Well, I'll tip my hat to puma....

he's convinced me that with a HG vs a single model casting CF it will be blocked. Not if he assaults a purifier squad, but if he assaults crowe (or if an IA guy ever comes out with it) then it will be blocked (as he is the only one casting it)

I guess my main thought this was always broodlord vs squad, not single model (be it crowe, new IA guy, or lone purifier)

@Puma:
Even if you considered the whole "strike at initiative" thing to be the definition of the beginning of combat, CF is a more specific rule that changes that definition. I don't think an argument needs to be made about the scope of close combat because CF redefines that scope.

Lets look at HG for a second "that model may not attack in the ensuing close combat."

"that model may not attack"

The BRB Defines what an attack is.

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

Therefore HG can not stop CF

Also, part of combat /= close combat.

The ensuing close combat is only the attacks made at Initiative values, but the combat as a whole has a beginning, a close combat part, and a combat resolution part.

Kitzz wrote:@Puma:
Even if you considered the whole "strike at initiative" thing to be the definition of the beginning of combat, CF is a more specific rule that changes that definition. I don't think an argument needs to be made about the scope of close combat because CF redefines that scope.

How so? Page 41 has the exact same wording as Cleansing Flame and Hypnotic Gaze, and it is referred to as the "beginning of combat".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Lets look at HG for a second "that model may not attack in the ensuing close combat."

"that model may not attack"

The BRB Defines what an attack is.

CF does not fall into this definition.

Therefore HG can not stop CF

CF is an attack. Until GW further clarifies their statement in the FAQ, it is an attack. GW could just have easily said:

Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or close combat attack?

A: Neither.

But they didn't. They were very clear about what it is. We must accept that.

DeathReaper wrote:Also, part of combat /= close combat.

The ensuing close combat is only the attacks made at Initiative values, but the combat as a whole has a beginning, a close combat part, and a combat resolution part.

So, this is actually where we finally disagree. The definition of a close combat. Where does the "beginning" of a combat start and end? Where does the close combat part start and end? Where are these breaks in the actual phase defined?

I believe that the "close combat" is everything detailed under Fighting a Close Combat. You do not. I think we've gone as far as we can go.

yeah, this isn't puma being "pushy" (or whatever the right word would be)

its another case of GW being dumb with their FAQ... it'll probably change to be specified, heck they even changed FAQ answers from no to yes!

for now, puma is 100% right (in the fairly rare situation a broodlord charges single caster of CF and beats him in roll off)

I used poor word choice. What I should have said was "CF has a more specific rule that changes that definition for itself, and lets it precede the initiative ladder."

In other words, cleansing flame is still a part of combat because it is an attack, but it specifically allows itself to happen before the initiative ladder.

If you read the parentheticals on page 41, they aren't defining the beginning of combat. They are merely articulating the time at which attacks are divided in a multiple combat more clearly. That is to say, right before blows are struck, the division of attacks is decided.

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

I have three times. A fourth? Here goes:

They are simultaneous in game terms.

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

I have also addressed it. RAW, the game breaks.

However, since HG vs. CF doesn't have the same implementation, we decided to stop talking about CF vs. CF and focus on the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:
If you read the parentheticals on page 41, they aren't defining the beginning of combat. They are merely articulating the time at which attacks are divided in a multiple combat more clearly. That is to say, right before blows are struck, the division of attacks is decided.

Sure, it is not a definition, but it is an example of the writers addressing the time before blows have been struck as the "beginning of combat".

There is a time, in "the beginning of combat," in which you are holding dice in your hand and about to determine your rolls to hit. Since there is an extra step (that being the allocation of said rolls to hit to different squads), combat is still beginning. It's just taking a bit more time because there are multiple combatants and the dice can't be rolled right away.

Kitzz wrote:There is a time, in "the beginning of combat," in which you are holding dice in your hand and about to determine your rolls to hit. Since there is an extra step (that being the allocation of said rolls to hit to different squads), combat is still beginning. It's just taking a bit more time because there are multiple combatants and the dice can't be rolled right away.

And wouldn't that be the time that you're declaring the powers that you're using? Not before that, during Defender's React. That is the point. The "beginning of combat" is still "close combat", no matter where it is in the process. If the first thing that you do when you finish the Defenders React step and move to the Fighting a Close Combat step is cast Hypnotic Gaze, then everything after that is, and must be, the "ensuing close combat." Or, more technically, "the immediately proceeding close combat".

I agree? Now I am so confuse.

