Had an interesting mention of the interaction between Crowe's Cleansing Flame and Master Swordsman rule:

As per the GK FAQ:
Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close
combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack.

And Master Swordsman States:
His (Crowe's) close combat attacks have the Rending special rule, and will rend on a to Wound roll of 4 or more.

So if all Crowe's close combat attacks rend on a 4+, and Cleansing Flame is a close combat attack that wounds on a 4+, does that mean when Crowe uses Cleansing Flame he ignores armour saves? Seems somewhat beardy to claim his psychic attack of holy fire suddenly ignores armour saves because he's good with a sword. But of course, on the other hand it seems silly Wyches get their invulnerable save against a blazing inferno because they're agile.

What do you guys think?

It seems to interact.
Nasty.

by that i would say yes as well, very deadly

It doesnt "to wound" on a 4+, it causes a wound on a roll of a 4+, meaning no rends

As much as I'd like it to rend, I have to agree with nos

nosferatu1001 wrote:It doesnt "to wound" on a 4+, it causes a wound on a roll of a 4+, meaning no rends

That does indeed seem to be the dealbreaker. Thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmm, a member of another forum mentioned Sniper weapons. They also have the wording 'wound on a roll of 4+' instead of a 'to Wound roll', and are also Rending. Same with poisoned weapons.

Actually sniper weapons modify the to wound roll to always wound on a 4+. To quote: "Sniper hits wound on a roll of 4+, regardless of target Toughness."

While Cleansing Flame causes a wound on a 4+ roll. To quote: "... suffer one wound on a roll of 4+."

It's only a slight difference in wording, but it means that sniper weapons are still doing a "to wound roll that causes a wound on a 4+" while cleansing flame is a "4+ roll that causes a wound". So in the latter case you aren't doing a "to wound" roll while in the sniper case you are (and rending only happens on "to wound" rolls).

Plus for cleansing flame he does not use the sword. It's similar in that regard to any character who has multiple weapons. The cf weapon if you will is his mind.

Redemption wrote:Hmm, a member of another forum mentioned Sniper weapons. They also have the wording 'wound on a roll of 4+' instead of a 'to Wound roll', and are also Rending. Same with poisoned weapons.

Sniper weapons roll to hit, then roll to wound - they successfully wound on a to wound roll of a 4+, rending on a 6.
Same with Poison weapons.

Cleansing Flame rolls a bunch of dice, and causes a wound if the dice come up a 4+. That's not a To Wound roll, it's a Cleansing Flame roll that causes wounds.

rigeld2 wrote:

Redemption wrote:Hmm, a member of another forum mentioned Sniper weapons. They also have the wording 'wound on a roll of 4+' instead of a 'to Wound roll', and are also Rending. Same with poisoned weapons.

Sniper weapons roll to hit, then roll to wound - they successfully wound on a to wound roll of a 4+, rending on a 6.
Same with Poison weapons.

Cleansing Flame rolls a bunch of dice, and causes a wound if the dice come up a 4+. That's not a To Wound roll, it's a Cleansing Flame roll that causes wounds.

Agreed. While both are worded nearly the same, the two rules refer to two fundamentally different processes (rolling to Wound as per Shooting or Assault rules versus a special effect resulting from a specific roll - in this case an automatic wound).

Draigo wrote:Plus for cleansing flame he does not use the sword. It's similar in that regard to any character who has multiple weapons. The cf weapon if you will is his mind.

The Sword has nothing to do with the Master Swordsmen special rule. if somehow the Blade of Antwer was taken away from Crowe he would still have the Master Swordsmen rule, his fists would rend on a 4+

Grey Templar wrote:

Draigo wrote:Plus for cleansing flame he does not use the sword. It's similar in that regard to any character who has multiple weapons. The cf weapon if you will is his mind.

The Sword has nothing to do with the Master Swordsmen special rule. if somehow the Blade of Antwer was taken away from Crowe he would still have the Master Swordsmen rule, his fists would rend on a 4+

Point being they're seperate and I doubt his fists wound rend but ya never know. lol

Tycho's fists are power weapons.

Hmmm.... Rending fists! maybe I have them! *punches wall* Jesus Christ! Stupid freakin' wall, let me rend you!!!

Only JCVD has rending fists... And rending splits...

If you read crowes fluff it says he doesn't use the sword but protects it from the clutches of evil. So indeed his fists rend the sword is a supremely daemonic weapon that if used could consume a mans being.

decoste007xt wrote:If you read crowes fluff it says he doesn't use the sword but protects it from the clutches of evil. So indeed his fists rend the sword is a supremely daemonic weapon that if used could consume a mans being.

A Grey Knight with a daemon weapon? HERESY!

