Fragile wrote:If combat familiar said " A model with combat familiar gains 2 additional attacks." I would agree that Smash affects it. Since it states "S4, AP- attacks" I would label it as a more specific rule and treat it much the same as HoW attacks.

Frankly, you are wrong Fragile. The rules for Combat Familiar does say the model gains two additional attacks. So Smash affects it. The fact that those two attacks are given a specific profile (so that your Power Fist wielding character doesn't suddenly have 6 Power Fist attacks) is completely irrelevant.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And if you think a wargear is more specific you have to dance around why weapons aren't also more specific (also being wargear and all).

Lets look at that codex for another piece of wargear that grants additional attacks...

Daemon Weapons. ""....2+, the model gets that many additional attacks .....""

Notice no mention of S or AP in that generic "bonus" attacks? Why would they then specify that the CF is S4 and AP- then?

There is no way to know for sure, but the logical answer is simple: game balance. You have a piece of wargear that is giving your model 2 extra attacks. For a Champion that would be a 100% increase in attacks, for a Lord a 33% increase. With any weapon other than generic close combat weapons this is a massive advantage. It would probably have to cost a lot more points if it was just a raw boost to your Attack profile. So they do the easy thing, something they've done in the past with other Codexes (older Codex: Tyranids comes to mind rather quickly) and give you a set Strength and AP for these other attacks.

But the biggest thing you are very clearly missing is this: nothing in the Combat Familiar rules states that the AP or Strength value of the attack cannot be changed for any reason. Because of rules like Smash that state "all close combat attacks" made by a model are AP2 you would have to have something like this to prevent it from working.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And if you think a wargear is more specific you have to dance around why weapons aren't also more specific (also being wargear and all).

Lets look at that codex for another piece of wargear that grants additional attacks...

Daemon Weapons. ""....2+, the model gets that many additional attacks .....""

Notice no mention of S or AP in that generic "bonus" attacks? Why would they then specify that the CF is S4 and AP- then?

... Because on non-MCs the AP is relevant, and the STR is definitely relevant?

Who cares? Have you found an actual rule to defend your position?

 cowmonaut wrote:
Frankly, you are wrong Fragile. The rules for Combat Familiar does say the model gains two additional attacks.

You should reread the rule. It clearly states S4 AP- attacks.

Who cares? Have you found an actual rule to defend your position?

Good defense. Yes, it clearly states that two S4 AP- attacks, is more specific then two additional attacks. Since it specifies the S and AP, it makes it a more specific rule than Smash's AP2 to all attacks. Which makes the CF rule apply over Smash.

Page 7 if you would like to reread.

Cool, CCWs always use the listed profile. Therefore Smash is useless (except to double Strength)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As it is this "argument" is just going in a circle -
Smash says all close combat attacks (with 2 exceptions)
Smash only applies to weapons.
No it doesn't
Yes it does.
Repeat ad finum.

Mod alerted. Hopefully we can get this locked as it is getting ridiculous.

Fragile wrote:
Page 7 if you would like to reread.

Either:
A). There is a conflict there and also with any weapon in a codex so the only MCs that benefit from the AP2 of Smash are those that don't use weapons.
B). There is no conflict and page 7 does not apply.

Please choose one and explain your reasoning.

The reasoning has been explained and I agree with HJ that this thread has been circular long enough.

 FlingitNow wrote:

How is a weapon less specific than another piece of wargear?

Because Smash specifically tells us how it interacts with weapons nut remains silent on other Wargear perhaps?

No, it tells us explicitly how it works on ALL attacks. Stop lying about what Smash states

 FlingitNow wrote:
[Which you already know. Also weapons have a profile that Smash modifies. CF does not have a weapon profile and is itself a set modifier like HoW or Vector Strike.

Wait, youre back to the hilarious claim that CF is a "set modifier"

Fundamental misunderstanding of rules there. CF IS the profile, modified by Smash. Trya agin, real rules would be helpful

How is CF not a profile? It gives a number of attacks, the S and Ap of them. What more do you need for a profile?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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 rules are written.

Sure - but TMCs do not use weapons.

The still have them, and the BRB makes it clear that all models attack with a weapon.

The TMC's do not use the weapons in the Tyranid Codex, but they do use a weapon to attack with. as per my previously quoted pages.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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 rules are written.

Sure - but TMCs do not use weapons.

The still have them, and the BRB makes it clear that all models attack with a weapon.

The TMC's do not use the weapons in the Tyranid Codex, but they do use a weapon to attack with. as per my previously quoted pages.

Which is still irrelevant as Smash affects all close combat attacks regardless of whether or not they're made with a weapon.

Per page 24 of the rulebook you would use the Strength Characteristic of the attacker. Per page 26, you get an armour save unless the attacking model is using a weapon with a good enough AP value. So..Strength of the model, no AP.

Where are you getting AP- from? What tells you the AP value of your attacks?

Well lets see...CF grants the model two additional cc attacks. Smash affects all cc attacks (except HOW and those made with AP1 weapons).

IMO Smash wins

Back to the circular argument:

Well lets see...Smash allows you to half your attacks to double your strength. CF makes 2 attacks at AP-

Therefore the attacks are AP-...

One rule modifies all your attacks to AP2 the other modifies 2 specific attacks to AP-.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Per page 24 of the rulebook you would use the Strength Characteristic of the attacker. Per page 26, you get an armour save unless the attacking model is using a weapon with a good enough AP value. So..Strength of the model, no AP.

Where are you getting AP- from? What tells you the AP value of your attacks?

Where did I say AP-? I said Strength of the model, and no AP, as per page 24 and 26 of the rulebook.

Ap- is no AP I'm not getting where it is telling you what the AP of the attacks are resolved at. Please tell me where it tells you the AP of the attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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 rules are written.

Sure - but TMCs do not use weapons.

The still have them, and the BRB makes it clear that all models attack with a weapon.

The TMC's do not use the weapons in the Tyranid Codex, but they do use a weapon to attack with. as per my previously quoted pages.

No, actually - the codex specifies they do not use CCWs. This generates a conflict with the BRB (do use CCW vs do not use) and is therefore solved by codex > BRB.

Fling - again, why are you claiming CF is a modifier? It is no such thing

If you disagree, page and para, or concede. By definition a profile cant modify itself

Fling - again, why are you claiming CF is a modifier? It is no such thing

If you disagree, page and para, or concede. By definition a profile cant modify itself

Again you claim it is a profile. Page and paragraph please. No mention of it being a weapon or a weapon profile in the CF rule. It can't be a characteristic profile. So if it is a new type of profile page and paragraph where this is defined.

Or just go by the CF rules. It modifies your attacks and then set modifies them to be S4 and AP-.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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 rules are written.

Sure - but TMCs do not use weapons.

The still have them, and the BRB makes it clear that all models attack with a weapon.

The TMC's do not use the weapons in the Tyranid Codex, but they do use a weapon to attack with. as per my previously quoted pages.

No, actually - the codex specifies they do not use CCWs. This generates a conflict with the BRB (do use CCW vs do not use) and is therefore solved by codex > BRB.

Yes in the fluff it does say they do not use CCW's as such...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Which is still irrelevant as Smash affects all close combat attacks regardless of whether or not they're made with a weapon.

You need to re-read smash and not ignore the context this time.

Fling - so, you havent found where it is a modifier?

Thanks for conceding. After all ,CF does nto fit any definition of a modifier found in the rulebook. Or will you now actually find some rules, after failing to do so until this point?

I do not have to find a rule stating it IS a profile; I am using it as a short hand for " it is giving you attacks with a weapon-like set of characteristics". Nowhere did I say I was using a rulebook defined term, and indeed none is needed to debunk your position again. HOwever you are stating, and have done with ZERO support - and hung your ENTIRE argument upon - the absurd claim that it is a set modifier.

Death - so youre claiming the rule "they do nto use close combat weapons as such" is fluff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Death - so you are still also claiming that, despite smash explicitly stating ALL close combat attacks, AND having proven to you that NOT ALL CC attacks are made with melee weapons, that Smash ONLY applies to weapons?

WRong. Just plain wrong. It is a sttraightforward, easily read sentence;ALL CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS

nowhere does it limit this to just those made with weapons, HoW - not made with a weapon - is specifically exempted frmo Smash, meaning using a weapon cannot be a requirement of Smash. And so on. Really, please stop with this line of argument - it makes you look foolish to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes in the fluff it does say they do not use CCW's as such...

That's not fluff.

You need to re-read smash and not ignore the context this time.

If by "context" you mean "made up rules" sure.