CF goes off after "Defenders React", and before "Fighting a Close combat". Because "In Close combat, both players' models fight. Attacks in close combat work like shooting...How many blows are struck and who strikes first is detailed later"(P.34 BRB)

The 'Fighting a Close combat' section details how to make attacks in Initiative order, this is because of the wording "How many blows are struck and who strikes first is detailed later". They are clearly talking about making attacks in Initiative order in the "Fighting a Close combat" section. Therefore CF has to go before this "Step" because it is used before blows are struck.

GW is terrible at the breakdown side of things, and timing is never mentioned really at all in the brb.

Kitzz wrote:I have three times. A fourth? Here goes:

They are simultaneous in game terms.

How can you say this and still argue that HG goes before CF?
If two CF (which have exactly same timing as HG does) can be simultanous, why cannot the HG be simultaneous with CF?

Crux of the argument is this: When you declare you're using CF, it is considered attack at that point.
1: Use HG (must be done before any attacks, thus is done before CF 1) and resolve it.
2: Use CF 1 (an attack, must be done before any attacks).
3: Try to use CF 2 (must be done before any attacks). Cannot be used as CF 1 is an attack. Game breaks, because (for example) there is no way to know which CF is the one that can be used.

Because game breaking is bad thing, we need a way to fix it. Easy way to do it: "Declare X" and "Resolve X" are separate steps and that CF only becomes attack at the "Resolve CF" step. All actions that have same timing are first declared and then resolved simultaneously.
1a: Declare CF 1. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
1b: Declare CF 2. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

The "problem" with this approach is that it works just as well against HG
1a: Declare HG (must be done before attacks)
1b: Declare CF 1 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
1c: Declare CF 2 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.
"Declare" and "Resolve" mechanic does that, but I'm sure that there must be others that will work just as fine.

Basically, currently our options are either to
1) Have a game that breaks down, one way or another. IMO not acceptable, but completely valid RAW interpretation.
2) Make up some internally consistent way of how to resolve things that have exactly same timing, so that game doesn't break.
3) Discount the FAQ entry, as it breaks the game. Note that there probably are other, simultaneous timing events that will still break the game.

Anyway, I don't think neither side will manage to convince the other about this.
I'm too far in the "Any given ruling may not break the game when used in exactly same circumstances" camp to accept the current arguments behind "HG goes before CF".

Luide wrote:

Kitzz wrote:I have three times. A fourth? Here goes:

They are simultaneous in game terms.

How can you say this and still argue that HG goes before CF?
If two CF (which have exactly same timing as HG does) can be simultanous, why cannot the HG be simultaneous with CF?

Crux of the argument is this: When you declare you're using CF, it is considered attack at that point.
1: Use HG (must be done before any attacks, thus is done before CF 1) and resolve it.
2: Use CF 1 (an attack, must be done before any attacks).
3: Try to use CF 2 (must be done before any attacks). Cannot be used as CF 1 is an attack. Game breaks, because (for example) there is no way to know which CF is the one that can be used.

Because game breaking is bad thing, we need a way to fix it. Easy way to do it: "Declare X" and "Resolve X" are separate steps and that CF only becomes attack at the "Resolve CF" step. All actions that have same timing are first declared and then resolved simultaneously.
1a: Declare CF 1. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
1b: Declare CF 2. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

The "problem" with this approach is that it works just as well against HG
1a: Declare HG (must be done before attacks)
1b: Declare CF 1 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
1c: Declare CF 2 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.
"Declare" and "Resolve" mechanic does that, but I'm sure that there must be others that will work just as fine.

Basically, currently our options are either to
1) Have a game that breaks down, one way or another. IMO not acceptable, but completely valid RAW interpretation.
2) Make up some internally consistent way of how to resolve things that have exactly same timing, so that game doesn't break.
3) Discount the FAQ entry, as it breaks the game. Note that there probably are other, simultaneous timing events that will still break the game.

Anyway, I don't think neither side will manage to convince the other about this.
I'm too far in the "Any given ruling may not break the game when used in exactly same circumstances" camp to accept the current arguments behind "HG goes before CF".

You keep trying to ignore that the FAQ says that CF is an attack. There is no way around that. And I completely agree that they have the same timing, except that one is an attack and the other is not. That creates the all important difference which is why the CF vs CF has no bearing on this discussion.

Now judging by the trend in Tyranid FAQ's, give it a couple months and it will be FAQ'ed that Hypnotic Gaze does not stop Cleansing Flame.