No fluff in the universe can justify this, it flies in the face of everything about the grey knights. Immune to curruption or not. Whole guard regiments have been executed for less.

Sorry rant over, I just strongly dislike even the idea of Crowe and his daemon weapon. The designer should have been shot by the nearest commissar... I know, I read the background. Still Heresy... *mumble* *grumble* *heretics*

grendel083 wrote:

decoste007xt wrote:If you read crowes fluff it says he doesn't use the sword but protects it from the clutches of evil. So indeed his fists rend the sword is a supremely daemonic weapon that if used could consume a mans being.

A Grey Knight with a daemon weapon? HERESY!

No fluff in the universe can justify this, it flies in the face of everything about the grey knights. Immune to curruption or not. Whole guard regiments have been executed for less.

Sorry rant over, I just strongly dislike even the idea of Crowe and his daemon weapon. The designer should have been shot by the nearest commissar... I know, I read the background. Still Heresy... *mumble* *grumble* *heretics*

You really think you know lot's of fluff don't you?

Try searching radical inquisitors on the Lexicanum.

Grenedel im gonna cry.....
One of the biggest things all over "Grey Knight" inquisition is using the Daemon against itself. Fighting fire with fire as it were. Many if not most inquisitors have either daemonic weapons, powers, or familiars (lets not even begin to discuss the daemonhost......)

Oh I know, just being psykers is embracing chaos. I just think carrying a chaos blade is a step too far. They'd execute a civilian for being on the same planet as a chaotic artifact (just to be safe), and there's Crowe walking around carry the damn thing.

I'd expect it from an Inquisitor, radical devils that they are.

grendel083 wrote:Oh I know, just being psykers is embracing chaos. I just think carrying a chaos blade is a step too far. They'd execute a civilian for being on the same planet as a chaotic artifact (just to be safe), and there's Crowe walking around carry the damn thing.

I'd expect it from an Inquisitor, radical devils that they are.

So...I'll have to give you the link myself.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Radical#.T3jbrZhnIy5

Yes, the GKs would shoot someone for carrying a Daemon Weapon around and then give it to a Purifier to carry around.

Its not Hypocracy, its simple pragmaticism. Only GKs, and purfiers specifically, have the Spiritual Purity to be immune to the corruption of the Daemon artifact. The Blade of Antwer is sentient and needs to be under constant guard and its too dangerous to just leave in a case back on Titan, so Crowe carries it around and constantly battles with the Daemon inside it. Crowe is currently the best guard for the blade and so where he goes it goes.

Actually he DOEWS use it. Physically. He just doesn't use the mega awesome God killing poroperties to end everything. He still attacks with it, but for any the sharp the Daemonmetal blade is, he might as well be using a lead pipe. If he were an ork it might work. It's a seriously choppy looking choppa.

I merely posted what I read in the GREY KNIGHT CODEX... why the hate? don't be hate'n brah!

Was that directed at me? If so, I would like to say I wasn't hating just corrrecting a statement.

Yes, he does use the blade physically, but his 4+ rending comes from a special rule and not because he's using the blade. He would rend on 4+ with anything, even a wet noodle.

Ah yes. I was talking fluffwise sorry. The statement sounded like a fluff reference.

You really think you know lot's of fluff don't you?

Try searching radical inquisitors on the Lexicanum.

No Deadshot it wasn't directed at you, was directed at jgehunter.

grendel083 wrote:

decoste007xt wrote:If you read crowes fluff it says he doesn't use the sword but protects it from the clutches of evil. So indeed his fists rend the sword is a supremely daemonic weapon that if used could consume a mans being.

A Grey Knight with a daemon weapon? HERESY!

No fluff in the universe can justify this Not true *BLAM*, it flies in the face of everything about the grey knights. Immune to curruption or not. Whole guard regiments have been executed for less.

Sorry rant over, I just strongly dislike even the idea of Crowe and his daemon weapon. The designer should have been shot by the nearest commissar... I know, I read the background. Still Heresy... *mumble* *grumble* *heretics*

And what I wrote was directed at this, srry if you took my tone badly but I was just making it clear that having a Demon Weapon is not precisely fluff-breaking

Yeah, its hard to break fluff that didn't really exist prior to this Codex.

The DH codex was pretty ambigious about fluff. Only character mentioned was Brother Captain Stern and there was almost nothing about how the chapter operated or was put together.

Mat Ward has actually created the first solid GK fluff that wasn't completely mysterious sounding. People just raged because it wasn't how they would have imagined it to actually be. I admit, it wasn't how I imagined it either but I actually like most of it. They fit their tag line pretty well. "A line of shining silver seperating the light from the darkness" They are the Grey between Black and White.

@ Grey templar. Wow that's the best reason for the name grey knight I have ever heard other then the silver color of the armor.