So Nos so you're saying something that changes the number of attacks you get is not a modifier and something that changes the S and AP of those attacks to a set value is not a set modifier. It is instead some new form of profile that is not defined anywhere. I assume this is you conceding.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Death - so youre claiming the rule "they do nto use close combat weapons as such" is fluff?

Yes, that part is fluff because that is not the whole sentence.

The sentence is "Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws and talons. As a result Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile."(33 Codex: Tyranids)

"Models with claws and teeth count as having a normal close combat weapon." (83 Codex: Tyranids)

If they have Claws and teeth they use that as their CCW in Close Combat.

Death - so you are still also claiming that, despite smash explicitly stating ALL close combat attacks, AND having proven to you that NOT ALL CC attacks are made with melee weapons, that Smash ONLY applies to weapons?

Smash applies to weapons as per the context of the CC rules (And Smash itself).

This whole "if you don't produce exactly the evidence I require I assume you concede" thing is about as childish and immature as this subforum gets.

The rule doesn't have to state it is a modifier. Very few modifiers state they are such in their rules. Smash for instance is one such rule. Does CF change the number of attacks the model makes? Does CF provide a set value for the S & AP of those attacks different from what they would normally be?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash applies to weapons as per the context of the CC rules (And Smash itself).

I'm sorry - where is Smash mentioned in the close combat rules? I must have missed that page.

And you're incorrect on the context of Smash.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So Nos so you're saying something that changes the number of attacks you get is not a modifier and something that changes the S and AP of those attacks to a set value is not a set modifier. It is instead some new form of profile that is not defined anywhere. I assume this is you conceding.

It provides additional attacks with their own AP. THere is no change made to the strength and AP of those attacks, because they never existed

You are now literally claiming that a profile modifies itself.

Crazy.

Thanks for "arguing".

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash applies to weapons as per the context of the CC rules (And Smash itself).

I'm sorry - where is Smash mentioned in the close combat rules? I must have missed that page.

And you're incorrect on the context of Smash.

Smash deals with CC attacks.

The CC rules are written on the basis that all models have a CCW as per the quotes about CCW's i gave earlier (Page 51)

Therefore my assessment is correct, unless you can show rules that state contrary to the rules that I have posted.

So Now I'll break it down for you. Since you are claiming a set modifier is a profile with no rules support. Here goes:

Say I am a chaos lord with a power maul.

I have 3 attacks (plus other potential modifiers we'll ignore in this example as they are not relevant).
I am S6.
I am AP4

Now I add a CF. What does the CF rule say? It says I make 2 additional attacks. So I have 5 attacks now. Oh look that is a different number to 3.

If the CF did not define the S & AP of those attacks what would the strength and AP be?

If indeed the CF was a profile as you claim we would not know what S & AP to resolve the attacks at but we would. We would resolve them at S6 & AP4, but what's this the CF rules state these attacks are So AP-. So it is modifying the S & AP to a set value from what it would otherwise be.

So given all the above most people would work out that CF is indeed a set modifier rather than assuming it is a wonderful magical new profile that is not defined anywhere in any rules. Please post some actual rules to support your claim it is a profile. Or some rules any rules to support your interpretation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash applies to weapons as per the context of the CC rules (And Smash itself).

I'm sorry - where is Smash mentioned in the close combat rules? I must have missed that page.

And you're incorrect on the context of Smash.

Smash deals with all CC attacks.

FTFY - you left a word out. That word is rather important.

The CC rules are written on the basis that all models have a CCW as per the quotes about CCW's i gave earlier (Page 51)

Great - now if you can find any rule that says all CC attacks are made with a CCW you might possibly have a point. You're making an assumption without support to make that jump.

FlingitNow & DeathReaper: context is great when figuring out how rules are intended to work, but we're not arguing intention. "The writers of the rules meant to have Smash only apply to attacks made with weapons" is a decent argument for RAI, but is not a good RAW argument, especially against the argument "Smash applies to all close combat attacks because it states 'all of the close combat attacks... of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2'." You've yet to come out with a good argument as to why a special rule that states it applies to "all of the close combat attacks" doesn't apply to all of the close combat attacks.

Also modifiers apply to characteristics, number of attacks is not a characteristic, the attack characteristic is, which Combat Familiar does not affect. the AP is also not a modifier, as models do not have an AP characteristic, weapons do, and as you have often said, Combat Familiar attacks are not made with a weapon.

Likewise Prince Raven you haven't come up with a good argument ad to why the CF rule doesn't apply to the attacks made using the CF rule...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also on the CF is s profile crowd that can then be modified by other modifiers (like smash), are they S5 when a model with furious charge charges and has a CF?

Fling - those attacks did not exist, and they were created to have this fixed strength and ap. They have not modified a single, damn thing, and no matter your condescension on this, you have yet to provide any proof that this is a set modifier

Given the rules on modifiers themselves disagrees with your assessment, until yo ucan provide rules that show this new type of set modifier isnt jsut something you made up, I will stop responding to your argument - it is utterly pointless to do so.

At the moment this is just acting as a general service message, so others dont think your argument has merit.

FlingitNow: Of course Combat Familiar applies to the extra attacks. Likewise, the Black Mace applies to attack made with it, but attacks made with an AP 4 weapon by something with Smash are still AP 2.

As for furious charge + combat familiar, that would depend on whether the strength is considered a set modifier or not, unlike AP and number of attacks Strength is a model characteristic... I'd say, given the rules for modifiers, you'd go from the strength of the model, +1, then set to 4 by Combat Familiar.

I'm not stating it is a new type of modifier I am using the modifier rules page 2:

"Certain pieces of war gear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it"

Does CF add to the attacks characteristic? If yes then it is a modifier. If no citation required as CF disagrees with you.

"... or even setting its value"

Does CF set the value of the S & AP of those attacks? If yes then it is a modifier. If no citation required as CF disagrees with you.

Again, you are claiming that these attacks, added from nowhere, inherit a Strength and AP that is then changed.

Prove that they do. page and para. NOw.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CC rules are written on the basis that all models have a CCW as per the quotes about CCW's i gave earlier (Page 51)

Great - now if you can find any rule that says all CC attacks are made with a CCW you might possibly have a point. You're making an assumption without support to make that jump.

All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CC rules are written on the basis that all models have a CCW as per the quotes about CCW's i gave earlier (Page 51)

Great - now if you can find any rule that says all CC attacks are made with a CCW you might possibly have a point. You're making an assumption without support to make that jump.

All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Hammer of Wrath.
Cleansing Flame

Shall we carry on, disproving you again? I thought you had noted these before, as they keep getting brought up every time you make your claim above

MOST close combat attacks are made with a Close Combat weapon. Not all. You have simply made up that claim, and have no rules backing to support it

So, can you now accept your error?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CC rules are written on the basis that all models have a CCW as per the quotes about CCW's i gave earlier (Page 51)

Great - now if you can find any rule that says all CC attacks are made with a CCW you might possibly have a point. You're making an assumption without support to make that jump.

All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

All models have a CCW. This does not mean that all CC attacks are made with a CCW.
What weapon is a Combat Familiar's attacks made with?
What weapon is a Hammer of Wrath made with?
What weapon is a Cleansing Flame made with?
What weapon does a Chariot use?

Again, you are claiming that these attacks, added from nowhere, inherit a Strength and AP that is then changed

How else would you resolve attacks that have been added? Unless you're claiming that there is no way to resolve the extra attacks from charging, warp speed, rage etc that add attacks?

So you are still claiming that CF is a new magical profile that isn't defined anywhere in the rules. Please find some rules to support your stand point.

Or ANY rules that state CF isn't a series of modifiers? As I've proven that they are and you have yet to come up with a single shred of evidence that they are not...

HoW and CF do not disprove that the CC rules (the ones that detail how to attack in CC on pages 20-28) are written on the basis that all models have a melee weapon to attack with.

There is no mention of CF or HoW in the CC rules...

Not an error, and you have disproven nothing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
HoW and CF do not disprove that the CC rules (the ones that detail how to attack in CC on pages 20-28) are written on the basis that all models have a melee weapon to attack with.

There is no mention of CF or HoW in the CC rules...

Not an error, and you have disproven nothing.

And the CC rules don't dictate anything about Smash. You're attempting to relate them and you should not.

Sigh. Still not getting through.

"Profile" is not simply a defined 40k term. Using it deos not require that I find a page and paragraph for it. Understand this trivial concept?

No, you hve asserted they are a set modifier. Not proven. The yawning chasm between the two is called "your lack of rules support for your claims"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
HoW and CF do not disprove that the CC rules (the ones that detail how to attack in CC on pages 20-28) are written on the basis that all models have a melee weapon to attack with.

There is no mention of CF or HoW in the CC rules...

Not an error, and you have disproven nothing.