If CF is an attack, it is not a psychic power. FAQs change rules all the time. Starting it is still a psychic power when e FAQ makes no mention of it is against the rules, if you're taking the FAQ as allowing no interpretation.
There's no permission post FAQ to treat it as a psychic power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dannyevilguy wrote:

Luide wrote:

Kitzz wrote:I have three times. A fourth? Here goes:

They are simultaneous in game terms.

How can you say this and still argue that HG goes before CF?
If two CF (which have exactly same timing as HG does) can be simultanous, why cannot the HG be simultaneous with CF?

Crux of the argument is this: When you declare you're using CF, it is considered attack at that point.
1: Use HG (must be done before any attacks, thus is done before CF 1) and resolve it.
2: Use CF 1 (an attack, must be done before any attacks).
3: Try to use CF 2 (must be done before any attacks). Cannot be used as CF 1 is an attack. Game breaks, because (for example) there is no way to know which CF is the one that can be used.

Because game breaking is bad thing, we need a way to fix it. Easy way to do it: "Declare X" and "Resolve X" are separate steps and that CF only becomes attack at the "Resolve CF" step. All actions that have same timing are first declared and then resolved simultaneously.
1a: Declare CF 1. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
1b: Declare CF 2. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

The "problem" with this approach is that it works just as well against HG
1a: Declare HG (must be done before attacks)
1b: Declare CF 1 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
1c: Declare CF 2 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.
"Declare" and "Resolve" mechanic does that, but I'm sure that there must be others that will work just as fine.

Basically, currently our options are either to
1) Have a game that breaks down, one way or another. IMO not acceptable, but completely valid RAW interpretation.
2) Make up some internally consistent way of how to resolve things that have exactly same timing, so that game doesn't break.
3) Discount the FAQ entry, as it breaks the game. Note that there probably are other, simultaneous timing events that will still break the game.

Anyway, I don't think neither side will manage to convince the other about this.
I'm too far in the "Any given ruling may not break the game when used in exactly same circumstances" camp to accept the current arguments behind "HG goes before CF".

You keep trying to ignore that the FAQ says that CF is an attack. There is no way around that. And I completely agree that they have the same timing, except that one is an attack and the other is not. That creates the all important difference which is why the CF vs CF has no bearing on this discussion.

Now judging by the trend in Tyranid FAQ's, give it a couple months and it will be FAQ'ed that Hypnotic Gaze does not stop Cleansing Flame.

Actually, Luide didn't ignore it at all, even cited it.
And .CF vs CF absolutely has bearing. Did you even read Luides post?

Dannyevilguy wrote:

Luide wrote:

Kitzz wrote:I have three times. A fourth? Here goes:

They are simultaneous in game terms.

How can you say this and still argue that HG goes before CF?
If two CF (which have exactly same timing as HG does) can be simultanous, why cannot the HG be simultaneous with CF?

Crux of the argument is this: When you declare you're using CF, it is considered attack at that point.
1: Use HG (must be done before any attacks, thus is done before CF 1) and resolve it.
2: Use CF 1 (an attack, must be done before any attacks).
3: Try to use CF 2 (must be done before any attacks). Cannot be used as CF 1 is an attack. Game breaks, because (for example) there is no way to know which CF is the one that can be used.

Because game breaking is bad thing, we need a way to fix it. Easy way to do it: "Declare X" and "Resolve X" are separate steps and that CF only becomes attack at the "Resolve CF" step. All actions that have same timing are first declared and then resolved simultaneously.
1a: Declare CF 1. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
1b: Declare CF 2. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous. Edit to quote: At this step, CF considered to be an attack, as said in the underlined "Resolve CF" step.

The "problem" with this approach is that it works just as well against HG
1a: Declare HG (must be done before attacks)
1b: Declare CF 1 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
1c: Declare CF 2 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous. Edit to quote: At this step, CF considered to be an attack,as said in the underlined "Resolve CF" step

Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.
"Declare" and "Resolve" mechanic does that, but I'm sure that there must be others that will work just as fine.

Basically, currently our options are either to
1) Have a game that breaks down, one way or another. IMO not acceptable, but completely valid RAW interpretation.
2) Make up some internally consistent way of how to resolve things that have exactly same timing, so that game doesn't break.
3) Discount the FAQ entry, as it breaks the game. Note that there probably are other, simultaneous timing events that will still break the game.

Anyway, I don't think neither side will manage to convince the other about this.
I'm too far in the "Any given ruling may not break the game when used in exactly same circumstances" camp to accept the current arguments behind "HG goes before CF".

