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.

Fragile wrote:If combat familiar said " A model with combat familiar gains 2 additional attacks." I would agree that Smash affects it. Since it states "S4, AP- attacks" I would label it as a more specific rule and treat it much the same as HoW attacks.

Frankly, you are wrong Fragile. The rules for Combat Familiar does say the model gains two additional attacks. So Smash affects it. The fact that those two attacks are given a specific profile (so that your Power Fist wielding character doesn't suddenly have 6 Power Fist attacks) is completely irrelevant.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And if you think a wargear is more specific you have to dance around why weapons aren't also more specific (also being wargear and all).

Lets look at that codex for another piece of wargear that grants additional attacks...

Daemon Weapons. ""....2+, the model gets that many additional attacks .....""

Notice no mention of S or AP in that generic "bonus" attacks? Why would they then specify that the CF is S4 and AP- then?

There is no way to know for sure, but the logical answer is simple: game balance. You have a piece of wargear that is giving your model 2 extra attacks. For a Champion that would be a 100% increase in attacks, for a Lord a 33% increase. With any weapon other than generic close combat weapons this is a massive advantage. It would probably have to cost a lot more points if it was just a raw boost to your Attack profile. So they do the easy thing, something they've done in the past with other Codexes (older Codex: Tyranids comes to mind rather quickly) and give you a set Strength and AP for these other attacks.

But the biggest thing you are very clearly missing is this: nothing in the Combat Familiar rules states that the AP or Strength value of the attack cannot be changed for any reason. Because of rules like Smash that state "all close combat attacks" made by a model are AP2 you would have to have something like this to prevent it from working.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And if you think a wargear is more specific you have to dance around why weapons aren't also more specific (also being wargear and all).

Lets look at that codex for another piece of wargear that grants additional attacks...

Daemon Weapons. ""....2+, the model gets that many additional attacks .....""

Notice no mention of S or AP in that generic "bonus" attacks? Why would they then specify that the CF is S4 and AP- then?

... Because on non-MCs the AP is relevant, and the STR is definitely relevant?

Who cares? Have you found an actual rule to defend your position?

 cowmonaut wrote:
Frankly, you are wrong Fragile. The rules for Combat Familiar does say the model gains two additional attacks.

You should reread the rule. It clearly states S4 AP- attacks.

Who cares? Have you found an actual rule to defend your position?

Good defense. Yes, it clearly states that two S4 AP- attacks, is more specific then two additional attacks. Since it specifies the S and AP, it makes it a more specific rule than Smash's AP2 to all attacks. Which makes the CF rule apply over Smash.

Page 7 if you would like to reread.

Cool, CCWs always use the listed profile. Therefore Smash is useless (except to double Strength)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As it is this "argument" is just going in a circle -
Smash says all close combat attacks (with 2 exceptions)
Smash only applies to weapons.
No it doesn't
Yes it does.
Repeat ad finum.

Mod alerted. Hopefully we can get this locked as it is getting ridiculous.

Fragile wrote:
Page 7 if you would like to reread.

Either:
A). There is a conflict there and also with any weapon in a codex so the only MCs that benefit from the AP2 of Smash are those that don't use weapons.
B). There is no conflict and page 7 does not apply.

Please choose one and explain your reasoning.

The reasoning has been explained and I agree with HJ that this thread has been circular long enough.

 FlingitNow wrote:

How is a weapon less specific than another piece of wargear?

Because Smash specifically tells us how it interacts with weapons nut remains silent on other Wargear perhaps?

No, it tells us explicitly how it works on ALL attacks. Stop lying about what Smash states

 FlingitNow wrote:
[Which you already know. Also weapons have a profile that Smash modifies. CF does not have a weapon profile and is itself a set modifier like HoW or Vector Strike.

Wait, youre back to the hilarious claim that CF is a "set modifier"

Fundamental misunderstanding of rules there. CF IS the profile, modified by Smash. Trya agin, real rules would be helpful

How is CF not a profile? It gives a number of attacks, the S and Ap of them. What more do you need for a profile?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon." (51)
"I a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows" (51)

So a model either has a weapon, is treated as if he has a weapon or has more than one weapon. This is the basis in which the Close Combat rules are written.

Sure - but TMCs do not use weapons.

The still have them, and the BRB makes it clear that all models attack with a weapon.

The TMC's do not use the weapons in the Tyranid Codex, but they do use a weapon to attack with. as per my previously quoted pages.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon." (51)
"I a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows" (51)

So a model either has a weapon, is treated as if he has a weapon or has more than one weapon. This is the basis in which the Close Combat rules are written.

Sure - but TMCs do not use weapons.

The still have them, and the BRB makes it clear that all models attack with a weapon.