And Smash, which is not on those pages, states it applies to ALL attacks - which would include HoW, apart from that pesky exclusion you so conveniently forget.
You claim that ALL close combat attacks are made with a CCW is debunked, agreed? Can we at least get you to agree on the trivially debunked arguments you have made, so we can see where your rules deviation is going on?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
HoW and CF do not disprove that the CC rules (the ones that detail how to attack in CC on pages 20-28) are written on the basis that all models have a melee weapon to attack with.

There is no mention of CF or HoW in the CC rules...

Not an error, and you have disproven nothing.

And the CC rules don't dictate anything about Smash. You're attempting to relate them and you should not.

Smash equates itself to attacking with a weapon, CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

This is because if a model has Smash they make attacks with their weapons at AP2 "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

Smash confirms that the model uses the weapon to attack with.

No, Smash states it applies to ALL attacks. In a parenthetical statement it then tells you what happens if you attack with an AP1 weapon.

Smash would apply to How, apart from the exclusion. Smash would apply to Cleansing Flame as well, if any MC could get it. So, can you perhaps answer how easily your context argument has been destroyed by for once acknolwedging your error?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You claim that ALL close combat attacks are made with a CCW is debunked, agreed?

I claim that the CC rules on page 20-28 are written on the basis that all CC attacks are made with a weapon.

There are some exceptions to this rule such as HoW or CF.

Smash is not one of these exceptions.

CF is one of these exceptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, Smash states it applies to ALL attacks. In a parenthetical statement it then tells you what happens if you attack with an AP1 weapon.

and in context the MC makes attacks with a weapon. Made solid by the parenthetical that shows that MC attack with weapons.

Smash deals with weapons, Combat Familiar is not a weapon it is a special rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash equates itself to attacking with a weapon

That's an incorrect assumption. The only way to override the AP2 is with an AP1 weapon, but that does not mean that only weapons are modified - indeed, if Rending gave AP1 then a Rending MC would not benefit from Smash on Rending attacks.

, CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

This is because if a model has Smash they make attacks with their weapons at AP2 "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

So an AP1 special rule would not be ignored in favor of Smash according to you?

Smash confirms that the model uses the weapon to attack with.

Incorrect - assumption without support.

Profile" is not simply a defined 40k term. Using it deos not require that I find a page and paragraph for it. Understand this trivial concept?

No, you hve asserted they are a set modifier. Not proven. The yawning chasm between the two is called "your lack of rules support for your claims"

Except I have supported it. With rules you have neglected to make any attempt to refute. Hence you've come up with this deliberate lie that I have a lack of rules support for my claim. I presume this is an attempt to hand wave away that your claim lacks ANY support in the rules.

The rules do define profiles. You are claiming this is a new type of profile yet CF makes no mention of that. It does however follow directly the rules laid out for modifiers.

Once again Nos I have to ask you to please provide some rules to support your outlandish claims. Or concede. I don't mind which.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

Not an assumption. Cleansing Flame is a Psychic power, not a CCW as Cleansing flame does not have the Melee type...

And the Combat Familiar has a profile which does not include the word melee or have a - for its range.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is because if a model has Smash they make attacks with their weapons at AP2 "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

So an AP1 special rule would not be ignored in favor of Smash according to you?

There are no AP1 special rules...

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash confirms that the model uses the weapon to attack with.

Incorrect - assumption without support.

It clearly points to the fact by saying "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon" showing that models make attacks with Melee weapons (Confirmed by the context of the CC rules p.20-28), and these attacks are AP2 unless the model with Smash is "attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

Not an assumption. Cleansing Flame is a Psychic power, not a CCW as Cleansing flame does not have the Melee type...

But it counts as having been inflicted in close combat for all purpouses. As such, it's a power that deals close combat hits, proving that you can hit in CC without using a weapon. Hammer of Wrath is further proof of this.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

Not an assumption. Cleansing Flame is a Psychic power, not a CCW as Cleansing flame does not have the Melee type...

But it counts as having been inflicted in close combat for all purpouses. As such, it's a power that deals close combat hits, proving that you can hit in CC without using a weapon. Hammer of Wrath is further proof of this.

Which is not at all what I was saying.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

Not an assumption. Cleansing Flame is a Psychic power, not a CCW as Cleansing flame does not have the Melee type...

The GK FAQ disagrees with you.

And the Combat Familiar has a profile which does not include the word melee or have a - for its range.

You really shouldn't argue rules that you haven't read.

C: CSM page 67 wrote: ... two additional Strength 4 AP- Melee Attacks.

Would you like to try again?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is because if a model has Smash they make attacks with their weapons at AP2 "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

So an AP1 special rule would not be ignored in favor of Smash according to you?

There are no AP1 special rules...

And that precludes the possibility why exactly?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash confirms that the model uses the weapon to attack with.

Incorrect - assumption without support.

It clearly points to the fact by saying "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon" showing that models make attacks with Melee weapons (Confirmed by the context of the CC rules p.20-28), and these attacks are AP2 unless the model with Smash is "attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

No - literally all it's saying is that the only way to override the AP2 of Smash is with an AP1 weapon. You're making assumptions to imply it applies in other ways. The bolded literally doesn't exist in the Smash text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

Not an assumption. Cleansing Flame is a Psychic power, not a CCW as Cleansing flame does not have the Melee type...

But it counts as having been inflicted in close combat for all purpouses. As such, it's a power that deals close combat hits, proving that you can hit in CC without using a weapon. Hammer of Wrath is further proof of this.

Which is not at all what I was saying.

Really?

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 amusing is followed by

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:All attacks are made with weapons. Agreed?

Clearly not.

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

and

DeathReaper wrote:All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Which is demonstrably false and has been proven so.

The attacks from Cleansing Flame are melee attacks, but the Cleansing Flame Psychic power does not have a range of Melee in its profile.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Which is demonstrably false and has been proven so.

No it really is not false, as my quotes have shown.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The attacks from Cleansing Flame are melee attacks, but the Cleansing Flame Psychic power does not have a range of Melee in its profile.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Which is demonstrably false and has been proven so.

No it really is not false, as my quotes have shown.

So all of the following CC attacks use weapons?
Hammer of Wrath
Cleansing Flame
Tyranid close combat attacks
Combat Familiar

 DeathReaper wrote:
The attacks from Cleansing Flame are melee attacks, but the Cleansing Flame Psychic power does not have a range of Melee in its profile.

GW FAQ wrote:Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack.

ohai. By definition (because the rules defined it as such) Cleansing Flame is a close combat attack. Perhaps you'd like to read the actual rules for once - you might find it enlightening.

As I have said, there are a few exceptions of CC attacks that do not use CCW's, such as Cleansing flame, HoW Etc...

However "Tyranid close combat attacks" do use weapons as I have shown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The attacks from Cleansing Flame are melee attacks, but the Cleansing Flame Psychic power does not have a range of Melee in its profile.

GW FAQ wrote:Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack.

ohai. By definition (because the rules defined it as such) Cleansing Flame is a close combat attack. Perhaps you'd like to read the actual rules for once - you might find it enlightening.

I read "the actual rules for once" This statement was not needed or appreciated.

Just because the FaQ defines it as a CC attack does not mean it has the Melee range in its profile.

DR, you claimed that all cc attacks are made by weapons. rigeld said no they are not, here is a small list of cc attacks that are not made by weapons - therefore you statement is false. You then claimed your statement (all cc attacks are made by weapons) is true. Now you are saying there are exceptions.

So, are all CC attacks made by weapons, yes or no?

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, you claimed that all cc attacks are made by weapons. rigeld said no they are not, here is a small list of cc attacks that are not made by weapons - therefore you statement is false. You then claimed your statement (all cc attacks are made by weapons) is true. Now you are saying there are exceptions.

So, are all CC attacks made by weapons, yes or no?

You must not have understood what I wrote.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I claim that the CC rules on page 20-28 are written on the basis that all CC attacks are made with a weapon.

There are some exceptions to this rule such as HoW or CF.

 DeathReaper wrote:
As I have said, there are a few exceptions of CC attacks that do not use CCW's, such as Cleansing flame, HoW Etc...

However "Tyranid close combat attacks" do use weapons as I have shown.

So the statement

DeathReaper wrote:All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Is demonstrably false. Thank you for finally agreeing.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
As I have said, there are a few exceptions of CC attacks that do not use CCW's, such as Cleansing flame, HoW Etc...

However "Tyranid close combat attacks" do use weapons as I have shown.

So the statement

DeathReaper wrote:All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Is demonstrably false. Thank you for finally agreeing.

It is not false, it is simply the base rule and to what I was referring.

Almost all rules have exceptions to the rule. It is the way the ruleset is written.

