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.

40k-noob wrote:
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.

It's a weapon 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.

It's a weapon profile.

Two rules with two differing AP values, seems like a conflict to me.

You have two weapon profiles. You're applying different rules to them. This does not make sense. Wookies are from Endor.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
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.

It's a weapon 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.

It's a weapon profile.

Two rules with two differing AP values, seems like a conflict to me.

You have two weapon profiles. You're applying different rules to them. This does not make sense. Wookies are from Endor.

The Combat Familiar is not a Weapon nor does it have a weapon profile.

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?

The strength is set because Smash doesn't alter the strength - it alters the AP. Yes, I know that Smash CAN alter the strength, but we're talking about the situation in which it doesn't.

Maybe this is a bad example, but think of it like the Poisoned rule but in reverse. The Smash USR is to AP what Poison essentially is for strength.

 Tangent wrote:

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?

The strength is set because Smash doesn't alter the strength - it alters the AP. Yes, I know that Smash CAN alter the strength, but we're talking about the situation in which it doesn't.

Maybe this is a bad example, but think of it like the Poisoned rule but in reverse. The Smash USR is to AP what Poison essentially is for strength.

deleted...

Maybe so, but I don't know what a Harness is.

But I still don't understand the conflict. A Power Sword has a profile that states that attacks made with the Sword are resolved at the user's strength and AP 3. When a MC hits something with that Sword, the attacks are resolved at AP 2, due to Smash.

How is the familiar any different?

 Tangent wrote:
Maybe so, but I don't know what a Harness is.

But I still don't understand the conflict. A Power Sword has a profile that states that attacks made with the Sword are resolved at the user's strength and AP 3. When a MC hits something with that Sword, the attacks are resolved at AP 2, due to Smash.

How is the familiar any different?

The only difference is that the rule sets the conditions for its use.
If it just said that CF grants two additional attacks and nothing more, there would be no debate.

And remember it is not a weapon, the DP is not swinging the Familiar at the enemy, so comparing it to a power sword is not valid.

You mean the rule of the Combat Familiar sets the conditions for its use?

 Tangent wrote:
You mean the rule of the Combat Familiar sets the conditions for its use?

yes, that is what i meant.

Does a Power Sword not do the same thing? If a model has 2 base attacks and is equipped with a Power Sword, then the model has 2 attacks that are resolved at the model's unmodified strength and at AP 3. These are conditions for use (implicitly and explicitly defined in the profile of the Power Sword and the characteristics profile of the model) if ever there were any, and yet a MC equipped with a Power Sword resolves its attacks at AP 2 instead of AP 3. Where is the dstinction between the profile of a Power Sword and the profile of a Combat Familiar if the Power Sword has the same usage conditions as the familiar?

As nosferatu already said:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

Please tell me why general vs. specific doesn't apply here. Whether CF is a weapon isn't really relevant.

1)The monster gets these extra attacks, S4 AP-.
2)Monster has the black mace,(book is further then the length of my arm away) that hits with a set profile.
3)The monster ALWAYS hits at AP2 bar hammer of wrath.

How is 1 different from 2? If the monster was armed with a weapon that was S4 ap- would you have the same objection?
S(User) is no different from a set value in this case for any intent or purpose, the fact that you are trying to draw a distinction doesn't mean there is one.
Some weapons hit at a specific value of strength others at the user's or at a modified value of the users. This piece of wargear is an additional weapons profile for the monstrous creature, those attacks are coming from the model and as such are subject to the smash rules.

What Strength are the attacks that are granted by the familiar made at on a MC with a Str of 6?

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
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.

It's a weapon 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.

It's a weapon profile.

Two rules with two differing AP values, seems like a conflict to me.

You have two weapon profiles. You're applying different rules to them. This does not make sense. Wookies are from Endor.

The Combat Familiar is not a Weapon nor does it have a weapon profile.

There's no difference between describing a weapon profile (as the CF does) and showing the weapon profile (as the Black Mace does). It's a weapon profile written out long-hand. They're functionally identical.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
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.

It's a weapon 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.

It's a weapon profile.

Two rules with two differing AP values, seems like a conflict to me.

You have two weapon profiles. You're applying different rules to them. This does not make sense. Wookies are from Endor.

The Combat Familiar is not a Weapon nor does it have a weapon profile.

