Hypnotic Gaze vs. Cleansing Flame

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.

**jbunny**

Puma,

The reason people keep bringing up CF vs CF is if powers do not happen at the same time, then when two Puriffer squads attack each other gets to use CF. The reason is according to you CF is an attack. CF happens beforattacks happen, so once the first CF happens no more CF's can occur because attacks have occured.

So the question remains, when two squads face off which one gets to use their CF?

**BewareOfTom**

both squads use CF at the same time..... its just like two I4 guys fighting, one can kill the other, but he gets to strike back

**Happyjew**

Sort of like how CF and HG are used at the same time?

**DeathReaper**

Happyjew wrote:Sort of like how CF and HG are used at the same time?

Exactly, That is why others would not answer the question, it undermines their sides whole argument.

**rigeld2**

DeathReaper wrote:
Happyjew wrote:Sort of like how CF and HG are used at the same time?

Exactly, That is why other would not answer the question, it undermines his sides whole argument.

But it's a close combat attack! And the rules say you have to be a nice guy! And ... and ...

**mrwhoop**

and HG prevents CF and the game breaks. Big whoop, there's a bunch of these so roll off

Game On!

**rigeld2**

mrwhoop wrote:and HG prevents CF and the game breaks. Big whoop, there's a bunch of these so roll off

Game On!

Great contribution to YMDC. Would read again. A+++

**-666-**

I would play both occur but if my opponent was insistent they don't then I'd suggest a roll off.

**BewareOfTom**

well I just dont understand the confusion.... sure its a closecombat attack but its happening at the same time, its like saying "my powerfist killed that guy, so I get the guy he killed back"

**Nemesor Dave**

rigeld2 wrote:
Nemesor Dave wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

Not at all the same. FNP occurs after an unsaved wound.

As does ES. And FNP tells you to ignore that wound. So applying your logic from this thread, the action would be stopped.
Except that's not what you said in the FNP thread - you actually said the timing doesn't matter.

Here I don't believe anyone is arguing that CF happens before HG. At best they happen at the same time. There are many indications in RAW and the FAQ that they should be considered as HG happening first.

There actually aren't any saying that HG happens first, but okay. And I still don't understand how, if they happen at the same time one precludes the other from working.

FNP doesn't prevent ES. It prevents the model from dying. ES doesn't cause the model to die, it removes its armor save. (please lets not turn this into a FNP vs ES thread, I am just showing that there is consistency in my reasoning). So there's no conflict if they happen at the same time.

HG prevents attacks. CF is an attack. Lots of games work like this. You play two cards at the same time, one is the counter to the other and they cancel out.

I keep seeing people say in this thread that CF is not an attack. Any argument based on that is flat wrong. CF's wording also means it occurs in combat. Obviously it's not worded perfectly enough that everyone will agree, but to me that part about the cause of the wound clears up any confusion of it being an 'out of combat but just before combat' attack. That just doesn't jive with me.

The other part is just reading comprehension, common sense and taking the text at face value. It kills models? Its an attack. I happens after combat moves? It happens in combat. HG prevents models from attack? HG prevents Castellan and a Brotherhood from making a psychic attack.

I don't play Tyranids or GK, just going by what I read in the rules and found this an interesting discussion so I looked up all the references myself, and come to this conclusion based on the actual text.

**DeathReaper**

Actually ES and Remove casualties happen at the same time (As they both happen immediately after failing an armor save.) FNP would naturally have to go off before Remove Casualties. (And consequently ES)

But that is Off Topic and does not need to be discussed further as it has no bearing on the situation.

HG cancels attacks in the Ensuing combat.

CF goes off before the Ensuing combat, as the combat is defined as the attacks made at Initiative order. we all know that CF does not go at a set Initiative value, it goes off before attacks are made (Before combat)

They both work fine and neither one interacts with the other.

**Nemesor Dave**

DeathReaper wrote:
CF goes off before the Ensuing combat, as the combat is defined as the attacks made at Initiative order. we all know that CF does not go at a set Initiative value, it goes off before attacks are made (Before combat)

CF p31 of GK codex - "Unsaved wounds caused by Cleansing Flame are counted as having been caused in close combat for all purposes".

What caused the unsaved wounds? The CF attack.
When does that attack count as causing wounds? In close combat for all purposes.

What does HG prevent? Attacks in close combat.

The FAQ states CF is a close combat attack. How can a close combat attack not be counted as happening during combat?

**nosferatu1001**

ND - the reason for the "counts as" is because otherwise they WOULD NOT have counted as happening in close combat, because they happen out of init sequence.

Thats the entire reason for that sentence - otherwise they would nto count for combat res, as they happened prior to combat.

You cannot go from a statement making JUST the wounds count as being within combat, and leap to claim that means *everything* is within combat. That has zero rules support.

**Nemesor Dave**

nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - the reason for the "counts as" is because otherwise they WOULD NOT have counted as happening in close combat, because they happen out of init sequence.

Thats the entire reason for that sentence - otherwise they would nto count for combat res, as they happened prior to combat.

You cannot go from a statement making JUST the wounds count as being within combat, and leap to claim that means *everything* is within combat. That has zero rules support.

Logically the attack that causes the wound happens at the same point in time. Is there any other place in the rules that would support the idea that an attack happening at one point in the game, causes a wound later in the game?