Right - so giving an absolute is false.
Regardless - there are attacks that do not use CCW. Therefore you're artificially limiting Smash by saying that it only applies to CCW attacks and not all attacks (which isn't me changing the rule, it's what the rule actually says).

Have you picked up a copy of C: CSM yet to read the rule you're attempting to discuss? Until you have I'm not sure why you're even debating the issue.

Limiting Smash is done within the rule itself (and the context of the CC rules), I am not limiting it.

P.S. I have read the Combat Familiar rules and it clearly states AP- and Codex Trumps since there is a conflict that is not overriden by Smash as Smash deals with weapons.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Limiting Smash is done within the rule itself (and the context of the CC rules), I am not limiting it.

P.S. I have read the Combat Familiar rules and it clearly states AP- and Codex Trumps since there is a conflict that is not overriden by Smash as Smash deals with weapons.

Then since Codex trumps rulebook why are you adamant that Tyranids use CCWs in assault?

Also why do you make exception for one wargear but not another?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Limiting Smash is done within the rule itself (and the context of the CC rules), I am not limiting it.

What does the rule actually say - the exact words, not what you're inserting.

P.S. I have read the Combat Familiar rules and it clearly states AP- and Codex Trumps since there is a conflict that is not overriden by Smash as Smash deals with weapons.

So when you erroneously said it didn't include Melee in the profile you were just wrong? Or deliberately misleading?

So smash still deals with weapons alone DR? Despite the actual words used - ALL ATTACKS - and your own statement being proven wrong?

Classic
Fling - there is a profile there, with a type. Try again with your rule less argument trying to claim a profile is a modifier. According to your idea of "rules" all weapons are set modifiers

I think I can take that as you conceding then Nos as you refuse to use any rules in your argument and refuse to address the rules posted to support my case. Then you make a deliberate lie yet again about what I've said. How does a defined profile = a modifier?

 FlingitNow wrote:
How does a defined profile = a modifier?

That is what we want to know. You claim the Combat Familiar (which has a profile) is a set modifier, yet claim that a weapon (which also has a profile) not only is not a modifier but is affected by Smash.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So smash still deals with weapons alone DR? Despite the actual words used - ALL ATTACKS - and your own statement being proven wrong?

Only if you ignore the Context of Smash and the CC rules am I incorrect. However if you do not ignore the context then I am correct

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Limiting Smash is done within the rule itself (and the context of the CC rules), I am not limiting it.

P.S. I have read the Combat Familiar rules and it clearly states AP- and Codex Trumps since there is a conflict that is not overriden by Smash as Smash deals with weapons.

Then since Codex trumps rulebook why are you adamant that Tyranids use CCWs in assault?

Because the Tyranid Codex says that Tyranids have CCW's...

The codex also states that Tyranids don't use CCWs. Regardless if they have them or not they do not use them. Oh look, a conflict. Therefore codex wins and Tyranids don't use CCWs.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
P.S. I have read the Combat Familiar rules and it clearly states AP- and Codex Trumps since there is a conflict that is not overriden by Smash as Smash deals with weapons.

So when you erroneously said it didn't include Melee in the profile you were just wrong? Or deliberately misleading?

The Combat familiar does not have a proper profile. it just says it grants 2 Str 4 AP- Melee Attacks.

They are Melee attacks, but it is not a Melee weapon.

So not wrong or deliberately misleading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
The codex also states that Tyranids don't use CCWs. Regardless if they have them or not they do not use them. Oh look, a conflict. Therefore codex wins and Tyranids don't use CCWs.

The Fluff says they do not use them, there are not any actual rules that say that though.

Wasn't there a rule (or faq or something) talking about shorthand profiles?

I looked for it but couldn't find it but I'm sure I remember something like that...

rigeld, I know in the FAQs for older codices there is something about longhand profiles instead of the standard weapon profile. Is that what you are thinking of?

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think I can take that as you conceding then Nos

Think what ever you like, it has no bearing on reality.

FlingitNow wrote:as you refuse to use any rules in your argument

Another lie. Try to stop doing that, it is very immature

I have used rules. You on the other hand continually make up rules, misrepresent what th. Rules actually say, and have made up a new class of modifier that doesn' exist - one thatis a profile and itself a modifier. Impressive

FlingitNow wrote:and refuse to address the rules posted to support my case.

Apart from every time i, and others, did? That you then ignored, or made up oterh rules for us to refute, and so on?

Smash applies to ALL ATTACKS. CF is an attack, with a profile. If you ignore smash you break the smash rule. If you apply smash you break no rules. Apart from the ones you made up, of course.

Fling wrote:Then you make a deliberate lie yet again about what I've said.

Erm, nope. Not at all. You created a brand new set modifier rule, not found in any rulebook

Fling wrote:How does a defined profile = a modifier?

It doesn't. But given that is what you're claiming, please, find a rule to support that assertion of yours. CF HAS A PROFILE. try Reading the rules a little more.carefully.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DR - so you can ignore rules, claiming fluff, and ignore a rule which states ALL ATTACKS and claim, in apparent Good faith, that that DOESN'T mean all attacks but only those made with ccw, despite you being shown direct evidence that contradicts your assertion?

Please, give up on this. This argument is patently absurd and lacking even the vaguest hint of rules support.

 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld, I know in the FAQs for older codices there is something about longhand profiles instead of the standard weapon profile. Is that what you are thinking of?

Thanks!

FAQs wrote:You’ll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don’t worry – these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document.

So a longhand profile is literally the same as a normal profile. Looks like the CF is a longhand profile to me.

You claim the Combat Familiar (which has a profile)

Citation please.

Nos I'm going to take that post as you conceding. You ludicrous claims have become laughable. You create magical new types of profile and modifier when it suits you and claim any one who us actually following what is defined is doing so.

In this thread you have:

Created a magical "resolved at" set modifier that beats all other modifiers.

Created a magical new War gear Profile that the CF and only the CF has because you want it to be a profile.

Refused to use actual rules.

Let me guess Nos you're going to respond to this with a string of lies, whilst calling me a liar and again refuse to use any rules to support your increasing outlandish claims. Whilst still ignoring that I have proven using rules that CF is a series of set modifiers...

So now that we've pretty well confirmed that it is in fact possible to alter melee attacks which do not use a Close Combat Weapon, thus not neutering Tyranid Monstrous Creatures, can we get this ridiculous game of ping-pong over with and put forward final arguments?

Group A: Give assembled group of statements which you believe clearly show that ANY attack made by a model in close combat with the Smash USR, that is not a HoW attack or by using a CCW that is AP1, is in fact resolved at AP2.

Group B: Give assembled group of statements which you believe clearly show that ONLY attacks made by a model with a close combat weapon are resolved at AP2, unless the weapon is already AP1.

So a longhand profile is literally the same as a normal profile. Looks like the CF is a longhand profile to me.

I said we'd get to the point where Rigeld claimed CF was a weapon.

Star hunter you need yo reread the thread.

Group A are now saying: CF gives a profile (which is either a weapon profile in long hand or magical new type of profile not defined any where) which is therefore modified by Smash.

Group B are saying: both CF and Smash modify the AP of the attacks in question. So you have to resolve the conflict, Smash specifies it over rides any conflict with weapons but CF is not a weapon. Therefore as neither rule is more specific you go to codex over rules rulebook.

So do you believe that CF is a weapon or that it creates a magical new profile type without ever defining it. If you say no to these 2 questions then the only conclusion is that CF attacks are AP-.

StarHunter, for the AP2 side, the only things we need is:
a) The Smash rule states it applies to all close combat attacks (except for HoW and attacks made with an AP1 weapon).
b) Combat Familiar gives the model two additional attacks made at a listed profile.
c) Combat Familiar does not specify that Smash does not apply to these attacks.
d) The only time weapons are even mentioned in the Smash rule is in regards to AP1 weapons.

I think that about covers it. Anything I missed?

Seems good Group A. Group B, your rebuttal?

Please note Star, that it was obviously is not a detailed post but a brief synopsis. for the full argument you will (as fling said) read the whole thread.

I've read the whole thing thing, save maybe a post or two that I thought rather lacking in the logical argument part, and more on the subtle name calling part. It has come down to, what my group calls, arguing over the possible interpretations of "the." Both sides have put forward their arguements, and have honestly spent that last 3-4 pages going back and forth. I've put forward my case on this already. The last thing to think about is that, is two more attacks at S4 AP2 really going to effect a game in such a substantial way when the model is already making 6+ attacks at s6+?

