.

I agree that Smash state to resolve attacks at AP 2 and Combat Familiar states that it grants attacks and lists a profile for them. I do not agree, as you have phrased the premises, that this causes a conflict, or that Smash interacts with said profile any different than it would with any weapon profile listed as Strength 4 AP -.

And the Black Mace says it's attacks are AP4
What is allowing this double standard where the Mace benefits, but the CF does not? You still haven't answered that yet.

Both are close combat attacks.
Both are made by the model.
Both have a listed AP value

The only difference? One is a weapon, but that makes no difference as Smash effects "all close combat attacks", not just those by weapons.

There is a weapon profile for the CFs close combat attacks? Which page is that listed on I can't see it even in the reference page. So please say where this profile is. Given that you don't agree that CF states its attacks are AP- despite this clearly being written in the rule then we have no common basis to even start from. You continue interpreting the rules based on profiles that don't exist and refuse to accept what is clearly written in CF. At this point we'll have to agree to disagree. If you do decideto read the CF rules come back and we can discuss it further.

Heck even grendel has now conceded his side of the argument.

No, because you have missed a key word - "resolved"

Smash resolves attacks at AP2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
There is a weapon profile for the CFs close combat attacks? Which page is that listed on I can't see it even in the reference page. So please say where this profile is. Given that you don't agree that CF states its attacks are AP- despite this clearly being written in the rule then we have no common basis to even start from. You continue interpreting the rules based on profiles that don't exist and refuse to accept what is clearly written in CF. At this point we'll have to agree to disagree. If you do decideto read the CF rules come back and we can discuss it further.

Heck even grendel has now conceded his side of the argument.

Try reading more carefully. Prince Raven stated there was a profile for CF - which there is

You then made up a statement saying they had stated there was a weapon profile. THis is not true.

So I suggest you reword your post so it doesnt accuse someone of doing something they didnt do.

Smash resolves all attacks at AP2. Agreed?
CF grants attacks at a specific AP - AP-. Agreed?
Conclusion: When you resolve these close combat attacks, you do so at AP2 as to do otherwise breaks the Smash rule. Ap2 does not conflict with the CF rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:
There is a weapon profile for the CFs close combat attacks? Which page is that listed on I can't see it even in the reference page.

There is no weapon profile, it's not a weapon. No one has claimed it is.

Given that you don't agree that CF states its attacks are AP- despite this clearly being written in the rule then we have no common basis to even start from. You continue interpreting the rules based on profiles that don't exist and refuse to accept what is clearly written in CF. At this point we'll have to agree to disagree. If you do decideto read the CF rules come back and we can discuss it further.

Actually I have always agreed the CF says it's attacks are AP-. Have you not read anything posted here? Look at my post above where I said it had an AP listed

"Both are close combat attacks.
Both are made by the model.
Both have a listed AP value "

Do you also notice the Black Mace has an AP4 in its profile?

Heck even grendel has now conceded his side of the argument.

Actually he's noticed you haven't even read his arguments, nor answered any questions. You do have a counter position I assume? Please share it. I'll ask again.

Black Mace and Combat Familiar:
Both are close combat attacks.
Both are made by the model.
Both have a listed AP value.

Why does the Mace gain the benefit of Smash but the CF does not, given that Smash effects "all close combat attacks" not just those of weapons.

Smash resolves all attacks at AP2. Agreed?
CF grants attacks at a specific AP - AP-. Agreed?
Conclusion: When you resolve these close combat attacks, you do so at AP2 as to do otherwise breaks the Smash rule. Ap2 does not conflict with the CF rule

So you're arguing resolves trumps makes attacks. Essentially saying there is no conflict because the attacks are still AP- but the resolution is at AP2? Is that correct?

As for Princes post he said profile. There is no mentioned profile if not a weapon what type of profile is he talking about a model profile? Because it does fit that either. Profile is a word with specific references in the rules. Profile is not an appropriate word to use in conjunction with the CF or you'll get to the point where Rigeld2 is claiming that CF is a weapon...

Grendel I accept that you concede you don't have to keep posting a question that has been repeatedly answered. You're just trolling now.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld2 is claiming that CF is a weapon...

Also, no he isn't.

Rigeld2 wrote:The CF rules are silent on if it's with a weapon or not.

I won't speak for others, but he hasn't claimed the CF is a weapon. And it's irrelevant if it is or not, as the rules for Smash cover, and I quote, "All close combat attacks", not just weapons.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Grendel I accept that you concede you don't have to keep posting a question that has been repeatedly answered. You're just trolling now.

