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.

Isnt that wording just to clarify that the wounds done by CF are counted as close combat for the purpose of combat resolution?

Intention means nothing in a RAW discussion.

Neorealist wrote:Here is an exact quote from the FAQ that i was basing my opinion of wether or not it is a close combat attack, and not just counts as having taken place in close combat.
"Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack."

Yes the FAQ says that is a close combat attack. So it is a close combat attack.

It does not have a "To Wound roll" like rending calls for, so rending can not be combined with Cleansing Flame.

Beast wrote:Wow, I didn't think you could split hairs that fine... Where did you get that 'electron microscope laserbeam of hairsplitting'?

Oh I'm sorry. Aren't you the one trying to say that a massive tantrum constitutes swordplay?

No. He does not get to rend with Cleansing flame because cleansing flame is not a close combat attack. It happens before combat begins, for one. (BEFORE Hammer of Wrath)

Master swordsman rule simply says that Crowe has a special kind of the rending rule. Since the rending rule isn't part of "take a wound on a roll of 4+", we can safely assume that it is not considered and thus, not applicable.

Also, for the record, an electron microscope and a laserbeam have surprisingly little to do with each other. Except that they're both science. Sci-fi gamers love science.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other hand, if CF has been FAQ'd as a "Close combat attack" then this might be wrong. Since the rending rule says "There is a chance that his close combat attacks will strike a critical blow" thus, including CF. I don't think this is sensible. I do not for one minute believe that an 8 ft baby in a huge grey suit could have a tantrum loud enough to tear through terminator armour.

I'm with DeathReaper here.

"To Wound roll" is a defined procedure of turning Hits (defined) into Wounds(capital W, also defined) which Cleansing Flames does not use. In order to make "To Wound" rolls you need hits first, and then make rolls for all of those hits. Cleansing flame could have easily been worded mentioning hits.

Cleansing Flames is like Get's Hot!, Waaagh!, dangerous terrain or Perils of the Warp wounding your own model. All those roll a dice and cause a wound depending on their outcome. None of those are rolls To Wound.

CF does not rend.As has been stated,it wounds on a 4+,it is not a roll " To Wound " which can have the rending USR attached to it.

The wounds caused count for combat res,that is why CF has been classed as a close combat attack,rending has no home with Crowe's CF.He rends on a 4+ in close combat,not with a psychic attack that happens before everything else.

hmm... you might be able to also consider it as.. Crowe isn't the one causing the wounds.

my interpretation at the moment being that yes, he casts it but that he isn't the one that actually causes the wounds.

He isn't hitting them, they are CC attacks but they aren't his per say.

Neorealist wrote:So it's that word 'to' that is so absolutely critical that not having it means any other method of wounding doesn't benefit from a USR? Really? The laser-like focus on specific verbiage is commendable, but is it really necessary in this case?

No, it is not that word "To".

It is the Verbiage: "To Wound"; when both are Capatilized.

See the capitalization on the word to and wound in the rending mean they are referring to a specific thing, in this case the rules are on pages 14 and 24 of the BRB.

In 5th edition; the argument against Crowe's Flames rending was not as valid; CC Rending their said "Any of his rolls to wound in close combat"; since "to wound" was lower case it was not a reference to the specific rules for To Wound rolls, but rather the plain language of the statement.

Luckily for Crowe's opponents; 6th edition cleaned up the wording and Rending requires a "To Wound" roll of 6

Im all for playing by RAW but I am also a fan of playing by "in the Spirit of the game". Yeah I want my cake AND I wan to eat it too. The sheer fact that people are trying to claim that Crowes Cleansing Flame causes Rending on a technicality (weather it can or cannot) makes me sad.

The way to go is find out RAW first, and then agree with your opponent/TO on changing it. If you can't agree on changing it, simply use RAW.
You really can't do much more.

Scipio Africanus wrote:

Beast wrote:Wow, I didn't think you could split hairs that fine... Where did you get that 'electron microscope laserbeam of hairsplitting'?

Oh I'm sorry. Aren't you the one trying to say that a massive tantrum constitutes swordplay?

No. He does not get to rend with Cleansing flame because cleansing flame is not a close combat attack. It happens before combat begins, for one. (BEFORE Hammer of Wrath)

Master swordsman rule simply says that Crowe has a special kind of the rending rule. Since the rending rule isn't part of "take a wound on a roll of 4+", we can safely assume that it is not considered and thus, not applicable.

Also, for the record, an electron microscope and a laserbeam have surprisingly little to do with each other. Except that they're both science. Sci-fi gamers love science.