As much as I see this as pretty cut and dry, I would gladly hear a well constructed argument for the opposite view. Using clear wordings of rules, previously made precedence, and a clear and logical connection between those and their personal argument. What I've seen from both sides so far is a whole lot of "You're wrong! NO YOU'RE WRONG!! YOU'RE MORE WRONG!!! YOU'RE EVEN MORE MORE WRONG!!!!

Hyperbole aside, I'd just like to see something of a summary of all of the arguments put forward, as I'd rather not wade through 13 pages once again so I can gain what is apparently a proper view on what has been put forward so far. Is that so much to ask?

And on the whole it has a profile thing, It actually doesn't. In reference section of the codex (the back flappy part), it lists the item in question as
Combat Familiar: Two additional Strength 4 AP- Attacks.
Smash resolves any attacks, save those from Hammer of Wrath or those made with an AP1 close combat weapon, at AP2.

 Happyjew wrote:
StarHunter, for the AP2 side, the only things we need is:
a) The Smash rule states it applies to all close combat attacks (except for HoW and attacks made with an AP1 weapon).
b) Combat Familiar gives the model two additional attacks made at a listed profile.
c) Combat Familiar does not specify that Smash does not apply to these attacks.
d) The only time weapons are even mentioned in the Smash rule is in regards to AP1 weapons.

I think that about covers it. Anything I missed?

You missed that CF states its attacks are AP-. Smash does not specify that CF does not apply to CF attacks.

Essentially your entire argument is based on ignoring that CF specifies the AP of the attacks is AP-.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
StarHunter, for the AP2 side, the only things we need is:
a) The Smash rule states it applies to all close combat attacks (except for HoW and attacks made with an AP1 weapon).
b) Combat Familiar gives the model two additional attacks made at a listed profile.
c) Combat Familiar does not specify that Smash does not apply to these attacks.
d) The only time weapons are even mentioned in the Smash rule is in regards to AP1 weapons.

I think that about covers it. Anything I missed?

You missed that CF states its attacks are AP-. Smash does not specify that CF does not apply to CF attacks.

Essentially your entire argument is based on ignoring that CF specifies the AP of the attacks is AP-.

Here we go again. Essentially your entire argument is based on ignoring that Smash applies to ALL close combat attacks.

 StarHunter25 wrote:
And on the whole it has a profile thing, It actually doesn't. In reference section of the codex (the back flappy part), it lists the item in question as
Combat Familiar: Two additional Strength 4 AP- Attacks.
Smash resolves any attacks, save those from Hammer of Wrath or those made with an AP1 close combat weapon, at AP2.

The "back flappy part" is irrelevant, the actual rules for it list it as a (long hand) profile (Strength 4 AP - Melee).

Here we go again. Essentially your entire argument is based on ignoring that Smash applies to ALL close combat attacks

Was that an intentional lie? I have NEVER ignored that Smash applies to all attacks. Or that it clearly applies to CF attacks. As do the CF rules. My interpretation takes into account all the rules and does not result in creating a profile type out of thin air, or try to turn the CF into a weapon. It just follows what is laid out in the rules.

As posted page 2 illustrates that CF is a series of modifiers, being a set modifier in the case of AP. Smash is a set modifier effecting AP. Neither rule specifies how it interacts with the other and we have two conflicting set values for AP. Thus by page 7 codex wins and the attacks are AP-.

 FlingitNow wrote:
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.

So you are either ignoring that Smash applies to all close combat attacks (except in two specified situations), or you are making up rules (Smash only applies to weapons). Please let me know which it is and I'll edit my post to address the (possible) error.

Neither. Smash applies to all attacks including CF. As that post states Smash specifies it over rides weapons AP. We do not have specifics on how it interacts with other set modifier APs. Hence in those situations you have a conflict which would need to be resolved. This has been my position all along.

Smash applies to CF. It makes CF attacks AP2. However CF makes CF attacks AP- and you can't be both so you have a conflict. Which page 7 tells us how to resolve.

CF grants two additional Melee Attacks (CSM page 67) and "Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat" (BRB page 50) and Smash has "All of the close combat attacks, except HoW attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2 (except AP 1 weapons)(BRB Page 42).

So is it basically the disconnect because CF is not a weapon with a melee type? It is still attacks that only resolve during close combat so wouldn't Smash still affect it?

Except it is a weapon... It has a weapon Type (Melee) it's just written with a different profile.
Edit: so that argument is invalid.
It's also a close combat attack and so the argument that smash doesn't apply (when it explicitly applies to all attacks) is invalid.

There's no rules basis to argue it doesn't apply.

So the whole argument is being reduced down to how the weapon profile is written?

Apparently. The one person that's arguing its not a weapon (bet instead a group of set modifiers for some reason) I have on ignore because he insulted me too many times so I'm only getting half of the argument.

I've proven that it is a weapon, however, so his argument is moot.

rigeld2 wrote:
Apparently. The one person that's arguing its not a weapon (bet instead a group of set modifiers for some reason) I have on ignore because he insulted me too many times so I'm only getting half of the argument.

I've proven that it is a weapon, however, so his argument is moot.

I disagree. it is not a weapon. it is a piece of wagear that provides the bearer with additional attacks that (per the wording for Smash) are resolved at AP2.

(Hypothetical for clarification) But even if Combat Familiar is treated as a modifier to create Additional attacks, would that also mean that abilities like Rage and charging into melee that modify the Attack profile would also not benefit from Smash?

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Apparently. The one person that's arguing its not a weapon (bet instead a group of set modifiers for some reason) I have on ignore because he insulted me too many times so I'm only getting half of the argument.

I've proven that it is a weapon, however, so his argument is moot.

I disagree. it is not a weapon. it is a piece of wagear that provides the bearer with additional attacks that (per the wording for Smash) are resolved at AP2.

It's a piece of wargear that provides additional attacks with a weapon profile. This weapon profile (like all CC attacks) can be resolved at AP2 per Smash.
Sorry I wasn't clear in my wording.

Fling - your lies and insults are accepted as your concession. Welcome to ignore

ANother odd rule claim by one side is that when it says "all attacks" it doesn't mean that, due to a claim of "context" saying otherwise. This also has no basis.

Flings argument similarly falls apart, as it relies on this made up notion that a profile is a set modifier when they want it to be, and not at other times. This is, of course, nonsense.

Fling a MC with no listed weapons has a ccw, the ccw hits with AP "-". That has a given value, which you call a set modifier. Why does it get to use smash with it's profile and a CF doesn't?

Warone, all modifiers would be taken into account as per the modifiers rules in the front of the brb.

 liturgies of blood wrote:


Warone, all modifiers would be taken into account as per the modifiers rules in the front of the brb.

Assuming nothing is mutually exclusive, the rules on page 2 would have Smash set all characteristics of close combat attacks to AP 2 and CF sets those 2 specific Melee Attacks to Str 4 as fixed values are the absolute last modifier to be considered.

That only assumes that this long hand profile "CF" is a set modifier. A profile is not itself a set modifier. To claim so ignores the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That only assumes that this long hand profile "CF" is a set modifier. A profile is not itself a set modifier. To claim so ignores the rules.

So a weapon with a fixed strength stat is not a modifier but just the fixed value of the weapon profile?

So is it basically the disconnect because CF is not a weapon with a melee type? It is still attacks that only resolve during close combat so wouldn't Smash still affect it?

Yes smash effects the CF attacks. No one is claiming it does not. However CF also effects the CF. Both set the value of the AP so you have a conflict. Page 7 resolves this conflict as neither rule specifies how it interacts with the other.

As for is CF a weapon. Simply check the Chaos codex note that it is clearly defined as war gear and not a weapon. Note how all the weapons in the codex are clearly defined as such.

 WarOne wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:


Warone, all modifiers would be taken into account as per the modifiers rules in the front of the brb.

Assuming nothing is mutually exclusive, the rules on page 2 would have Smash set all characteristics of close combat attacks to AP 2 and CF sets those 2 specific Melee Attacks to Str 4 as fixed values are the absolute last modifier to be considered.

Yes, that seems to be the case.

 FlingitNow wrote:

So is it basically the disconnect because CF is not a weapon with a melee type? It is still attacks that only resolve during close combat so wouldn't Smash still affect it?

Yes smash effects the CF attacks. No one is claiming it does not. However CF also effects the CF. Both set the value of the AP so you have a conflict. Page 7 resolves this conflict as neither rule specifies how it interacts with the other.

Does that also extend to the Black Mace as well? The Mace is a weapon with a specific profile in it and is codex specific. Would that also contradict Smash as the rules stated in Codex:CSM say it is AP4?

(Hypothetical for clarification) But even if Combat Familiar is treated as a modifier to create Additional attacks, would that also mean that abilities like Rage and charging into melee that modify the Attack profile would also not benefit from Smash

Do those modifiers set the value of the AP?

