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.

A forum I am on had this debate but no two people agreed on the ruling.

Does cleansing flame rend?

I argue no as its only a power used in the combat phase whilst the original poster claimed it did and crowe has the rend ability and its maee in combat by crowe.

A fresh perspective would be nice as I still think not but equal numbers for both sides

I'm going to have to say no... The actual rending special rules actual states "close combat attacks" and not "attacks made in close combat",

In order for rending to apply to ranged weapons it has to actually be on the weapon and not the model. Cleansing flame is just a Psychic shooting attack resolved in the assault phase.

Darkintel wrote:
I'm going to have to say no... The actual rending special rules actual states "close combat attacks" and not "attacks made in close combat",

In order for rending to apply to ranged weapons it has to actually be on the weapon and not the model. Cleansing flame is just a Psychic shooting attack resolved in the assault phase.

This was my reasoning but the dude was adamant!

The DUDE is wrong.

The DUDE abides!

Darkintel wrote:
Cleansing flame is just a Psychic shooting attack resolved in the assault phase.

This is not correct at all.

CF is not a PSA.

It's a psychic power, but it's not a shooting attack. So a lot of the psychic shooting attack rules (line of sight, etc) don't apply.
Regardless, it's still a psychic power albeit one that's cast in the Assault phase. Ergo it is not a close combat attack, and not valid for Rending.

For precedent - anything that grants an ability for an unusual attack that *IS* a close combat attack is worded as such. One example is Hammer of Wrath. However, that has since been FAQed to not have Rending apply anyway.

 Super Ready wrote:
It's a psychic power, but it's not a shooting attack. So a lot of the psychic shooting attack rules (line of sight, etc) don't apply.
Regardless, it's still a psychic power albeit one that's cast in the Assault phase. Ergo it is not a close combat attack, and not valid for Rending.

For precedent - anything that grants an ability for an unusual attack that *IS* a close combat attack is worded as such. One example is Hammer of Wrath. However, that has since been FAQed to not have Rending apply anyway.

I feel the GK FAQ might disagree with you...

Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack.

Well, b(o)gger me - so it is. I'd love to check the wording in the GK Codex, but don't have it to hand - in which case for now I'll have to concede that Rending DOES work with it.

I assume you're referring to Crowe's special rule "Master Swordsman". If so, "his close combat attack have the Rending special rule" (p. 42)

This question comes up every couple months. One of the important things to realize with Cleansing Flame/Rending interaction is that Rending only works on the "To Wound" roll and CF never actually rolls to wound. If CF said something like "Each enemy in combat takes a S- hit that always wounds on a 4+" then Rending would work with it, but it just says that enemies "suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" which isn't technically a "To Wound" roll. There are plenty of other attacks which cause wounds without technically making a "To Wound" roll, Psychic Shriek for example.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:
This question comes up every couple months. One of the important things to realize with Cleansing Flame/Rending interaction is that Rending only works on the "To Wound" roll and CF never actually rolls to wound. If CF said something like "Each enemy in combat takes a S- hit that always wounds on a 4+" then Rending would work with it, but it just says that enemies "suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" which isn't technically a "To Wound" roll. There are plenty of other attacks which cause wounds without technically making a "To Wound" roll, Psychic Shriek for example.

I feel this sums it up quite nicely.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:
This question comes up every couple months. One of the important things to realize with Cleansing Flame/Rending interaction is that Rending only works on the "To Wound" roll and CF never actually rolls to wound. If CF said something like "Each enemy in combat takes a S- hit that always wounds on a 4+" then Rending would work with it, but it just says that enemies "suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" which isn't technically a "To Wound" roll. There are plenty of other attacks which cause wounds without technically making a "To Wound" roll, Psychic Shriek for example.

Are you sure? Always wounds on a 4+ sound an awful lot like the poison wording, which is a to wound roll. I have never personally played it as rending, though the argument to grant it rending for Crowe is the only one that has merit. the FAQ tells you it is a close combat attack, and his special rule makes all of his close combat attacks rending. So if its a close combat attack per the FAQ, and all of his close combat attacks rend on a 4+, and you only wound with PF on a 4+, its easy to see the confusion. RAW with FAQ input I would call it Rending, but only for our master swordsman Crowe. Honestly, with his inability to join a squad, even granting this doesn't make him OP, just makes him a higher priority for str 8+ shooting.