Uh... HELLO? I've already said I don't think he should get rending on CF either... Suggest you read the first page of the thread again... ;D... However, the miniscule difference in semantics and the inferred 'rules' difference (not even RAW) asserted here by some as justification for same is a herculean stretch. As for the 'electron microscope laserbeam of hairsplitting'... In science FICTION such a thing is entirely possible and related... That's why its called FICTION... ;D...

edit- again sucky spelling...

The mechanic of Cleansing Flame is not so unlike the old 5th ed' mechanic of Dangerous terrain - a roll of a 1 results in a wound. There is no assigned strength, it just happens automatically upon meeting certain conditions.

If Crowe had 4+ rending on Cleansing flame, would it not stand to reason that this now obscenely scary unit would practically be an auto-include in every GK list, since it could erase big chunks of ANYTHING it walked into for a pittance?

No, there is RAW a difference between To Wound, a defined process in the rulebook, and wounding on a 4+

It is entirely rules as written to deny rending.

Haven't seen anything here to support your assertion. So what is the 4+ roll called then? And what is its result under the rules? And for that matter what is the first, most important rule that the rulebook has? Suggest you look that up...

But, just to be clear, I don't think he should get rending CF either, I just don't think your justification holds any amount of water...

Beast wrote:Haven't seen anything here to support your assertion. So what is the 4+ roll called then? And what is its result under the rules?

It's a Cleansing Flame roll that causes a wound on a 4+.

And for that matter what is the first, most important rule that the rulebook has? Suggest you look that up...

I win the game without deploying models. Oh, you disagree? Let's roll off!
See how silly TMIR is in YMDC discussions?

But, just to be clear, I don't think he should get rending CF either, I just don't think your justification holds any amount of water...

So instead of just thinking he's wrong (he's not) find a rule to support the other side.
40k has names for things. Something that causes a wound on a die result is not always a To Wound roll - or are Plasma to-hit rolls To Wound rolls? Can I re-roll them if I have the ability to re-roll wounds with my plasma guns?

Process of Execution for cleansing flame:

1. Declare use of Cleansing Flame at the start of a round of combat. Move to step 2.

2. Make a Psychic test.
2a. Check for Perils of The Warp
2b. Determine result and assess for success. If successful, move to step 3.

3. Determine the number of eligible enemy units involved in the close combat, then determine the number of eligible models in each unit.

4. roll nD6, where "n" is the number of eligible enemy models in the unit to be affected.

5. For each result of 4 or higher, assign a wound to the unit. If there are eligible units still to be affected, return to step 4. Once all eligible units have been accounted for, move on to step 6.

6. Proceed with the resolution of assigned wounds and move on to the first round of close combat.

CF doesn't trigger "To Wound" rolls, it triggers wounds upon meeting a certain condition within the execution of the power itself. CF has no given strength, nor does it have a special rule that allows it to make "To Wound" rolls, Such as "Poisioned (4+)," of it's own volition.

Come to think of it, isn't making a "To Wound" roll entirely dependent upon it being preceded by meeting a "To Hit" condition of some sort, such as the placement of a template or blast marker/radius, meeting the BS requirements of a non-blast, non-template weapon, meeting a condition where the model in question sufferers a SX APX hit automatically, or the (usually) comparative WS requirement?

No, as I read it, the only thing required in making a To Wound roll is that you compare strength vs toughness and use the result on the chart

Beast wrote:Haven't seen anything here to support your assertion. So what is the 4+ roll called then? And what is its result under the rules? And for that matter what is the first, most important rule that the rulebook has? Suggest you look that up...

But, just to be clear, I don't think he should get rending CF either, I just don't think your justification holds any amount of water...

What, apart fromt eh fact that To Wound is capitalised, and that has a meaning in grammar?

To Wound is a defined process, stated in the rulebook. It is not the same as wounding on a 4+, which is not a defined process in the rulebook.

Also, dont break the tenets of this forum. I suggest you read them.

SCvodimier wrote:No, as I read it, the only thing required in making a To Wound roll is that you compare strength vs toughness and use the result on the chart

Of course there are some exceptions, i.e. Snipers, which always wound on a To Wound roll of 4+.

Happyjew wrote:

SCvodimier wrote:No, as I read it, the only thing required in making a To Wound roll is that you compare strength vs toughness and use the result on the chart

Of course there are some exceptions, i.e. Snipers, which always wound on a To Wound roll of 4+.

Of course, I was just putting down the simple version, anything that can still deal a To Wound wound while bypassing the process obviously still counts

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Beast wrote:Haven't seen anything here to support your assertion. So what is the 4+ roll called then? And what is its result under the rules? And for that matter what is the first, most important rule that the rulebook has? Suggest you look that up...

But, just to be clear, I don't think he should get rending CF either, I just don't think your justification holds any amount of water...

