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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Does scattering change the target?

No

rigeld2 wrote:

But... I have permission to assault anything I target.
You've asserted that anything affected is (by definition) targeted.
If the Terms affected a unit (they did) why are they not allowed to assault them?

No, I asserted that as the powers effect is directed specifically against them from passing the psychic test they are the target of the attack. And said plainly that blast scattering is its own mechanic and as such is an exception, not the rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

The target unit would get a DtW as you resolve DtW before resolving the power (which would include resolving scatter). Page 67 defines this.

As soon as I left the house after posting that I knew it was an incorrect statement, my bad only just got up. Blasts are a redirection of the effect, not the target. My point was it has no merit to the discussion, just with a bad counter point I failed to deliver that point.

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm failing to see the relevancy of that statement.

The FAQ states it is a close combat attack. It's relevant to my original question of how are close combat attacks (in general) resolved? Do we have to have a target? Or are they simply applied to enemy units because we are told they are?

rigeld2 wrote:

I never ran into it, so I can't say how I did treat it - I can only say how I would have treated it.
I'm not sure what you're fishing for here, but throwing a situation out there that doesn't exist currently and then trying to base an argument on it - and not accepting opinions of people who never ran into that situation - isn't a solid argument.

I was asking the forum how it's interaction with DtW was resolved before the 6th ed CSM codex was released and it was turned into a nova. That said I am not ignoring your opinion nor am I precluding it. Though your opinion is not what I asked for I expected it to read as such and thank you for attempting to answer the question.

 Bausk wrote:
No, I asserted that as the powers effect is directed specifically against them from passing the psychic test they are the target of the attack. And said plainly that blast scattering is its own mechanic and as such is an exception, not the rule.

Being its own mechanic isn't relevant if it doesn't change the target.

As soon as I left the house after posting that I knew it was an incorrect statement, my bad only just got up. Blasts are a redirection of the effect, not the target. My point was it has no merit to the discussion, just with a bad counter point I failed to deliver that point.

It does have merit. You're saying that anything you hit is a target. That's demonstrably not true.
Template weapons. "It's its own mechanic!" Doesn't matter - if you apply "target" loosely, you need to be consistent in the loose application.

The FAQ states it is a close combat attack. It's relevant to my original question of how are close combat attacks (in general) resolved? Do we have to have a target? Or are they simply applied to enemy units because we are told they are?

A normal close combat attack has a target. Is Cleansing Flame a normal close combat attack?
Or is it a psychic power with specific rules that control resolution?
It doesn't roll against WS to hit, nor does it do To Wound rolls versus Toughness.

I was asking the forum how it's interaction with DtW was resolved before the 6th ed CSM codex was released and it was turned into a nova. That said I am not ignoring your opinion nor am I precluding it. Though your opinion is not what I asked for I expected it to read as such and thank you for attempting to answer the question.

So your implication is that we (as a forum) might not have been consistent?
Since I've read literally every YMDC thread since I joined, I can basically guarantee that the question was never asked - or if it was, the answer was no DtW.

To throw some more mud into the bowl…what about Astral Aim?

The GK unit passes a psychic test and can then make a shooting attack it would normally not be allowed to make. Pretty much the same mechanic as Cleansing Flame, only change is the unit gets to make a close combat attack it would normally not be allowed instead of a shooting attack. I don’t see anyone claiming we get DtW rolls versus Astral Aim.

 hisdudeness wrote:
To throw some more mud into the bowl…what about Astral Aim?

The GK unit passes a psychic test and can then make a shooting attack it would normally not be allowed to make. Pretty much the same mechanic as Cleansing Flame, only change is the unit gets to make a close combat attack it would normally not be allowed instead of a shooting attack. I don’t see anyone claiming we get DtW rolls versus Astral Aim.

That's because it works more like a buff than an actual attack.

Cleansing flame acts like an offensive spell, that works like an additional CC attack.

Astral Aim acts like a buff that allows the firing squad to shoot through cover.

I guess you could interpret Cleansing flame as a buff that surrounds the caster in waves of fire, like one of those flame cloak spells in Skyrim, but its still a bit questionable.

Cleansing Flame doesn't allow you to make a CC attack - as I said, there's no to hit or to wound roll. It just resolves, doing its thing, and is classified as a CC attack.