EDIT: I didn't use the exact wording he did for wounding (even after I quoted it, doh!) but I still think the poison angle has merit. The issue here is the FAQ changing the wording to "close combat attack" for purifying flame. The debate is now whether or not "wounds each model on a 4+" is the same as " a to wound roll of 4+".

It might "sound an awful lot" like the wording used for Poison, but its not.

Cleansing Flame is not a To Wound roll and therefore can't Rend.

Sounds like the wording for poison, but its not.
its simply stating that something takes a wound on a 4+ from the special type of attack.
So there is no "to wound" roll made at any point.

Granted it sounds like poison, but its not making a roll to wound as such in this case like normal.

So what do you call a roll that wounds if its not a "to wound " roll? placeholder roll? psychic not really to wound but it wounds roll?

EDIT: Don't feel like I qualified this enough, if you are rolling a dice, and the result determines if it wounds, its a "to wound roll" the only difference here is instead of consulting a strength-toughness chart you just always wound on a 4+.

sequence as follows -> in combat->psychic test pass-> deny the witch fail-> rolls to determine wounds (the long version of the abbreviated "to wound" phrasing)-> take saves. from purifiers, that means armor saves, from crowe, invo's.

but vongoob! it says it can't hurt vehicles what then? fleshbane has no effect on vehicles either, this is an ability geared towards infantry so vehicles are irrelevant.

 vongoob wrote:
So what do you call a roll that wounds if its not a "to wound " roll? placeholder roll? psychic not really to wound but it wounds roll?

It's a Cleansing Flame roll.

Or are Psychic Tests, Gets Hot, Dangerous Terrain rolls (and more) all To Wound rolls?

EDIT: Don't feel like I qualified this enough, if you are rolling a dice, and the result determines if it wounds, its a "to wound roll" the only difference here is instead of consulting a strength-toughness chart you just always wound on a 4+.

Why do people try the same old bloody arguments every time?
Mind war - You roll a dice with the result causing wounds (maybe)
So when you roll the dice for mind war im assuming thats a "to wound" roll too eh?

rigeld2 wrote:

 vongoob wrote:
So what do you call a roll that wounds if its not a "to wound " roll? placeholder roll? psychic not really to wound but it wounds roll?

It's a Cleansing Flame roll.

Or are Psychic Tests, Gets Hot, Dangerous Terrain rolls (and more) all To Wound rolls?

Those are all tests that have consequences for failure(causing a wound) the whole point of the cleansing flame 4+ is to cause wounds.
psychic tests are for psychic power pass/fail and perils.
Gets hot! are failed to hit rolls that wound
dangerous terrain rolls are terrain checks that cause wounds when failed

Purifying flame is a close combat attack that wounds each model on a 4+ after you pass a psychic test.
if the roll's main focus is to determine whether or not it wounds, its a "to wound" roll. If a rolls main focus is otherwise ( ie leadership test for psychics, to hit roll for plasma, or a check to see if you make it through dangerous terrain) then the incidental wounds are results of failing said check, not the purpose of the roll.

whats the purpose of the 4+ on purifying flames? to determine if it wounds. it's not a skill check, or a morale check, or a terrain check, or an initiative check, its is a roll to determine if it wounds, or short form, to wound roll.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:

EDIT: Don't feel like I qualified this enough, if you are rolling a dice, and the result determines if it wounds, its a "to wound roll" the only difference here is instead of consulting a strength-toughness chart you just always wound on a 4+.

Why do people try the same old bloody arguments every time?
Mind war - You roll a dice with the result causing wounds (maybe)
So when you roll the dice for mind war im assuming thats a "to wound" roll too eh?

that one is actually a statistic test. you take your leadership and a d6 vs their leadership and a d6. if the casters total is higher , he wounds. Although, if you want to get technical you could in fact argue that that IS a to wound roll, albeit one with a sliding target (their leadership +d6) pretty much the same as if you were using a weapon that wounded based on leadership, except you both get a d6 added to your totals.

