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.

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) So you've posted no rules that smash wins the conflict. As for the mace straw man that has been debunked I'll take any further mention of that without new evidence as you conceding.

It's not been debunked, and please look up what a Strawman is. Also as the rules cover this citation there is no conflict.
Both the mace and the CF have an Ap. Correct?
Both are close combat attacks made by the model. Correct?
Smash states all close combat attacks made the model are Ap2 (unless already Ap1). Correct?
You say there is a conflict, with the Codex trumping the Smash rules. Correct?
So if the CF is Ap - the Mace must also be Ap4 as both are from a codex.
How can one benefit but the other not. This has not been addressed in any of your posts.

2) So you're ignoring that CF says the attacks are AP- with no rules allowing you to do so...

You're ignoring the Mace is AP4. Please address the points above.

Please actually make a rules argument as you why you are ignoring CF or why smash over rules it or concede.

There you go, rules arguments above. Please provide the same for the questions above.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because the Black Mace is a weapon, that is why the codex does not trump the BRB because smash deals specifically with attacking with weapons.

But it's a conflict, according to you, and codex trumps BRB in all cases where there's a conflict. Correct?

It is a conflict, but one that the BRB specifically addresses so the BRB has the more specific rule in the case of Smash Vs. a weapons AP.

Smash does not only address weapons - it addresses, and I quote, "all attacks". You're inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules.

The CF is additional attacks the model makes. Agreed?

It seems that way, I have not the Chaos codex at hand, but from what I have read in this thread it seems that way.

So you haven't even read the rules you're discussing?

All attacks are made with weapons. Agreed?

Clearly not.

The CF is not a weapon and the models makes attacks because of it.

The model makes additional attacks. The CF rules are silent on if it's with a weapon or not. Which you'd know if you'd read the CF rules.

The model does not get the benefit of fleshbane on these attacks because of the black mace, is that correct?

I'd say that's arguable but not the point of this discussion. Feel free to open a new thread to discuss that if you wish.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because the Black Mace is a weapon, that is why the codex does not trump the BRB because smash deals specifically with attacking with weapons.

But it's a conflict, according to you, and codex trumps BRB in all cases where there's a conflict. Correct?

It is a conflict, but one that the BRB specifically addresses so the BRB has the more specific rule in the case of Smash Vs. a weapons AP.

Smash does not only address weapons - it addresses, and I quote, "all attacks". You're inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules.

Only if you ignore the context in which the Smash rule was written.

Smash only addresses weapon because the CC rules are written assuming a model is using a weapon to attack with. Smash does not cover attacks that are not made from weapons like the CF's attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash only addresses weapon because the CC rules are written assuming a model is using a weapon to attack with. Smash does not cover attacks that are not made from weapons like the CF's attacks.

Thats not right.
Smash effects "All close combat attacks", mentions nothing about weapons.
The CF is described as a Close Combat Attack.

Grendel as already stated specific over rules general first. The smash rule specifies it over rules the AP of weapons. It does not specify it over rules the AP of CF so it does not. Thus we have to resolve the conflict in the order presented in the rulebook. So:

1) yes both the BM as CF have an AP.
2) yes both are CC attacks made by the model
3) yes smash makes all cc attacks AP2
4) yes there is a conflict and as neither rule is more specific codex trumps rulebook.
5) no the BM is ap2 as smash is more specific as has been explained to you repeatedly.
6) yes I have addressed that repeatedly.
7) I'm not ignoring the BMs Ap4. This is a conflict with smash. That Smash specifies it wins.

Again no new points. Just a bunch of stuff already covered with the part that debunks your argument completely ignored yet again... Is this you conceding?

 FlingitNow wrote:
The smash rule specifies it over rules the AP of weapons.

Ah I think I see the mistake.
Smash does not overrule the Ap of weapons.
If you look at the rule, it overrides "All close combat attacks".
If it was only weapons, you might have a point. But it doesn't.

Please double check the rules for Smash, then review your previous answers.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because the Black Mace is a weapon, that is why the codex does not trump the BRB because smash deals specifically with attacking with weapons.

But it's a conflict, according to you, and codex trumps BRB in all cases where there's a conflict. Correct?

It is a conflict, but one that the BRB specifically addresses so the BRB has the more specific rule in the case of Smash Vs. a weapons AP.

Smash does not only address weapons - it addresses, and I quote, "all attacks". You're inserting a restriction that does not exist in the rules.

Only if you ignore the context in which the Smash rule was written.

Smash only addresses weapon because the CC rules are written assuming a model is using a weapon to attack with. Smash does not cover attacks that are not made from weapons like the CF's attacks.