The TMC's do not use the weapons in the Tyranid Codex, but they do use a weapon to attack with. as per my previously quoted pages.

Which is still irrelevant as Smash affects all close combat attacks regardless of whether or not they're made with a weapon.

Per page 24 of the rulebook you would use the Strength Characteristic of the attacker. Per page 26, you get an armour save unless the attacking model is using a weapon with a good enough AP value. So..Strength of the model, no AP.

Where are you getting AP- from? What tells you the AP value of your attacks?

Well lets see...CF grants the model two additional cc attacks. Smash affects all cc attacks (except HOW and those made with AP1 weapons).

IMO Smash wins

Back to the circular argument:

Well lets see...Smash allows you to half your attacks to double your strength. CF makes 2 attacks at AP-

Therefore the attacks are AP-...

One rule modifies all your attacks to AP2 the other modifies 2 specific attacks to AP-.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Per page 24 of the rulebook you would use the Strength Characteristic of the attacker. Per page 26, you get an armour save unless the attacking model is using a weapon with a good enough AP value. So..Strength of the model, no AP.

Where are you getting AP- from? What tells you the AP value of your attacks?

Where did I say AP-? I said Strength of the model, and no AP, as per page 24 and 26 of the rulebook.

Ap- is no AP I'm not getting where it is telling you what the AP of the attacks are resolved at. Please tell me where it tells you the AP of the attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon." (51)
"I a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows" (51)

So a model either has a weapon, is treated as if he has a weapon or has more than one weapon. This is the basis in which the Close Combat rules are written.

Sure - but TMCs do not use weapons.

The still have them, and the BRB makes it clear that all models attack with a weapon.

The TMC's do not use the weapons in the Tyranid Codex, but they do use a weapon to attack with. as per my previously quoted pages.

No, actually - the codex specifies they do not use CCWs. This generates a conflict with the BRB (do use CCW vs do not use) and is therefore solved by codex > BRB.

Fling - again, why are you claiming CF is a modifier? It is no such thing

If you disagree, page and para, or concede. By definition a profile cant modify itself

Fling - again, why are you claiming CF is a modifier? It is no such thing

If you disagree, page and para, or concede. By definition a profile cant modify itself

Again you claim it is a profile. Page and paragraph please. No mention of it being a weapon or a weapon profile in the CF rule. It can't be a characteristic profile. So if it is a new type of profile page and paragraph where this is defined.

Or just go by the CF rules. It modifies your attacks and then set modifies them to be S4 and AP-.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon." (51)
"I a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows" (51)

So a model either has a weapon, is treated as if he has a weapon or has more than one weapon. This is the basis in which the Close Combat rules are written.

Sure - but TMCs do not use weapons.

The still have them, and the BRB makes it clear that all models attack with a weapon.

The TMC's do not use the weapons in the Tyranid Codex, but they do use a weapon to attack with. as per my previously quoted pages.

No, actually - the codex specifies they do not use CCWs. This generates a conflict with the BRB (do use CCW vs do not use) and is therefore solved by codex > BRB.

Yes in the fluff it does say they do not use CCW's as such...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Which is still irrelevant as Smash affects all close combat attacks regardless of whether or not they're made with a weapon.

You need to re-read smash and not ignore the context this time.

Fling - so, you havent found where it is a modifier?

Thanks for conceding. After all ,CF does nto fit any definition of a modifier found in the rulebook. Or will you now actually find some rules, after failing to do so until this point?

I do not have to find a rule stating it IS a profile; I am using it as a short hand for " it is giving you attacks with a weapon-like set of characteristics". Nowhere did I say I was using a rulebook defined term, and indeed none is needed to debunk your position again. HOwever you are stating, and have done with ZERO support - and hung your ENTIRE argument upon - the absurd claim that it is a set modifier.

Death - so youre claiming the rule "they do nto use close combat weapons as such" is fluff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Death - so you are still also claiming that, despite smash explicitly stating ALL close combat attacks, AND having proven to you that NOT ALL CC attacks are made with melee weapons, that Smash ONLY applies to weapons?

WRong. Just plain wrong. It is a sttraightforward, easily read sentence;ALL CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS

nowhere does it limit this to just those made with weapons, HoW - not made with a weapon - is specifically exempted frmo Smash, meaning using a weapon cannot be a requirement of Smash. And so on. Really, please stop with this line of argument - it makes you look foolish to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes in the fluff it does say they do not use CCW's as such...

That's not fluff.

You need to re-read smash and not ignore the context this time.

If by "context" you mean "made up rules" sure.

So Nos so you're saying something that changes the number of attacks you get is not a modifier and something that changes the S and AP of those attacks to a set value is not a set modifier. It is instead some new form of profile that is not defined anywhere. I assume this is you conceding.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Death - so youre claiming the rule "they do nto use close combat weapons as such" is fluff?

