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.

Combat familiar adds two attacks to the owners Attacks profile. These additional attacks are of course treated the same way as the rest of the attacks on the profile. If used with a generic close combat weapon, then S4, AP-. If used with a Black Mace, then S4(fleshbane), AP-. If used by a Monstrous Creature, then S4, AP2.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

 FlingitNow wrote:

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?

It's AP2 and AP- at the same time, which is functionally the same as being AP2. Not a conflict.

GeneralCael wrote:
Combat familiar adds two attacks to the owners Attacks profile. These additional attacks are of course treated the same way as the rest of the attacks on the profile. If used with a generic close combat weapon, then S4, AP-. If used with a Black Mace, then S4(fleshbane), AP-. If used by a Monstrous Creature, then S4, AP2.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

You don't seem to have grasped it either. At no point would the Combat Familiar attacks gain Fleshbane from the mace. These are not attacks added to the owners profile, nor can these attacks be made with the mace.
These are completely separate attacks, made by the Model.

 grendel083 wrote:
These are not attacks added to the owners profile, nor can these attacks be made with the mace.

You cannot just make Things up. "The Model makes two additional attacks...." clearly indicates, that the owning model does, indeed, add two attacks to the attacks, the model already has. If the model is using a Black Mace, there is nothing indicating that the Black Mace effects is not included in all attacks.

 grendel083 wrote:

These are completely separate attacks, made by the Model.

No, they are not. "The Model makes two additional attacks....". If these attacks were seperate, the text would (obviously, imo) say The Model makes two seperate attacks.

It's AP2 and AP- at the same time, which is functionally the same as being AP2. Not a conflict.

Sorry what? AP2 and AP- can be at the same time. Now you're just making things up. Why is this functionally the same as AP2? I can certainly make my save against them as AP- says that yet I also can not make my save against them. How do you resolve that?

 FlingitNow wrote:

It's AP2 and AP- at the same time, which is functionally the same as being AP2. Not a conflict.

Sorry what? AP2 and AP- can be at the same time. Now you're just making things up. Why is this functionally the same as AP2? I can certainly make my save against them as AP- says that yet I also can not make my save against them. How do you resolve that?

The same way you resolve making a save against a Monstrous Creature attacking with an AP - basic close combat weapon, or a model wielding an AP - weapon that ignores armour saves. Do you have permission to make your armour save against the AP-? Yes. Do you have permission to make your armour save against the AP 2/Ignore save weapon? No. Under a permissive ruleset; if at least one factor denies you permission to make an armour save, you cannot, regardless of other factors giving you permission, unless it is explicitly stated that they override factors that would otherwise deny permission. (exampli gratia. Hammer of Wrath attacks per the FAQ)

GeneralCael wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
These are not attacks added to the owners profile, nor can these attacks be made with the mace.

You cannot just make Things up. "The Model makes two additional attacks...." clearly indicates, that the owning model does, indeed, add two attacks to the attacks, the model already has. If the model is using a Black Mace, there is nothing indicating that the Black Mace effects is not included in all attacks.

I'm making nothing up. The model makes two additional attacks is very different from the model gaining two attacks. The Combat Familiar attacks are not part of the models profile.
They most certainly are not made with the Black Mace. The Combat Familiar has its own weapon profile, see the rule concerning "More than one Weapon" on p51.

 grendel083 wrote:

These are completely separate attacks, made by the Model.

No, they are not. "The Model makes two additional attacks....". If these attacks were seperate, the text would (obviously, imo) say The Model makes two seperate attacks.

As above, they're made with a separate profile. These are not attacks made with the Black Mace, so would not gain Fleshbane. If the model had a standard CCW in addition to the Mace, attacks made with the CCW would not gain Fleshbane. Same thing here.

 grendel083 wrote:
These are not attacks made with the Black Mace, so would not gain Fleshbane. If the model had a standard CCW in addition to the Mace, attacks made with the CCW would not gain Fleshbane. Same thing here.

Of course attacks made with a generic CCW would not get Fleshbane from the Black Mace, AS IT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WEAPON! It's a completely irrelevant comparison, as the Combat Familiar is NOT a weapon.

 grendel083 wrote:
The model makes two additional attacks is very different from the model gaining two attacks. The Combat Familiar attacks are not part of the models profile.
They most certainly are not made with the Black Mace. The Combat Familiar has its own weapon profile, see the rule concerning "More than one Weapon" on p51.

