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.

Got in to a discussion on the Tactics board about this. We were talking about the DoG FAQ for mycetic spores.

Can an MC use a Smash attack doing DoG agaisnt a tank shock?

I said yes. You get 1 attack, you halve it and then round up to 1 attack.
He said he didn't think so becasue DoG is not a normal attack.

Looked through the forums, but didn't see this come up before.

RAW?

Dog allows you to use any weapon you have, including ranged, why wouldn't it allow you to use a special rule.

Well RAW if a MC does not have a carried CC weapon, he must use a gun on the DoG attempt.

"The Attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." P.86

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well RAW if a MC does not have a carried CC weapon, he must use a gun on the DoG attempt.

"The Attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades." P.86

If you don't have a weapon you're always treated as having one.

Right but you do not actually have one. so you can not be "using any weapon carried" as you are not actually carrying a CCW.


Not that anyone would play that way.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Right but you do not actually have one. so you can not be "using any weapon carried" as you are not actually carrying a CCW.


Not that anyone would play that way.

Except I am. Well, I'm treated as if I am anyway. Any time you look at a unit and say "Does he have a CCW?" you will always be able to say "At worse he's treated like he has one." Therefore I'm treated as if I'm carrying one.

It's one of the things I'm glad they cleared up in 6th.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Right but you do not actually have one. so you can not be "using any weapon carried" as you are not actually carrying a CCW.

Tyranids are always considered to be carring tooth and claw as CCW. All biomorphs and "weapons" just accentuate that. Its why we don't get extra attacks for having two CCW.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Right but you do not actually have one. so you can not be "using any weapon carried" as you are not actually carrying a CCW.


Not that anyone would play that way.

Except I am. Well, I'm treated as if I am anyway. Any time you look at a unit and say "Does he have a CCW?" you will always be able to say "At worse he's treated like he has one." Therefore I'm treated as if I'm carrying one.

It's one of the things I'm glad they cleared up in 6th.

Right you are treated as having one, but that does not equate to actually carrying one. (Again, strict RAW and no one would play this way, just intended to illustrate a point).

 DeathReaper wrote:
but that does not equate to actually carrying one. (Again, strict RAW and no one would play this way, just intended to illustrate a point).

But I am treated as carrying one. We know that because I am treated as being armed with one. If I'm armed with one I must be carrying it.
You keep your end of the argument going, I'll keep my end. I think yours fails, however, because at no time can you point at a model and say "There's no CCW there." You must treat every model as if it has a CCW.

It is an interesting issue since the rules do not specifically state the model does have a CCW.

To be clear
"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."

No specific melee weapon, means it is not carrying a melee weapon, as one is not listed in its wargear. (Buy we pretend it uses something that acts like a ccw to attack with).

 DeathReaper wrote:
No specific melee weapon, means it is not carrying a melee weapon, as one is not listed in its wargear.

Rules citation that "listed in its wargear" is the only way to fulfill "carrying a melee weapon"?

And actually, it has a Lash Whip which is a CCW biomorph.

Can I put in that whether you need a listed CCW (you totally don't, everyone has a CCW, but whatever) is entirely not the point of this thread?

CAN YOU SMASH on Death or Glory? Personally, I want to say you can't but I'm having trouble find a rule justification for that.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:
Can I put in that whether you need a listed CCW (you totally don't, everyone has a CCW, but whatever) is entirely not the point of this thread?

CAN YOU SMASH on Death or Glory? Personally, I want to say you can't but I'm having trouble find a rule justification for that.

DoG allows a Close Combat attack. Any model that has the Smash SR can make a Smash attack instead of a CCA.
There's no restriction in DoG saying you can't, so you can. It's pretty clear.

Simply states you can make a single attack.
No matter how you read it, there is nothing that prevents a smash attack being used.
Which means LR's will stop trying to run over trygons and the likes :K

I'd say yes, the text says that this is a close combat attack and smash says close combat attacks are what modify their attacks, It's still a really bad idea to tank shock a MC but orks could possibly kill it before it even gets it's attacks if it's weak enough and we roll well on the Deff rolla... Still, Yeah i would say you could because it says 1 attack, you choose to modify it to 1/2 an attack and it boosts back to 1 and has all the rules of smash still. Just makes sense really.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Right you are treated as having one, but that does not equate to actually carrying one. (Again, strict RAW and no one would play this way, just intended to illustrate a point).

You keep using this word "actually". It's actually a little model with no capacity for any kind of combat whatsoever, short of being thrown at someone, perhaps for attempting pedantry and failing at it.

