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.

**BewareOfTom**

wait.... the HG from the broodlord only effects one model.....

so how does this effect the squad from casting it?

**DeathReaper**

BewareOfTom wrote:wait.... the HG from the broodlord only effects one model.....

so how does this effect the squad from casting it?

This was covered in the OP.

We are talking about CF from Crowe, who is a unit of 1.

**Je suis2 au hazard**

nosferatu1001 wrote:PUma - he HAS addressed your point.

HG stops attacks IN THE ENSUING COMBAT. Combat is defined as attacks made in Init Order. CF is outside of combat, because it happens outside of init order. CF is therefore not an attack in close combat, is not an attack in the ensuing close combat, and does not get affected by HG at all.

CF is a CC ability, that happens outside of init order. Effectively, that means it is I∞

**puma713**

Okay, so we've come to a precarious agreement that, in the realm of Hypnotic Gaze versus Cleansing Flame, Hypnotic Gaze must go off first. Otherwise the game breaks. So, in the choice of two powers functioning, versus two powers breaking, we must resort to the functioning interpretation.

With that said, it is now time to move on to the effects of the powers. We obviously know the effects, but I'll repeat them here:

Hypnotic Gaze - If successful, select one model in base contact with the Broodlord. Both players roll a D6 and add the Leadership of their respective models. If the Broodlord rolls equal to or higher than the target's score, that model may not attack in the ensuing close combat.

Barring the fact that a Broodlord cannot roll dice, this is not terribly difficult to understand. If you win the roll-off, the opposing model may not attack in the "ensuing close combat".

Cleansing Flame - If the Psychic test is passed, all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+.

Note that this wording does allow Psychic Hoods, even though the power is a close combat attack - but that is beside the point. So, the gripe that the opposition has with this are the following:

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

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

--Therefore, if Cleansing Flame is not part of the "ensuing close combat", then Hypnotic Gaze has no effect on it.

Reasoning: Hypnotic Gaze defines when it works. Cleansing Flame is not within these boundaries, so it is exempt. The only attacks that will be blocked by Hypnotic Gaze are Crowe's normal attacks and Heroic Sacrifice, if he chooses to use it.

Have I covered everything, or am I leaving anything out of the next part of the argument?

**BewareOfTom**

well, cleansing flame IS a psychic power.... its under page 31..

it says "purifiers have psychic powers: hammerhand, cleansing flame" then it explains the CF power......

and even before what you said it says "This power is used....."

so it IS a psychic power that deals close combat attacks

**Grimnarsmate**

As a sidenote, if CF is a close combat attack will wyches get a dodge save from it? Being able to nimbly sidestep a flame surrounding you and your unit would be pretty ninja!

**BewareOfTom**

Id say they get their save, (I know its that CC only save)

**phantommaster**

CF is only counted as close combat attacks for unsaved wounds so it still goes off regardless.

**john carter**

Grimnarsmate wrote:As a sidenote, if CF is a close combat attack will wyches get a dodge save from it? Being able to nimbly sidestep a flame surrounding you and your unit would be pretty ninja!

This as well as a few other army entries are probably the reason for the faq as they would have not received their saves. That and people would claim cover saves from them.

No one i have seen has thrown brain mines into the equation yet. They go off exactly like CF, so how would that interact with HG? Would brain mines be simultaneous with HG? Would one trump the other?

**puma713**

phantommaster wrote:CF is only counted as close combat attacks for unsaved wounds so it still goes off regardless.

And the fact that it is called a close combat attack in the FAQ. The thread didn't get to 10 pages because no one had brought this up before.

Let's stay on track please.

**Happyjew**

As this is just going around in circles, I think it is a good time for a Mod to lock this thread.puma and his group are not going to agree with rigeld's group, and vice versa.

**Luide**

puma713 wrote:Okay, so we've come to a precarious agreement that, in the realm of Hypnotic Gaze versus Cleansing Flame, Hypnotic Gaze must go off first. Otherwise the game breaks. So, in the choice of two powers functioning, versus two powers breaking, we must resort to the functioning interpretation.

No we haven't. Your interpretation breaks game completely when you consider CF vs CF and thus it is obviously wrong. You need to find interpretation that works for CF vs CF too.

I still believe that HG vs CF is done exactly same way as CF vs CF is:
Both powers are used and resolved simultaneously, without affecting each other in any way.
Exactly same way as you would resolve CC attacks happening at same Initiative step.
And this does not break actually break the game, it just requires that timing of those events to be simultaneous, for which there are numerous precedents in rules.

