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.

@ 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.