Astral Aim just lets the unit ignore LoS, right?

rigeld2 wrote:
Cleansing Flame doesn't allow you to make a CC attack - as I said, there's no to hit or to wound roll. It just resolves, doing its thing, and is classified as a CC attack.

Astral Aim just lets the unit ignore LoS, right?

Pretty much.
CF doesn't roll to wound? I thought it only wounds on a 4+?

Right - it wounds on a 4+. That's different from a To Wound roll.

Agreed, but my point is this: Both allow a unit to do something it would not normally be allowed to do. Thus they both ‘buff’ the unit.

Also, just about everything I can think of (and I’m sure the internet with point out some I can’t) states very clearly “Target(ed) unit…” or some form thereof. Thus clearly defining when something is targeted.

Devil’s Advocate: Do Poisoned wounds Wound without a “To Wound” roll? I believe they are still considered a ‘To Wound” roll, based on the last sentence of the Poison USR rules [“…, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls To Wound in close combat.”]

But I don’t see where this matters to the question at hand. As above I believe CF is a buff to the unit not a direct psychic attack on the enemy due to the fact that the unit rolls to be allowed to perform an attack they would normally not be allowed to make.

 hisdudeness wrote:
Devil’s Advocate: Do Poisoned wounds Wound without a “To Wound” roll? I believe they are still considered a ‘To Wound” roll, based on the last sentence of the Poison USR rules [“…, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls To Wound in close combat.”]

Poison states that its a To Wound roll.
I'm not saying that its not a To Wound roll because it has a set target - I'm saying its not a To Wound roll because it doesn't say that it is.
We know that not every roll that has the potential to cause a wound is a To Wound roll - Gets Hot, Psychic tests, dangerous terrain tests...

But I don’t see where this matters to the question at hand. As above I believe CF is a buff to the unit not a direct psychic attack on the enemy due to the fact that the unit rolls to be allowed to perform an attack they would normally not be allowed to make.

I disagree with your choice of words, but agree with your conclusion.

rigeld2 wrote:

Being its own mechanic isn't relevant if it doesn't change the target.

It does have merit. You're saying that anything you hit is a target. That's demonstrably not true.
Template weapons. "It's its own mechanic!" Doesn't matter - if you apply "target" loosely, you need to be consistent in the loose application.

It is irrelevant. its a USR application of effect, not alteration of target (IE: Its own mechanic). Its has much to do with targeting as Shred or gets hot..There is zero application to the discussion because its a USR that alters the effect application after the initial effect has been applied (IE: Placing the blast marker and rolling the scatter dice). My statement was DIRECT application from one to another not a redirection due to a USR or other step between passing the test and application of the effect. I will no longer respond to blast questions unless they miraculously become relevant.

I am not applying target in the manner you are assuming I am. I'll say it here to clarify direct application of effect for you, even though I've said it several times at least. Cause to effect with nothing between the two. Pass the test then instantly apply the effect. What the effect is applied to its the target of the power. In relation to blasts and my previous incorrect leading question about warp blast we both seem to agree that placing the blast marker it the instant applied effect of warp blast after the test is passed. But if it scatters it happens two steps later after placing the marker and rolling scatter. So where it scatter can never be the target as it was never the direct application of the effect, just an after effect (hitting another unit/scattering) caused by the initial effect (Placing the blast marker).

rigeld2 wrote:

A normal close combat attack has a target. Is Cleansing Flame a normal close combat attack?
Or is it a psychic power with specific rules that control resolution?
It doesn't roll against WS to hit...

The hits are automatic, comparative WSs are not necessary. Its like attacking something with WS0, which to be honest is pretty accurate as you can't really fight psychic flames. Are there other 'special' close combat attacks that behave in a similar way? Or are you applying 'normal' to detract from the fact that cleansing flame IS a close combat attack?

rigeld2 wrote:

...nor does it do To Wound rolls versus Toughness.

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Devil’s Advocate: Do Poisoned wounds Wound without a “To Wound” roll? I believe they are still considered a ‘To Wound” roll, based on the last sentence of the Poison USR rules [“…, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls To Wound in close combat.”]