Any more personal attacks I should report? This WAS a good-natured debate. And my question hasn't been answered.

I'll ask again.

Black Mace and Combat Familiar:
Both are close combat attacks.
Both are made by the model.
Both have a listed AP value.

Why does the Mace gain the benefit of Smash but the CF does not, given that Smash effects "all close combat attacks" not just those of weapons.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Grendel I accept that you concede you don't have to keep posting a question that has been repeatedly answered. You're just trolling now.

Can we avoid comments like this please.

Having just read all this I'm now pretty convinced they are AP2.

Fling - yes; in essence you end up with 2 AP values, but only care about one, the AP2.

CF has a "profile" - just not a specific profile i.e. weapon, model. It was clearly being used as a short hand term

To compound you then claimed Rigeld said it was a weapon - which is the exact opposite of what Rigeld said. Please try to read others posts more carefully, as it will make your argument more concrete when one side cannot simply point out all the errors you have made when trying to state their arguemnts.

The model makes two attacks, initially at AP-, that are resolved at AP2 due to Smash. Unless you try to claim Smash only talks about weapons (which is does not, it is explicit in that it covers ALL CC attacks made by the model) you have no possible argument against this - page 7 does not come into play

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash addresses weapons.

Citation needed. This is simply not true RAW.

I have cited it, it is in this post:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/533892.page#5748675

No, you claimed that because it specified AP1 weapons as an exception, it must only mean weapons. Then you started talking about context, which you have no backing for.

That is not what I said.

All of the CC rules, smash included were written on the basis that attacks are made with weapons. The following quotes prove that.

"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon." (51)
"I a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows" (51)

So a model either has a weapon, is treated as if he has a weapon or has more than one weapon. This is the basis in which the Close Combat, and consequently Smash, rules were written.

That is an assumption you are making, with no textual basis

"All close combat attacks" is pretty clear - all of them.

You have no argument against this

DeathReaper: So, because some of the rules specify weapons all of them do regardless of whether the actual rule states that it is limited to attacks made by weapons? I'm sorry but that's what logicians call an association fallacy and is flawed line of reasoning that is considered invalid as an argument. If you want to form a convincing argument I recommend applying logic and using valid/sound reasoning.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
DeathReaper: So, because some of the rules specify weapons all of them do regardless of whether the actual rule states that it is limited to attacks made by weapons? I'm sorry but that's what logicians call an association fallacy and is flawed line of reasoning that is considered invalid as an argument. If you want to form a convincing argument I recommend applying logic and using valid/sound reasoning.

If you ignore the context, then yes...

all models make CC attacks with a weapon.

this is the very basis in which the CC rules are written as the evidence shows that all models have CCW's. even if they do not have a CCW they are treated as having one, so all models have CCW's.

 DeathReaper wrote:
all models make CC attacks with a weapon.

And what is making the CC attacks - the Combat Familiar or the Demon Prince?

I disagree that Smash is limited "by context" but using your argument changes nothing - Smash still applies.

For one, Codex does not always trump the BRB. For two, even if the Codex was to trump the BRB you'd have to have an undeniable conflict with the rules. But you don't here. Nothing about the Combat Familiar rules conflict with the Smash rules. Point in fact they are fully compatible with one another.

Combat Familiar gives us two additional S4 AP - attacks. Smash makes all attacks AP 2 unless they are already AP 1. So Combat Familiar on a MC is two additional S4 AP2 attacks.

There is no conflict. There is no real dispute. That is the pure RAW of the situation.

Any argument otherwise seems (to me) to be drawn from the mistaken idea that a Combat Familiar is its own entity and not just another piece of wargear, similar to (but not actually) a weapon. While fluff wise that is true, rule wise (as in what is actually written down on page 67 or whatever of the Chaos Space Marine Codex) it is not.

 cowmonaut wrote:
For one, Codex does not always trump the BRB.

The BRB disagrees with this statement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - yes; in essence you end up with 2 AP values, but only care about one, the AP2.

CF has a "profile" - just not a specific profile i.e. weapon, model. It was clearly being used as a short hand term

To compound you then claimed Rigeld said it was a weapon - which is the exact opposite of what Rigeld said. Please try to read others posts more carefully, as it will make your argument more concrete when one side cannot simply point out all the errors you have made when trying to state their arguemnts.