I am going to use that when someone says they should ve good guys but their not.

Ive always thought that made sense anyway, they were never meant to be the white knights, otherwise they would have been called that! It gives me a good chuckle when people still think they are the whitest of white. Pure doesn't mean good!

40k is definitly a place where the Ends justify the Means.

The GKs are the only dudes capable of using Chaos against Chaos. Anyone else is far too likely to get corrupted.


The threat from Chaos is so great that the normal policy of non-association and extermination of Xenos is waived so that an advantage may be gained.

So what is the consensus from you guys? I was directed to this thread as I started a similar one, but there seems to be about 3 mentions of the question then you argue about fluff.

I don't play GK but I often play against purifier spam, but today was the first I had heard of someone trying this out

Grey Templar wrote:40k is definitly a place where the Ends justify the Means.

The GKs are the only dudes capable of using Chaos against Chaos. Anyone else is far too likely to get corrupted.


The threat from Chaos is so great that the normal policy of non-association and extermination of Xenos is waived so that an advantage may be gained.

Not to spark a fluff war but this concept is SO stupid. I am not disagreeing with you templar, just the idea from the fluff that wielding chaos against chaos is an answer to .... chaos? think about that statement for a minute...

meanwhile my local pyromaniac fire chief: "Oh crap a burning building, bust out the flamethrowers boys!"


@Caranthir- It doesn't work with CF

Nosferatu provided the best explanation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It doesnt "to wound" on a 4+, it causes a wound on a roll of a 4+, meaning no rends

Cleansing Flame just causes wounds based on some dice, it doesn't have a "to wound" roll.

Thanks guys thats what I thought

Grakmar wrote:Nosferatu provided the best explanation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It doesnt "to wound" on a 4+, it causes a wound on a roll of a 4+, meaning no rends

Cleansing Flame just causes wounds based on some dice, it doesn't have a "to wound" roll.

This, as "All enemy models suffer a wound on the roll of a 4+"

And master swordsman says crow's "Close Combat attacks... will rend on a to wound roll of...)

so they are two different things.

Also Cleansing flame is not a Close Combat attack, it is a psychic power used to cause wounds.

DeathReaper wrote:Also Cleansing flame is not a Close Combat attack, it is a psychic power used to cause wounds.

As per the GK FAQ:
Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close
combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack.

It is described in the FAQ as a CC attack which is where the confusion coms from.

However, as it was in response to the question of whther it was a PSDA or CC attack (wich twit asked that), I don't think it applies.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Also Cleansing flame is not a Close Combat attack, it is a psychic power used to cause wounds.

As per the GK FAQ:
Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close
combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack.

ok it is a CC attack, but the the causes a wound part is not a to wound roll.

Edit: I do not know how I missed that in the FAQ

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Also Cleansing flame is not a Close Combat attack, it is a psychic power used to cause wounds.

As per the GK FAQ:
Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close
combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack.

ok it is a CC attack, but the the causes a wound part is not a to wound roll.

Edit: I do not know how I missed that in the FAQ

Agreed. Just clarifying.

Grakmar wrote:Nosferatu provided the best explanation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It doesnt "to wound" on a 4+, it causes a wound on a roll of a 4+, meaning no rends

Cleansing Flame just causes wounds based on some dice, it doesn't have a "to wound" roll.

I would respectfully disagree with that interpertation.

"to wound" rolls are never defined exactly, so I would logically draw the conclusion that any roll where you are determining if a wound is going to be caused would be defined as a To wound roll.

Hence Crowe's CF will rend on a 4+ as well.

Grey Templar wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Nosferatu provided the best explanation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It doesnt "to wound" on a 4+, it causes a wound on a roll of a 4+, meaning no rends

Cleansing Flame just causes wounds based on some dice, it doesn't have a "to wound" roll.

I would respectfully disagree with that interpertation.

"to wound" rolls are never defined exactly, so I would logically draw the conclusion that any roll where you are determining if a wound is going to be caused would be defined as a To wound roll.

Hence Crowe's CF will rend on a 4+ as well.

BRB page 19 wrote:Consult the chart below, and cross-reference the weapon’s Strength (S) with the target’s Toughness (T).
The number indicated is the minimum score on a D6 needed to convert the hit into a wound.
Just like rolling To Hit, roll the dice together and, once again, use different coloured dice to pick out weapons with different Strengths or roll them separately.

"to wound" rolls are defined.

BRB page 42 wrote:If a model armed with a rending close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat, the opponent automatically suffers a wound, regardless of its Toughness.

More support that the "to wound" roll is S vs T.

Cleansing Flame does not make to-wound rolls.

I don't see it explicitly say "this is a To Wound roll and nothing else can be a To Wound roll"

I still believe the logical extension that To Wound rolls are any dice roll that can result in a wound being caused.

