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.

Well, I'll tip my hat to puma....

he's convinced me that with a HG vs a single model casting CF it will be blocked. Not if he assaults a purifier squad, but if he assaults crowe (or if an IA guy ever comes out with it) then it will be blocked (as he is the only one casting it)

I guess my main thought this was always broodlord vs squad, not single model (be it crowe, new IA guy, or lone purifier)

@Puma:
Even if you considered the whole "strike at initiative" thing to be the definition of the beginning of combat, CF is a more specific rule that changes that definition. I don't think an argument needs to be made about the scope of close combat because CF redefines that scope.

Lets look at HG for a second "that model may not attack in the ensuing close combat."

"that model may not attack"

The BRB Defines what an attack is.

CF does not fall into this definition. (It is a psychic power that results in a close combat attack).

Therefore HG can not stop CF

Also, part of combat /= close combat.

The ensuing close combat is only the attacks made at Initiative values, but the combat as a whole has a beginning, a close combat part, and a combat resolution part.

Kitzz wrote:@Puma:
Even if you considered the whole "strike at initiative" thing to be the definition of the beginning of combat, CF is a more specific rule that changes that definition. I don't think an argument needs to be made about the scope of close combat because CF redefines that scope.

How so? Page 41 has the exact same wording as Cleansing Flame and Hypnotic Gaze, and it is referred to as the "beginning of combat".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Lets look at HG for a second "that model may not attack in the ensuing close combat."

"that model may not attack"

The BRB Defines what an attack is.

CF does not fall into this definition.

Therefore HG can not stop CF

CF is an attack. Until GW further clarifies their statement in the FAQ, it is an attack. GW could just have easily said:

Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or close combat attack?

A: Neither.

But they didn't. They were very clear about what it is. We must accept that.

DeathReaper wrote:Also, part of combat /= close combat.

The ensuing close combat is only the attacks made at Initiative values, but the combat as a whole has a beginning, a close combat part, and a combat resolution part.

So, this is actually where we finally disagree. The definition of a close combat. Where does the "beginning" of a combat start and end? Where does the close combat part start and end? Where are these breaks in the actual phase defined?

I believe that the "close combat" is everything detailed under Fighting a Close Combat. You do not. I think we've gone as far as we can go.

yeah, this isn't puma being "pushy" (or whatever the right word would be)

its another case of GW being dumb with their FAQ... it'll probably change to be specified, heck they even changed FAQ answers from no to yes!

for now, puma is 100% right (in the fairly rare situation a broodlord charges single caster of CF and beats him in roll off)

I used poor word choice. What I should have said was "CF has a more specific rule that changes that definition for itself, and lets it precede the initiative ladder."

In other words, cleansing flame is still a part of combat because it is an attack, but it specifically allows itself to happen before the initiative ladder.

If you read the parentheticals on page 41, they aren't defining the beginning of combat. They are merely articulating the time at which attacks are divided in a multiple combat more clearly. That is to say, right before blows are struck, the division of attacks is decided.

OK so all of the Pro HG people, please answer the question of what happens when two CF's go against each other. So far NO ONE from that side as even addressed this issue.

I have three times. A fourth? Here goes:

They are simultaneous in game terms.

jbunny wrote:OK so all of the Pro HG people, please answer the question of what happens when two CF's go against each other. So far NO ONE from that side as even addressed this issue.

I have also addressed it. RAW, the game breaks.

However, since HG vs. CF doesn't have the same implementation, we decided to stop talking about CF vs. CF and focus on the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:
If you read the parentheticals on page 41, they aren't defining the beginning of combat. They are merely articulating the time at which attacks are divided in a multiple combat more clearly. That is to say, right before blows are struck, the division of attacks is decided.

Sure, it is not a definition, but it is an example of the writers addressing the time before blows have been struck as the "beginning of combat".

There is a time, in "the beginning of combat," in which you are holding dice in your hand and about to determine your rolls to hit. Since there is an extra step (that being the allocation of said rolls to hit to different squads), combat is still beginning. It's just taking a bit more time because there are multiple combatants and the dice can't be rolled right away.

Kitzz wrote:There is a time, in "the beginning of combat," in which you are holding dice in your hand and about to determine your rolls to hit. Since there is an extra step (that being the allocation of said rolls to hit to different squads), combat is still beginning. It's just taking a bit more time because there are multiple combatants and the dice can't be rolled right away.