What is the difference between "adding" and "gaining" two additional attacks?
Having a Strength and AP value is not the same as being a weapon. A Combat Familiar is not a weapon!

GeneralCael wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
These are not attacks made with the Black Mace, so would not gain Fleshbane. If the model had a standard CCW in addition to the Mace, attacks made with the CCW would not gain Fleshbane. Same thing here.

Of course attacks made with a generic CCW would not get Fleshbane from the Black Mace, AS IT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WEAPON! It's a completely irrelevant comparison, as the Combat Familiar is NOT a weapon.

It has a profile, Str4 AP- Melee attacks
That is very different to just adding 2 attacks to the models profile. Exactly what makes you think these attacks can be made with the Black Mace?

What is the difference between "adding" and "gaining" two additional attacks?
Having a Strength and AP value is not the same as being a weapon. A Combat Familiar is not a weapon!

It's not "gaining two additional attacks"
It's "making two additional Str4 Ap- Melee Attacks"

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

It's AP2 and AP- at the same time, which is functionally the same as being AP2. Not a conflict.

Sorry what? AP2 and AP- can be at the same time. Now you're just making things up. Why is this functionally the same as AP2? I can certainly make my save against them as AP- says that yet I also can not make my save against them. How do you resolve that?

The same way you resolve making a save against a Monstrous Creature attacking with an AP - basic close combat weapon, or a model wielding an AP - weapon that ignores armour saves. Do you have permission to make your armour save against the AP-? Yes. Do you have permission to make your armour save against the AP 2/Ignore save weapon? No. Under a permissive ruleset; if at least one factor denies you permission to make an armour save, you cannot, regardless of other factors giving you permission, unless it is explicitly stated that they override factors that would otherwise deny permission. (exampli gratia. Hammer of Wrath attacks per the FAQ)

Well let's look at what you've said. First you've compared this to a CCW which high lights a rule error. I advise you re read smash as it specifically covers ccws wielded by models with smash. It does not cover extra special rules that grant separate attacks. Smash over rules the ap of a cc wielded by the MC because and ONLY because it specifically allows. Ap2 allows you to ignore peoples armour ap- prevents you from ignoring someone's armour so by your reasoning it should also be AP- that wins...

A weapon can not be both AP2 and AP- they are mutually exclusive. An attack can only have 1 ap value, which is it? Please give an answer based in actual rules.

The familiar adds the str 4 ap - attacks, what is so hard to read there?

it is not a weapon, and it is NOT granting +2 attacks,

it does what its rule says, IE grants 2 attacks at str 4 ap -

smash doesnt override it at all, nor conflict with it, they are separate attacks just like a servo harness

 easysauce wrote:
RAW only says it applies to weapons,
assuming that smash applies to all wargear and attacks and modifies the set value under the familiar rules is not RAW.

That's absolutely incorrect.

BRB Page 42 wrote:All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2 (unless it's attacking with an AP1 weapon).

As you can see the actual rules (instead of what you pretend) do not say it applies only to weapons. It explicitly says all of the close combat attacks the model makes.
Who makes the combat familiar attacks?

AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook that says all attacks are made at AP2.

page 7 states that Codex >Rulebook when there is a conflict.

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook that says all attacks are made at AP2.

page 7 states that Codex >Rulebook when there is a conflict.

Why is it a conflict here but not on the Black Mace?

Please answer that question - you've dodged it again.

Yup 2'additional attacks at str 4 ap-. Don't waste the points buying for your daemon prince.

Otherwise it would have said 2 additional attacks with the attack profile for str, ap and weapon type of the buyer.

Smash disagrees with you. Perhaps you have rules to back up your assertion?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook that says all attacks are made at AP2.

page 7 states that Codex >Rulebook when there is a conflict.

Why is it a conflict here but not on the Black Mace?

Please answer that question - you've dodged it again.

Because the mace is a weapon and Smash specifically addresses weapons.

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook that says all attacks are made at AP2.

page 7 states that Codex >Rulebook when there is a conflict.

Why is it a conflict here but not on the Black Mace?

Please answer that question - you've dodged it again.

Because the mace is a weapon and Smash specifically addresses weapons.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
RAW only says it applies to weapons,
assuming that smash applies to all wargear and attacks and modifies the set value under the familiar rules is not RAW.