I know you were joking, but I have just talked myself in to thinking "mind wars" roll off might be a 'to wound' roll.

 vongoob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 vongoob wrote:
So what do you call a roll that wounds if its not a "to wound " roll? placeholder roll? psychic not really to wound but it wounds roll?

It's a Cleansing Flame roll.

Or are Psychic Tests, Gets Hot, Dangerous Terrain rolls (and more) all To Wound rolls?

Those are all tests that have consequences for failure(causing a wound) the whole point of the cleansing flame 4+ is to cause wounds.
psychic tests are for psychic power pass/fail and perils.
Gets hot! are failed to hit rolls that wound
dangerous terrain rolls are terrain checks that cause wounds when failed

Purifying flame is a close combat attack that wounds each model on a 4+ after you pass a psychic test.
if the roll's main focus is to determine whether or not it wounds, its a "to wound" roll. If a rolls main focus is otherwise ( ie leadership test for psychics, to hit roll for plasma, or a check to see if you make it through dangerous terrain) then the incidental wounds are results of failing said check, not the purpose of the roll.

whats the purpose of the 4+ on purifying flames? to determine if it wounds. it's not a skill check, or a morale check, or a terrain check, or an initiative check, its is a roll to determine if it wounds, or short form, to wound roll.

Since you've come up with such a perfect way of telling the difference (which you're misapplying - dangerous terrain tests are exactly like CF rolls - the only consequence is causing a wound.) I'm sure you have rules support, right?

Or are you making it up and have no basis to say that except "it makes sense"? Because I'm pretty sure To Wound rolls are defined and CF never mentions making a To Wound roll...

rigeld2 wrote:

 vongoob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 vongoob wrote:
So what do you call a roll that wounds if its not a "to wound " roll? placeholder roll? psychic not really to wound but it wounds roll?

It's a Cleansing Flame roll.

Or are Psychic Tests, Gets Hot, Dangerous Terrain rolls (and more) all To Wound rolls?

Those are all tests that have consequences for failure(causing a wound) the whole point of the cleansing flame 4+ is to cause wounds.
psychic tests are for psychic power pass/fail and perils.
Gets hot! are failed to hit rolls that wound
dangerous terrain rolls are terrain checks that cause wounds when failed

Purifying flame is a close combat attack that wounds each model on a 4+ after you pass a psychic test.
if the roll's main focus is to determine whether or not it wounds, its a "to wound" roll. If a rolls main focus is otherwise ( ie leadership test for psychics, to hit roll for plasma, or a check to see if you make it through dangerous terrain) then the incidental wounds are results of failing said check, not the purpose of the roll.

whats the purpose of the 4+ on purifying flames? to determine if it wounds. it's not a skill check, or a morale check, or a terrain check, or an initiative check, its is a roll to determine if it wounds, or short form, to wound roll.

Since you've come up with such a perfect way of telling the difference (which you're misapplying - dangerous terrain tests are exactly like CF rolls - the only consequence is causing a wound.) I'm sure you have rules support, right?

Or are you making it up and have no basis to say that except "it makes sense"? Because I'm pretty sure To Wound rolls are defined and CF never mentions making a To Wound roll...

No basis?
Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack?
(p31)
A: A close combat attack.
as per the GK 1.3 FAQ

"Master Swordsman" Is Crowes special rule, I will avoid copy paste because I am still unsure what will get me banned, but it says all of his "Close combat attacks have the rending special rule and will rend on a to wound roll of 4+"

So from here we can ascertain it is a close combat attack (which you have no permission to wound with without a "to wound" roll) that wounds on a 4+

and from purifying flame " unsaved wounds caused by purifying flame are counted as having been caused in close combat for all purposes"

I have yet to find a close combat attack that can cause wounds without a "to wound" roll , and since we have a handy dandy 4+ causing a wound, wouldn't that be a to wound roll? that is what it is determining after all, if a close combat attack is wounding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Correct - no basis for your assumption that any roll that causes a wound is a To Wound roll. Neither CF FAQ not Master Swordsman say that, so quoting them is irrelevant.

The purpose of a DT test is to avoid a wound - you still travel through/into the terrain if you suffer it.