Grey Templar wrote:I don't see it explicitly say "this is a To Wound roll and nothing else can be a To Wound roll"

Permisive ruleset, they tell us what a "to wound" roll is, they don't give us option for more.

Grey Templar wrote:I still believe the logical extension that To Wound rolls are any dice roll that can result in a wound being caused.

So, by your interpretation, is a DT test, for example, a "To wound" roll

Grey Templar wrote:I don't see it explicitly say "this is a To Wound roll and nothing else can be a To Wound roll"

It's under the section "Roll to wound". Is Cleansing Flame?

I still believe the logical extension that To Wound rolls are any dice roll that can result in a wound being caused.

So Dangerous Terrain rolls are To Wound rolls?
As are Get's Hot?

Of course they are to wound rolls.

If someone is dumb enough to trip over Crowe's foot then he will rend them on a 4+, which of course will never happen because you can't trip over crowe.

The same if Crowe ever makes someone fail a Gets Hot roll, and again it will never happen.

Grey Templar wrote:Of course they are to wound rolls.

You have nothing to support this except your attempt to link any die that can cause a wound to a roll to wound.

If someone is dumb enough to trip over Crowe's foot then he will rend them on a 4+, which of course will never happen because you can't trip over crowe.

The same if Crowe ever makes someone fail a Gets Hot roll, and again it will never happen.

Yes, because it those things will only ever have implications with regards to Crowe. Good catch that.

edit: rolling to hit with a plasma weapon causes a Gets Hot on a roll of 1. Gets Hot can causes a wound (that you can save). Therefore Gets Hot is a to wound roll.
Doom (Eldar power) causes all to-wound rolls to be be able to be re-rolled. If you Doom a unit that then fires plasma weapons, can they be forced to re-roll their shots?

No, because Doom allows the Eldar player to reroll all to wound rolls against that unit, the Eldar isn't the one rolling those To Wound rolls.

Grey Templar wrote:No, because Doom allows the Eldar player to reroll all to wound rolls against that unit, the Eldar isn't the one rolling those To Wound rolls.

False.
It says, "All hits caused upon that unit gain a re-roll to wound until the start of the next Eldar turn."

Still doesn't work, Gets Hot doesn't cause hits

Grey Templar wrote:Still doesn't work, Gets Hot doesn't cause hits

Debatable - it's a roll to hit that causes a wound.

Regardless - you cannot argue that rolling to hit is also a roll to wound, therefore Gets Hot is not a roll to wound, therefore not every roll that can end in a wound is a roll to wound.

I see no support whatsoever about Cleansing Flame, Dangerous Terrain and Gets Hot being To-Wound rolls.

Funny fact: We know Gets Hot is a to-hit roll, so how can it be To-Wound roll at same time?
And if Gets Hot is a To-Wound roll, ALL To-Hit rolls must be To-Wound rolls at same time, unless you argue that To-Hit roll is in fact Schroedingers To-Wound roll:
You cannot know if a roll is To-Wound roll or not, before you have rolled it.

Edit: Anyway, if anyone tried this against me, I'd just ask them to point out where in the Codex does it say CF is a To-Wound roll (as per brb page 19/42). And I personally play GK with Crowe + Purifiers.

Luide wrote:unless you argue that To-Hit roll is in fact Schroedingers To-Wound roll:
You cannot know if a roll is To-Wound roll or not, before you have rolled it.

Got Dang It!, Now I'm gonna have to add that to my collection of Schroedinger sigs.

he he, schrodingers cat applied to warhammer. Thats a first. IMHO master swordsman dosent apply to the psychic power otherwise it would be master psyker, not master swordsman. Makes no sense anyhow. We are already broken as hell. Don't need to make things worse.

I'm just going to join in and say this to grey templar, the wounds caused by CF on the roll of a 4+ are like the automatic wounds caused by blinding venom on garoyles, both cause a wound on a certain without being on the "to wound chart"

There is a difference. CF doesn't not hit. It simply has an effet. BV actually skips the step. The step is still there it just passes it. With CF there is no "to hit" or "to wound."

Deadshot wrote:There is a difference. CF doesn't not hit. It simply has an effet. BV actually skips the step. The step is still there it just passes it. With CF there is no "to hit" or "to wound."

The point is that CF is not on the "to wound". I never said they were exactly the same thing, just that they had the same effect of causing an automatic wound.

Technically wouldnt CF's wound roll be comparable to a poisoned weapon, in that it always causes a wound based on a set value regardless of toughness?

Sunde wrote:Technically wouldnt CF's wound roll be comparable to a poisoned weapon, in that it always causes a wound based on a set value regardless of toughness?

No, because it does not use the poison rules, so it is not the same.