You keep trying to ignore that the FAQ says that CF is an attack. There is no way around that. And I completely agree that they have the same timing, except that one is an attack and the other is not. That creates the all important difference which is why the CF vs CF has no bearing on this discussion.

I underlined few lines for you. Please read it again and tell me, where exactly am I ignoring the FAQ about CF being an attack.
Yes, I did give "Discount the FAQ" as an option to resolve this specific problem of game breaking because of FAQ entry, but I've taken it into account elsewhere.

The whole point of the post is that, if you consider only HG and CF in vacuum, the logic behind HG going first is completely valid.
But it cannot be the correct interpretation, because exactly same logic breaks the game in CF vs CF.

Luide wrote:
Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.

Sure. Unforuntely, the timing with HG vs. CF is not the same as the timing with CF vs. CF because HG is not an attack. The timing, then, must be different, and does not apply to CF vs. CF.

It's like me arguing that squad coherency is 2", and you keep bringing up that squadron coherency is 4", as if that has anything to do with the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luide wrote:
The whole point of the post is that, if you consider only HG and CF in vacuum, the logic behind HG going first is completely valid.
But it cannot be the correct interpretation, because exactly same logic breaks the game in CF vs CF.

So, just to clarify - the dicussion at hand (HG vs. CF) works when you use HG first. It doesn't break anything. But, if you apply the same argument to a completely different situation, the game breaks, so the situation that works perfectly well is dismissed because of the other example?

I suppose it is time to agree to disagree.

puma713 wrote:

Luide wrote:
Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.

Sure. Unforuntely, the timing with HG vs. CF is not the same as the timing with CF vs. CF because HG is not an attack. The timing, then, must be different, and does not apply to CF vs. CF.

But it is the same. Both must happen before attacks. CF vs CF, by your interpretation, is impossible.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Luide wrote:
Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.

Sure. Unforuntely, the timing with HG vs. CF is not the same as the timing with CF vs. CF because HG is not an attack. The timing, then, must be different, and does not apply to CF vs. CF.

But it is the same. Both must happen before attacks. CF vs CF, by your interpretation, is impossible.

Correct. But I'm not talking about CF vs. CF.

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Luide wrote:
Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.

Sure. Unforuntely, the timing with HG vs. CF is not the same as the timing with CF vs. CF because HG is not an attack. The timing, then, must be different, and does not apply to CF vs. CF.

But it is the same. Both must happen before attacks. CF vs CF, by your interpretation, is impossible.

Correct. But I'm not talking about CF vs. CF.

But your argument has to be consistent within the rules. An interpretation that breaks the game cannot be used. It's like Marneus in CC.
Interpretations that are silly cannot be correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Correct. But I'm not talking about CF vs. CF.

But your argument has to be consistent within the rules. An interpretation that breaks the game cannot be used. It's like Marneus in CC.
Interpretations that are silly cannot be correct.

Okay? HG vs. CF doesn't break the game. And that is what we're discussing in this thread. You keep redirecting the argument to an unrelated point. If you want to discuss CF vs. CF and the implications thereof, we can start a new thread.

This thread is about HG vs. CF, not CF vs. CF.

Nearly everyone in the thread has accepted that if HG goes first, everything is gravy. Even Luide. The argument then, is stuck on an example that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

What about my earlier post that shows that CF goes off after "Defenders React", and before "Fighting a Close combat".

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Correct. But I'm not talking about CF vs. CF.

But your argument has to be consistent within the rules. An interpretation that breaks the game cannot be used. It's like Marneus in CC.
Interpretations that are silly cannot be correct.

Okay? HG vs. CF doesn't break the game. And that is what we're discussing in this thread. You keep redirecting the argument to an unrelated point. If you want to discuss CF vs. CF and the implications thereof, we can start a new thread.

This thread is about HG vs. CF, not CF vs. CF.

Nearly everyone in the thread has accepted that if HG goes first, everything is gravy. Even Luide. The argument then, is stuck on an example that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

It has a lot to do with this thread. Your interpretation of the FAQ does far more than you're implying. And you must look at every facet of an interpretation to determine if it's the correct one.

CF vs CF is absolutely relevant. You trying to shove it under the rug is disingenuous.

DeathReaper wrote:What about my earlier post that shows that CF goes off after "Defenders React", and before "Fighting a Close combat".

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
It has a lot to do with this thread. Your interpretation of the FAQ does far more than you're implying. And you must look at every facet of an interpretation to determine if it's the correct one.