And wouldn't that be the time that you're declaring the powers that you're using? Not before that, during Defender's React. That is the point. The "beginning of combat" is still "close combat", no matter where it is in the process. If the first thing that you do when you finish the Defenders React step and move to the Fighting a Close Combat step is cast Hypnotic Gaze, then everything after that is, and must be, the "ensuing close combat." Or, more technically, "the immediately proceeding close combat".

I agree? Now I am so confuse.

CF goes off after "Defenders React", and before "Fighting a Close combat". Because "In Close combat, both players' models fight. Attacks in close combat work like shooting...How many blows are struck and who strikes first is detailed later"(P.34 BRB)

The 'Fighting a Close combat' section details how to make attacks in Initiative order, this is because of the wording "How many blows are struck and who strikes first is detailed later". They are clearly talking about making attacks in Initiative order in the "Fighting a Close combat" section. Therefore CF has to go before this "Step" because it is used before blows are struck.

GW is terrible at the breakdown side of things, and timing is never mentioned really at all in the brb.

Kitzz wrote:I have three times. A fourth? Here goes:

They are simultaneous in game terms.

How can you say this and still argue that HG goes before CF?
If two CF (which have exactly same timing as HG does) can be simultanous, why cannot the HG be simultaneous with CF?

Crux of the argument is this: When you declare you're using CF, it is considered attack at that point.
1: Use HG (must be done before any attacks, thus is done before CF 1) and resolve it.
2: Use CF 1 (an attack, must be done before any attacks).
3: Try to use CF 2 (must be done before any attacks). Cannot be used as CF 1 is an attack. Game breaks, because (for example) there is no way to know which CF is the one that can be used.

Because game breaking is bad thing, we need a way to fix it. Easy way to do it: "Declare X" and "Resolve X" are separate steps and that CF only becomes attack at the "Resolve CF" step. All actions that have same timing are first declared and then resolved simultaneously.
1a: Declare CF 1. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
1b: Declare CF 2. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

The "problem" with this approach is that it works just as well against HG
1a: Declare HG (must be done before attacks)
1b: Declare CF 1 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
1c: Declare CF 2 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.
"Declare" and "Resolve" mechanic does that, but I'm sure that there must be others that will work just as fine.

Basically, currently our options are either to
1) Have a game that breaks down, one way or another. IMO not acceptable, but completely valid RAW interpretation.
2) Make up some internally consistent way of how to resolve things that have exactly same timing, so that game doesn't break.
3) Discount the FAQ entry, as it breaks the game. Note that there probably are other, simultaneous timing events that will still break the game.

Anyway, I don't think neither side will manage to convince the other about this.
I'm too far in the "Any given ruling may not break the game when used in exactly same circumstances" camp to accept the current arguments behind "HG goes before CF".

Luide wrote:

Kitzz wrote:I have three times. A fourth? Here goes:

They are simultaneous in game terms.

How can you say this and still argue that HG goes before CF?
If two CF (which have exactly same timing as HG does) can be simultanous, why cannot the HG be simultaneous with CF?

Crux of the argument is this: When you declare you're using CF, it is considered attack at that point.
1: Use HG (must be done before any attacks, thus is done before CF 1) and resolve it.
2: Use CF 1 (an attack, must be done before any attacks).
3: Try to use CF 2 (must be done before any attacks). Cannot be used as CF 1 is an attack. Game breaks, because (for example) there is no way to know which CF is the one that can be used.

Because game breaking is bad thing, we need a way to fix it. Easy way to do it: "Declare X" and "Resolve X" are separate steps and that CF only becomes attack at the "Resolve CF" step. All actions that have same timing are first declared and then resolved simultaneously.
1a: Declare CF 1. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
1b: Declare CF 2. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

The "problem" with this approach is that it works just as well against HG
1a: Declare HG (must be done before attacks)
1b: Declare CF 1 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
1c: Declare CF 2 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.
"Declare" and "Resolve" mechanic does that, but I'm sure that there must be others that will work just as fine.

Basically, currently our options are either to
1) Have a game that breaks down, one way or another. IMO not acceptable, but completely valid RAW interpretation.
2) Make up some internally consistent way of how to resolve things that have exactly same timing, so that game doesn't break.
3) Discount the FAQ entry, as it breaks the game. Note that there probably are other, simultaneous timing events that will still break the game.