It is simply a Psychic power that causes a wound if you roll a 4+

In different ways which is why it does not rend.

I think that arguing that a close combat attack that causes a wound on a 4+ (CF) is not comparable to a close combat attack that wounds on a 4+ is a bit disingenuous and implies a greater specificity of language than GW seems to apply. GW doesn't seem to micro parse its language and roughly congruent statements seem to be treated as equivalent. I seem to recall several YMDC discussion where the hyper semantic argument fell to a FAQ or errata that employs GWs looser language.

I think the fact that CF was clarified as a CC attack is enough to bring in the rending. Though I think it is a pretty odd result, I would not tell the GK player that he could not benefit from it.

jmurph wrote:I think that arguing that a close combat attack that causes a wound on a 4+ (CF) is not comparable to a close combat attack that wounds on a 4+ is a bit disingenuous and implies a greater specificity of language than GW seems to apply. GW doesn't seem to micro parse its language and roughly congruent statements seem to be treated as equivalent. I seem to recall several YMDC discussion where the hyper semantic argument fell to a FAQ or errata that employs GWs looser language.

I think the fact that CF was clarified as a CC attack is enough to bring in the rending. Though I think it is a pretty odd result, I would not tell the GK player that he could not benefit from it.

Cleansing Flame does not make to-wound rolls.
Rending requires to-wound rolls.

If you're going to try and argue that anything that causes a wound is a to-wound roll, then all plasma to-hits are to-wound rolls as well...

Rending requires any rolls to wound, not "to-wound rolls"(which is not even a thing anyways).

Since Cleansing Flame is very specifically a roll to cause a wound, the FAQ specifies that Cleansing Flame is a Close combat attack, and Master swordsman makes all Close combat attacks rending; then Cleansing Flame would have to Rend.

Let's look at the naked text in side-by-side comparisons:

Rending weapons(BRB Page 42): "If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon olls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat, the opponent automatically suffers a wound, regardless of the target's Toughness."

Cleansing Flame(GKCodex, page 31): "If the psychic test is passed, all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+."

Master Swordsman(GKCodex, page 42): "His close combat attacks have the Rending special rule, and will rend on a to Wound roll of 4 or more."

And as already stated the FAQ has to say: "Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close
combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack. "

So going straight through these quotes we find that Cleansing flame is a Close combat attack, and therefore Rending, and will wound on a roll of 4+(which would then trigger the rending via Master swordsman).

But you are ignoring the big question. Is cleansing flame a Towound roll? I say no.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Since Cleansing Flame is very specifically a roll to cause a wound

So rolls to hit are as well? Or just the ones that are for Plasma?
Difficult Terrain tests are as well?
The Leadership test for Spirit Leech must be also...

Man, it's like they should have defined what a roll to wound is.
Oh, they did. Page 19 in the BRB.

The number indicated is the minimum score on a D6
needed to convert the hit into a wound. Just like rolling
To Hit, roll the dice together and, once again, use
different coloured dice to pick out weapons with
different Strengths or roll them separately.

Does Cleansing Flame have a Strength value to reference against the Toughness of the target and check the table? No?
So it's not a roll to wound then, right?

The number indicated is the minimum score on a D6 
needed to convert the hit into a wound. Just like rolling 
To Hit, roll the dice together and, once again, use 
different coloured dice to pick out weapons with 
different Strengths or roll them separately.

By the bolded part, CF is not a roll to wound as it does not roll to hit and therefore cannot be converted.

You are both focusing on a farcical notion that Rending requires a "to-wound" roll of 6.

This is not the case as I quoted from page 42.

The sentence cannot be Parsed in a fashion that requires the "to-wound" roll to be a 6.

The following is the sentenced parsed out in your claim:
If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound.
In close combat, the opponent automatically suffers a wound.
Regardless of the target's Toughness.

Now the sentenced parsed to mean any rolls that determine wounds, with a timing restriction:
If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat.
The opponent automatically suffers a wound
Regardless of the target's Toughness.

W@ith the latter example we can parse the sentence further into subject, action, and place:
The subject is the model armed with a rending CCW.
The action is rolling a 6 any rolls to wound(not to-wound rolls) .
The place is in close combat.

The rending rule does not require the "to-wound rolls" to be a 6 to activate, it requires "any rolls to wound".

With Cleansing Flame you are very much making a roll to wound(as defined by the power).

Except CF is not used in CC, it is used before CC.

Rending only applies to rolls to wound in CC (p.42)

As CC is defined on P.34 'Fighting a Close Combat' defines CC as attacks made in Initiative order.

However, the FAQ claims that CF is a close combat attack. Not a psychic power, just a close combat attack.

Happyjew wrote:However, the FAQ claims that CF is a close combat attack. Not a psychic power, just a close combat attack.

