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.

Say a model has a Black Mace and a Combat Familiar, do the attacks made because of the Combat Familiar get the benefit of fleshbane on these attacks?

Combat Familiar are described as melee attacks made by the model with a set profile (very similar to a weapon profile).
Fleshbane is a rule of the mace.

While the attacks of the CF are said to be made by the model, I can see nothing that suggests they're made by the models melee weapons.

I think the fact it has a set profile means the Familiar doesn't benefit from the Mace, which has its own profile.

Agreed, the Combat Familiar attacks are made with a separate profile. You'd have to benefit from some other rule that can affect the attacks (such as Smash) in order to change the profile of the Combat Familiar bonus attacks.

So no Fleshbane.

Combat Familiar doesn't actually have a weapon profile. A weapon profile includes: Range, Strength, AP, and Type. Combat Familiar only has Strength and AP.

No one has said it does have a weapon profile.
I mentioned that it had something very similar to a weapon profile (only range is missing, which is irrelevant to a cc weapon, there is a type mentioned: Melee).

No, as the close combt attacks are not made using (wielding) the weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, as the close combt attacks are not made using (wielding) the weapon.

Okay follow up question:

What weapon are the attacks made with?

It seems to me that youre attempting a trap, by trying to claim that they must be using a normal CCW and this would violate the more than one weapon rule.

Is this the case? If so be upfront.

I was just wondering what weapon the attacks were made with.

the BRB clearly establishes that attacks are made by models with CCW's

It even goes so far to say that if a model does not have a CCW it is treated as having one. So all models use weapon to attack with in CC.

So what weapon are the attacks granted by the CF made with?

 DeathReaper wrote:
the BRB clearly establishes that attacks are made by models with CCW's

What weapon do you attack with on a Hammer of Wrath attack?
Saying that all close combat attacks must be made with a weapon simply isn't true.

 grendel083 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
the BRB clearly establishes that attacks are made by models with CCW's

What weapon do you attack with on a Hammer of Wrath attack?
Saying that all close combat attacks must be made with a weapon simply isn't true.

It is the basis on which the CC rules are written.

Of course there will be exceptions like Hammer of Wrath. Is the CF an exception as well? (It appears to be).

Your assumption is that because some attacks are made by CCW, that all CC attacks must be.

That is a logical fallacy

The rules are written on the basis that all models that can attack in CC have CCW's

Are you saying that the CF is an exception to the norm just like Hammer of Wrath?

It makes sense if that is the case.

No, they are written with the basic case being that models are attacking with CCW. It does not mean it is an "exception" to be able to attack without one. Just the rest of the case.

So the exception to the norm is not an exception?

Explain please.

It is the other case

You assumed that, just because the rules talk about weapons making CC Attacks that those are the only allowable ways to make CC Attacks - and require another rule where this isnt the case. Except the rules dont actually say that.

The other case, is the exception.

They give us the basic rules for CC and CCW's, and then there are a few advanced rules that are the exception to the basic rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The other case, is the exception.

They give us the basic rules for CC and CCW's, and then there are a few advanced rules that are the exception to the basic rules.

I think the actual definition of the word "exception" is a technicality. What I believe nos is trying to say is that just because one case is the "normal", the other cases don't need a rule saying they aren't normal.

Indeed, I'm trying to be technically correct.

"Usually A" doesnt mean B is an exception - it is just another case