CF is not a To Wound roll - page 14 goes into detail about the Roling To Wound process if you need explanation.

 vongoob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 vongoob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 vongoob wrote:
So what do you call a roll that wounds if its not a "to wound " roll? placeholder roll? psychic not really to wound but it wounds roll?

It's a Cleansing Flame roll.

Or are Psychic Tests, Gets Hot, Dangerous Terrain rolls (and more) all To Wound rolls?

Those are all tests that have consequences for failure(causing a wound) the whole point of the cleansing flame 4+ is to cause wounds.
psychic tests are for psychic power pass/fail and perils.
Gets hot! are failed to hit rolls that wound
dangerous terrain rolls are terrain checks that cause wounds when failed

Purifying flame is a close combat attack that wounds each model on a 4+ after you pass a psychic test.
if the roll's main focus is to determine whether or not it wounds, its a "to wound" roll. If a rolls main focus is otherwise ( ie leadership test for psychics, to hit roll for plasma, or a check to see if you make it through dangerous terrain) then the incidental wounds are results of failing said check, not the purpose of the roll.

whats the purpose of the 4+ on purifying flames? to determine if it wounds. it's not a skill check, or a morale check, or a terrain check, or an initiative check, its is a roll to determine if it wounds, or short form, to wound roll.

Since you've come up with such a perfect way of telling the difference (which you're misapplying - dangerous terrain tests are exactly like CF rolls - the only consequence is causing a wound.) I'm sure you have rules support, right?

Or are you making it up and have no basis to say that except "it makes sense"? Because I'm pretty sure To Wound rolls are defined and CF never mentions making a To Wound roll...

No basis?
Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack?
(p31)
A: A close combat attack.
as per the GK 1.3 FAQ

"Master Swordsman" Is Crowes special rule, I will avoid copy paste because I am still unsure what will get me banned, but it says all of his "Close combat attacks have the rending special rule and will rend on a to wound roll of 4+"

So from here we can ascertain it is a close combat attack (which you have no permission to wound with without a "to wound" roll) that wounds on a 4+

and from purifying flame " unsaved wounds caused by purifying flame are counted as having been caused in close combat for all purposes"

I have yet to find a close combat attack that can cause wounds without a "to wound" roll , and since we have a handy dandy 4+ causing a wound, wouldn't that be a to wound roll? that is what it is determining after all, if a close combat attack is wounding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Since you've come up with such a perfect way of telling the difference (which you're misapplying - dangerous terrain tests are exactly like CF rolls - the only consequence is causing a wound.) I'm sure you have rules support, right?

Or are you making it up and have no basis to say that except "it makes sense"? Because I'm pretty sure To Wound rolls are defined and CF never mentions making a To Wound roll...

warren0110 wrote:

 vongoob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 vongoob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 vongoob wrote:
So what do you call a roll that wounds if its not a "to wound " roll? placeholder roll? psychic not really to wound but it wounds roll?

It's a Cleansing Flame roll.

Or are Psychic Tests, Gets Hot, Dangerous Terrain rolls (and more) all To Wound rolls?

Those are all tests that have consequences for failure(causing a wound) the whole point of the cleansing flame 4+ is to cause wounds.
psychic tests are for psychic power pass/fail and perils.
Gets hot! are failed to hit rolls that wound
dangerous terrain rolls are terrain checks that cause wounds when failed

Purifying flame is a close combat attack that wounds each model on a 4+ after you pass a psychic test.
if the roll's main focus is to determine whether or not it wounds, its a "to wound" roll. If a rolls main focus is otherwise ( ie leadership test for psychics, to hit roll for plasma, or a check to see if you make it through dangerous terrain) then the incidental wounds are results of failing said check, not the purpose of the roll.

whats the purpose of the 4+ on purifying flames? to determine if it wounds. it's not a skill check, or a morale check, or a terrain check, or an initiative check, its is a roll to determine if it wounds, or short form, to wound roll.

Since you've come up with such a perfect way of telling the difference (which you're misapplying - dangerous terrain tests are exactly like CF rolls - the only consequence is causing a wound.) I'm sure you have rules support, right?

Or are you making it up and have no basis to say that except "it makes sense"? Because I'm pretty sure To Wound rolls are defined and CF never mentions making a To Wound roll...