There is no meaningful distinction between "treated as" and "is" in a game that is predicated on make-believe in the first place. Is an otherwise unarmed model treated as being armed with a close combat weapon? Yes, explicitly by RaW. So, it can DoG. And it's no different than if it's treated as being armed with a close combat weapon due to that weapon being listed in its profile.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
I'd say yes, the text says that this is a close combat attack and smash says close combat attacks are what modify their attacks, It's still a really bad idea to tank shock a MC but orks could possibly kill it before it even gets it's attacks if it's weak enough and we roll well on the Deff rolla... Still, Yeah i would say you could because it says 1 attack, you choose to modify it to 1/2 an attack and it boosts back to 1 and has all the rules of smash still. Just makes sense really.

Even with the ork deff rolla, first the MC hits and resolves, But with the new damage charts would any MC still try to DOG? if you fail to pen, or glance (66% chance), you're gone. Even on a pen, you have a 33% shot at getting removed as well assuming ap2. Then even if you do stop a battle wagon you'll take the 2d6 S10 hits.

So sure, use you're smash, awesome idea I'd also say it meets the criteria to do a DOG

Now PSA's on the other hand, which are neither weapons, nor modeled I was really hoping 6th would clear up that debate, but oh well.

Pyrian wrote:
There is no meaningful distinction between "counts as" and "is"...

But the rule does not say counts as.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
There is no meaningful distinction between "counts as" and "is"...

But the rule does not say counts as.

That """"logic"""" is horrible. You need to stop.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
There is no meaningful distinction between "counts as" and "is"...

But the rule does not say counts as.

Pardon me. There is also no meaningful distinction between "treated as" and "is" in a game that is predicated on make-believe in the first place.

We interrupt this discussion to bring you this technicality:

 Gloomfang wrote:
Tyranids are always considered to be carring tooth and claw as CCW. All biomorphs and "weapons" just accentuate that. Its why we don't get extra attacks for having two CCW.

Actually only about 1/3 of the units have Claws and Teeth.

We now return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
I'd say yes, the text says that this is a close combat attack and smash says close combat attacks are what modify their attacks, It's still a really bad idea to tank shock a MC but orks could possibly kill it before it even gets it's attacks if it's weak enough and we roll well on the Deff rolla... Still, Yeah i would say you could because it says 1 attack, you choose to modify it to 1/2 an attack and it boosts back to 1 and has all the rules of smash still. Just makes sense really.

Even with the ork deff rolla, first the MC hits and resolves, But with the new damage charts would any MC still try to DOG? if you fail to pen, or glance (66% chance), you're gone. Even on a pen, you have a 33% shot at getting removed as well assuming ap2. Then even if you do stop a battle wagon you'll take the 2d6 S10 hits.

So sure, use you're smash, awesome idea I'd also say it meets the criteria to do a DOG

Now PSA's on the other hand, which are neither weapons, nor modeled I was really hoping 6th would clear up that debate, but oh well.

I wouldn't be too worried about the hits that won't insta-kill the MC and still allow an armor save (which is probably going to be a 3+ or better anyway), personally.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Even with the ork deff rolla, first the MC hits and resolves, But with the new damage charts would any MC still try to DOG? if you fail to pen, or glance (66% chance), you're gone. Even on a pen, you have a 33% shot at getting removed as well assuming ap2. Then even if you do stop a battle wagon you'll take the 2d6 S10 hits.

So sure, use you're smash, awesome idea I'd also say it meets the criteria to do a DOG

Mycetic Spores have no choice anymore - they MUST DoG against a Tank Shock. On the plus side, since they can smash, they've got about a 5/9 chance of penetrating AV 14, and it's an AP 2 attack, so a die roll of 2 or 4+ will stop most vehicles.

It's not a horrible chance, considering you're going to get run over anyway.

They do not have to DoG. They cannot move, but they can be moved.

coredump wrote:
They do not have to DoG. They cannot move, but they can be moved.

Read the FAQ. They must DoG.

rigeld2 wrote:

coredump wrote:
They do not have to DoG. They cannot move, but they can be moved.

Read the FAQ. They must DoG.

Beat me to it ...

Yea DoG or ... DoG

The other thing to note is that you don't get the new Disembark rules for Mycetic Spores, either - no "within 6 inches" for them.

 Janthkin wrote:
The other thing to note is that you don't get the new Disembark rules for Mycetic Spores, either - no "within 6 inches" for them.

I've been playing it that already - if you expected to get that buff from GW... :-)

One of my buddies was not too happy when my Doom Spore landed 1" away from his guys and then he found out the spore didn't take dangerous terrain, before losing am entire squad of Dire Avengers to life drain.

Wraithguard made short work of him... :(