And that matters how?

It is a close combat attack that happens before combat, Rending only affects attacks made in close combat.

Rending can not affect Clensing Flame.

Trust me, I agree wholeheartedly. CF is a close combat attack that happens outside normal Initiative. Therefore, it is not affected by things that affect cc attacks, such as Hypnotic Gaze or rending.

DeathReaper wrote:Except CF is not used in CC, it is used before CC.

Rending only applies to rolls to wound in CC (p.42)

As CC is defined on P.34 'Fighting a Close Combat' defines CC as attacks made in Initiative order.

and if you dont believe this to be the case then feel free to jump over to the Hypnotic gaze thread and make your reasons known there also.

Everything he brought up regarding cc attacks has already been mentioned in that thread. As it is people disagree with what is a close combat attack in the ensuing combat actually is, so posting what has been stated multiple times already won't change anybody's mind.

Kommissar Kel wrote:You are both focusing on a farcical notion that Rending requires a "to-wound" roll of 6.

You mean this quote?

If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat,

The one that says one of his to wound rolls in close combat?
Farcical indeed.

With Cleansing Flame you are very much making a roll to wound(as defined by the power).

Actually no, you're not. You're making a roll that can cause a wound, but the definition on page 19 shows that this is not a roll to wound.

rigeld2 wrote:Does Cleansing Flame have a Strength value to reference against the Toughness of the target and check the table? No?
So it's not a roll to wound then, right?

Sniper rifles also don't have a Strength value. They Rend just fine.

A roll to wound is specified as being converted from a hit roll. CF does not hit so does not roll to wound.

Redemption wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Does Cleansing Flame have a Strength value to reference against the Toughness of the target and check the table? No?
So it's not a roll to wound then, right?

Sniper rifles also don't have a Strength value. They Rend just fine.

Yes they do. Look at the weapon profile.
Where's Cleansing Flames STR value?

rigeld2 wrote:Yes they do. Look at the weapon profile.
Where's Cleansing Flames STR value?

X is not a value. You stated that a 'to wound' roll constitutes of a Strength value references against a Toughness value. Sniper rifles only have a Strength value against vehicles, and do not roll against Strength vs Toughness. They just roll a 4+ to cause a Wound, just like CF does.

Poisoned weapons also do not roll against Toughness, but on a static number, and their rules even specifically state that if your Strength is higher or equal that the target's Toughness, you get to 're-roll failed to wound rolls'.

This infers that a S vs T test is not required for a roll to be a 'to wound roll', and a static 4+ roll to cause a wound is also a 'to wound roll'. Hence Cleansing Flame would also benefit from a Grand Master's Hammer of Righteousness to re-roll rolls of 1.

Redemption wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yes they do. Look at the weapon profile.
Where's Cleansing Flames STR value?

X is not a value. You stated that a 'to wound' roll constitutes of a Strength value references against a Toughness value. Sniper rifles only have a Strength value against vehicles, and do not roll against Strength vs Toughness. They just roll a 4+ to cause a Wound, just like CF does.

Poisoned weapons also do not roll against Toughness, but on a static number, and their rules even specifically state that if your Strength is higher or equal that the target's Toughness, you get to 're-roll failed to wound rolls'.

This infers that a S vs T test is not required for a roll to be a 'to wound roll', and a static 4+ roll to cause a wound is also a 'to wound roll'. Hence Cleansing Flame would also benefit from a Grand Master's Hammer of Righteousness to re-roll rolls of 1.

You've found stated exceptions to the rule - which is how the 40k rules work. Specific overrides general.
Both poison and rending weapons have STR values. The rules for those weapons say to ignore the SvT table.
Does Cleansing Flame say that?

Therefore your inference fails. Cleansing Flame rolls are not rolls to wound.

No, Sniper weapons do not have a Strength value unless they're shooting a vehicle.

Redemption wrote:No, Sniper weapons do not have a Strength value unless they're shooting a vehicle.

X is still a strength value. We know that because it's listed under "Strength" in the weapon profile.

Whether or not they have a Str is moot. They still roll to hit. In order for a roll to be a to wound roll, it must be converted from a hit. CF does not hit. Unless someone can.prove that CF rolls to hit, or automatically, then this debate can go no further. Never mind strength and toughness, does it hit? My answer is not, it causes a wound on 4+. It does not hit.

Right - it doesn't hit, it does not compare SvT (or have a rule saying it doesn't have to), meaning it doesn't roll to wound.

Meaning it doesn't Rend.

My take is that *if* Cleansing Flame were worded such that it caused automatic hits that wound on a 4+, rending would then apply. However, it is were in such a manner that it causes an automatic wound on a 4+.