Assuming nothing is mutually exclusive, the rules on page 2 would have Smash set all characteristics of close combat attacks to AP 2 and CF sets those 2 specific Melee Attacks to Str 4 as fixed values are the absolute last modifier to be considered

Yes set values are the last modifier. So the attacks are AP- as that is the set modifier from CF.

Flings argument similarly falls apart, as it relies on this made up notion that a profile is a set modifier when they want it to be, and not at other times. This is, of course, nonsense

This is a lie. The CF is clearly a set modifier as I've laid out. You've said repeated that CF is not a weapon profile now your argument hinges on it being that...

I agree that if CF was a weapon profile then the attacks would be AP2. Of course if you check C:CSM you'll notice all the weapons have a full profile and CF does not.

Fling a MC with no listed weapons has a ccw, the ccw hits with AP "-". That has a given value, which you call a set modifier. Why does it get to use smash with it's profile and a CF doesn't?

This again really? No weapon profiles are profiles that are modified by modifiers. Even if the weapon was itself a set value modifier we have the smash rule specifying the only weapon that can over rule it being an AP1 weapon, so the more specific rule wins.

 WarOne wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That only assumes that this long hand profile "CF" is a set modifier. A profile is not itself a set modifier. To claim so ignores the rules.

So a weapon with a fixed strength stat is not a modifier but just the fixed value of the weapon profile?

Correc t - as you (usually) attack with a weapon. Hence why it is S (user) for a normal melee weapon - it doesnt have an intrinsic strength otherwise.

The profile of a combat familiar cannot be itself a modifier. That is nonsense, and is the heart of Flings "argument". Given how easily this has been disproven, it is a wonder Fling clings to it so.

The profile of a combat familiar cannot be itself a modifier. That is nonsense, and is the heart of Flings "argument". Given how easily this has been disproven, it is a wonder Fling clings to it so.

So easy to disprove yet you've neglected to do so. I posted the rules for modifiers which proves that CF is a series of modifiers. You've stated that CF is not a weapons profile so please disprove it is a series of modifiers using actual rules.

Going back a bit just for clarification.

 FlingitNow wrote:
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.

The relic blade has no weapon profile but is placed under Weapons in the Space Marine codex. Other equipment (name of section as well) such as a servo-arm and servo-harness also follow the same descriptive process for a relic blade.

Further, none of these weapons or equipment are described as weapons in the BRB (such as a table on page 138 that lists profiles of weapons up until that point in publication). Does that mean these items are also not going to work such as in the case of Smash with combat familiar?

Again, just checking for clarification.

Relic blade does indeed have a weapon profile. Check the SM FaQ.

Servo arm causes all sorts of problems RaW. That is a massive other discussion that will add no clarity here.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Relic blade does indeed have a weapon profile. Check the SM FaQ.

Hmm...It does indeed. You are correct.

But until it had such clarification in the FAQ, how would the relic blade of been treated? It shares a very similar description to other things that do not have a weapon profile.

Well you would have had to super impose the unusual power weapon profile but with the S replaced with 6. So you get back to the same thing. This is because 5th edition did not have weapon profiles for CCWs where as 6th does. It is a subtle but important shift in the mechanics of how assault works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So essentially a MC with a relic blade would have counted as having an unusual power with a set modifier of S6 applied. Meaning you'd still be AP2 but if you chose to smash and half your attacks your strength would be doubled and then set back to 6...

 FlingitNow wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So essentially a MC with a relic blade would have counted as having an unusual power with a set modifier of S6 applied. Meaning you'd still be AP2 but if you chose to smash and half your attacks your strength would be doubled and then set back to 6...

Smash has a problem with fixed strength close combat items....

 WarOne wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Relic blade does indeed have a weapon profile. Check the SM FaQ.

Hmm...It does indeed. You are correct.

But until it had such clarification in the FAQ, how would the relic blade of been treated? It shares a very similar description to other things that do not have a weapon profile.

Which doesnt alter that it is *not* a set modifier

You do not attack with yuor strength in combat. You (usually) attack with a weapon, and that weapon determines how you attack

So a smashing MC with a relic blade isnt having their Strength "set" to 6 by the relic blade; their Strength was never being used by the attack in the first place. Their strength remains 10, they attack at 6 because they are attacking with a profile that specifies 6.

This is a subtle difference in how 6th edition works that seems to be "confusing" some.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Relic blade does indeed have a weapon profile. Check the SM FaQ.

Hmm...It does indeed. You are correct.

But until it had such clarification in the FAQ, how would the relic blade of been treated? It shares a very similar description to other things that do not have a weapon profile.

Which doesnt alter that it is *not* a set modifier

You do not attack with yuor strength in combat. You (usually) attack with a weapon, and that weapon determines how you attack

So a smashing MC with a relic blade isnt having their Strength "set" to 6 by the relic blade; their Strength was never being used by the attack in the first place. Their strength remains 10, they attack at 6 because they are attacking with a profile that specifies 6.

This is a subtle difference in how 6th edition works that seems to be "confusing" some.

Agreed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This is a subtle difference in how 6th edition works that seems to be "confusing" some.

I'm not sure how you are using those quotation marks. Are those scare quotes? In terms of confusion, I can understand some level of confusion as you have to reference several different sources of information in book format thanks to differences between the current edition and past codex publications.

Sort of - you just have to read the section that says if you attack with a weapon you use that profile. That doesnt make the profile a set modifier.

CF is not a set modifier - it is a long hand weapon profile, that you attack with in addition to your normal attacks. As such it cannot be a modifier - it IS the thing, it is not an alteration to the thing.

As such Smash MUST affect it, same as it affects any other Attack made by the daemon prince.

CF is not a set modifier - it is a long hand weapon profile, that you attack with in addition to your normal attacks. As such it cannot be a modifier - it IS the thing, it is not an alteration to the thing.

Citation. You yourself have said it is not a weapon profile.

If it is not a weapon profile it is a set modifier.

If it is a weapon profile you have to choose between it and your other weapon whenever you attack BRB page 51.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If it is not a weapon profile it is a set modifier.

You have a rules quote and page number for this I assume?
Because this is very incorrect.
It is a value, not a modifier.

Page 2 I broke down a couple of pages ago (page 11 or 12 of the thread I think).

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
If it is not a weapon profile it is a set modifier.

You have a rules quote and page number for this I assume?
Because this is very incorrect.
It is a value, not a modifier.

I've tried for this, and have just gotten "i've proven it is a modifier" ad nauseum. Its why I have ignored Fling - the insults and lies made it pointless continuing.

According to Fling the S6 from a relic blade isnt a profile value, but a set modifier. Who would have thought! Certainly not the rules writers, for one, but that fact eludes some.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm not stating it is a new type of modifier I am using the modifier rules page 2:

"Certain pieces of war gear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it"

Does CF add to the attacks characteristic? If yes then it is a modifier. If no citation required as CF disagrees with you.

"... or even setting its value"

Does CF set the value of the S & AP of those attacks? If yes then it is a modifier. If no citation required as CF disagrees with you.

Here we are page 12 this was on.

CF is wargear that gives additional attacks that are made with a specific weapon. We know this because it specifies the Melee Type which, according to page 50:

Melee Type
Weapons witht he Melee type can only be used in close combat.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm not stating it is a new type of modifier I am using the modifier rules page 2:

"Certain pieces of war gear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it"

Does CF add to the attacks characteristic? If yes then it is a modifier. If no citation required as CF disagrees with you.

"... or even setting its value"

Does CF set the value of the S & AP of those attacks? If yes then it is a modifier. If no citation required as CF disagrees with you.

Here we are page 12 this was on.

So every single weapon and attack in the game is a set modifier?
You'll quickly find the game breaks down completely if you try that.

According to Fling the S6 from a relic blade isnt a profile value, but a set modifier

Another Nos lie. I have not said this. I said it was S6 on the profile. I was then asked what about if the FAQ hadn't happenedhow to handle it. The rules state it is a power weapon with extra rules (S6) so we use the unusual power weapon profile with the additional rule of S6. I assume this would resolve as a set modifier as the unusual power weapon profile gives a strength to use. Though you could have substituted in the S6 to the profile.

 FlingitNow wrote:

According to Fling the S6 from a relic blade isnt a profile value, but a set modifier

Another Nos lie. I have not said this. I said it was S6 on the profile. I was then asked what about if the FAQ hadn't happenedhow to handle it. The rules state it is a power weapon with extra rules (S6) so we use the unusual power weapon profile with the additional rule of S6. I assume this would resolve as a set modifier as the unusual power weapon profile gives a strength to use. Though you could have substituted in the S6 to the profile.