Poison states that its a To Wound roll.
I'm not saying that its not a To Wound roll because it has a set target - I'm saying its not a To Wound roll because it doesn't say that it is.
We know that not every roll that has the potential to cause a wound is a To Wound roll - Gets Hot, Psychic tests, dangerous terrain tests...

Poison was my next port of call, good to see some people are thinking and questioning. Gets hot, psychic tests dangerous terrain tests are not to wound rolls, they are a "penalty" if you fail a test or get a result that causes the "penalty" effect. Again irrelevant to the discussion, poison and cleansing flame.

Poison, sniper rifles etc are just set value to wound rolls. As Cleansing flame is a close combat attack with a set value to wound roll it operates like a servo arm with its set value S. Also as it is a close combat attack Cleansing flame must have a target (both renditions are applicable) and as a result is able to be denied either way.

rigeld2 wrote:

But I don’t see where this matters to the question at hand. As above I believe CF is a buff to the unit not a direct psychic attack on the enemy due to the fact that the unit rolls to be allowed to perform an attack they would normally not be allowed to make.

I disagree with your choice of words, but agree with your conclusion.

Cleansing flame is a buff? um how? Its nothing like hammer hand or a force weapon attack, which both apply the effect to the friendly unit or the casters weapon and then the affected target attacks the enemy unit. Cleansing flame however is a direct application of effect to the target with no interruption. You could call the cast effect instant. Buffs This is the thing, all psychic powers have targets. Buffs/blessings target friendly models powers like tempests wrath target an area around the caster and witchfire powers are shooting attacks so duh enemy units. And in my opinion powers like cleansing flame target the enemy.

But I ask you all; What does cleansing flame target if it doesn't not target all enemy's withing the same assault as the caster?

rigeld2 wrote:

So your implication is that we (as a forum) might not have been consistent?
Since I've read literally every YMDC thread since I joined, I can basically guarantee that the question was never asked - or if it was, the answer was no DtW.

No, that's you're inference of my response. I implied nothing to that effect. Are you implying you speak with authority for the whole of Dakkadakka?

Since you said you've never encountered it before its a safe assumption you've not discussed it before, I have your response and I have even thanked you for it. But now I am interested in reading what people besides you have to say. Especially if they have a definitive answer to the actual question I asked; 'How did we handle the previous non-nova version of Nurgle's Rot interacting with Deny the Witch?'

I ask because I never fought against or with chaos in 6th before the new codex and it is relevant to the discussion, unlike random USRs.

 Bausk wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A normal close combat attack has a target. Is Cleansing Flame a normal close combat attack?
Or is it a psychic power with specific rules that control resolution?
It doesn't roll against WS to hit...

The hits are automatic, comparative WSs are not necessary. Its like attacking something with WS0, which to be honest is pretty accurate as you can't really fight psychic flames. Are there other 'special' close combat attacks that behave in a similar way? Or are you applying 'normal' to detract from the fact that cleansing flame IS a close combat attack?

Cleansing Flame causes no hits, automatic or otherwise. You're inserting mechanics you think should be there to make your argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

...nor does it do To Wound rolls versus Toughness.

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Devil’s Advocate: Do Poisoned wounds Wound without a “To Wound” roll? I believe they are still considered a ‘To Wound” roll, based on the last sentence of the Poison USR rules [“…, the wielder must re-roll failed rolls To Wound in close combat.”]

Poison states that its a To Wound roll.
I'm not saying that its not a To Wound roll because it has a set target - I'm saying its not a To Wound roll because it doesn't say that it is.
We know that not every roll that has the potential to cause a wound is a To Wound roll - Gets Hot, Psychic tests, dangerous terrain tests...

Poison was my next port of call, good to see some people are thinking and questioning. Gets hot, psychic tests dangerous terrain tests are not to wound rolls, they are a "penalty" if you fail a test or get a result that causes the "penalty" effect. Again irrelevant to the discussion, poison and cleansing flame.

And Cleansing Flame isn't a to wound roll - it's a reward for rolling above a 4.

As Cleansing flame is a close combat attack with a set value to wound roll it operates like a servo arm with its set value S. Also as it is a close combat attack Cleansing flame must have a target (both renditions are applicable) and as a result is able to be denied either way.

No, there is no requirement to have a target - please read the power on page 31 of the GK codex. Please explain how a purifier unit is able to target an infinite amount of units (potentially).