That's absolutely incorrect.

BRB Page 42 wrote:All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2 (unless it's attacking with an AP1 weapon).

As you can see the actual rules (instead of what you pretend) do not say it applies only to weapons. It explicitly says all of the close combat attacks the model makes.
Who makes the combat familiar attacks?

See the BRB quote I provided. It does not refer to weapons only.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
AP-, which is specified in the codex for these extra attacks clearly conflicts with the rulebook that says all attacks are made at AP2.

page 7 states that Codex >Rulebook when there is a conflict.

Why is it a conflict here but not on the Black Mace?

Please answer that question - you've dodged it again.

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

Smash does no such thing. Smash specifies "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2."
This has been pointed out numerous times now, so left is only to assume you lack reading comprehension, or that you simply do not want to accept that the rule is as the BRB says it is.

GeneralCael wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

Smash does no such thing. Smash specifies "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2."
This has been pointed out numerous times now, so left is only to assume you lack reading comprehension, or that you simply do not want to accept that the rule is as the BRB says it is.

You might want to keep reading the Smash USR, because what you quoted is not the whole thing...

The very next bit is important "(unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)."(42)

This shows that a model attacking with a weapon uses AP2, unless the weapon itself is AP1, then it uses the weapon's AP, and not the models AP.

A model makes attacks with a weapon, in context, the Smash rules affect the models attacks with whatever weapon he is using to make attacks. Proven by the following quotes.

"If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon." (51)
"I a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows" (51)

So a model either has a weapon, is treated as if he has a weapon or has more than one weapon. This is the basis in which the Close Combat, and consequently Smash, rules were written.

However the familiar is not a weapon so this does not apply because the Codex specifically states what AP the attacks are made at (AP-).

 DeathReaper wrote:

GeneralCael wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

Smash does no such thing. Smash specifies "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2."
This has been pointed out numerous times now, so left is only to assume you lack reading comprehension, or that you simply do not want to accept that the rule is as the BRB says it is.

You might want to keep reading the Smash USR, because what you quoted is not the whole thing...

The very next bit is important "(unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)."(42)

This shows that a model attacking with a weapon uses AP2, unless the weapon itself is AP1, then it uses the weapon's AP, and not the models AP.

However the familiar is not a weapon so this does not apply because the Codex specifically states what AP the attacks are made at (AP-).

So you're deliberately ignoring the "All of the close combat attacks" wording?

the monstrous model is not making the attacks, the wargear is,
thats why smash doesnt apply.

the attacks are not at the monsters strength, or ap, or use any of the monsters special rules.


the MODEL makes attacks with smash rules ect.

the WARGEAR makes the str 4 ap - attacks, just like servo harnesses, its separate from the model.

Except that the "wargear" as you put it in both examples uses the model's WS. It isn't separate from the model it is in addition to the normal attacks.

 easysauce wrote:
the monstrous model is not making the attacks, the wargear is,

Page 67 C:CSM disagrees with you.

the attacks are not at the monsters strength, or ap, or use any of the monsters special rules.

The bolded statement doesn't exist in the rules.

the MODEL makes attacks with smash rules ect.

the WARGEAR makes the str 4 ap - attacks, just like servo harnesses, its separate from the model.

Again, incorrect per page 67 C:CSM. Please base your discussions in actual rules instead of making them up.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

GeneralCael wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

Smash does no such thing. Smash specifies "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2."
This has been pointed out numerous times now, so left is only to assume you lack reading comprehension, or that you simply do not want to accept that the rule is as the BRB says it is.

You might want to keep reading the Smash USR, because what you quoted is not the whole thing...

The very next bit is important "(unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)."(42)

This shows that a model attacking with a weapon uses AP2, unless the weapon itself is AP1, then it uses the weapon's AP, and not the models AP.

However the familiar is not a weapon so this does not apply because the Codex specifically states what AP the attacks are made at (AP-).

So you're deliberately ignoring the "All of the close combat attacks" wording?

Not at all, just reading page 7 and noting that there is a conflict between this rule and the Smash rule, and realizing that the Codex trumps the BRB.

Had it been a weapon, then there are provisions for weapons as noted in the Smash rule, as the only AP that any weapon could have that would overwrite the AP2 is an AP1 weapon.