What, apart fromt eh fact that To Wound is capitalised, and that has a meaning in grammar?

To Wound is a defined process, stated in the rulebook. It is not the same as wounding on a 4+, which is not a defined process in the rulebook.

Also, dont break the tenets of this forum. I suggest you read them.

I think the assertion under discussion is not well enough supported to be taken as 'RAW'. I think it is your (and others') RAI. I happen to agree with your interpretation, but not for the reason you assert. The To Wound section (comparing S to T) is not the only way a model can be wounded. But the end result is that the model is wounded. Some assert that the end result (being wounded during the Assault phase) is enough to justify getting the rending rule for those CF attacks. I'm a little confused by your last wounding statement- are you saying that CF can't wound models now just because it isn't defined the same way as the To Wound section of the BRB?

Lastly, what ? Are you the tenet police now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:Haven't seen anything here to support your assertion. So what is the 4+ roll called then? And what is its result under the rules?

It's a Cleansing Flame roll that causes a wound on a 4+.

And for that matter what is the first, most important rule that the rulebook has? Suggest you look that up...

I win the game without deploying models. Oh, you disagree? Let's roll off!
See how silly TMIR is in YMDC discussions?

Actually, what does that say about many of the YMTC threads themselves???

Beast wrote:
I think the assertion under discussion is not well enough supported to be taken as 'RAW'.

Can you find anywhere a "To Wound" roll is equated with a roll that simply wounds?

I think it is your (and others') RAI.

You're free to try and disprove it. Simply disagreeing doesn't mean anything.

The To Wound section (comparing S to T) is not the only way a model can be wounded. But the end result is that the model is wounded.

No one is disagreeing with that.

Some assert that the end result (being wounded during the Assault phase) is enough to justify getting the rending rule for those CF attacks. I'm a little confused by your last wounding statement- are you saying that CF can't wound models now just because it isn't defined the same way as the To Wound section of the BRB?

That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that you cannot equate something that is a defined process with a conglomeration of words that has the same effect unless there's some reason to.

Lastly, what ? Are you the tenet police now?

Everyone should be. It's how we keep this subforum even remotely civil.

For rigeld2- I don't need to show where a To Wond roll is equated with rolls that wound- that was someone esle's assertion- I leave it to them to do so.

And your disagreement with me is equally meaningless- as they say- " Opinions are like_____, everyone has one..." You are free to try to prove your point as well, because you haven't yet...

Yeah, I agree, everyone should be civil, not sure where I wasn't, but nosfert obviously thought so for some reason...

Beast wrote:For rigeld2- I don't need to show where a To Wond roll is equated with rolls that wound- that was someone esle's assertion- I leave it to them to do so.

And your disagreement with me is equally meaningless- as they say- " Opinions are like_____, everyone has one..." You are free to try to prove your point as well, because you haven't yet...

Actually, I have. To Wound is a defined process. Therefore nothing that isn't referenced as a To Wound roll can be one unless you can show equality in some other way.

Yeah, I agree, everyone should be civil, not sure where I wasn't, but nosfert obviously thought so for some reason...

Obviously you haven't read the Tenets then. You should specifically reference #1 and #7.
You're saying the argument is wrong without support, and you've referenced TMIR.

Beast wrote:Yeah, I agree, everyone should be civil, not sure where I wasn't, but nosfert obviously thought so for some reason...

It is not that you were not civil (Because you have been civil, as has everyone in this thread.)

It is because you broke a rule of the forum with this post:

Beast wrote:And for that matter what is the first, most important rule that the rulebook has? Suggest you look that up...

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC): wrote:7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

Rule #7 is there for a reason.

"To Wound" is a specific process which the Rending USR refers to specifically.

That is why Crowes CF does not rend.

I don't disagree with the statement that 'To Wound' is a defined process in the BRB. Rending does refer to it. I think we are all in violent agreement about all that.

I think the case against rending is better argued because CF is a separate power that is not defined as an 'attack'. And his Master Swordsmen rule specifies that his CC attacks (which involve a To Hit roll as well) are what give him rending.

Beast wrote:I think the case against rending is better argued because CF is a separate power that is not defined as an attack. And his Master Swordsmen rule specifies that his CC attacks (which involve a To Hit roll as well) are what give him rending.

Read the GK FAQ where it states CF is a CC attack.

rigeld2 wrote:

Beast wrote:I think the case against rending is better argued because CF is a separate power that is not defined as an attack. And his Master Swordsmen rule specifies that his CC attacks (which involve a To Hit roll as well) are what give him rending.

Read the GK FAQ where it states CF is a CC attack.

Ah! Excellent!! Thanks. I somehow missed that on the last page as well :-/ That is really the only citation I've (now) read that makes it clear(er).. :-)