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.

My question here is if a psychic power (i.e. hammerhand) was cast in assault and the grey knight justicar suffers perils while doing so, can he use his Nemesis Warding Stave's 2+ invuln?

From the codex: "A model wielding a NWS has a 2+ invuln save against wounds caused in close combat." (GK codex, p. 54)

My interpretation is that hammerhand was cast in close combat. I then suffered perils in close combat. The wound by perils isn't caused by the enemy but it still is a wound caused in close combat.

The perils of the warp is something that can occur anytime you use a power. Was it caused by the standard procedure in the assault phase (CC?) Did someone swing and cause a wound? No? Then, no warding stave.

I suspect that isn't the intent of the wording. It seems to me that you're making a very literal (perhaps pedantic) interpretation.

In fairness if you were playing me and you wanted to argue the toss about it, I'd let you make the save, but I don't think it's the RAI and it's questionable as to whether it's in fact the RAW because you could argue that the power is used before CC starts

doesnt the justicar have more attacks than a normal grey knight? why would you give him the warding staff? Shouldn't you use your higher number of attacks with something taht can actually do damage?

I would say no, you cant use it. As perils of the warp is not a close combat thing. The perils attack happens in the assault phase but not in close combat.

The wound was caused IN close combat, so you can use it against perils.

the wound wasn't caused IN close combat
It was caused by taking a Psychic test, which can only be done at the start of the combat phase BEFORE close combat occurs.

But by RAI I would allow it, I mean its a bloody WARDING staff, wardin against deamonic stuff is what it does

It was caused IN the assault phase, while the squad was locked IN close combat, as it is done AFTER assault moves are made.

It does not have to be caused by close combat attacks, so an apocalyptic explosion caused by close combat at S9 AP2 would allow the warding stave to be used.

in assault phase does not matter, niether does being locked in combat, what does matter is the wording of the power
if it says "At the start of the Turn/Phase" the "close combat" has not occured yet.

Anything else and you can argue it.

I've given the wording.

It is after Assault moves have been made. At that point the unit is "in combat"

Formosa wrote:in assault phase does not matter, niether does being locked in combat, what does matter is the wording of the power
if it says "At the start of the Turn/Phase" the "close combat" has not occured yet.

Anything else and you can argue it.

Now there is a big hole in this reasoning, and that is subsequent turns. I can use hammerhand every assault phase. So if I was to use it in subsequent turns and periled, are you still implying that I cannot take saves because I am "not in close combat"? How can I be in close combat the previous turn and not be in close combat the next? You mean to tell me that I can also leave assault because I am not yet in close combat at the beginning of the assault phase? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that.

Exergy wrote:doesnt the justicar have more attacks than a normal grey knight? why would you give him the warding staff? Shouldn't you use your higher number of attacks with something taht can actually do damage?

The Warding Stave is still a NFW. It is the exact same thing as a Nemesis Force Sword, only with a 2+ invul in CC instead a +1 to the invul save.

Also, he put it on his justicar as a way to fight off perils, hence this question coming up.

jy2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:in assault phase does not matter, niether does being locked in combat, what does matter is the wording of the power
if it says "At the start of the Turn/Phase" the "close combat" has not occured yet.

Anything else and you can argue it.

Now there is a big hole in this reasoning, and that is subsequent turns. I can use hammerhand every assault phase. So if I was to use it in subsequent turns and periled, are you still implying that I cannot take saves because I am "not in close combat"? How can I be in close combat the previous turn and not be in close combat the next? You mean to tell me that I can also leave assault because I am not yet in close combat at the beginning of the assault phase? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that.

The hole you see doesn't exist.

you can use Hammerhand every assault phase BECAUSE THE PSYCHIC POWER DESCRIPTION TELLS YOU THAT YOU CAN, emphasis, not shouting
Now as I said it depends on the power in question (sorry Nosferatu I cant see where you gave ANY wording on psychic powers),
If its at the start of turn, before anything else, then no 2++, as the combat hasn't happened yet, the SECOND you finnish these "start of turn" powers, normal play begins, you move anything before doing those powers and you lose the chance to use them (so no moving out of combat.....)