The model makes two attacks, initially at AP-, that are resolved at AP2 due to Smash. Unless you try to claim Smash only talks about weapons (which is does not, it is explicit in that it covers ALL CC attacks made by the model) you have no possible argument against this - page 7 does not come into play

Well you're the second person to accuse me of saying Rigeld claimed it was a weapon. I didn't actually say that. I said we could get to a point where he would be. Because that was the direction he was heading at one point (he was claiming that CF attacks were made with a weapon).

So back on topic. Resolves at trumps modifiers essentially due to timing it ignores a conflict? Is that correct? So if I had a modifier for the AP of the CF it would modify it but would then get trumped by resolved at?

So for instance using the snapshot analogy you brought up earlier. I can modify the Bus of shooting and snap shot comes in and resolves at Bs1. Thus say I use MLs the modify the be ofmy snap shots they are still resolved at bs1. Is that what you are ssaying?

That would be true, if MLs didnt say they can modify the BS of snapshots. Dont try to trap me into saying something you know is untrue.

You are claiming a direction, then claiming they stated a result. Which is it?

Sorry Nos I don't understand that last question could you please explain to me what you are asking.

I also don't understand your stance on the MLs they modify the be of snap shots. We agree and according to your interpretation here those snap shots are then at the bs of what ever they were modified to but resolved at bs1. Explain to me why you think this is different. You can't use specific vs generic because your argument claims that resolves at causes no conflict and just over writes everything due to timing.

No, that is your claim to my argument.

Markerlights specify they alter the BS of Snapshots.

Does the CF specify that it overrides Smash? Page and para if you think so

Otehrwise I am confused how you could think the two situations are remotely comparable. You have a specific override vs a standard "profile" with no specific overide.

Pretty much nothing can alter the BS of a snap shot. This is due to the way the rule is written, further backed up by the following FAQ:

Q: Can the BS1 of a Snap Shot ever be modified by special rules that modify the BS of a model’s Shooting attack (such as Space Marine Signums or Sergeant Telion’s Voice of Experience)? (p13)
A: No.

As with most rules, there's an exception. Marker Lights can alter, but only because the rule specifically says Snap Shots. If it didn't mention Snap Shots, then it wouldn't alter them.

In a similar regard, there is nothing in the CF that suggests it can overrule the Smash rule.

But specifying you over rule a rule is clearly only relevant in the case of a conflict. You're claiming there is no conflict as resolves allows the modification of a stat but when you resolve its use it is at the "resolve at" value, avoiding conflict so no way for MLs to change the Bus you resolve a snap shot at.

So which is it? Is resolves at a set value modifier that can be beaten by a more specific rule. Or is it a magically timed rule that prevents a conflict from occurring?

It avoids conflict.
The BS1 of a Snap Shot is not a modifier of the models BS.

Even if a model had their BS modified to 10 (using the GK Psyocculum for example), any Snap Shots are still resolved at BS1. It's not a modifier, the models BS doesn't even come into play.

It avoids conflict.
The BS1 of a Snap Shot is not a modifier of the models BS.

Even if a model had their BS modified to 10 (using the GK Psyocculum for example), any Snap Shots are still resolved at BS1. It's not a modifier, the models BS doesn't even come into play.

Cool so MLs can't effect the be of snap shots. That is a pretty weird way of playing that rule. I doubt many people would agreewith you here. For one the Tau codex...

 FlingitNow wrote:

It avoids conflict.
The BS1 of a Snap Shot is not a modifier of the models BS.

Even if a model had their BS modified to 10 (using the GK Psyocculum for example), any Snap Shots are still resolved at BS1. It's not a modifier, the models BS doesn't even come into play.

Cool so MLs can't effect the be of snap shots. That is a pretty weird way of playing that rule. I doubt many people would agreewith you here. For one the Tau codex...

They can, because their rule says they can.
If it didn't specifically mention Snap Shots, then no it couldn't.

 FlingitNow wrote:

It avoids conflict.
The BS1 of a Snap Shot is not a modifier of the models BS.

Even if a model had their BS modified to 10 (using the GK Psyocculum for example), any Snap Shots are still resolved at BS1. It's not a modifier, the models BS doesn't even come into play.

Cool so MLs can't effect the be of snap shots. That is a pretty weird way of playing that rule. I doubt many people would agreewith you here. For one the Tau codex...

Yet again you are claiming something that isnt true

BS of snap shots can be modified by ML because the codex specifies that, instead of always resolving at BS1 they are can be resolved at higher than BS1 by using ML tokens

DOes CF have similar wording? Or are you yet again making an argument with absolutely no basis, putting words in others mouths and in general failing to follow the tenets by providing any rules to back up your assertions?