Yes, that part is fluff because that is not the whole sentence.

The sentence is "Tyranid creatures do not wield close combat weapons as such, but rather slash at their opponents with their own teeth, claws and talons. As a result Tyranid models never receive bonus Attacks for fighting with more than one close combat weapon - these bonuses are always included in the creature's profile."(33 Codex: Tyranids)

"Models with claws and teeth count as having a normal close combat weapon." (83 Codex: Tyranids)

If they have Claws and teeth they use that as their CCW in Close Combat.

Death - so you are still also claiming that, despite smash explicitly stating ALL close combat attacks, AND having proven to you that NOT ALL CC attacks are made with melee weapons, that Smash ONLY applies to weapons?

Smash applies to weapons as per the context of the CC rules (And Smash itself).

This whole "if you don't produce exactly the evidence I require I assume you concede" thing is about as childish and immature as this subforum gets.

The rule doesn't have to state it is a modifier. Very few modifiers state they are such in their rules. Smash for instance is one such rule. Does CF change the number of attacks the model makes? Does CF provide a set value for the S & AP of those attacks different from what they would normally be?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash applies to weapons as per the context of the CC rules (And Smash itself).

I'm sorry - where is Smash mentioned in the close combat rules? I must have missed that page.

And you're incorrect on the context of Smash.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So Nos so you're saying something that changes the number of attacks you get is not a modifier and something that changes the S and AP of those attacks to a set value is not a set modifier. It is instead some new form of profile that is not defined anywhere. I assume this is you conceding.

It provides additional attacks with their own AP. THere is no change made to the strength and AP of those attacks, because they never existed

You are now literally claiming that a profile modifies itself.

Crazy.

Thanks for "arguing".

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash applies to weapons as per the context of the CC rules (And Smash itself).

I'm sorry - where is Smash mentioned in the close combat rules? I must have missed that page.

And you're incorrect on the context of Smash.

Smash deals with CC attacks.

The CC rules are written on the basis that all models have a CCW as per the quotes about CCW's i gave earlier (Page 51)

Therefore my assessment is correct, unless you can show rules that state contrary to the rules that I have posted.

So Now I'll break it down for you. Since you are claiming a set modifier is a profile with no rules support. Here goes:

Say I am a chaos lord with a power maul.

I have 3 attacks (plus other potential modifiers we'll ignore in this example as they are not relevant).
I am S6.
I am AP4

Now I add a CF. What does the CF rule say? It says I make 2 additional attacks. So I have 5 attacks now. Oh look that is a different number to 3.

If the CF did not define the S & AP of those attacks what would the strength and AP be?

If indeed the CF was a profile as you claim we would not know what S & AP to resolve the attacks at but we would. We would resolve them at S6 & AP4, but what's this the CF rules state these attacks are So AP-. So it is modifying the S & AP to a set value from what it would otherwise be.

So given all the above most people would work out that CF is indeed a set modifier rather than assuming it is a wonderful magical new profile that is not defined anywhere in any rules. Please post some actual rules to support your claim it is a profile. Or some rules any rules to support your interpretation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash applies to weapons as per the context of the CC rules (And Smash itself).

I'm sorry - where is Smash mentioned in the close combat rules? I must have missed that page.

And you're incorrect on the context of Smash.

Smash deals with all CC attacks.

FTFY - you left a word out. That word is rather important.

The CC rules are written on the basis that all models have a CCW as per the quotes about CCW's i gave earlier (Page 51)

Great - now if you can find any rule that says all CC attacks are made with a CCW you might possibly have a point. You're making an assumption without support to make that jump.

FlingitNow & DeathReaper: context is great when figuring out how rules are intended to work, but we're not arguing intention. "The writers of the rules meant to have Smash only apply to attacks made with weapons" is a decent argument for RAI, but is not a good RAW argument, especially against the argument "Smash applies to all close combat attacks because it states 'all of the close combat attacks... of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2'." You've yet to come out with a good argument as to why a special rule that states it applies to "all of the close combat attacks" doesn't apply to all of the close combat attacks.

Also modifiers apply to characteristics, number of attacks is not a characteristic, the attack characteristic is, which Combat Familiar does not affect. the AP is also not a modifier, as models do not have an AP characteristic, weapons do, and as you have often said, Combat Familiar attacks are not made with a weapon.

Likewise Prince Raven you haven't come up with a good argument ad to why the CF rule doesn't apply to the attacks made using the CF rule...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also on the CF is s profile crowd that can then be modified by other modifiers (like smash), are they S5 when a model with furious charge charges and has a CF?