Anyway, I don't think neither side will manage to convince the other about this.
I'm too far in the "Any given ruling may not break the game when used in exactly same circumstances" camp to accept the current arguments behind "HG goes before CF".

You keep trying to ignore that the FAQ says that CF is an attack. There is no way around that. And I completely agree that they have the same timing, except that one is an attack and the other is not. That creates the all important difference which is why the CF vs CF has no bearing on this discussion.

Now judging by the trend in Tyranid FAQ's, give it a couple months and it will be FAQ'ed that Hypnotic Gaze does not stop Cleansing Flame.

If CF is an attack, it is not a psychic power. FAQs change rules all the time. Starting it is still a psychic power when e FAQ makes no mention of it is against the rules, if you're taking the FAQ as allowing no interpretation.
There's no permission post FAQ to treat it as a psychic power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dannyevilguy wrote:

Luide wrote:

Kitzz wrote:I have three times. A fourth? Here goes:

They are simultaneous in game terms.

How can you say this and still argue that HG goes before CF?
If two CF (which have exactly same timing as HG does) can be simultanous, why cannot the HG be simultaneous with CF?

Crux of the argument is this: When you declare you're using CF, it is considered attack at that point.
1: Use HG (must be done before any attacks, thus is done before CF 1) and resolve it.
2: Use CF 1 (an attack, must be done before any attacks).
3: Try to use CF 2 (must be done before any attacks). Cannot be used as CF 1 is an attack. Game breaks, because (for example) there is no way to know which CF is the one that can be used.

Because game breaking is bad thing, we need a way to fix it. Easy way to do it: "Declare X" and "Resolve X" are separate steps and that CF only becomes attack at the "Resolve CF" step. All actions that have same timing are first declared and then resolved simultaneously.
1a: Declare CF 1. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
1b: Declare CF 2. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

The "problem" with this approach is that it works just as well against HG
1a: Declare HG (must be done before attacks)
1b: Declare CF 1 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
1c: Declare CF 2 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous.

Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.
"Declare" and "Resolve" mechanic does that, but I'm sure that there must be others that will work just as fine.

Basically, currently our options are either to
1) Have a game that breaks down, one way or another. IMO not acceptable, but completely valid RAW interpretation.
2) Make up some internally consistent way of how to resolve things that have exactly same timing, so that game doesn't break.
3) Discount the FAQ entry, as it breaks the game. Note that there probably are other, simultaneous timing events that will still break the game.

Anyway, I don't think neither side will manage to convince the other about this.
I'm too far in the "Any given ruling may not break the game when used in exactly same circumstances" camp to accept the current arguments behind "HG goes before CF".

You keep trying to ignore that the FAQ says that CF is an attack. There is no way around that. And I completely agree that they have the same timing, except that one is an attack and the other is not. That creates the all important difference which is why the CF vs CF has no bearing on this discussion.

Now judging by the trend in Tyranid FAQ's, give it a couple months and it will be FAQ'ed that Hypnotic Gaze does not stop Cleansing Flame.

Actually, Luide didn't ignore it at all, even cited it.
And .CF vs CF absolutely has bearing. Did you even read Luides post?

Dannyevilguy wrote:

Luide wrote:

Kitzz wrote:I have three times. A fourth? Here goes:

They are simultaneous in game terms.

How can you say this and still argue that HG goes before CF?
If two CF (which have exactly same timing as HG does) can be simultanous, why cannot the HG be simultaneous with CF?

Crux of the argument is this: When you declare you're using CF, it is considered attack at that point.
1: Use HG (must be done before any attacks, thus is done before CF 1) and resolve it.
2: Use CF 1 (an attack, must be done before any attacks).
3: Try to use CF 2 (must be done before any attacks). Cannot be used as CF 1 is an attack. Game breaks, because (for example) there is no way to know which CF is the one that can be used.

Because game breaking is bad thing, we need a way to fix it. Easy way to do it: "Declare X" and "Resolve X" are separate steps and that CF only becomes attack at the "Resolve CF" step. All actions that have same timing are first declared and then resolved simultaneously.
1a: Declare CF 1. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
1b: Declare CF 2. (must be done before attacks, not yet considered an attack)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous. Edit to quote: At this step, CF considered to be an attack, as said in the underlined "Resolve CF" step.