In Short, Yes it can be used with failed Perils with CERTAIN powers, but cannot be used with others.
Read the description of the psychic power in question.

I gave the wording "after assault moves have been made"

You only make assault moves when you move into combat, or you are already in combat from a previous round

Either way, you are "in close combat" when y ou use it, and the Warding Stave can be used

No argument possible there.

the wording says "wounds that are caused in CC"


a Perils for a psychic power that was used in the Assault phase would count IMO.

so would a nearby Vehicle exploding and hitting you,

or a WH Vindicare sniping you in CC,

or a no retreat wound.

The way I understand "in close combat" is that any wound which contributes to combat resolution counts. If perils contributes to that, you should be able to use the Stave save.

"In close combat" isn't defined either way.

so if a wound is caused when the unit is in CC, it was in CC.


Personally, i think the Warding Stave should just give a 2++ all the time for the cost.

Grey Templar wrote:"In close combat" isn't defined either way.

so if a wound is caused when the unit is in CC, it was in CC.


Personally, i think the Warding Stave should just give a 2++ all the time for the cost.

if that is the case then DE wyches will get their 4++ vs cleansing flame as 'Close Combat Attack' is not defined either. Cleansing flame happens in close combat and is an attack (a psykic attack) but it would also be a close combat attack as it happens in close combat.

I belive they do get their 4++ against Cleansing Flame.

Exergy wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:"In close combat" isn't defined either way.

so if a wound is caused when the unit is in CC, it was in CC.


Personally, i think the Warding Stave should just give a 2++ all the time for the cost.

if that is the case then DE wyches will get their 4++ vs cleansing flame as 'Close Combat Attack' is not defined either. Cleansing flame happens in close combat and is an attack (a psykic attack) but it would also be a close combat attack as it happens in close combat.

I believe you are correct. I see no reason why they shouldn't get the 4++ invuln against Cleansing Flame....and FNP if any.

They should recive the 4++ as wounds cause by Cleansing Flame are not close combat attacks.
"...wounds caused by close combat attacks." Wyches Pg. 46

"All engaged models will fight in this turn’s Assault phase with their full number of Attacks and use any special close combat attack they have" Pg 35
And "NB. If a model has WS 0, all close combat attacks directed against it will hit automatically" From the to Hit chart on page 37.

"if a psychic test is passed every enemy models suffers a wound on a roll of 4+"

Cleansing flame is not a CC attack, Close combat attacks are made by models at the appropriate initive step. Using a roll to hit and a roll to wound and are equal to the number of attack on the models profiles and any modifiers (such as bonus weapons)

I feel like you would get the save if the NWS said something like:

"while the model is in close combat it has a 2+ invulnerable save"

however it doesnt.

it says you get a 2+ invulnerable saved from wounds caused in close combat. Close combat did not cause the wounds.

in fact there is no close combat phase in the game and close combat is not defined by the rules so RAW the NWS does nothing at any time.

however that is kinda silly

close combat attacks which are the only thing that cause close combat wounds only occur between assaulting units during the assault phase. perils of the warp isnt caused by an assaulting unit so you would get no save.

In a friendly game I'd accuse you of cheese hunting

Hammerhand is cast before the assault, before blows are struck. Isn't it?

ChrisCP wrote:They should recive the 4++ as wounds cause by Cleansing Flame are not close combat attacks.
"...wounds caused by close combat attacks." Wyches Pg. 46

"All engaged models will fight in this turn’s Assault phase with their full number of Attacks and use any special close combat attack they have" Pg 35
And "NB. If a model has WS 0, all close combat attacks directed against it will hit automatically" From the to Hit chart on page 37.