But we can still continue to later parts of the argument.

puma713 wrote:
With that said, it is now time to move on to the effects of the powers. We obviously know the effects, but I'll repeat them here:

Hypnotic Gaze - If successful, select one model in base contact with the Broodlord. Both players roll a D6 and add the Leadership of their respective models. If the Broodlord rolls equal to or higher than the target's score, that model may not attack in the ensuing close combat.

Barring the fact that a Broodlord cannot roll dice, this is not terribly difficult to understand. If you win the roll-off, the opposing model may not attack in the "ensuing close combat".

Cleansing Flame - If the Psychic test is passed, all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+.

Note that this wording does allow Psychic Hoods, even though the power is a close combat attack - but that is beside the point. So, the gripe that the opposition has with this are the following:

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

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

--Therefore, if Cleansing Flame is not part of the "ensuing close combat", then Hypnotic Gaze has no effect on it.

Reasoning: Hypnotic Gaze defines when it works. Cleansing Flame is not within these boundaries, so it is exempt. The only attacks that will be blocked by Hypnotic Gaze are Crowe's normal attacks and Heroic Sacrifice, if he chooses to use it.

Have I covered everything, or am I leaving anything out of the next part of the argument?

That's basically it. There are fluff descriptions of Close Combat also, but pg 33/36 are really the only ones that have any rules attached to them.

There are also the huge implications of the CF = Close Combat Attack, but those are really secondary as it's pretty obvious that GW didn't think ramifications of that FAQ answer through.

**Sigmatron**

Could you tell where to find the definition of a PCCA in the BRB please? That is the bottom line of this whole thing.

**jgehunter**

Luide wrote:[q
No we haven't. Your interpretation breaks game completely when you consider CF vs CF and thus it is obviously wrong. You need to find interpretation that works for CF vs CF too.

And your interpretation breaks the game completely when you consider HG VS CF so why is yours better, may I ask?

**puma713**

Sigmatron wrote:Could you tell where to find the definition of a PCCA in the BRB please? That is the bottom line of this whole thing.

There is no PCCA in the rulebook. Cleansing Flame is a close combat attack (Grey Knight FAQ) that requires a Psychic Test (Grey Knight codex).

However, if you want to get techincal, we do have this in the rulebook:

"The psychic powers available to our models are not discussed further here, but are described in detail in the Codexes, where you will find complete rules for individual powers. The following general rules explain how psychic powers are employed. Exceptions to these rules are covered in the Codexes."

So us, being intelligent creatures, take what we know of close combat attacks, plus what we know of psychic powers and thus are borne PCCAs. 'Exceptions' to the rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jgehunter wrote:
Luide wrote:[q
No we haven't. Your interpretation breaks game completely when you consider CF vs CF and thus it is obviously wrong. You need to find interpretation that works for CF vs CF too.

And your interpretation breaks the game completely when you consider HG VS CF so why is yours better, may I ask?

Exactly. Luide, the flaw that you're trying to extrapolate out of my argument becomes present in your argument as soon as you try to impose timing on HG. To say that HG goes at the same time as CF is not "before any attacks" is it?

I will move on to the next point once we try to work through this.

DK

The FAQ has no part in this argument, since it only says the diffrence between shooting and close combat, HG only stop attacks, CF is not an attack, its wounds count as an attack but are not an attack its self, everyone is putting too much logic into trying to say its an attack...if the FAQ had just flat out said "CF is an attack" then this would not be an argument...but its only saying its not shooting because its a CCA...but no where does it say flat out its an attack.

**jgehunter**

Please read the thread before entering the discussion, and sorry Puma for stealing the image

How clearer can they be when they tell you "Cleansing Flame is a cc attack"

**BewareOfTom**

well how much clearer can it be that the HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME?

I don't understand how yours can retroactively stop mine from happening...

**puma713**

BewareOfTom wrote:
I don't understand how yours can retroactively stop mine from happening...

It's not retroactive. It is something that must be cast before Cleansing Flame is cast. It's not like you say, "I'm casting cleansing flame!" And someone allows you to go through with the attack, and then decides to use Hypnotic Gaze to stop it. Instead, if someone said, "I am going to cast cleansing flame!" the Tyranid player would have to say, "Well before you do that, I need to cast Hypnotic Gaze, because CF is an attack and HG has to go off before any attacks." A lot like when you deploy with Eldrad in your army, just before you start the game, the Eldar player says, "Wait, before we begin, I need to use Eldrad's Divination."

Hypnotic Gaze must go off before other attacks. If you want to use it, you must do so before other attacks are used, otherwise you are not allowed to use it. So, either you have a power that you may not use (which is neither logical, nor supported by the rules), or you have a power that goes first, before Cleansing Flame (breaking no rules whatsoever.)

