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.

Technically wouldnt CF's wound roll be comparable to a poisoned weapon, in that it always causes a wound based on a set value regardless of toughness?

Sunde wrote:Technically wouldnt CF's wound roll be comparable to a poisoned weapon, in that it always causes a wound based on a set value regardless of toughness?

No, because it does not use the poison rules, so it is not the same.

It is simply a Psychic power that causes a wound if you roll a 4+

In different ways which is why it does not rend.

I think that arguing that a close combat attack that causes a wound on a 4+ (CF) is not comparable to a close combat attack that wounds on a 4+ is a bit disingenuous and implies a greater specificity of language than GW seems to apply. GW doesn't seem to micro parse its language and roughly congruent statements seem to be treated as equivalent. I seem to recall several YMDC discussion where the hyper semantic argument fell to a FAQ or errata that employs GWs looser language.

I think the fact that CF was clarified as a CC attack is enough to bring in the rending. Though I think it is a pretty odd result, I would not tell the GK player that he could not benefit from it.

jmurph wrote:I think that arguing that a close combat attack that causes a wound on a 4+ (CF) is not comparable to a close combat attack that wounds on a 4+ is a bit disingenuous and implies a greater specificity of language than GW seems to apply. GW doesn't seem to micro parse its language and roughly congruent statements seem to be treated as equivalent. I seem to recall several YMDC discussion where the hyper semantic argument fell to a FAQ or errata that employs GWs looser language.

I think the fact that CF was clarified as a CC attack is enough to bring in the rending. Though I think it is a pretty odd result, I would not tell the GK player that he could not benefit from it.

Cleansing Flame does not make to-wound rolls.
Rending requires to-wound rolls.

If you're going to try and argue that anything that causes a wound is a to-wound roll, then all plasma to-hits are to-wound rolls as well...

Rending requires any rolls to wound, not "to-wound rolls"(which is not even a thing anyways).

Since Cleansing Flame is very specifically a roll to cause a wound, the FAQ specifies that Cleansing Flame is a Close combat attack, and Master swordsman makes all Close combat attacks rending; then Cleansing Flame would have to Rend.

Let's look at the naked text in side-by-side comparisons:

Rending weapons(BRB Page 42): "If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon olls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat, the opponent automatically suffers a wound, regardless of the target's Toughness."

Cleansing Flame(GKCodex, page 31): "If the psychic test is passed, all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+."

Master Swordsman(GKCodex, page 42): "His close combat attacks have the Rending special rule, and will rend on a to Wound roll of 4 or more."

And as already stated the FAQ has to say: "Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close
combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack. "

So going straight through these quotes we find that Cleansing flame is a Close combat attack, and therefore Rending, and will wound on a roll of 4+(which would then trigger the rending via Master swordsman).

But you are ignoring the big question. Is cleansing flame a Towound roll? I say no.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Since Cleansing Flame is very specifically a roll to cause a wound

So rolls to hit are as well? Or just the ones that are for Plasma?
Difficult Terrain tests are as well?
The Leadership test for Spirit Leech must be also...

Man, it's like they should have defined what a roll to wound is.
Oh, they did. Page 19 in the BRB.

The number indicated is the minimum score on a D6
needed to convert the hit into a wound. Just like rolling
To Hit, roll the dice together and, once again, use
different coloured dice to pick out weapons with
different Strengths or roll them separately.

Does Cleansing Flame have a Strength value to reference against the Toughness of the target and check the table? No?
So it's not a roll to wound then, right?

The number indicated is the minimum score on a D6 
needed to convert the hit into a wound. Just like rolling 
To Hit, roll the dice together and, once again, use 
different coloured dice to pick out weapons with 
different Strengths or roll them separately.

By the bolded part, CF is not a roll to wound as it does not roll to hit and therefore cannot be converted.

You are both focusing on a farcical notion that Rending requires a "to-wound" roll of 6.

This is not the case as I quoted from page 42.

The sentence cannot be Parsed in a fashion that requires the "to-wound" roll to be a 6.

The following is the sentenced parsed out in your claim:
If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound.
In close combat, the opponent automatically suffers a wound.
Regardless of the target's Toughness.

Now the sentenced parsed to mean any rolls that determine wounds, with a timing restriction:
If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat.
The opponent automatically suffers a wound
Regardless of the target's Toughness.

W@ith the latter example we can parse the sentence further into subject, action, and place:
The subject is the model armed with a rending CCW.
The action is rolling a 6 any rolls to wound(not to-wound rolls) .
The place is in close combat.

The rending rule does not require the "to-wound rolls" to be a 6 to activate, it requires "any rolls to wound".

With Cleansing Flame you are very much making a roll to wound(as defined by the power).

Except CF is not used in CC, it is used before CC.

Rending only applies to rolls to wound in CC (p.42)

As CC is defined on P.34 'Fighting a Close Combat' defines CC as attacks made in Initiative order.

However, the FAQ claims that CF is a close combat attack. Not a psychic power, just a close combat attack.

Happyjew wrote:However, the FAQ claims that CF is a close combat attack. Not a psychic power, just a close combat attack.

And that matters how?

It is a close combat attack that happens before combat, Rending only affects attacks made in close combat.

Rending can not affect Clensing Flame.

Trust me, I agree wholeheartedly. CF is a close combat attack that happens outside normal Initiative. Therefore, it is not affected by things that affect cc attacks, such as Hypnotic Gaze or rending.

DeathReaper wrote:Except CF is not used in CC, it is used before CC.

Rending only applies to rolls to wound in CC (p.42)

As CC is defined on P.34 'Fighting a Close Combat' defines CC as attacks made in Initiative order.

and if you dont believe this to be the case then feel free to jump over to the Hypnotic gaze thread and make your reasons known there also.