Quick question, hypotheticall as I'm not sure it's possible but...

A model with a Relic Blade and Furious Charge.
If its a set modifier then the +1Str cannot be applied from FC.

If it's a value, the FC bonus can be applied, making attacks on the charge S7.

Which is it?

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I'm not stating it is a new type of modifier I am using the modifier rules page 2:

"Certain pieces of war gear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it"

Does CF add to the attacks characteristic? If yes then it is a modifier. If no citation required as CF disagrees with you.

"... or even setting its value"

Does CF set the value of the S & AP of those attacks? If yes then it is a modifier. If no citation required as CF disagrees with you.

Here we are page 12 this was on.

So every single weapon and attack in the game is a set modifier?
You'll quickly find the game breaks down completely if you try that.

No because pages 50-51 tell us how weapon profiles work. Note how CF makes no mention of profiles and no mention of the attacking with 2 weapons rule on page 51. So we can conclude either:

1) CF is not a weapon, nor does it provide a weapon profile. It is a series of modifiers.
Or
2) CF is a long hand profile neglecting to mention that or stating a range (ccws have the stated range "-"). Which means you have to choose between it and your other weapon whenever you attack in assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

According to Fling the S6 from a relic blade isnt a profile value, but a set modifier

Another Nos lie. I have not said this. I said it was S6 on the profile. I was then asked what about if the FAQ hadn't happenedhow to handle it. The rules state it is a power weapon with extra rules (S6) so we use the unusual power weapon profile with the additional rule of S6. I assume this would resolve as a set modifier as the unusual power weapon profile gives a strength to use. Though you could have substituted in the S6 to the profile.

Quick question, hypotheticall as I'm not sure it's possible but...

A model with a Relic Blade and Furious Charge.
If its a set modifier then the +1Str cannot be applied from FC.

If it's a value, the FC bonus can be applied, making attacks on the charge S7.

Which is it?

Furious charge changes the models strength not the weapons strength. Most weapons in cc reference the models strength hence how the FC bonus works. But the relic blade is strength 6 so what you do to the models strength is irrelevant the relic blade is always So unless you have a modifier that applies to weapons rather models.

 FlingitNow wrote:
[2) CF is a long hand profile neglecting to mention that or stating a range (ccws have the stated range "-"). Which means you have to choose between it and your other weapon whenever you attack in assault.

Do Longhand profiles ever mention a range for CCW's? Seems a bit redundant, is there an example of one that does?
See the Servo arm for reference.

And it wouldn't make you choose between weapons due to the rest of the CF rule, you can't leave out the rest of the rule after all.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Furious charge changes the models strength not the weapons strength. Most weapons in cc reference the models strength hence how the FC bonus works. But the relic blade is strength 6 so what you do to the models strength is irrelevant the relic blade is always So unless you have a modifier that applies to weapons rather models.

Quite right, I knew Furious Charge would be a bad one for an example.

So a Theoretical +1Str that effects a models weapons?
Would have on effect on a set modifier,
Would effect a value.

Servo arms as stated are problematic. They also aren't weapons as it stands.

Do you have an example of a long hand profile without a range? Also it seems pretty clear that FaQ is a stop gap to help 5th Ed codexes that didn't have profiles for melee weapons. This is not a 6th ed codex, also a long hand profile still needs to give the full information of a profile. CF does not nor does it state profile.

Also if it is a weapon profile pg 51 comes into play. I'm not sure what you're seeing in the rule that stops this being the case? Please explain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would effect a profile value it would not effect a set modifier as per pg2. If you're trying to get me to admit that if CF is a profile then smash wins I've already stated this.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
[2) CF is a long hand profile neglecting to mention that or stating a range (ccws have the stated range "-"). Which means you have to choose between it and your other weapon whenever you attack in assault.

Do Longhand profiles ever mention a range for CCW's? Seems a bit redundant, is there an example of one that does?
See the Servo arm for reference.

And it wouldn't make you choose between weapons due to the rest of the CF rule, you can't leave out the rest of the rule after all.

Since the profile includes "Melee" you can only ever use it in CC (Page 50).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also if it is a weapon profile pg 51 comes into play. I'm not sure what you're seeing in the rule that stops this being the case? Please explain.

Certainly, the first 3 words of the rule you're referring to.
I assume you're referring to "More than one weapon"?

It would effect a profile value it would not effect a set modifier as per pg2. If you're trying to get me to admit that if CF is a profile then smash wins I've already stated this.

But which one is the Relic Blade?
A value or a set modifier?
And why?

Rigeld range "-" confers the melee type page 50. Not seeing the reverse (that melee confers the range "-"). So the long hand profile:

A) does not state it is a profile
B) is missing information required in a profile

Still think it is a weapon profile? Please give evidence of why it can be a partial profile without ever stating it is a profile...

Edit: removed double post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relic blade is a profile value as it is a weapon with a weapon profile that fits the weapon profile format laid out on pages 50-51.

As for the first 3 words of the rule do you mean:

"If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must..."

Or

"A model with a combat familiar makes two additional..."

Which one resolves this? And how exactly?

Not a lie Fling. Just the truth.

A relic blade is a profile, same as CF generates a profile for attacks. Otherwise every weapon in the game is a set modifier.

One way lies absurdity, one way you just follow the clear as day rules and apply Smash to ALL attacks. That would be ALL attacks, not just "those you want to apply it to"

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld range "-" confers the melee type page 50. Not seeing the reverse (that melee confers the range "-". So the long hand profile:

A) does not state it is a profile
B) is missing information required in a profile

Still think it is a weapon profile? Please give evidence of why it can be a partial profile without ever stating it is a profile...

Rigeld2's quote was from the second column of page 50, under "Type" -> "Melee Type"

Relic blade is a profile value as it is a weapon with a weapon profile that fits the weapon profile format laid out on pages 50-51.

As for the first 3 words of the rule do you mean:

"If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must..."

Or

"A model with a combat familiar makes two additional..."

Which one resolves this? And how exactly?

You missed the first 3 words completely there.
"Unless otherwise stated"

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld range "-" confers the melee type page 50. Not seeing the reverse (that melee confers the range "-"). So the long hand profile:

A) does not state it is a profile
B) is missing information required in a profile

Still think it is a weapon profile? Please give evidence of why it can be a partial profile without ever stating it is a profile...

Edit: removed double post.

The one thing I don't understand in your argument is what stats Combat Familiar is modifying. Page 2 says that modifiers effect characteristics, and I would like to know what characteristics are being modified.

 Nilok wrote:
The one thing I don't understand in your argument is what stats Combat Familiar is modifying. Page 2 says that modifiers effect characteristics, and I would like to know what characteristics are being modified.

We'd all like to know that.
It's not modifying anything, that's it's values are not set modifiers, but values.

Not a lie Fling. Just the truth.

A relic blade is a profile, same as CF generates a profile for attacks. Otherwise every weapon in the game is a set modifier.

I think you have misunderstood the terms lie and truth you appear to have them backwards.

You said I stated that a relic blade is a set modifier and not a profile. I said it was a weapon with a weapon profile. So this is a lie. That is not the truth. I answered a hypothetical situation where Relic blade didn't have a profile would the S therefore be a set modifier.

So CF generates a weapon profile now, something you yourself have denied repeatedly. It is a partial profile with no permission to be a profile, trying to force an FAQ about 5th codexes Nellie weapons to apply to a 6th end piece of wargear... Which then creates a massive problem with the multiple weapon rules on page 51...

Or you can just see CF as wargear like it says it is, that grants benefits in the form of a series of modifiers. Which is you know just following what the rules say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The one thing I don't understand in your argument is what stats Combat Familiar is modifying. Page 2 says that modifiers effect characteristics, and I would like to know what characteristics are being modified

Attacks and Strength and the weapon profile characteristic of AP.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So CF generates a weapon profile now, something you yourself have denied repeatedly. It is a partial profile with no permission to be a profile, trying to force an FAQ about 5th codexes Nellie weapons to apply to a 6th end piece of wargear... Which then creates a massive problem with the multiple weapon rules on page 51...

It creates no problem with that rules, thanks to those 3 words you left out in the previous quote.
"Unless otherwise stated" you must choose, the CF rules do indeed state otherwise, these are additional melee attacks. Not Bonus attacks applied to the Attack characteristic (see bonus attacks p24).

 FlingitNow wrote:

The one thing I don't understand in your argument is what stats Combat Familiar is modifying. Page 2 says that modifiers effect characteristics, and I would like to know what characteristics are being modified

Attacks and Strength and the weapon profile characteristic of AP.

So are you asserting that a model with Combat Familiar can only attack at S4 AP-?