No basis?
Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack?
(p31)
A: A close combat attack.
as per the GK 1.3 FAQ

"Master Swordsman" Is Crowes special rule, I will avoid copy paste because I am still unsure what will get me banned, but it says all of his "Close combat attacks have the rending special rule and will rend on a to wound roll of 4+"

So from here we can ascertain it is a close combat attack (which you have no permission to wound with without a "to wound" roll) that wounds on a 4+

and from purifying flame " unsaved wounds caused by purifying flame are counted as having been caused in close combat for all purposes"

I have yet to find a close combat attack that can cause wounds without a "to wound" roll , and since we have a handy dandy 4+ causing a wound, wouldn't that be a to wound roll? that is what it is determining after all, if a close combat attack is wounding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Since you've come up with such a perfect way of telling the difference (which you're misapplying - dangerous terrain tests are exactly like CF rolls - the only consequence is causing a wound.) I'm sure you have rules support, right?

Or are you making it up and have no basis to say that except "it makes sense"? Because I'm pretty sure To Wound rolls are defined and CF never mentions making a To Wound roll...

The purpose of a dangerous terrain test is not to cause a wound, it is to determine if you pass your check to travel through dangerous terrain. 5/6 results are passes, 1/6 is a fail which causes a wound. DT is a check, purifying flames is a close combat attack that causes wounds.

Incorrect. the section you are quoting tells you to compare S to T to determine if wounding, Purifying Flames codex entry says skip that, wounds on a 4+ regardless. so its not a to wound roll because it wounds on a 4 instead of consulting a chart? 

so sniper rifles and poison weapons aren't to wound rolls? cause you skip the chart for those too, only referring back to it to see if you have a reroll.

I advise you read the sniper and poison rules. They specifically mention that they are to wound rolls. Unless you are comparing S & T or your rule specifically mentions it is a to wound roll you are not making a to wound roll.

Your interpretation is not RaW and far more importantly is clearly not RaI to the extent of trying this in game is cheating.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Incorrect. the section you are quoting tells you to compare S to T to determine if wounding, Purifying Flames codex entry says skip that, wounds on a 4+ regardless. so its not a to wound roll because it wounds on a 4 instead of consulting a chart? 

so sniper rifles and poison weapons aren't to wound rolls? cause you skip the chart for those too, only referring back to it to see if you have a reroll.

I advise you read the sniper and poison rules. They specifically mention that they are to wound rolls. Unless you are comparing S & T or your rule specifically mentions it is a to wound roll you are not making a to wound roll.

Your interpretation is not RaW and far more importantly is clearly not RaI to the extent of trying this in game is cheating.

The definition of "to wound" roll in the rule book is flimsy at best, almost as if it was intended to be understood that if you roll a die with the intent of causing a wound it is a to wound roll, unknowing the strife it would cause.

weird mental train of thought there, ignore it.

the sniper rules says "always wounds on a to wound roll of 4+" which is strikingly similar to "wounds on a 4+". I know the rules lawyers make that distinction look like an unbridgeable canyon, but it is just a game. I know how my group plays it, you know how your group plays it, and all this is a mental exercise for a greater consensus, so I would appreciate you chilling out with the talk of cheating.

EDIT: the rules on poison actually don't even mention a to wound roll until it gets to the "reroll if wielders str is higher then foes Tough" it merely states it wounds on a fixed number, similarly to a certain psychic close combat attack i know.

so , back to the question, anyone have an example from a previous FAQ that separates stuff like this? or are we just speculating at this point with no precedence?

Cleansing Flame states "...all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on the roll of a 4+..."

This is not a To Wound roll, the enemy models simply suffer a wound on a 4+

To Wound rolls compare Str Vs Toughness on the To Wound Chart.

Strikingly similar except for the fact that its missing two very important words?

If that's not stretching I'm not sure what is...

If it does not roll on the 'to wound' chart or at least indicate that it replaces the chart roll (like poisoned) and states another system for wounding instead, then it is not a 'to wound' roll. Unlike many other things discussed here a 'to wound roll' is a fairly defined thing and fairly recognizable... typically when something says 'roll(s) to wound"

No rending on CF, sorry.