DK

@jgehunter

How bout you read my 20 posts in this thread before you try to talk #$%& about someone who has argued this from pg 3...maybe if you read this a little more in depth you would see this isnt me just entering the thread...i hope this shows the short sightedness you have here and are re guarded as a troll.

as for the argument, the FAQ answers a multi choice question, it still is only counting wounds as from attacks, not an attack itself.

**puma713**

DK wrote:

as for the argument, the FAQ answers a multi choice question, it still is only counting wounds as from attacks, not an attack itself.

This is a false argument, and doesn't respect Tenet #1 or Tenet #2 of YMDC. Please stop ignoring the FAQ and its wording.

DK

puma713 wrote:
DK wrote:

as for the argument, the FAQ answers a multi choice question, it still is only counting wounds as from attacks, not an attack itself.

This is a false argument, and doesn't respect Tenet #1 or Tenet #2 of YMDC. Please stop ignoring the FAQ and its wording.

Wow...really grasping at straws here arnt you...the question asks if its A or B...and its answer is B...that is 100% what it says...again, the 2 times i have seen in PLAYING IN A GT HG will not stop CF.

Again...HG will not stop CF, dont go to a controled game thinking it will because unless you get a Judge to change his mind, reguardless of what the FAQ says, mixed with the wording and how the CF rule is writen, it stops attacks...not wounds caused by attacks...so no matter how anyone argues this here...it will not stop it...this isnt the first time this has been brought up...and it wont be the last.

**puma713**

DK wrote:
puma713 wrote:
DK wrote:

as for the argument, the FAQ answers a multi choice question, it still is only counting wounds as from attacks, not an attack itself.

This is a false argument, and doesn't respect Tenet #1 or Tenet #2 of YMDC. Please stop ignoring the FAQ and its wording.

Wow...really grasping at straws here arnt you...the question asks if its A or B...and its answer is B...that is 100% what it says...again, the 2 times i have seen in PLAYING IN A GT HG will not stop CF.

Anecdotal evidence means nothing here. I could tell you that in 100 GT's I've played in, it wasn't. Does that make me right? So, what you're saying is, when the FAQ asks, "Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack?", GW had no possible way to simply write "Neither, it is a psychic power."? Because that is what you're saying. You are blatantly ignoring presented evidence from an official source of rules. That is Tenet #2. Those official rules back up everything that I've been saying for 10 pages, that's Tenet #1. To ignore this is to ignore both of those tenets.

DK

Mod edit

**Dannyevilguy**

DK wrote:
puma713 wrote:
DK wrote:
puma713 wrote:
DK wrote:

as for the argument, the FAQ answers a multi choice question, it still is only counting wounds as from attacks, not an attack itself.

This is a false argument, and doesn't respect Tenet #1 or Tenet #2 of YMDC. Please stop ignoring the FAQ and its wording.

Wow...really grasping at straws here arnt you...the question asks if its A or B...and its answer is B...that is 100% what it says...again, the 2 times i have seen in PLAYING IN A GT HG will not stop CF.

Anecdotal evidence means nothing here. I could tell you that in 100 GT's I've played in, it wasn't. Does that make me right? So, what you're saying is, when the FAQ asks, "Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack?", GW had no possible way to simply write "Neither, it is a psychic power."? Because that is what you're saying. You are blatantly ignoring presented evidence from an official source of rules. That is Tenet #2. Those official rules back up everything that I've been saying for 10 pages, that's Tenet #1. To ignore this is to ignore both of those tenets.

Puma wins! FATALITY.

**Kitzz**

If you hate spending time on the forum, pm the mods privately about it or go to another forum. Don't go into a flaming death-spiral.

As for the argument at hand, I think that there isn't a contradiction in the CF vs CF situation. Both of them can happen simultaneously. If there was a situation such that HG and two iterations of CF were involved in the same combat, I would think that the obvious solution would be to resolve HG first, then resolve both CFs (assuming HG did not stop one of the CFs) simultaneously.

For clarity, I would like to emphasize that when I say simultaneous, I mean simultaneous in game terms, not in real-time.

**Happyjew**

No puma does not "win". He still has rigeld (and possibly nos) to argue with.
As it was I had hoped this thread would have been locked before it devolved into this. I understand DK's frustration, there does tend to be a lot of people resorting to calling people a troll, calling them liars, even claiming people have multiple accounts just to argue one point (despite the fact said "multiple accounts" occasionally argue against each other). The main reason I joined this site, was to learn some of the more vague rules, get rule clarification, and help other people. Unfortunately a number of threads devolve away from RAW, and becomes HYWPI. Then people claim that the people arguing RAW are "wrong", "stupid", "trolling", etc.