There is not much interpretation to be had with:

It is a close combat attack.

Again, like DK, you're suggesting that when asked, GW couldn't have possibly said:

Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or close combat attack?

A: Neither.

But they did not say that. They clearly defined what it is, no matter the implications. The implications may mean that that breaks CF vs. CF. It is good for this thread, however, that it does not break HG vs. CF.

rigeld2 wrote:
CF vs CF is absolutely relevant. You trying to shove it under the rug is disingenuous.

I'm not trying to shove it under the rug. However, it is acting like a red herring to the actual discussion. RAW, it breaks the game. However, RAW, HG vs. CF works perfectly normally, when HG goes first. There is not an intepretation that can be had with CF vs. CF that does not break the game and follows the rules. This is not the case with HG vs. CF, which is what we're trying to discuss.

CF does NOT have the same wording as HG.

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

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

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

If CF is outside the initiative order, but is still an attack, two CFs can go off (simultaneously) before the initiative ladder. In addition, HG can go off before any number of CFs, because it says it goes off before "attacks" and not before "blows are struck."

I can't wrap my head around why other people can't wrap their heads around the simultaneous part, either. If someone could explain, in detail, why two CFs have to happen one after the other rather than at the same time, that would be fantastic.

Kitzz and puma, I know you probably posted it before, but since I am lazy and do not want to re-rad 11 pages, please (again) explain what "ensuing combat" means.
Most of us claiming it doesn't work, claim "ensuing combat" is attacks at Initiative order. If so, then CF goes off before that, so HG would not be able to stop it.

Happyjew wrote:Kitzz and puma, I know you probably posted it before, but since I am lazy and do not want to re-rad 11 pages, please (again) explain what "ensuing combat" means.
Most of us claiming it doesn't work, claim "ensuing combat" is attacks at Initiative order. If so, then CF goes off before that, so HG would not be able to stop it.

puma713 wrote:--Cleansing Flame is not a part of the ensuing close combat.

Reasoning: The "close combat" is defined in the rulebook as "Combat at initiative value" (or some similar wording. This is summarized on page 33. It is more explained in more detail on page36 under Who Strikes First.)

Rebuttal: Close combat is defined this way in two places: Page 33, where it is a simple summary of how combat works. It is not a "definition". And the rules on page 36 are under a much more broad heading, Fighting a Close Combat. That does not define exactly what a 'close combat' is either. If you look under Fighting a Close Combat you're going to see many more rules than simply "combat that is struck in initiative order." There is much more to combat than that. Close combat is a sweeping term for the 3rd part of the entire assault phase. Certainly striking in initiative order is included in "the close combat", but it is not limited to that. Everything that happens in regard to combat is a part of the close combat, including things that happen before attacks.

Reasoning: The Summary on page 33 has distinct steps. Defenders React followed by Resolve Combats. To say that Cleansing Flame happens outside of combat, would be to say that it happens in one of the part before "Fight close combat" in that summary. So it would have to happen during "Pick a combat" or during "Defenders React". It is not during Defenders React, because you don't begin rolling powers/attacks before your opponent has based you. If it is a part of "Pick a combat", I will accept that. However, that is also a part of the combat. Anything under the heading Resolve Combats is a part of the close combat.

Also, if you look on page 41, there you will find a reference to "before attacks" being a part of the combat:

"more than one enemy unit at the beginning of combat (before any model attacked). . ."

There, even the rulebook refers to the time before "any model attacked" as being the "beginning of combat".

And finally, the word "ensuing" has not been defined in the Rulebook. Therefore, we must use the natural defintion of "ensuing", which is "to come directly after". That would mean that any combat that "came directly after" Hypnotic Gaze would be considered "the ensuing close ombat".

I look at it like this. Your psychic power stops my cc attack but nowhere does it say that it stops my psychic power that ACTS like a cc attack. I'm not swinging a sword at you, I'm blasting you with imaginary fire. You just happen to be too close for me to say I shot you with it.

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

It is defined in the HG and CF rules.

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

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

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

DeathReaper wrote:

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

It is defined in the HG and CF rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And sorry I am joining this conversation late.

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

That is both illogical and unfounded.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

puma713 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok this is the whole thread in a short line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so to me Blow==attacks

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

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

so to me Blow==attacks

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

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

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

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

DK wrote:

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

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

so to me Blow==attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeathReaper wrote:The BRB Defines what an attack is.

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

Therefore HG can not stop CF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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