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.

Lungpickle wrote:
The model is making the attacks. So str4 ap-. Spelled out pretty clear in z codex.

The model? You mean the MC?
Could you re-read the actual Smash rule instead of what it seems you're pretending it is?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The Black Mace is AP 4, doesn't stop the attack from AP 2.

That's my point.

Sadly I can't find any fault in the rules, following RAW the attacks should be AP2.
RAI / HIWPI the attacks should be AP - (but that's just my opinion).

I do agree that page 7 causes a problem for smash being applied to weapon profiles from other books. There might be a way around it, the writer of that paragraph may have envisioned some solution, but I am at a loss to what it is. It is clear that the intent of smash was to be applied to all weapon profiles, Black mace included. I am still curious how we are meant to resolve the situation, but willing to simply accept the whole 'it is broken, please ignore page 7' in this situation.

I still am no convinced on combat familiar.

It can not be viewed as a weapon profile, though formatted so very close with the addition of the word Melee, because that would create additional problems if you start treating it as such. After all, even monstrous creatures are limited to using one weapon profile during each assault phase. It has to be viewed as a specific special rule granting you these additional attacks and telling you how to resolve them. This means we do have two special rules telling us to resolve the attack at two different AP values. If we apply specific vs generic, I would state smash is a more generic rule as it is applied to ever other attack being made while this one is telling you how to resolve the bonus attacks, using specific numbers.

This is supported by the rest of the paragraph which hasn't even been discussed. It goes to great lengths to describe how the combat familiar is separate from 'it's master.' It gives you permission to even place it on it's own base and informs you how the rules go about treating this model. Everything in the section indicates that the combat familiar is meant to be resolved separate to the 'master.' It would even fix the whole 'is it a weapon profile' question as the attacks are coming from a separate model.

These are not simply 'additional attacks....'

Except its rules say that "A model ...makes two additional attacks". Meaning its not the familiar making the attacks. Being a weapon or not doesn't matter - permission was granted to make more attacks.

And I don't understand your double standard of - vs AP 4. Why does smash override one but not the other?

rigeld2 wrote:

And I don't understand your double standard of - vs AP 4. Why does smash override one but not the other?

I think it has something to do with the nature of the attacks. The Black Mace (for example) does not itself make attacks--the DP does, and so the DP's AP2 overrides the BM's AP4. Since the Familiar is the one making the AP- attacks, the AP is not changed. BM uses the model's Attack characteristic; Familiar has 2 attacks, thus making it look like its own model (which can even be represented on the table!)

HOWEVER, this may be a holdover in thinking from 5e. All weapons have a Str now, be it User, x2, +1, or whatever. The Familiar is treated exactly like a weapon in this case, I think, with a set Str of 4. So, thus, the AP is changed to 2, because of the MC's Smash.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Since the Familiar is the one making the AP- attac.

This is not true. The rules specifically state the model who own the CF is the one making the attacks.

The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

What rule? I thought the DP's attacks were made at his Str, and due to Smash AP2, what overrides this?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Since the Familiar is the one making the AP- attac.

This is not true. The rules specifically state the model who own the CF is the one making the attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

Just read my entire post, eh? I don't end at this claim. In fact, I go on to debunk it.

The Chaos familiar rules over ride this and state the attacks are S4. Just like a relic blade makes a SM attacks S6 (regardless of modifiers or his own strength). You no longer attack at your own strength in cc but at ygr strength of your weapon.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Since the Familiar is the one making the AP- attac.

This is not true. The rules specifically state the model who own the CF is the one making the attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

Just read my entire post, eh? I don't end at this claim. In fact, I go on to debunk it.

So you start off with a false premise and then "debunk" it with incorrect rules (the familiar is not a weapon)?

So what's your point?

 Iranna wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
The entry for combat familiar, page 67 of the Chaos marine codex, states that it makes two additional attacks at Strength 4, AP - . Think that is pretty straight forward to how you treat these additional attacks, as the special rule itself is telling you to treat them as AP - and strength 4. There is nothing in the special rule giving you permission to do combine it with other war-gear or special rules, so you treat it independent of everything else. It tells you how to resolve these attacks and if you resolve them in any other way, well you have not followed the rule as written.

I could also point out that, if you do combine the two special rules, then they would be in conflict and codex trumps basic rule book.