"if a psychic test is passed every enemy models suffers a wound on a roll of 4+"

Cleansing flame is not a CC attack, Close combat attacks are made by models at the appropriate initive step. Using a roll to hit and a roll to wound and are equal to the number of attack on the models profiles and any modifiers (such as bonus weapons)

It also says "unsaved wounds caused by CF are counted as having been caused in cc for all purposes."

While this is worded strangely, it's intent is clear. I'd give any DE player I face 4++ for their wyches against CF.

gpfunk wrote:In a friendly game I'd accuse you of cheese hunting

Hammerhand is cast before the assault, before blows are struck. Isn't it?

No, hammerhand is cast "after all assault moves are made, but before any blows have been struck".

wounds caused in close combat are from blows being struck. if Hammerhand is used before then it would not qualify to benefit from NWS save.

Also perils of the warp is not a blow / assault / or wound caused by a close combat attack. Nor would the effect resolve during close combat as neither side has struck any close combat blows yet and technically RAW close combat has not happened yet.

I think I see a hangup here. A lot of people are equating close combat with close combat attacks. They are not exactly the same thing. One is more general (close combat) and the other is more specific (close combat attacks). In the case of the warding stave, it applies to the general instead of the specific. Of course, close combat attacks occur in close combat so that the general will encompass the specific.

For example, let's compare the nemesis warding stave to the nemesis force sword.

Nemesis Warding Stave - "A model wielding a NWS has a 2+ invuln save against wounds caused in close combat." (GK codex, p. 54)

Nemesis Force Sword "The NFS increases the bearer's invuln by +1 againt close combat attacks."


I hope you see the difference there. NWS is more general and applies to all wounds in close combat. NFS is more specific and only applies to wounds caused by close combat attacks. If the NWS was meant to only apply to close combat attacks, it would have been worded in the same way as the NFS.

Wounds caused in CC could be from a vehicle exploding etc, it's quite different from CC attacks. That why it matters, there are thing which cause wounds in CC that are close combat attacks. Se BRB for an example pg2 from memory left hand side.

By the same token I'm fairly sure one can take Cover saves from CF wounds.

ChrisCP wrote:Wounds caused in CC could be from a vehicle exploding etc, it's quite different from CC attacks. That why it matters, there are thing which cause wounds in CC that are close combat attacks. Se BRB for an example pg2 from memory left hand side.

By the same token I'm fairly sure one can take Cover saves from CF wounds.

It isn't a (psychic) shooting attack, thus no cover saves.

I believe the difference in wording pointed out by jy2 shows that there was a different intent for the Staff powers as opposed to the Sword. The Sword blocks CC attacks, the Staff protects against all wounds while you are in CC. I believe the points cost of the Staff reflects this ability as well.

BladeWalker wrote:I believe the difference in wording pointed out by jy2 shows that there was a different intent for the Staff powers as opposed to the Sword. The Sword blocks CC attacks, the Staff protects against all wounds while you are in CC. I believe the points cost of the Staff reflects this ability as well.

Assuming the difference in wording is deliberate and not merely carelessness on GW's part (perhaps an unwise assumption...), then I'd agree.

In all honesty though, GW are slipshod enough in their phrasing that I don't think one can automatically assume that variations in wording are in fact carefully chosen for specific variation in effect. In this specific case the high points cost does indicate that it is perhaps intentional, but against that common snese would suggest that if the staff can protect vs explosions etc close up, it should do so at range too. On the other hand again, GW is not famous for thinking things like that through so...

Although my own inclination is that it should only protect against wounds inflicted by cc weapons, like the sword. and bear in mind I play GK, I'm convinced enough that the counter-view is valid and very possibly what was intended.

you would think if the staff was to give you a 2+I save when in base to base with an enemy model it would say so.

It however doesn't say that.

It says you get a 2+I save against close combat wounds.

since the perils of the warp attack does not occur at any initiative step and occurs before initiative for close combat attacks I am pretty sure it is not a close combat wound.

a 2+I save in close combat is pretty nice, which is why it costs a lot.