"...all enemy models in the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+." p.31 C:GK

Deadshot wrote:Whether or not they have a Str is moot. They still roll to hit. In order for a roll to be a to wound roll, it must be converted from a hit. CF does not hit. Unless someone can.prove that CF rolls to hit, or automatically, then this debate can go no further. Never mind strength and toughness, does it hit? My answer is not, it causes a wound on 4+. It does not hit.

Where does it say To-Wound rolls are converted from a hit? I may have missed something...

EDIT: Also, Rigeld, Str X is not a value anymore than Str PAQWHX is a value.

Unless you can find it in the STR portion of that table for me.

Elios Harg wrote:My take is that *if* Cleansing Flame were worded such that it caused automatic hits that wound on a 4+, rending would then apply.

100% agree.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Whether or not they have a Str is moot. They still roll to hit. In order for a roll to be a to wound roll, it must be converted from a hit. CF does not hit. Unless someone can.prove that CF rolls to hit, or automatically, then this debate can go no further. Never mind strength and toughness, does it hit? My answer is not, it causes a wound on 4+. It does not hit.

Where does it say To-Wound rolls are converted from a hit? I may have missed something...

EDIT: Also, Rigeld, Str X is not a value anymore than Str PAQWHX is a value.

Unless you can find it in the STR portion of that table for me.

X is a value. It is X.

For the conversion bit, Pg 19. The exact paragraph is the one under the table that says Boltgun 4, Plasmagun 7, Lascannon 9.

Unit1126PLL wrote:EDIT: Also, Rigeld, Str X is not a value anymore than Str PAQWHX is a value.

Unless you can find it in the STR portion of that table for me.

PAQWHX would be a value if it existed. You'd have to look up the surrounding rules to see how it's defined.

Just like the Doom of Malantai has a Strength and a Wounds value. According to you, there is no value - so the Doom is either immortal or is instantly dead.
X is absolutely a value.

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:EDIT: Also, Rigeld, Str X is not a value anymore than Str PAQWHX is a value.

Unless you can find it in the STR portion of that table for me.

PAQWHX would be a value if it existed. You'd have to look up the surrounding rules to see how it's defined.

Just like the Doom of Malantai has a Strength and a Wounds value. According to you, there is no value - so the Doom is either immortal or is instantly dead.
X is absolutely a value.

Well Technically X is not a value, as "For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value of 0 to 10" P.6 Left Column, 3rd graph, 1st sentence.

This defines value as a number between 1 and 10 ( For vehicles it says its armor value can go above 10 later in the book.)

But that does not matter, as Rending only works in close combat.

CF is used before close combat, and will not rend.

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:EDIT: Also, Rigeld, Str X is not a value anymore than Str PAQWHX is a value.

Unless you can find it in the STR portion of that table for me.

PAQWHX would be a value if it existed. You'd have to look up the surrounding rules to see how it's defined.

Just like the Doom of Malantai has a Strength and a Wounds value. According to you, there is no value - so the Doom is either immortal or is instantly dead.
X is absolutely a value.

Well Technically X is not a value, as "For all models except vehicles these characteristics are given a value of 0 to 10" P.6 Left Column, 3rd graph, 1st sentence.

This defines value as a number between 1 and 10 ( For vehicles it says its armor value can go above 10 later in the book.)

But that does not matter, as Rending only works in close combat.

CF is used before close combat, and will not rend.

It's not that rending doesn't work outside of combat, it's that Crowe doesn't rend outside of combat. Subtle but important difference.

No you are partially wrong. Rending happens with shooting as well. Though your "before combat" statement may or may.not be true.

Who is the idiot who asked if CF was a PSA or CC attack anyway? It is obviously not a PSA.

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:EDIT: Also, Rigeld, Str X is not a value anymore than Str PAQWHX is a value.

Unless you can find it in the STR portion of that table for me.

PAQWHX would be a value if it existed. You'd have to look up the surrounding rules to see how it's defined.

Just like the Doom of Malantai has a Strength and a Wounds value. According to you, there is no value - so the Doom is either immortal or is instantly dead.
X is absolutely a value.

The Doom of Malan'tai has a (starting) Wound value of 4, and a special rule that equals his Strength statistic to his Wound statistic. So no, as Death Reaper explained, X is not a value, and no issues with the Doom of Malan'tai.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:It's not that rending doesn't work outside of combat, it's that Crowe doesn't rend outside of combat. Subtle but important difference.

Where did you imply this from?

X, if you know algebra is a stand in for a value. I.
n the case of poison 4+ or sniper, X can be expressed as X=T. In the case of Poison 2+, X=T+2.

For Doom, X=W.

Redemption wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:EDIT: Also, Rigeld, Str X is not a value anymore than Str PAQWHX is a value.

Unless you can find it in the STR portion of that table for me.