Until you actually read the rule in question I'm done with discussing this with you. Your argument has no basis in rules - CF is not some magical non-weapon CC attack.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The smash rule specifies it over rules the AP of weapons.

Ah I think I see the mistake.
Smash does not overrule the Ap of weapons.
If you look at the rule, it overrides "All close combat attacks".
If it was only weapons, you might have a point. But it doesn't.

Please double check the rules for Smash, then review your previous answers.

Again I haven't said this. I've stated it effects all attacks and it specifies this over rules the AP of weapons unless they are AP1...

So it creates a conflict with any attack that has a defined AP, it specifies that it over rules the attacks made by weapons, thus always wins that type of conflict. With other conflicts you have to find another way to resolve them.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The smash rule specifies it over rules the AP of weapons.

Ah I think I see the mistake.
Smash does not overrule the Ap of weapons.
If you look at the rule, it overrides "All close combat attacks".
If it was only weapons, you might have a point. But it doesn't.

Please double check the rules for Smash, then review your previous answers.

Again I haven't said this. I've stated it effects all attacks and it specifies this over rules the AP of weapons unless they are AP1...

So it creates a conflict with any attack that has a defined AP, it specifies that it over rules the attacks made by weapons, thus always wins that type of conflict. With other conflicts you have to find another way to resolve them.

So you agree that Smash effects "All close combat attacks"?
And that the CF is a close combat attack?

So can you show why the Mace is more specific than the CF? And why the Mace should gain the benefit while the CF does not?

The mace is not more specific smash is more specific than the mace as covered in the smash rule (it specifically mentions weapons, if CF was a weapon smash would over rule it). This again has already been covered. Indeed this is covered in the very post you quoted.

So I assume this is your way of conceding whilst trying to save face. Well thanks for conceding.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The mace is not more specific smash is more specific than the mace as covered in the smash rule (it specifically mentions weapons, if CF was a weapon smash would over rule it). This again has already been covered. Indeed this is covered in the very post you quoted.

So I assume this is your way of conceding whilst trying to save face. Well thanks for conceding.

Again, Smash does not specify Weapons. Please read the actual rule.
It specifies all close combat attacks.
The CF is a close combat attack.

And as to your ridiculous statement about conceding, I'll assume you've conceded until you actually read the rules you're debating.

BRB wrote: All close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2 (unless attacking with an AP1 weapon).

Emphasis mine.

It specifies here how it interacts with weapons. It clearly applies to all attacks (whether made with weapons or not) and we know from this in the case where weapons are not AP1 Smash wins any conflict. When not using weapons smash is silent in how to resolve conflict.

CF also states "the model (daemon prince in this case) makes 2 additional attacks at str4 ap-". Smash encompasses all cc attacks. Since the DP is making the attacks, I'm really struggling to see the ap- side of the discussion.

 FlingitNow wrote:

BRB wrote: All close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2 (unless attacking with an AP1 weapon).

Emphasis mine.

It specifies here how it interacts with weapons. It clearly applies to all attacks (whether made with weapons or not) and we know from this in the case where weapons are not AP1 Smash wins any conflict. When not using weapons smash is silent in how to resolve conflict.

If we were talking about an Ap1 attack that wasn't a weapon, then congratulations you found a flaw in the rule.
But the CF is neither AP 1 nor a weapon. So the relevant part of the rule is:

BRB wrote: All close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2

It is a Close Combat Attack. So following the rule above, the attack is resolved at Ap2.

Attack is Ap4, resolved at Ap2. No conflict there. Rules followed.

I know you think that is a conflict, and because the CF comes from a Codex it should be Ap-
The Mace is Ap4, resolved at Ap2, conflict, codex wins, attack is Ap4.
Both are close combat attacks, neither are more specific than the other, and the Smash rule applies to "All close combat attacks", not just weapons.

A model with a combat familiar makes two additional Strength 4 AP- Melee Attacks
All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2 (unless it's attacking with an AP1 weapon).

Seems pretty straightforward to me. The rules for the Combat Familiar state that the model with that Chaos Reward is making two additional attacks. If that model has Smash, all of its attacks are AP2.

I think part of the confusion is that the remainder of the Combat Familiar rules talk about the Combat Familiar as if it were a separate entity. Someone got some fluff in their rules when stating the Combat Familiar doesn't need a separate model representing it.

I think the big question is:

"Does Smash only apply to close combat attacks made with weapons?"

 grendel083 wrote:
I think the big question is:

"Does Smash only apply to close combat attacks made with weapons?"

And the answer to that is "no".
Which is why the attacks are AP2.
This seems pretty simple to me, having followed this thread for 5 pages.