The "problem" with this approach is that it works just as well against HG
1a: Declare HG (must be done before attacks)
1b: Declare CF 1 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
1c: Declare CF 2 (not yet considered an attack, must be done before attacks)
2: Resolve all powers simultaneously. Powers cannot affect each other as they're simultaneous. Edit to quote: At this step, CF considered to be an attack,as said in the underlined "Resolve CF" step

Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.
"Declare" and "Resolve" mechanic does that, but I'm sure that there must be others that will work just as fine.

Basically, currently our options are either to
1) Have a game that breaks down, one way or another. IMO not acceptable, but completely valid RAW interpretation.
2) Make up some internally consistent way of how to resolve things that have exactly same timing, so that game doesn't break.
3) Discount the FAQ entry, as it breaks the game. Note that there probably are other, simultaneous timing events that will still break the game.

Anyway, I don't think neither side will manage to convince the other about this.
I'm too far in the "Any given ruling may not break the game when used in exactly same circumstances" camp to accept the current arguments behind "HG goes before CF".

You keep trying to ignore that the FAQ says that CF is an attack. There is no way around that. And I completely agree that they have the same timing, except that one is an attack and the other is not. That creates the all important difference which is why the CF vs CF has no bearing on this discussion.

I underlined few lines for you. Please read it again and tell me, where exactly am I ignoring the FAQ about CF being an attack.
Yes, I did give "Discount the FAQ" as an option to resolve this specific problem of game breaking because of FAQ entry, but I've taken it into account elsewhere.

The whole point of the post is that, if you consider only HG and CF in vacuum, the logic behind HG going first is completely valid.
But it cannot be the correct interpretation, because exactly same logic breaks the game in CF vs CF.

Luide wrote:
Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.

Sure. Unforuntely, the timing with HG vs. CF is not the same as the timing with CF vs. CF because HG is not an attack. The timing, then, must be different, and does not apply to CF vs. CF.

It's like me arguing that squad coherency is 2", and you keep bringing up that squadron coherency is 4", as if that has anything to do with the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luide wrote:
The whole point of the post is that, if you consider only HG and CF in vacuum, the logic behind HG going first is completely valid.
But it cannot be the correct interpretation, because exactly same logic breaks the game in CF vs CF.

So, just to clarify - the dicussion at hand (HG vs. CF) works when you use HG first. It doesn't break anything. But, if you apply the same argument to a completely different situation, the game breaks, so the situation that works perfectly well is dismissed because of the other example?

I suppose it is time to agree to disagree.

puma713 wrote:

Luide wrote:
Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.

Sure. Unforuntely, the timing with HG vs. CF is not the same as the timing with CF vs. CF because HG is not an attack. The timing, then, must be different, and does not apply to CF vs. CF.

But it is the same. Both must happen before attacks. CF vs CF, by your interpretation, is impossible.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Luide wrote:
Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.

Sure. Unforuntely, the timing with HG vs. CF is not the same as the timing with CF vs. CF because HG is not an attack. The timing, then, must be different, and does not apply to CF vs. CF.

But it is the same. Both must happen before attacks. CF vs CF, by your interpretation, is impossible.

Correct. But I'm not talking about CF vs. CF.

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Luide wrote:
Any ruling, or logic you use to support a ruling, must be compatible when facing same timing situation with other powers.

Sure. Unforuntely, the timing with HG vs. CF is not the same as the timing with CF vs. CF because HG is not an attack. The timing, then, must be different, and does not apply to CF vs. CF.

But it is the same. Both must happen before attacks. CF vs CF, by your interpretation, is impossible.

Correct. But I'm not talking about CF vs. CF.

But your argument has to be consistent within the rules. An interpretation that breaks the game cannot be used. It's like Marneus in CC.
Interpretations that are silly cannot be correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Correct. But I'm not talking about CF vs. CF.

But your argument has to be consistent within the rules. An interpretation that breaks the game cannot be used. It's like Marneus in CC.
Interpretations that are silly cannot be correct.

Okay? HG vs. CF doesn't break the game. And that is what we're discussing in this thread. You keep redirecting the argument to an unrelated point. If you want to discuss CF vs. CF and the implications thereof, we can start a new thread.

This thread is about HG vs. CF, not CF vs. CF.