This is the thing, all psychic powers have targets.

Citation required. Page 67 in the BRB states that the target is optional (for the process in general).

Buffs/blessings target friendly models powers like tempests wrath target an area around the caster and witchfire powers are shooting attacks so duh enemy units. And in my opinion powers like cleansing flame target the enemy.

"Targets the area"? Citation allowed to target the ground please.

But I ask you all; What does cleansing flame target if it doesn't not target all enemy's withing the same assault as the caster?

Nothing - there's no requirement to target in the power, and page 67 allows you to skip the target step if the power doesn't require it.

Are you implying you speak with authority for the whole of Dakkadakka?

Absolutely not and I'd never claim to.

Especially if they have a definitive answer to the actual question I asked; 'How did we handle the previous non-nova version of Nurgle's Rot interacting with Deny the Witch?'

Could you define "we" in your question? We as in Dakka? We as in all 40k players everywhere?
And what would you accept as definitive?

I ask because I never fought against or with chaos in 6th before the new codex and it is relevant to the discussion, unlike random USRs.

It's exactly as relevant as scattering blasts with respect to the core disagreement.

Bausk is just full of all types of new mechanics and rules not supported by the BRB.

Targeting is a specified action per the BRB. It is akin to removing from play and removing as casualties, in that unless something is said to have been targeted, it has not.

The other example I can think of is GK Interceptors using their teleport shunt instead of moving normally. Despite the models physically moving and despite the wording of the rule saying the models are moved, it was still considered a "teleport shunt" and thus not movement per the BRB and unable to be done during the Scout move.

I will post the definition of Cleansing Flame, as some people appear to not fully understand how it works.
Grey knight codex, Cleansing Flame, Pg 31, "This power can be used during the assault phase in either player's turn, after assault moves have been made but before blows have been struck. if the psychic test is passed, all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+. Armour saves may be taken as normal. Once the effects of cleansing flame have been resolved (and any casualties removed) blows are struck as normal. Unsaved wounds caused by Cleansing Flame are counted as having been caused in close combat for all purposes."
It does not roll to hit. It does not cause hits. It does not roll to wound. It does cause wounds.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote: It is akin to removing from play and removing as casualties, in that unless something is said to have been targeted, it has not.

The other example I can think of is GK Interceptors using their teleport shunt instead of moving normally. Despite the models physically moving and despite the wording of the rule saying the models are moved, it was still considered a "teleport shunt" and thus not movement per the BRB and unable to be done during the Scout move.

This is why rule #6 exists. Removing from play and Removed as a casualty, as English could be used to argue that despite the different names, they are and do the same thing.

The Teleport Shunt is probably a bad example, as that power is worked out specifically and there is actually nothing stopping it from being used as a scout movement, other than the FAQ, which does not specify why you can not make a Shunt as a Scout movement.
Pg 28, "Units with personal teleporters are jump infantry. Once per game,the unit can elect to make a teleport shunt instead of moving. If making the teleport shunt, the unit immediately makes a move of up to 30" in any direction. This move cannot end on top of another unit or impassable terrain, but ignores intervening units, terrain and so on. A unit that moves via teleport shun cannot assault in the same turn, although it can shoot or run as normal. The unit counts as having moved."
Of course, if one were to argue using English, then models may not make a teleport shunt, as the first requirement limits them from moving, and then the models move.
Even though what is actually happening is the "Telelport Shunt" is actually moving your models.

bausk wrote: Cleansing flame however is a direct application of effect to the target with no interruption.

Cleansing Flame is hardly direct application,as i can not choose which units to hit and which not to.

bausk wrote: This is the thing, all psychic powers have targets. Buffs/blessings target friendly models powers like tempests wrath target an area around the caster and witchfire powers are shooting attacks so duh enemy units. And in my opinion powers like cleansing flame target the enemy.

All psychic powers have targets. All psychic powers target. These statements are not equal to one another. And could you provide a page from the rulebook supporting this claim that "all psychic powers target?"
You also do not have permission to Target an area. Pg 37, Space wolves Codex, Tempest's Wrath. "Used at the beginning of the Rune Priest's turn. Until the beginning of the Rune Priest's next turn, all enemy skimmers, jetbikes, jump infantry and units deploying be Deep Strike that finish their move with 24" of the Rune Priest treat all terrain, even clear terrain, as both difficult and dangerous."
I see no mention of targeting an area, an enemy, or a friendly. So how exactly does Tempest's Wrath target anything? Please provide proof of your claim.

bausk wrote: And in my opinion powers like cleansing flame target the enemy.