**nosferatu1001**

No, logically that does not hold

Have you not spotted the count as in the rule? This means that while it DID NOT occur during combat, it COUNTS AS having occured in close combat

You dont get to drag everything into that point in time. If you wish to do so, provide an actual rule this time

**Nemesor Dave**

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, logically that does not hold

Have you not spotted the count as in the rule? This means that while it DID NOT occur during combat, it COUNTS AS having occured in close combat

You don't get to drag everything into that point in time. If you wish to do so, provide an actual rule this time

Agreed then that you can't drag the attack into the meaning while strictly following RAW. So it looks like the RAW order is like this:

1. HG and CF powers are used.
2. before attacks are made, HG prevents attacks during combat
2. CF makes out of combat close combat attacks.
3. Combat starts with I10 and HG prevents close combat attacks now.
5. CF wounds count as having been caused now.

CF somehow falls through the cracks in this one. To say, CF makes a close combat attack not part of combat, and next I make a close combat attack at I10 that is part of combat - well a ridiculous conclusion from a RAW oversight. It's far from the worst in 5th edition though.

RAI - HG should prevent a model from attacking "in the assault" since the phases of assault are set to divide movement from rolling and attacking.
HG makes the incorrect assumption that all close combat attacks in the assault will happen during combat? It just sounds ridiculous to type that. CF's "before blows are struck" should not be considered to be outside of combat.

HWYPI - in a casual reading most players will not pick out the fine point that combat is defined as only actions done in initiative order needed to play it this way.

**jbunny**

OK Dave, so what happens when two units with CF attack each other? Which one gets to use CF?

**BewareOfTom**

IMHO, I think CF shouldn't be a CC attack.... should be a sort of shooting attack that goes off as their charging, so it doesnt count vs combat rez. then there would be no trouble here

and a little OT, but isnt it Transfixing Gaze, not Hypnotic?

**rigeld2**

It's Hypnotic.
And if it was a shooting attack you'd get cover saves.

**BewareOfTom**

well only if their actually in terrain, and thats means your charging through cover....

or you can just make it a special attack, but that might be more confusing

**rigeld2**

BewareOfTom wrote:well only if their actually in terrain, and thats means your charging through cover....

Or in range of a KFF, or in range of a Venomthrope...

or you can just make it a special attack, but that might be more confusing

Or - and this is just a thought, but hear me out - make it a close combat attack.

DK

jbunny wrote:OK Dave, so what happens when two units with CF attack each other? Which one gets to use CF?

both go off...both take wounds as they happen at the same time.

**jbunny**

DK, I agree, just like with Gaze. But if Dave and the others claim they are attacks, then the moment the firstone happens, then the other can not because blows have already been struck.

DK

jbunny wrote:DK, I agree, just like with Gaze. But if Dave and the others claim they are attacks, then the moment the firstone happens, then the other can not because blows have already been struck.

i got you...in a GT its not an "attack" only the wounds count as from attacks...so if it blocks attacks but not the result of attacks then HG does not stop CF...i dont know why this thread is still fighting saying that HG does

**Randall Turner**

No, CF IS an attack, HG DOES block it (in the given example), and it's totally, completely defined, Nemesor Dave - there is no crack.

Basically Puma had it right about eight pages back.

(forty minutes of my life I'll never get back...)

**BewareOfTom**

so, which post proves HG blocks CF?

**DeathReaper**

As you can see,randall, I have proven that CF and HG g off simultaneously.

Also HG only stops attacks in the ensuing combat. (Which CF is not a part of because it has already gone off)

**Je suis2 au hazard**

rigeld2 wrote:
puma713 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
puma713 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:They both go off at the same time, Initiative has not started yet.

I think what he is asking is: Does Hypnotic Gaze stop Cleansing Flame? Cleansing Flame is a CC attack, and Hypnotic Gaze stops the model from making CC attacks.

It's a CC attack that is initiated with a Psychic test. HG does not stop Psychic tests. Therefore HG does not stop CF.

Who cares how it is initiatied? It is a close combat attack regardless. It doesn't matter where it came from. Cleansing Flame is a close combat attack coming from the model, is it not? You can make the psychic test all you want. It is the result of the psychic test that is negated.

HG says "that model may not attack in the ensuing close combat". Note the difference between that and stopping all close combat attacks

The CF is part of the close combat, it simply happens before regular CC attacks.

**Randall Turner**

No, you didn't, Death Reaper, because you equated "before all attacks" with "before any blows have been struck". I don't know why Puma didn't point that logical flaw out, he chose not to address it. Taking your example of two CF units attacking each other, if the CF rule read "before all attacks" and then the GK FAQ went on to clarify CF as "a close-combat attack", we'd have the chicken and egg problem you were trying to illustrate. But if we simply go by the strict wording of all the rules we get a clear sequential dependency with no contradictions. HG goes before all attacks, hence before CF, which goes before all "blows". No issues.

Je suis2 au hazard wrote:The CF is part of the close combat, it simply happens before regular CC attacks.

Yep, and it's a CC attack. Pretty straightforward. <shrug>

**DeathReaper**

Randall Turner wrote:No, you didn't, Death Reaper, because you equated "before all attacks" with "before any blows have been struck".

Rightfully so, because before any blows have been struck = attacks...

Before any blows have been struck is not defined in the BRB.

Linguistically it can only mean before attacks are made.

That is why they happen at the same time, which is after assault moves, but before attacks have been made.

Unless you have some Page number that says otherwise.