BTW, I find it interesting that some of the stronger supporters of HG does not block CF is rigeld and myself, who both play 'nids. I don't know if puma or jgehunter play nids, but based on their "dakka rank" it appears they are more Eldar players.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, this thread is getting out of hand. I think it's time for it to be locked, and we all take some time to cool down.

**Kitzz**

I believe that both sides are partially right as well as partially wrong.

In close combat, initiative determines in what order attacks are made (general statement).

Cleansing flame is not resolved at an initiative step; it is resolved before blows are struck (specific statement).

Cleansing flame is a close combat attack (specific statement (remember, this is a ruling about the specific statement just mentioned)).

Therefore, cleansing flame is a specific situation in which the rule "a model's initiative determines who attacks first" does not apply to the attack.

Therefore, CF is a close combat attack made during close combat (but before blows are struck in initiative order). Even its wounds are already, RaW, described as being a part of close combat.

This allows multiple instances of CF to happen (in game time) simultaneously. Both instances will happen before any other attacks are made, including each other.

Hypnotic gaze is resolved "before any attacks are made."

Therefore, HG must be resolved before CF.

As CF is a close combat attack (again, not made in initiative order), HG can potentially stop it from happening.

I don't think the above has violated any rules. If you disagree, please let me know why.

**DeathReaper**

DK wrote:

Spoiler:

A bunch of stuff.

#1 Please do not be rude to our fellow dakkanauts, we are all here trying to figure out what the rules actually say. Rudeness has no place here. (I edited your post, the red lettering is what I added).

#2 Puma, for the timing issue, lets agree that you cast HG then you cast any CF's involved. (After HG but simultaneously with each other)

Then we move onto the combat.

puma713 wrote:Hypnotic Gaze - If successful, select one model in base contact with the Broodlord. Both players roll a D6 and add the Leadership of their respective models. If the Broodlord rolls equal to or higher than the target's score, that model may not attack in the ensuing close combat.

Barring the fact that a Broodlord cannot roll dice, this is not terribly difficult to understand. If you win the roll-off, the opposing model may not attack in the "ensuing close combat".

Cleansing Flame - If the Psychic test is passed, all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+.

Note that this wording does allow Psychic Hoods, even though the power is a close combat attack - but that is beside the point. So, the gripe that the opposition has with this are the following:

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

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

--Therefore, if Cleansing Flame is not part of the "ensuing close combat", then Hypnotic Gaze has no effect on it.

Reasoning: Hypnotic Gaze defines when it works. Cleansing Flame is not within these boundaries, so it is exempt. The only attacks that will be blocked by Hypnotic Gaze are Crowe's normal attacks and Heroic Sacrifice, if he chooses to use it.

You have the gist of our side.

It seems really solid to do it that way (RAW). I can not see how you can resolve this any other way.

**puma713**

It is a shame that we might not be able to see this debate through. But, at least let me give my rebuttal to the opposition's claim that Cleansing Flame exists outside of the 'ensuing close combat'.

puma713 wrote:Hypnotic Gaze - If successful, select one model in base contact with the Broodlord. Both players roll a D6 and add the Leadership of their respective models. If the Broodlord rolls equal to or higher than the target's score, that model may not attack in the ensuing close combat.

Barring the fact that a Broodlord cannot roll dice, this is not terribly difficult to understand. If you win the roll-off, the opposing model may not attack in the "ensuing close combat".

Cleansing Flame - If the Psychic test is passed, all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+.

Note that this wording does allow Psychic Hoods, even though the power is a close combat attack - but that is beside the point. So, the gripe that the opposition has with this are the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Therefore, if Cleansing Flame is not part of the "ensuing close combat", then Hypnotic Gaze has no effect on it.

Reasoning: Hypnotic Gaze defines when it works. Cleansing Flame is not within these boundaries, so it is exempt. The only attacks that will be blocked by Hypnotic Gaze are Crowe's normal attacks and Heroic Sacrifice, if he chooses to use it.

Rebuttal: No rebuttal necessary here. I believe that Hypnotic Gaze does, in fact, effect Cleansing Flame because Cleansing Flame is a part of the "ensuing close combat". Why? Because it is a close combat attack that happens during the Fighting a Close Combat step of the Assault rules and that the moment of time before attacks have been struck has been defined as the "beginning of combat" on page 41 of the BGB.

Therefore, Hypnotic Gaze may stop Cleansing Flame.

Edit: In my opinion.