Nearly everyone in the thread has accepted that if HG goes first, everything is gravy. Even Luide. The argument then, is stuck on an example that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

What about my earlier post that shows that CF goes off after "Defenders React", and before "Fighting a Close combat".

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Correct. But I'm not talking about CF vs. CF.

But your argument has to be consistent within the rules. An interpretation that breaks the game cannot be used. It's like Marneus in CC.
Interpretations that are silly cannot be correct.

Okay? HG vs. CF doesn't break the game. And that is what we're discussing in this thread. You keep redirecting the argument to an unrelated point. If you want to discuss CF vs. CF and the implications thereof, we can start a new thread.

This thread is about HG vs. CF, not CF vs. CF.

Nearly everyone in the thread has accepted that if HG goes first, everything is gravy. Even Luide. The argument then, is stuck on an example that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

It has a lot to do with this thread. Your interpretation of the FAQ does far more than you're implying. And you must look at every facet of an interpretation to determine if it's the correct one.

CF vs CF is absolutely relevant. You trying to shove it under the rug is disingenuous.

DeathReaper wrote:What about my earlier post that shows that CF goes off after "Defenders React", and before "Fighting a Close combat".

There is nothing between Defenders React and Fighting a Close Combat, so I disagree that there is a point in time between them when actions can take place. The actions are either a part of Defenders React or Fighting a Close Combat. Otherwise, we're creating time points that don't exist and that only we understand. If they're not outlined in the rulebook, how are the other hundreds of thousands of players supposed to know that this sub-step that is not defined anywhere exists?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
It has a lot to do with this thread. Your interpretation of the FAQ does far more than you're implying. And you must look at every facet of an interpretation to determine if it's the correct one.

There is not much interpretation to be had with:

It is a close combat attack.

Again, like DK, you're suggesting that when asked, GW couldn't have possibly said:

Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or close combat attack?

A: Neither.

But they did not say that. They clearly defined what it is, no matter the implications. The implications may mean that that breaks CF vs. CF. It is good for this thread, however, that it does not break HG vs. CF.

rigeld2 wrote:
CF vs CF is absolutely relevant. You trying to shove it under the rug is disingenuous.

I'm not trying to shove it under the rug. However, it is acting like a red herring to the actual discussion. RAW, it breaks the game. However, RAW, HG vs. CF works perfectly normally, when HG goes first. There is not an intepretation that can be had with CF vs. CF that does not break the game and follows the rules. This is not the case with HG vs. CF, which is what we're trying to discuss.

CF does NOT have the same wording as HG.

HG goes off before any attacks, while CF goes off before blows are struck.

If you interpret "blows are struck" to mean "all attacks are made" then I can see how you'd have trouble. But the more valid interpretation is that "blows are struck" means "all attacks in initiative order are made."

If CF is supposed to happen before all attacks, then, per the FAQ, it must go before itself. This is impossible, so obviously that interpretation is flawed. On the other hand, if CF is supposed to happen before the initiative ladder, then there is no problem whatsoever.

If CF is outside the initiative order, but is still an attack, two CFs can go off (simultaneously) before the initiative ladder. In addition, HG can go off before any number of CFs, because it says it goes off before "attacks" and not before "blows are struck."

I can't wrap my head around why other people can't wrap their heads around the simultaneous part, either. If someone could explain, in detail, why two CFs have to happen one after the other rather than at the same time, that would be fantastic.

Kitzz and puma, I know you probably posted it before, but since I am lazy and do not want to re-rad 11 pages, please (again) explain what "ensuing combat" means.
Most of us claiming it doesn't work, claim "ensuing combat" is attacks at Initiative order. If so, then CF goes off before that, so HG would not be able to stop it.

Happyjew wrote:Kitzz and puma, I know you probably posted it before, but since I am lazy and do not want to re-rad 11 pages, please (again) explain what "ensuing combat" means.
Most of us claiming it doesn't work, claim "ensuing combat" is attacks at Initiative order. If so, then CF goes off before that, so HG would not be able to stop it.

puma713 wrote:--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".

I look at it like this. Your psychic power stops my cc attack but nowhere does it say that it stops my psychic power that ACTS like a cc attack. I'm not swinging a sword at you, I'm blasting you with imaginary fire. You just happen to be too close for me to say I shot you with it.