PAQWHX would be a value if it existed. You'd have to look up the surrounding rules to see how it's defined.

Just like the Doom of Malantai has a Strength and a Wounds value. According to you, there is no value - so the Doom is either immortal or is instantly dead.
X is absolutely a value.

The Doom of Malan'tai has a (starting) Wound value of 4, and a special rule that equals his Strength statistic to his Wound statistic. So no, as Death Reaper explained, X is not a value, and no issues with the Doom of Malan'tai.

Thanks for the correction - I misremembered.

Regardless, even if you think my argument is weak there's only permission to turn hits into rolls to wound - do you have anything showing that Cleansing Flame is an attack that automatically hits and wounds on a 4+?

For what it's worth, I would say 'no' because...

If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat

Cleansing Flame is not a Close combat 'weapon'. It may be a close combat attack, but it is not a 'weapon'.

This is the way i'd play it personally, but houserule it with your opponent or 4+ it before the start of the game.

Edit... nevermind, didn't read Crowe's special rule carefully enough... now i'm not sure, but i'd still probably go with no as Crowe/Purifiers hardly need the help of dodgy rules writing to be effective. *shrug*

AlmightyWalrus wrote:It's not that rending doesn't work outside of combat, it's that Crowe doesn't rend outside of combat. Subtle but important difference.

Look at P. 42 again. Rending weapons section. It details how close combat Rending weapons work (I was talking about a CC attack. Context is everything.)

"If a model with a rending close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound IN close combat."

Notice how rending cc weapons only rend IN close combat, not outside of it.

Deadshot wrote:X, if you know algebra is a stand in for a value. I.
n the case of poison 4+ or sniper, X can be expressed as X=T. In the case of Poison 2+, X=T+2.

For Doom, X=W.

Yes, as you are basically saying yourself, it is not a value, it is an unknown.

rigeld2 wrote:Regardless, even if you think my argument is weak there's only permission to turn hits into rolls to wound - do you have anything showing that Cleansing Flame is an attack that automatically hits and wounds on a 4+?

Well, the argument only hinges on whether or not a 'roll to Wound' is an actual game term or just any roll that results in a Wound. Normally game terms are capitalized (such as 'Wound'). And you don't require a hit to roll to Wound, as Cleansing Flame allows you to roll for a wound directly. So it's basically all arguing semantics, per usual with GW's rules.

evilbishop wrote:For what it's worth, I would say 'no' because...

If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat

Cleansing Flame is not a Close combat 'weapon'. It may be a close combat attack, but it is not a 'weapon'.

This is the way i'd play it personally, but houserule it with your opponent or 4+ it before the start of the game.

The problem with that bit is that the rules already break that with the plethora of ranged weapons that have the Rending rule, such as Psycannon, Assault Cannons and any type of Sniper weaponry.

But as have said before, I wouldn't play it as Rending myself; a rule called Master Swordsman shouldn't interact with attacks that don't use a sword, even if the FAQ suddenly lines these rules up. Just playing devil's advocate.

Redemption wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Regardless, even if you think my argument is weak there's only permission to turn hits into rolls to wound - do you have anything showing that Cleansing Flame is an attack that automatically hits and wounds on a 4+?

Well, the argument only hinges on whether or not a 'roll to Wound' is an actual game term or just any roll that results in a Wound. Normally game terms are capitalized (such as 'Wound'). And you don't require a hit to roll to Wound, as Cleansing Flame allows you to roll for a wound directly. So it's basically all arguing semantics, per usual with GW's rules.

It's an actual game term - see page 19.
A to wound roll (what Rending requires) is not the same thing as any die that can result in a wound - or are you asserting that plasma weapon to-hit rolls are to wound rolls, dangerous terrain checks are to wound rolls, psychic tests are to wound rolls...]

Redemption wrote:

evilbishop wrote:For what it's worth, I would say 'no' because...

If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat

Cleansing Flame is not a Close combat 'weapon'. It may be a close combat attack, but it is not a 'weapon'.

This is the way i'd play it personally, but houserule it with your opponent or 4+ it before the start of the game.

The problem with that bit is that the rules already break that with the plethora of ranged weapons that have the Rending rule, such as Psycannon, Assault Cannons and any type of Sniper weaponry.

Ranged weapons have their own rending rules section, so ranged rending works just fine.

Rending in close combat works a bit differently.

The rules for Rending in close combat are on P.42. For Ranged Rending P.31

"If a model with a rending close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound IN close combat." P.42

Notice how rending cc weapons only rend IN close combat, not outside of it.

So Cleansing Flame does not rend because it is used before close combat, it is not used IN close combat.

DeathReaper wrote:Ranged weapons have their own rending rules section, so ranged rending works just fine.

Ah, yes, was misremembering ranged Poisoned weapons.