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.

Hey Guy's

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts on a combat familiar for a daemon prince, and how his Monstrous creature special rules would affect the bonus conferred by that piece of wargear....

"a model with a combat familiar makes two additional S4 Ap - attacks"

Here are my questions:
(my thoughts will be in brackets)

1. Being a monsterous creature are these attacks resolved at Ap2?
(yes as they are CC attacks and all CC attacks by a model with smash are Ap2)

2. If he elects to smash attack are they resolved at S8?
(no as performing a smash attack doubles strength characteristic and the familiar is not Strength user)

3. If he elects to smash attack are these "additional attacks" added on after halving his attacks characteristic?
(yes as performing a smash attack halves your attacks characteristic before applying additional attacks conferred by weapons/wargear....

4. If I am correct that means I could have a Khorne daemon prince with the black mace who charges with a possible 14 attacks 12 at S7 Ap2 and 2 at S4 Ap2?

1) Yes, they are AP2 due to Smash. HoW would also be AP2, except it explicitly states otherwise - there is no such statement here
2) Correct, still S4
3) Added on after, multiple modifiers page 2, possibly
4) Something like that, although doesnt the mace add to your strength as well as having FC?

nah the axe of blind fury adds to strength.. the mace has the cursed rule

Don't forget his Hammer of Wrath attack for being a Monstrous Creature.

I always forget that damned hammer of wrath!

Is the OP asking if the Combat familiar's attacks would be AP 2? That would be a big no. Says right in the rule, S4 AP-.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Is the OP asking if the Combat familiar's attacks would be AP 2? That would be a big no. Says right in the rule, S4 AP-.

As it's the MC doing the attacks and the MC has an AP of 2 they are AP2

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Is the OP asking if the Combat familiar's attacks would be AP 2? That would be a big no. Says right in the rule, S4 AP-.

Smash says all attacks made by the model are AP2 unless they'd be AP1, so that's a big yes.

The question then is why does a rulebook rule take precedence over a codex rule?

Because there is no conflict?

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Because there is no conflict?

But there is, One says AP2, one says AP-

Codex (AP-) trumps BRB (AP2)

But then wouldn't every single weapon with a set AP value be in conflict? Thus the rule for smash never applies? Why is the Black Mace AP2 but the Combat Familiar AP-?

As above. Either Black Mace is AP2, or neither are.

Or you treat Smash as a modifier that is applied last - it is only when you make those attacks that they are set to AP2

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
But then wouldn't every single weapon with a set AP value be in conflict? Thus the rule for smash never applies? Why is the Black Mace AP2 but the Combat Familiar AP-?

Because the Codex trumps the BRB in the case of the familiar.

Explain why it trumps the familiar and not the mace.

Only reason I feel that anyone could have a case is that it's additional attacks at a different strength value, which could consider it to be "Additional Attacks" not made by the model in question.

However until I've seen an FAQ, I'd go with them being AP2 as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Either Black Mace is AP2, or neither are.

Or you treat Smash as a modifier that is applied last - it is only when you make those attacks that they are set to AP2

I disagree here. One is a weapon that the daemon happens to possess and use to make his normal attacks with. The other is a piece of "wargear" that adds two bonus attacks specifically stated as: STR4, AP-. Yes, I know it says its the model making the attacks, but the rule gives a profile for those attacks. The black mace gives a profile for the weapon. That is a subtle but important difference imho.

jms40k i agree that that is how the rules probably should be interpreted but RAW i think it is Ap2

I still think it is AP2 (otherwise BM is AP4) *however* I fully expect GW to FAQ it to AP-. It would make the combat familiar actually useful rather than junk otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I still think it is AP2 (otherwise BM is AP4) *however* I fully expect GW to FAQ it to AP-. It would make the combat familiar actually useful rather than junk otherwise.

I, too, don't see the issue here. If you give a MC (with the Smash USR) a specific weapon from a codex with an AP worse than 2, the attacks with that weapon aren't resolved at the worse AP - they're resolved at AP 2, as per Smash. Like MasterSlowPoke, I don't see why this would apply to the weapon and not the familiar, especially considering that the rules for the familiar explicitly state that it is the model (and not the familiar) who is making the attacks (and this model, being a MC, has Smash).

