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.

Yep, given it specifically states "the model" as making the attacks, its hard to claim Smash would not apply - RAW it does. RAI? I dont see them making CF actually worth its points (its garbage unless Ap2, really 2 S4 attacks are not worth 15 points on an HQ model) by keeping it AP2

Ok, anyone that is talking blather about servo-harness or servo arms. It is not the "servo whatever" making that attack it is the techmarine or whichever science priest that is making it. That's why it's done using their WS. Also a model with a servo-thing doesn't have to choose what weapons profile to use as JUST LIKE A COMBAT FAMILIAR the weapon hits with a set strength and ap and is an additional set of attacks subject to the models base rules and profile.

Why are attacks made by the DP model in this case separated into two different groups? Where does the rules show that this must be done.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

Yep. The model is making the attacks. The model's attacks are poisoned. Therefore, the attacks are poisoned. If it wasn't specifically stated that the model is making the attacks (as opposed to the familiar), this would be a different conversation.

 Tangent wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

Yep. The model is making the attacks. The model's attacks are poisoned. Therefore, the attacks are poisoned. If it wasn't specifically stated that the model is making the attacks (as opposed to the familiar), this would be a different conversation.

The same way the model makes the attack with Hammer of Wrath?

"If a model with this special rule charges and ends its charge move in base contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional Attack that hits automatically and is resolved at the model's unmodified Strength with an AP of -." P.37

So poison should apply there as well right, as well as AP2?

God, this is really uninventive at this point. Poison yes, AP 2 no.

"All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2 (unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)." P. 42

 DeathReaper wrote:
So poison should apply there as well right, as well as AP2?

It should yes. But it was FAQed to not.

I'm not saying your interpretation of intent is wrong. You just cannot guarantee that you're correct wrt RAI.

 Tangent wrote:
God, this is really uninventive at this point. Poison yes, AP 2 no.

"All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2 (unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)." P. 42

Except poison does not affect HoW attacks, as noted in the FaQ. HoW is more specific than the model having rending or poison.


I am just trying to glean why you guys think the Smash rule is more specific than the CF rule in the chaos dex, when codex trumps BRB, and the CF says Str4 AP-.

Why, if it is the model making the attacks, does it not use the models Str as well as AP2 from smash?

As we "Consult the chart on the next page, cross-referencing the attacker's Strength characteristic with the defender's Toughness." (24). The Str characteristic is 6, but the CF says Str 4

Plus the CF is not a weapon. "when rolling To Wound in close combat, you use the Strength on the attacker's profile regardless of what weapon he is using." P.25

It just seems like a big mess they made of things.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except poison does not affect HoW attacks, as noted in the FaQ. HoW is more specific than the model having rending or poison.

I know that. I was just quoting from the BRB, as written. There is an FAQ regarding HoW and Poison, and this clarity could be written into the rules for the CF... but it isn't. I wouldn't try to claim that GW can't make a mistake like this, but as it is written, it resolves in a particular way.

As for the question of general vs specific, Nos already addressed this:

"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."

 Tangent wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except poison does not affect HoW attacks, as noted in the FaQ. HoW is more specific than the model having rending or poison.

I know that. I was just quoting from the BRB, as written. There is an FAQ regarding HoW and Poison, and this clarity could be written into the rules for the CF... but it isn't. I wouldn't try to claim that GW can't make a mistake like this, but as it is written, it resolves in a particular way.

As for the question of general vs specific, Nos already addressed this:

"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."

It would be written into the FAQ's for CSM who have only the baby FAQ atm. I'm sure there will be more coming shortly. Until that I say RAI str 4 ap -

RAW str 4 ap2

 Tangent wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Except poison does not affect HoW attacks, as noted in the FaQ. HoW is more specific than the model having rending or poison.

I know that. I was just quoting from the BRB, as written. There is an FAQ regarding HoW and Poison, and this clarity could be written into the rules for the CF... but it isn't. I wouldn't try to claim that GW can't make a mistake like this, but as it is written, it resolves in a particular way.

As for the question of general vs specific, Nos already addressed this:

"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."

A rule for 2 attacks (the CF) are more specific than a rule for all of the models attacks.

Because if you go with all being more specific than the Str is overwritten as well. as the rule says to "roll a D6 for each successful hit" each = all

"As with shooting, once you have scored a hit with an Attack, you must roll a D6 for each successful hit to see if you cause a Wound and damage your foe.
Consult the chart on the next page, cross-referencing the attacker's Strength characteristic with the defender's Toughness." (24).

Well, of course - I'm certainly not trying to argue anyone's interpretation. I guess I thought we were discussing RAW still.

We are.

combat familiar is a joke. str 4 ap - is all it ever is. Thats it.

Good rules argument there...oh wait, no, it wasnt

Lungpickle wrote:
combat familiar is a joke. str 4 ap - is all it ever is. Thats it.

Hmm ...

Good joke.

Well maybe a bad one ...