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

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

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

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

Thanks!

Additional thoughts..

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

Thoughts?

RAW it seems it's str 4ap2

HIWPI str 4ap-

All attacks made are AP2, all of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

Iranna.

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

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

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

Specific vs general

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry but I do disagree.

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

Nos,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jd,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JinxDragon wrote:


Jd,

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

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

I feel it isn't.

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

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:


Jd,

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

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

I feel it isn't.

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

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

 PrinceRaven wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:


Jd,

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

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

I feel it isn't.

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

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

Sounds similar to it being ap- and ap2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which, according to Smash, are resolved at AP2

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

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

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

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

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

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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