There's no difference between describing a weapon profile (as the CF does) and showing the weapon profile (as the Black Mace does). It's a weapon profile written out long-hand. They're functionally identical.

Do you attack with the Combat Familiar?
I mean is the DP hitting his opponent over the head with a little combat familiar minion?

If it was a weapon then the model would have to choose which weapon to attack with as per the rule on pg 51 under more than one weapon.

 DeathReaper wrote:
What Strength are the attacks that are granted by the familiar made at on a MC with a Str of 6?

These attacks are made at strength 4 because no other rule overrides this as the Smash rule overrides AP. However, lets say that these attacks are being made against a creature with toughness 5. Normally, these strength 4 attacks would need a 5+ to wound. If the MC had the Poisoned (3+) special rule, these attacks wound instead wound on a 3+ instead of a 5+ because the special rule would override the strength of the attacks granted by the familiar. Just like Smash overrides the AP of the attacks granted by the familiar.

Also, 40k-noob, you never addressed my previous post.

 Tangent wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
What Strength are the attacks that are granted by the familiar made at on a MC with a Str of 6?

These attacks are made at strength 4 because no other rule overrides this as the Smash rule overrides AP. However, lets say that these attacks are being made against a creature with toughness 5. Normally, these strength 4 attacks would need a 5+ to wound. If the MC had the Poisoned (3+) special rule, these attacks wound instead wound on a 3+ instead of a 5+ because the special rule would override the strength of the attacks granted by the familiar. Just like Smash overrides the AP of the attacks granted by the familiar.

Also, 40k-noob, you never addressed my previous post.

I address it in the same manner that I address Rigeld2's assertion that it is a weapon.

Do you attack with the Combat Familiar like you do with a Power Sword?

40k-noob wrote:

 Tangent wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
What Strength are the attacks that are granted by the familiar made at on a MC with a Str of 6?

These attacks are made at strength 4 because no other rule overrides this as the Smash rule overrides AP. However, lets say that these attacks are being made against a creature with toughness 5. Normally, these strength 4 attacks would need a 5+ to wound. If the MC had the Poisoned (3+) special rule, these attacks wound instead wound on a 3+ instead of a 5+ because the special rule would override the strength of the attacks granted by the familiar. Just like Smash overrides the AP of the attacks granted by the familiar.

Also, 40k-noob, you never addressed my previous post.

I address it in the same manner that I address Rigeld2's assertion that it is a weapon.

Do you attack with the Combat Familiar like you do with a Power Sword?

How I see it yes.

I think this is comparable to servo Harness is it not?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Tangent wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
What Strength are the attacks that are granted by the familiar made at on a MC with a Str of 6?

These attacks are made at strength 4 because no other rule overrides this as the Smash rule overrides AP. However, lets say that these attacks are being made against a creature with toughness 5. Normally, these strength 4 attacks would need a 5+ to wound. If the MC had the Poisoned (3+) special rule, these attacks wound instead wound on a 3+ instead of a 5+ because the special rule would override the strength of the attacks granted by the familiar. Just like Smash overrides the AP of the attacks granted by the familiar.

Also, 40k-noob, you never addressed my previous post.

I address it in the same manner that I address Rigeld2's assertion that it is a weapon.

Do you attack with the Combat Familiar like you do with a Power Sword?

How I see it yes.

I think this is comparable to servo Harness is it not?

I thought about that too. But i had to dismiss it, the Harness attacks with the servo arms so it is different.

But lets say it is a weapon, now the wielder has TWO close combat weapons, and so the model MUST choose to attack with only one of them as per the rule on pg 51 of the BRB under the Section "more than one weapon"

I think the weapon discussion is irrelevant. Can we all agree that the model that paid points for the CF is making the attacks?

If yes, then again, look at what nosferatu posted and answer the question I already asked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

Please tell me why general vs. specific doesn't apply here.

This discussion is absurd. The mental gymnastics on display here are appalling. The combat familiar gives the DP two attacks with a specific profile. The special rule modifies the DP's attacks, no matter how it got those attacks. The CF's attacks are at AP 2. Anything else is stupid.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
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.

It's a weapon 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.

It's a weapon profile.

Two rules with two differing AP values, seems like a conflict to me.

You have two weapon profiles. You're applying different rules to them. This does not make sense. Wookies are from Endor.

The Combat Familiar is not a Weapon nor does it have a weapon profile.