In your opinion? I don't care about your opinion. I care about the rules.
I want a page number out of the BRB that gives Cleansing Flame PERMISSION TO TARGET THE ENEMY OR PROOF THAT IT TARGETS. If, you cannot supply said page, then you need to stop this silly charade. I can provide page references all day long, but it seems all you can do is "make stuff up."
Once again, i want the RAW answer. Not that "Read as Intended" crap. If you can't find a rule to back yourself up, you're speaking RAI.

Tempest's wraith targets something LOL.
If so where?

Murderous hurricane targets models because it says it targets a unit and is a PSA with a profile, tempest's wrath is an area effect not that it targets an area. As such only a rune priest could dispell it since no units are being targeted.

OFF TOPIC
@Necronoxx, I actually don't see RFP and removed as a casualty as identical. On a fluff or mechanistic perspective, I see them as being similar but different. Once deals wounds that can count to LD checks or casualty rolls but the other doesn't, strictly speaking.

Hrm... it has never come up before but if you can deny the witch against area effects, can you deny the witch if you are deep striking into warp quake?

I can't find a reference but overall no one around here or at any tourney have ever said that you could and have always played that it just mishaps.

Also scout move under the scout reference in special rules says a "redeploy" so that the scout doesn't actually roll on difficult terrain tests as far as we could tell. That would mean you aren't actually moving it which has always clarified the DK or interceptor teleport shunt as that specifies a movement and not a "redeploy"

Well runepriests don't require a unit to be targeted to cancel a power, that is why you could cancel it in those situations but you have to use the priest when the power is cast. Everyone else requires a unit to be targeted.
You can never deny the witch on something that has already been resolved before it effects your unit. The denial MUST happen before the psychic power is resolved, if all terrain within an area is difficult when that unit hit's the deck well it's too late then.

Having done a little reading I cannot see any reason why any unit would get to deny the witch Heroic Sacrifice, you roll to deny when you are targeted but before the power is resolved. The resolution of this power is removing units from play, that is when it is too late to do anything but cry.

 liturgies of blood wrote:


OFF TOPIC
@Necronoxx, I actually don't see RFP and removed as a casualty as identical. On a fluff or mechanistic perspective, I see them as being similar but different. Once deals wounds that can count to LD checks or casualty rolls but the other doesn't, strictly speaking.

Fluff and mechanically i agree with you. But from an English perspective, you are removing models from the table right? Removing a model as a casualty IS removing it from play in a literal sense. That's the kind of argument bausk is making, and i don't agree with it.

Sorry I'm Irish, we haven't gone in for the English perspective in a while. :p

Neronoxx wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:


OFF TOPIC
@Necronoxx, I actually don't see RFP and removed as a casualty as identical. On a fluff or mechanistic perspective, I see them as being similar but different. Once deals wounds that can count to LD checks or casualty rolls but the other doesn't, strictly speaking.

Fluff and mechanically i agree with you. But from an English perspective, you are removing models from the table right? Removing a model as a casualty IS removing it from play in a literal sense. That's the kind of argument bausk is making, and i don't agree with it.

RFPaaC:RFP as Witchfiresychic Powers. However, this is a discussion for another thread.

So is this subject considered closed? Any closing statements from the defense?

cleansing flame targets units under the blast template, and does not target units not under the blast template.

if cleansing flame does not have a target then it does not have an effect.

It is obvious cleansing flame is not targeting the caster is the effect does not get applied to the caster.

blaktoof wrote:
cleansing flame targets units under the blast template, and does not target units not under the blast template.

... Cleansing Flame doesn't use a blast marker (there is no blast template).

if cleansing flame does not have a target then it does not have an effect.

Citation required.

It is obvious cleansing flame is not targeting the caster is the effect does not get applied to the caster.

wat?

....blaktoof did you even bother to read any of the posts in this thread? Because if you did, i am pretty sure you wouldn't have posted.....any of that...
Not only is it outright wrong, you seem to be making up rules.