But, since the CF is not a weapon this does not apply.

Why does the model make the attacks at Str 4? the CF is not a weapon so Page 50, under the rules for Str, surely do not apply and the Codex says Str 4 which trumps the models Str. The same applies to the AP of the attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

GeneralCael wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Because Smash specifies that its up over rules a weapons ap. Is the familiar a weapon?

Smash does no such thing. Smash specifies "All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2."
This has been pointed out numerous times now, so left is only to assume you lack reading comprehension, or that you simply do not want to accept that the rule is as the BRB says it is.

You might want to keep reading the Smash USR, because what you quoted is not the whole thing...

The very next bit is important "(unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon)."(42)

This shows that a model attacking with a weapon uses AP2, unless the weapon itself is AP1, then it uses the weapon's AP, and not the models AP.

However the familiar is not a weapon so this does not apply because the Codex specifically states what AP the attacks are made at (AP-).

So you're deliberately ignoring the "All of the close combat attacks" wording?

Not at all, just reading page 7 and noting that there is a conflict between this rule and the Smash rule, and realizing that the Codex trumps the BRB.

Had it been a weapon, then there are provisions for weapons as noted in the Smash rule, as the only AP that any weapon could have that would overwrite the AP2 is an AP1 weapon.

But, since the CF is not a weapon this does not apply.

Why does the model make the attacks at Str 4? the CF is not a weapon so Page 50, under the rules for Str, surely do not apply and the Codex says Str 4 which trumps the models Str. The same applies to the AP of the attacks.

Obviously the model makes the attacks, all of the MC attacks are resolved at AP2 unless they're AP1. Are they not attacks made by the MC? If they are than they are AP2.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, just reading page 7 and noting that there is a conflict between this rule and the Smash rule, and realizing that the Codex trumps the BRB.

Page 7 applies when 2 rules contradict each other, unless the combat familiar rules specifically state that the extra attacks are resolved at AP -, rather than simply being AP - attacks, there is no contradiction, in the same way extra attacks granted by Warp Speed wouid be resolved at AP 2, so would these attacks.

Had it been a weapon, then there are provisions for weapons as noted in the Smash rule, as the only AP that any weapon could have that would overwrite the AP2 is an AP1 weapon.

You're heavily into Rules as Interpreted territory here. RAW that is only part of the Smash rule that applies to weapons, you're deliberately ignoring the phrase "all close combat attacks". Now if we were arguing RAI, there's actually a fairly strong case that the extra attacks would be unaffected by Smash, and I'm sure many people would play it that way, and you wouldn't need to try and the first part of Smash exclusively to weapons to have a good argument. But we're discussing RAI or HIWPI, we're discussing RAW.

But, since the CF is not a weapon this does not apply.

True, which means that if these attacks were AP 1 they'd be resolved at AP 2. But since they're not AP 1 it is irrelevant.

Why does the model make the attacks at Str 4? the CF is not a weapon so Page 50, under the rules for Str, surely do not apply and the Codex says Str 4 which trumps the models Str. The same applies to the AP of the attacks.

Because the Daemon Prince does not have a special rule that states "All close combat attacks made by the model are resolved at the model's Strength" the same does not apply to the AP because of the Smash rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, just reading page 7 and noting that there is a conflict between this rule and the Smash rule, and realizing that the Codex trumps the BRB.

What conflict?

Had it been a weapon, then there are provisions for weapons as noted in the Smash rule, as the only AP that any weapon could have that would overwrite the AP2 is an AP1 weapon.

Yes, Smash notes the only way to override the AP2. Is the CF AP1? No? Then it doesn't override.

But, since the CF is not a weapon this does not apply.

Irrelevant - it is absolutely part of all the close combat attacks the model is making.

Why does the model make the attacks at Str 4? the CF is not a weapon so Page 50, under the rules for Str, surely do not apply and the Codex says Str 4 which trumps the models Str. The same applies to the AP of the attacks.

There's no rule saying to use the DP STR for all attacks. There is a rule that says to use AP2 for all attacks. You're breaking the latter.

The conflict of Smash Vs. the CF rules.

One says AP2, the codex Says AP-.

Guess which one wins...

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.

Could you clarify what part of the Combat Familiar rules override the DP's Str please. I seem to not understand exactly what you mean by this.