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.

So I was playing a guy today with my GK army. I had crowe and he charged a big unit of chaos marines (10 we will say).

I declare I am going to cleansing flame. Roll the test and pass. Yay for me...

The FAQ states that cleansing flame is a close combat attack. Makes sense to me.

Now, if you read crowe his ability (under his sword) states that his close combat attacks have rending 4+.

In my interpretation it means that his cleansing flame, which causes a wound as a close combat attack, would be rending.

So basically you just ignore their armor as rending is ap 2. Is this correct? If not please explain. Thanks

No, Cleansing flame does not benefit from the 4+ rending.

This is due to the wording of Master swordsman. It states "His close combat attacks have the rending special rule, and will rend on a to wound roll of X" P. 42 GK Codex.

Cleansing flame says "Suffer a wound on a roll of X" P.31 GK Codex.

Basically Cleansing flame is not a a 'To Wound' roll so it does not benefit from rending.

 Icelord wrote:


So basically you just ignore their armor as rending is ap 2. Is this correct? If not please explain. Thanks

No, as DR posted.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, Cleansing flame does not benefit from the 4+ rending.

This is due to the wording of Master swordsman. It states "His close combat attacks have the rending special rule, and will rend on a to wound roll of X" P. 42 GK Codex.

Cleansing flame says "Suffer a wound on a roll of X" P.31 GK Codex.

Basically Cleansing flame is not a a 'To Wound' roll so it does not benefit from rending.

What? So you’re saying the Cleansing Flame isn’t actually a roll to wound? Instead you’re….rolling dice to see if they wound?

I don’t get it.

MadmanMSU wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, Cleansing flame does not benefit from the 4+ rending.

This is due to the wording of Master swordsman. It states "His close combat attacks have the rending special rule, and will rend on a to wound roll of X" P. 42 GK Codex.

Cleansing flame says "Suffer a wound on a roll of X" P.31 GK Codex.

Basically Cleansing flame is not a a 'To Wound' roll so it does not benefit from rending.

What? So you’re saying the Cleansing Flame isn’t actually a roll to wound? Instead you’re….rolling dice to see if they wound?

I don’t get it.

Exactly correct.
Not every dice roll resulting in a wound is a To Wound roll. The index of the BRB references the To Wound chart on pages 14 and 25.
"But rigeld2 - don't the Poisoned and Sniper special rules completely negate your statement and make you look like an idiot? I'm so proud of myself for proving you wrong!"
No, not at all. They give explicit permission to wound on a specific number.

Cleansing Flame does not reference a roll To Wound. It doesn't generate hits to be converted into To Wound rolls.
Saying that Cleansing Flame is rolling To Wound is the exact same as saying that rolling To Hit with a plasma weapon is also a To Wound roll.

rigeld2 wrote:

Exactly correct.
Not every dice roll resulting in a wound is a To Wound roll. The index of the BRB references the To Wound chart on pages 14 and 25.
"But rigeld2 - don't the Poisoned and Sniper special rules completely negate your statement and make you look like an idiot? I'm so proud of myself for proving you wrong!"
No, not at all. They give explicit permission to wound on a specific number.

Cleansing Flame does not reference a roll To Wound. It doesn't generate hits to be converted into To Wound rolls.
Saying that Cleansing Flame is rolling To Wound is the exact same as saying that rolling To Hit with a plasma weapon is also a To Wound roll.

That's true, the Poisoned USR says they would on a fixed number, which I guess also means they don't get To Wound rolls either. So they don't benefit from their own rule if their S is higher than the opponent's T, which just seems silly. They don't get Preferred Enemy either.

Nope, they "To wound" on a 4+. Cleansing flame is a wound on a 4+ - similar to Gets Hot! causing a wound on a 1.

As nos and Rig have pointed out:

A "To Wound" roll is different than Cleansing flame where you 'Suffer a wound on a roll of 4+'

rigeld2 wrote:

MadmanMSU wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, Cleansing flame does not benefit from the 4+ rending.

This is due to the wording of Master swordsman. It states "His close combat attacks have the rending special rule, and will rend on a to wound roll of X" P. 42 GK Codex.

Cleansing flame says "Suffer a wound on a roll of X" P.31 GK Codex.

Basically Cleansing flame is not a a 'To Wound' roll so it does not benefit from rending.

What? So you’re saying the Cleansing Flame isn’t actually a roll to wound? Instead you’re….rolling dice to see if they wound?

I don’t get it.

Exactly correct.
Not every dice roll resulting in a wound is a To Wound roll. The index of the BRB references the To Wound chart on pages 14 and 25.
"But rigeld2 - don't the Poisoned and Sniper special rules completely negate your statement and make you look like an idiot? I'm so proud of myself for proving you wrong!"
No, not at all. They give explicit permission to wound on a specific number.

Cleansing Flame does not reference a roll To Wound. It doesn't generate hits to be converted into To Wound rolls.
Saying that Cleansing Flame is rolling To Wound is the exact same as saying that rolling To Hit with a plasma weapon is also a To Wound roll.

This is what annoys me the most about "RAW". It's a sad world where "im rolling to wound" and "im rolling this die to see if it generates a wound" mean two different things. It's a ridiculous argument.

The BRB Defines "To Wound" rolls as a specific process (Comparing Str Vs. Tough). Cleansing flame does not use this process so by the rules it is not a "To Wound" roll, which is a very specific thing.

GameFreak975 wrote:
This is what annoys me the most about "RAW". It's a sad world where "im rolling to wound" and "im rolling this die to see if it generates a wound" mean two different things. It's a ridiculous argument.

So you want a rule called "Master Swordsman" to cause his mind flames to work better...? and you're upset that the RAW disallow it....Hypocrisy...OVERLOAD (head explodes)

(Can we get a head explodes Emoticon?)

Correct, To Wound Roll is a term of art, it has a specific definition. Just because a unit can suffer the effect of losing wounds to a roll of the die does not make that roll a To Wound Roll.

MadmanMSU wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Exactly correct.
Not every dice roll resulting in a wound is a To Wound roll. The index of the BRB references the To Wound chart on pages 14 and 25.
"But rigeld2 - don't the Poisoned and Sniper special rules completely negate your statement and make you look like an idiot? I'm so proud of myself for proving you wrong!"
No, not at all. They give explicit permission to wound on a specific number.

Cleansing Flame does not reference a roll To Wound. It doesn't generate hits to be converted into To Wound rolls.
Saying that Cleansing Flame is rolling To Wound is the exact same as saying that rolling To Hit with a plasma weapon is also a To Wound roll.

That's true, the Poisoned USR says they would on a fixed number, which I guess also means they don't get To Wound rolls either. So they don't benefit from their own rule if their S is higher than the opponent's T, which just seems silly. They don't get Preferred Enemy either.

It's like you didn't read my entire post.