So then, by your logic, the Black Mace is also treated as only AP4 on a Daemon Prince?

No.

ALL attacks made by the model are treated as AP2 due to Smash.

They wouldn't get Fleshbane - because that rule only coincides with attacks made with the weapon itself, not the model's other attacks.

Iranna.

the HOW attack is not considered for smash.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

What rule? I thought the DP's attacks were made at his Str, and due to Smash AP2, what overrides this?

The Combat Familiar rules. I've cited the page already.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Since the Familiar is the one making the AP- attac.

This is not true. The rules specifically state the model who own the CF is the one making the attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

Just read my entire post, eh? I don't end at this claim. In fact, I go on to debunk it.

So you start off with a false premise and then "debunk" it with incorrect rules (the familiar is not a weapon)?

So what's your point?

My point was that not understanding Jinx's double-standard was silly. With a bit of thought, I came to a potential understanding of it. It was based on incorrect rules, but I still could see where he was coming from--something that you refuse to do quite a bit of the time (like right now!)

I'd rather not put my words in their brain. Also, the rules are pretty clear here so it's pretty hard for me to not understand them.

I won't say the rule was applied incorrectly, page 7 is pretty straight forward in this regard.

I will admit that, on further reflection of page 7, that this rule makes no sense when you actually try and apply it. It fails to address the conflicts that occur between rules in the very same book. It also creates additional problems when you try and apply rules that branch from basic rule book to codex. The weapon profile issue brought up here is a good example, where we wouldn't be able to modify said profile with anything per-existing special rules that the model already has.

So I will forget that page 7 even exists from now on.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

What rule? I thought the DP's attacks were made at his Str, and due to Smash AP2, what overrides this?

The Combat Familiar rules. I've cited the page already.

So the Combat familiar rules over ride the Str 6?

They specify Str 4?

Guess what else that page specifies, AP-...

Why are you overriding the AP and not the Str?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The familiar does not have his own attacks. Page 67 C: CSM makes that clear - it's the model with the familiar that makes the attacks.

So the model makes the attacks at the Str of the DP then, so Str 6?

It would if there wasn't a rule saying otherwise.

What rule? I thought the DP's attacks were made at his Str, and due to Smash AP2, what overrides this?

The Combat Familiar rules. I've cited the page already.

So the Combat familiar rules over ride the Str 6?

They specify Str 4?

Guess what else that page specifies, AP-...

Why are you overriding the AP and not the Str?

Smash says that all Melee attacks are made at AP2.
STR has no such rule.

Which of course does not matter as the AP is specified for the attacks, and since the Combat familiar is not a weapon we use its own statline for the attacks and do not look at the models special rules at all, as the CF does not say to add in rending etc... from the model.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Which of course does not matter as the AP is specified for the attacks, and since the Combat familiar is not a weapon we use its own statline for the attacks and do not look at the models special rules at all, as the CF does not say to add in rending etc... from the model.

It says the model makes the attacks.
Smash says that all CC attacks the model makes are AP2.

Since the model is making the attacks, and those two attacks are part of all attacks, they must be AP2 or you are breaking the Smash rules.

AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook.

Codex Trumps Rulebook as there is a direct conflict.

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook.

Codex Trumps Rulebook as there is a direct conflict.

AP values aren't conflicting.
Or is the Black Mace AP4?

If its AP2 why are you applying a double standard?

It is not a double standard. The two have very different wording.

The combat familiar is not a weapon, and as such has its own profile to make its attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not a double standard. The two have very different wording.

The combat familiar is not a weapon, and as such has its own profile to make its attacks.

So what if it's not a weapon. It has a profile to resolve attacks at and smash talks about attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook.

Codex Trumps Rulebook as there is a direct conflict.

Not really a conflict. The MC would be the one making the attacks, all of his attacks are ap2 due to smash.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook.

Codex Trumps Rulebook as there is a direct conflict.

Not really a conflict. The MC would be the one making the attacks, all of his attacks are ap2 due to smash.

But the Chaos Familiar attacks are AP- so there is clearly a conflict. How could you possibly claim otherwise?

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not a double standard. The two have very different wording.

The combat familiar is not a weapon, and as such has its own profile to make its attacks.

The combat familiar does not make any attacks, ever.