Everything he brought up regarding cc attacks has already been mentioned in that thread. As it is people disagree with what is a close combat attack in the ensuing combat actually is, so posting what has been stated multiple times already won't change anybody's mind.

Kommissar Kel wrote:You are both focusing on a farcical notion that Rending requires a "to-wound" roll of 6.

You mean this quote?

If a model armed with a rending Close combat weapon rolls a 6 on any of his rolls to wound in close combat,

The one that says one of his to wound rolls in close combat?
Farcical indeed.

With Cleansing Flame you are very much making a roll to wound(as defined by the power).

Actually no, you're not. You're making a roll that can cause a wound, but the definition on page 19 shows that this is not a roll to wound.

rigeld2 wrote:Does Cleansing Flame have a Strength value to reference against the Toughness of the target and check the table? No?
So it's not a roll to wound then, right?

Sniper rifles also don't have a Strength value. They Rend just fine.

A roll to wound is specified as being converted from a hit roll. CF does not hit so does not roll to wound.

Redemption wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Does Cleansing Flame have a Strength value to reference against the Toughness of the target and check the table? No?
So it's not a roll to wound then, right?

Sniper rifles also don't have a Strength value. They Rend just fine.

Yes they do. Look at the weapon profile.
Where's Cleansing Flames STR value?

rigeld2 wrote:Yes they do. Look at the weapon profile.
Where's Cleansing Flames STR value?

X is not a value. You stated that a 'to wound' roll constitutes of a Strength value references against a Toughness value. Sniper rifles only have a Strength value against vehicles, and do not roll against Strength vs Toughness. They just roll a 4+ to cause a Wound, just like CF does.

Poisoned weapons also do not roll against Toughness, but on a static number, and their rules even specifically state that if your Strength is higher or equal that the target's Toughness, you get to 're-roll failed to wound rolls'.

This infers that a S vs T test is not required for a roll to be a 'to wound roll', and a static 4+ roll to cause a wound is also a 'to wound roll'. Hence Cleansing Flame would also benefit from a Grand Master's Hammer of Righteousness to re-roll rolls of 1.

Redemption wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Yes they do. Look at the weapon profile.
Where's Cleansing Flames STR value?

X is not a value. You stated that a 'to wound' roll constitutes of a Strength value references against a Toughness value. Sniper rifles only have a Strength value against vehicles, and do not roll against Strength vs Toughness. They just roll a 4+ to cause a Wound, just like CF does.

Poisoned weapons also do not roll against Toughness, but on a static number, and their rules even specifically state that if your Strength is higher or equal that the target's Toughness, you get to 're-roll failed to wound rolls'.

This infers that a S vs T test is not required for a roll to be a 'to wound roll', and a static 4+ roll to cause a wound is also a 'to wound roll'. Hence Cleansing Flame would also benefit from a Grand Master's Hammer of Righteousness to re-roll rolls of 1.

You've found stated exceptions to the rule - which is how the 40k rules work. Specific overrides general.
Both poison and rending weapons have STR values. The rules for those weapons say to ignore the SvT table.
Does Cleansing Flame say that?

Therefore your inference fails. Cleansing Flame rolls are not rolls to wound.

No, Sniper weapons do not have a Strength value unless they're shooting a vehicle.

Redemption wrote:No, Sniper weapons do not have a Strength value unless they're shooting a vehicle.

X is still a strength value. We know that because it's listed under "Strength" in the weapon profile.

Whether or not they have a Str is moot. They still roll to hit. In order for a roll to be a to wound roll, it must be converted from a hit. CF does not hit. Unless someone can.prove that CF rolls to hit, or automatically, then this debate can go no further. Never mind strength and toughness, does it hit? My answer is not, it causes a wound on 4+. It does not hit.

Right - it doesn't hit, it does not compare SvT (or have a rule saying it doesn't have to), meaning it doesn't roll to wound.

Meaning it doesn't Rend.

My take is that *if* Cleansing Flame were worded such that it caused automatic hits that wound on a 4+, rending would then apply. However, it is were in such a manner that it causes an automatic wound on a 4+.

"...all enemy models in the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+." p.31 C:GK

Deadshot wrote:Whether or not they have a Str is moot. They still roll to hit. In order for a roll to be a to wound roll, it must be converted from a hit. CF does not hit. Unless someone can.prove that CF rolls to hit, or automatically, then this debate can go no further. Never mind strength and toughness, does it hit? My answer is not, it causes a wound on 4+. It does not hit.

Where does it say To-Wound rolls are converted from a hit? I may have missed something...

EDIT: Also, Rigeld, Str X is not a value anymore than Str PAQWHX is a value.

Unless you can find it in the STR portion of that table for me.

Elios Harg wrote:My take is that *if* Cleansing Flame were worded such that it caused automatic hits that wound on a 4+, rending would then apply.

100% agree.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Whether or not they have a Str is moot. They still roll to hit. In order for a roll to be a to wound roll, it must be converted from a hit. CF does not hit. Unless someone can.prove that CF rolls to hit, or automatically, then this debate can go no further. Never mind strength and toughness, does it hit? My answer is not, it causes a wound on 4+. It does not hit.

Where does it say To-Wound rolls are converted from a hit? I may have missed something...

EDIT: Also, Rigeld, Str X is not a value anymore than Str PAQWHX is a value.

Unless you can find it in the STR portion of that table for me.

X is a value. It is X.

For the conversion bit, Pg 19. The exact paragraph is the one under the table that says Boltgun 4, Plasmagun 7, Lascannon 9.