It would be like if you could buy a "mutation" for your MC that includes giving him an extra arm that can make 2 attacks, and then purchasing a sword for that arm, and then claiming that the arm doesn't have Smash.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
But then wouldn't every single weapon with a set AP value be in conflict? Thus the rule for smash never applies? Why is the Black Mace AP2 but the Combat Familiar AP-?

Because the Codex trumps the BRB in the case of the familiar.

And not the Black Mace? Or are you asserting that the Black Mace is AP4 when wielded by a Demon Prince?

If you think the Black Mace is AP2, why are you treating two pieces of wargear differently?

There's no conflict - the wargear is both AP2 and AP-. So you use AP2 - just like the Black Mace. Until, as nos said, its FAQed.

jms40k wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Either Black Mace is AP2, or neither are.

Or you treat Smash as a modifier that is applied last - it is only when you make those attacks that they are set to AP2

I disagree here. One is a weapon that the daemon happens to possess and use to make his normal attacks with. The other is a piece of "wargear" that adds two bonus attacks specifically stated as: STR4, AP-. Yes, I know it says its the model making the attacks, but the rule gives a profile for those attacks. The black mace gives a profile for the weapon. That is a subtle but important difference imho.

The profile is nice, however the rules say to use the lowest/best ap.

jms40k wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Either Black Mace is AP2, or neither are.

Or you treat Smash as a modifier that is applied last - it is only when you make those attacks that they are set to AP2

I disagree here. One is a weapon that the daemon happens to possess and use to make his normal attacks with. The other is a piece of "wargear" that adds two bonus attacks specifically stated as: STR4, AP-. Yes, I know it says its the model making the attacks, but the rule gives a profile for those attacks. The black mace gives a profile for the weapon. That is a subtle but important difference imho.

And what's the profile for the Black Mace?
Why are you allowing Smash to make a piece of wargear AP2 but not allowing Smash to make a piece of wargear AP2?

Combat familiar states that it is the model making the extra attacks, just at a set strength, I really see no reason to not have Smash make those attacks AP2.,

 undertow wrote:
Combat familiar states that it is the model making the extra attacks, just at a set strength, I really see no reason to not have Smash make those attacks AP2.,

Wouldn't the Combat Familiar rule also set the AP as well?

Why is only the Strength set when the rule gives both stats?

40k-noob wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Combat familiar states that it is the model making the extra attacks, just at a set strength, I really see no reason to not have Smash make those attacks AP2.,

Wouldn't the Combat Familiar rule also set the AP as well?

Why is only the Strength set when the rule gives both stats?

When a MC swings a black mace should it be ap4 or ap2?

You use the best AP available.

40k-noob wrote:

 undertow wrote:
Combat familiar states that it is the model making the extra attacks, just at a set strength, I really see no reason to not have Smash make those attacks AP2.,

Wouldn't the Combat Familiar rule also set the AP as well?

Why is only the Strength set when the rule gives both stats?

BEcause Smash stats ALL attacks made by the model are AP2. Familiar states the attacks are made by the model. model with combat familiar is less specific than dp with combat familiar.

I know what the Smash rule says, but there seems to be a direct conflict there:

Smash says all attacks...yada yada

CF says 2 attacks....yada yada

Both are specifically talking about "attacks" isn't that a conflict?

40k-noob wrote:
I know what the Smash rule says, but there seems to be a direct conflict there:

Smash says all attacks...yada yada

CF says 2 attacks....yada yada

Both are specifically talking about "attacks" isn't that a conflict?

No, there would be a conflict if this rule said something like "these extra attacks can only be made at AP: -"

I know it's been pointed out before, but if what you're saying was correct, things like the Black Mace would force a DP's AP to 4, as those 'attacks' were AP.

 undertow wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
I know what the Smash rule says, but there seems to be a direct conflict there:

Smash says all attacks...yada yada

CF says 2 attacks....yada yada

Both are specifically talking about "attacks" isn't that a conflict?

No, there would be a conflict if this rule said something like "these extra attacks can only be made at AP: -"

I know it's been pointed out before, but if what you're saying was correct, things like the Black Mace would force a DP's AP to 4, as those 'attacks' were AP.

The Black Mace is different in that there is no Rule it is just a weapon profile. The Smash rule would be in addition to the weapons profile.

The Combat Familiar's rule says that attacks are at a certain Strength and AP and the Smash rule says that attacks are at a certain AP.
Two rules with two differing AP values, seems like a conflict to me.