Set modifiers must be applied after all other modifiers, and if what you assert is true, then Combat Familiar would be one of the worst wargear in the game. It would give you +2 attacks, but reduce your Strength to 4 and make you unable to use the AP of your weapons.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The one thing I don't understand in your argument is what stats Combat Familiar is modifying. Page 2 says that modifiers effect characteristics, and I would like to know what characteristics are being modified

Attacks and Strength and the weapon profile characteristic of AP.

Which weapon? You're saying it modifies the weapon profile?
The weapon the model is carrying?
If that's the case it's now attacking with Curse, Daemon Weapon and Fleshbane? As the model in this example has a Black Mace?

It creates no problem with that rules, thanks to those 3 words you left out in the previous quote.
"Unless otherwise stated" you must choose, the CF rules do indeed state otherwise, these are additional melee attacks

That is not in the rule quoted that is in a rule dealing with ranged weapons. Also CF doesn't specifically state it is allowed to be used with another weapon. It doesn't have to as it is not a weapon...

So are you asserting that a model with Combat Familiar can only attack at S4 AP-?

Set modifiers must be applied after all other modifiers, and if what you assert is true, then Combat Familiar would be one of the worst wargear in the game. It would give you +2 attacks, but reduce your Strength to 4 and make you unable to use the AP of your weapons.

The CF tells you where its modifiers for S & AP apply (to the bonus attacks). So I am not sure what you are talking about here. If CF provides a weapon profile as others are stating then the CF would work how your suggesting due to page 51.

Which weapon? You're saying it modifies the weapon profile?
The weapon the model is carrying?
If that's the case it's now attacking with Curse, Daemon Weapon and Fleshbane? As the model in this example has a Black Mace

I think there is a strong RaW argument that weapon special rules would apply to the CF attacks.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think there is a strong RaW argument that weapon special rules would apply to the CF attacks.

In that case Smash does apply to it.
Since it apparently modifies the weapon the model is using, and you have claimed Smash effects the models weapons.

So Combat Familiar attacks are in fact attacks made with the Black Mace, but with a modified profile? That's what you're saying?

In that case Smash does apply to it.
Since it apparently modifies the weapon the model is using, and you have claimed Smash effects the models weapons

Yes smash does apply. As does CF. One sets the AP to "2" the other to "-". Hence the conflict which page 7 resolves...

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think there is a strong RaW argument that weapon special rules would apply to the CF attacks.

In that case Smash does apply to it.
Since it apparently modifies the weapon the model is using, and you have claimed Smash effects the models weapons.

So Combat Familiar attacks are in fact attacks made with the Black Mace, but with a modified profile? That's what you're saying?

Careful grendel, your careful application of rules will result in you being told you are lying.

CF generates a long hand profile. Careful application of actual rules shows this. It tells you the values those attacks are made at, and gives you permission to make them.

 FlingitNow wrote:

So are you asserting that a model with Combat Familiar can only attack at S4 AP-?

Set modifiers must be applied after all other modifiers, and if what you assert is true, then Combat Familiar would be one of the worst wargear in the game. It would give you +2 attacks, but reduce your Strength to 4 and make you unable to use the AP of your weapons.

The CF tells you where its modifiers for S & AP apply (to the bonus attacks). So I am not sure what you are talking about here. If CF provides a weapon profile as others are stating then the CF would work how your suggesting due to page 51.

I'm sorry, but you can't modify something that doesn't already exist. It would be the same as saying, I will modify nothing, into something.

On Page 2 it reads

Modifiers: Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively.

and

Multiple Modifiers: If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic...

Before you can modify a characteristic, you must find the characteristic being modified. The ability to point to a place and say, this is what it is modifying.
You can't have a modifier pointing to itself. It would be akin to a definition use the word that it is trying to define.

If CF didn't mention that the attacks were S4 AP-. How would you resolve CF. If it simply said "A model with a combat familiar makes two additional Melee Attacks".

Would you

A) resolve those attacks with the normal weapon the model was using
B) claim the game broke as you have no weapon profile to resolve those attacks

 FlingitNow wrote:
If CF didn't mention that the attacks were S4 AP-. How would you resolve CF. If it simply said "A model with a combat familiar makes two additional Melee Attacks".

Would you

A) resolve those attacks with the normal weapon the model was using
B) claim the game broke as you have no weapon profile to resolve those attacks

Definitely B, these are not Bonus Attacks.
We can't "assume" what the attacks should be made with.

Nilok it gives you 2 additional attacks. This is a modifier to your attacks characteristic yes or no?

It tells you these attacks are S4 AP-, this is setting values, that would otherwise be resolved using the those found on a melee weapons profile, yes or no?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Careful grendel, your careful application of rules will result in you being told you are lying.

CF generates a long hand profile. Careful application of actual rules shows this. It tells you the values those attacks are made at, and gives you permission to make them.

I know, silly me.

Do we have any examples of Longhand melee weapons? I think the Dark Eldar have some some in their codex?
For comparison, do they list a range? Despite it being irrelevant?

Really? So how do you resolve the extra attacks granted from Warp Speed or anything else for that matter? Your game must break very often.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If CF didn't mention that the attacks were S4 AP-. How would you resolve CF. If it simply said "A model with a combat familiar makes two additional Melee Attacks".

Would you

A) resolve those attacks with the normal weapon the model was using
B) claim the game broke as you have no weapon profile to resolve those attacks

You would follow the rules as written. As you just described, it would make Combat Familiar very powerful by simply giving +2 attack, but still be well within the rules of 6e.

My assertion is that in order for something to be a modifier, if mode first declare what it is modifying. Combat Familiar only says use itself. Thus it can't be a modifier but a profile.

If Combat Familiar read:
"Two additional attacks resolved at S4 AP-" there would be no question. It would define itself as being the last operation. However, it defines itself as a profile, a first or primary operation.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Really? So how do you resolve the extra attacks granted from Warp Speed or anything else for that matter? Your game must break very often.

Warp Speed is bonus Attacks (p24). Very different from what a CF grants.

Smash doesn't set ap to 2. It resolves all attacks at ap2. Even if its normally ap- there is no conflict so pg7 does not apply.

Just like snap shots resolve at bs1 even if a model has bs7. If you're claiming this is a conflict then every model in a codex resolves snap shots at regular bs.

Nilok - which is what I've been banging my head against the brick wall trying to explain to Fling, before being tired of the insults and lies and giving up. It was much easier.

CF grants you two additional attacks, that you make using a specific set of values. Given you have no existing values to use for these attacks - given you (usually) attack with a CC weapon and THAT profile is used for the attacks, NOT the models [although of course they are often referenced by the profile] - you CANNOT have a modifier at this point

The alternative is the extension of Flings argument, which is that EVERY weapon profile becomes a set modifier

Personally I will just simply follow the really, really clear rules and ignore Flings "interpretation" of the rules.

Do we have any examples of Longhand melee weapons? I think the Dark Eldar have some some in their codex?

To be relevant they need to be from a 6th Ed codex. But all the 5th Ed ones I believe have been faq'd though I'm happy yo be corrected here. The burden of proof is on you as you've stated it is a weapon profile even though it does not say it is, follow the formating for a weapon profile in 6th or give all the necessary information for it to be a long hand profile...

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Smash doesn't set ap to 2. It resolves all attacks at ap2. Even if its normally ap- there is no conflict so pg7 does not apply.

Just like snap shots resolve at bs1 even if a model has bs7. If you're claiming this is a conflict then every model in a codex resolves snap shots at regular bs.

This was the other tack we tried to convince Fling, but then you get accused of having a "magic" "set modifier" and are condescended to.

THis thread should probably get a lock - its literally one person arguing the you can modify a characteristic that hasnt been generated yet.

You would follow the rules as written. As you just described, it would make Combat Familiar very powerful by simply giving +2 attack, but still be well within the rules of 6e.

My assertion is that in order for something to be a modifier, if mode first declare what it is modifying. Combat Familiar only says use itself. Thus it can't be a modifier but a profile.

If Combat Familiar read:
"Two additional attacks resolved at S4 AP-" there would be no question. It would define itself as being the last operation. However, it defines itself as a profile, a first or primary operation.

It says 2 additional attacks these would be resolved at the normal S & AP of the melee weapon if not modified to S4 AP-. I'm not convinced at all that the "resolved at" wording would change how the rule works at all. Maybe I'm not fully understanding your point. Please expand why you think modifying the S & AP of the attacks would only be modifying them if using the resolved at language.

If it is a profile. What type of profile is it? If a weapon profile why is it missing information? Also if it is a weapon profile how do you resolve pg51 which tells you that you must choose which weapon profile to use. If it is a different type of profile please tellme which ytype it is and where it is defined?