There's no difference between describing a weapon profile (as the CF does) and showing the weapon profile (as the Black Mace does). It's a weapon profile written out long-hand. They're functionally identical.

Do you attack with the Combat Familiar?
I mean is the DP hitting his opponent over the head with a little combat familiar minion?

If it was a weapon then the model would have to choose which weapon to attack with as per the rule on pg 51 under more than one weapon.

Per the CF rules, the model makes extra attacks.
Also per the CF rules, he's given permission to make the attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:
Per the CF rules, the model makes extra attacks.

And why are those attacks made at Str 4 instead of his normal Str, since "the model makes extra attacks"?

Why is Str 4 more specific than the models Str, but AP- is not more specific than AP2?

 Tangent wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
What Strength are the attacks that are granted by the familiar made at on a MC with a Str of 6?

These attacks are made at strength 4 because no other rule overrides this as the Smash rule overrides AP.

How about Page 24 that says "Consult the chart on the next page, cross-referencing the attacker's Strength characteristic with the defender's Toughness."

If "Per the CF rules, the model makes extra attacks." then the models Str should be used.

Or the more specific CF rules take precedence over the normal MC's stats.

If your attacks are poisoned, do you get to use the poison rule with the CF?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Per the CF rules, the model makes extra attacks.

And why are those attacks made at Str 4 instead of his normal Str, since "the model makes extra attacks"?

Why is Str 4 more specific than the models Str, but AP- is not more specific than AP2?

 Tangent wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
What Strength are the attacks that are granted by the familiar made at on a MC with a Str of 6?

These attacks are made at strength 4 because no other rule overrides this as the Smash rule overrides AP.

How about Page 24 that says "Consult the chart on the next page, cross-referencing the attacker's Strength characteristic with the defender's Toughness."

If "Per the CF rules, the model makes extra attacks." then the models Str should be used.

Or the more specific CF rules take precedence over the normal MC's stats.

If your attacks are poisoned, do you get to use the poison rule with the CF?

The attack has 2 APs, just like the Black Mace.
Yes, if your attacks are poisoned the CF would get that benefit.

That is pretty much the same situation with Poison and Vector Strike or Hammer of Wrath. The FaQ instructs us what to do in that case:

"Q: When a model makes a Vector Strike or Hammer of Wrath, do
these attacks benefit from any special rules (such as Furious Charge,
Poisoned or Rending), or any weapons or other wargear it is
equipped with? (p37/43)
A: No."

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2590005a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1a.pdf

That's an argument for intent, not what's written. Iirc you agreed before the FAQ that HoW and Vector got poison.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's an argument for intent, not what's written. Iirc you agreed before the FAQ that HoW and Vector got poison.

Yes I did agree before the FAQ that HoW and Vector got poison.

Which is the RAW case here as well.

But taking everything into consideration RAI and a subsequent FAQ will most likely follow the HoW and Vector route.

It really seems like the CF's stats are more specific than the models str, or the Smash rule.

In all honesty I can see both arguments as having at least some validity as far as the RAW is concerned.

The stats, as explained, are not more specific. I dont expect it to last the FAQ update though. Why make CF worth its points, ever?

even though it says its the monster creature attacking one would assume its actually the familiar attacking since it says it has to be at s4, why would the familiar reduce the creatures strength? Really the entry is worded stupidly, they should have just made this the same as Ork attack squigs.
Also I am at a bit of a disagreement the whole way the wargear is set out. like black mace being the sam points for a sorceror as it is for a dp but clearly it is so much more op on the prince. They should have givin them different points values dependant on who takes the item. or restricted certain items to certain models or something.

The problem here is that people are trying to express equality of circumstances when none exist. The black mace or a power sword are weapons and should be treated as such. The combat familiar, on the other hand, is not a weapon. It is a piece of wargear that happens to grant the bearer additional attacks.

As it stands right now and by RAW both of these would grant the daemon prince ap2 attacks. However, to suggest that ruling the combat familiar being ap- in this case would somehow affect how a carried weapon interacts with smash is wrong. They are different things with different rules and should be treated as such.

What Weapon Skill and Initiative are the attacks made at?
Because it sounds like it is the daemon prince doing the attacking.

As for how the daemon prince uses it, I would totally model up a giant mace with a combat familiar (prisoner) tied to it, Great Humongous Style.

-Matt