Basic Vs advanced Page 7 of the BRB.

Smash Vs Combat Familiar. Both are advanced rules(neither apply to all models, only those models with the specific rules).

There iv\s a Conflict between the Rules(Smash says all attacks are AP2, Combat familiar says the 2 addtitional attacks are AP-); therefore per BRB; you use the codex specific rule( AP-).

The Combat Familiar attacks would not benefit from the black mace, or any other Melee weapon stats/abilities, because it is a basic rule that states all attacks are made with the specified CCW, and the Combat familiar is absolutely an advanced rule telling you exactly what Melee statistics to use.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
CF also states "the model (daemon prince in this case) makes 2 additional attacks at str4 ap-". Smash encompasses all cc attacks. Since the DP is making the attacks, I'm really struggling to see the ap- side of the discussion.

Codex Overrides BRB, page 7.

Is it clear now?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
There iv\s a Conflict between the Rules(Smash says all attacks are AP2, Combat familiar says the 2 addtitional attacks are AP-); therefore per BRB; you use the codex specific rule( AP-).

Then the Mace must also attack at Ap4, instead oif the Ap2 of Smash.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
CF also states "the model (daemon prince in this case) makes 2 additional attacks at str4 ap-". Smash encompasses all cc attacks. Since the DP is making the attacks, I'm really struggling to see the ap- side of the discussion.

Codex Overrides BRB, page 7.

Is it clear now?

Only if there is a conflict. There is no conflict.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
CF also states "the model (daemon prince in this case) makes 2 additional attacks at str4 ap-". Smash encompasses all cc attacks. Since the DP is making the attacks, I'm really struggling to see the ap- side of the discussion.

Codex Overrides BRB, page 7.

Is it clear now?

Then a DP with black mace must strike at ap4 for the same reason?

No, as the mace is a weapon and the Context of Smash tells us that Smash overrides weapon's AP, unless the weapon is AP1.

CF is not a weapon, and the Codex trumps the BRB as there is nothing in smash that overrides something that is not a weapon.

No, smash says "all attacks" the only reference to weapons is a reminder that if a weapon is ap1, to use that instead.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, as the mace is a weapon and the Context of Smash tells us that Smash overrides weapon's AP, unless the weapon is AP1.

CF is not a weapon, and the Codex trumps the BRB as there is nothing in smash that overrides something that is not a weapon.

So we're ignoring the "All close combat attacks" part of smash?
The context is "all close combat attacks", not just weapons.
Unless you can prove that Smash does not apply to non-weapon close combat attacks.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
No, smash says "all attacks" the only reference to weapons is a reminder that if a weapon is ap1, to use that instead.

Do not ignore the context on which the CC rules were written. They assume all models attack with a weapon.

This is not the case with the CF as the CF is not a weapon. It is a special rule allowing additional attacks. But this leaves many questions.

Does the model get to use a weapon to make the extra attacks? among others. It really is not covered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, as the mace is a weapon and the Context of Smash tells us that Smash overrides weapon's AP, unless the weapon is AP1.

CF is not a weapon, and the Codex trumps the BRB as there is nothing in smash that overrides something that is not a weapon.

So we're ignoring the "All close combat attacks" part of smash?
The context is "all close combat attacks", not just weapons.
Unless you can prove that Smash does not apply to non-weapon close combat attacks.

Only Ignoring it because the rules on page 7, that state Codex Trumps BRB, tell us to ignore it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, as the mace is a weapon and the Context of Smash tells us that Smash overrides weapon's AP, unless the weapon is AP1.

CF is not a weapon, and the Codex trumps the BRB as there is nothing in smash that overrides something that is not a weapon.

So we're ignoring the "All close combat attacks" part of smash?
The context is "all close combat attacks", not just weapons.
Unless you can prove that Smash does not apply to non-weapon close combat attacks.

Only Ignoring it because the rules on page 7, that state Codex Trumps BRB, tell us to ignore it.

The rules on resolving conflicts does not tell us to ignore anything.
IF there is a conflict in the rules (which I disagree) then the AP would be -, but also the AP of the mace must be 4.
They only way you can have it both ways (Ap- for CF, AP2 for Mace) is if the Smash rule applies to weapons only.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
No, smash says "all attacks" the only reference to weapons is a reminder that if a weapon is ap1, to use that instead.

Do not ignore the context on which the CC rules were written. They assume all models attack with a weapon.

This is not the case with the CF as the CF is not a weapon. It is a special rule allowing additional attacks. But this leaves many questions.

Does the model get to use a weapon to make the extra attacks? among others. It really is not covered.

CF is not a weapon but the model is making the attacks, not the CF. And smash says "all close combat attacks made by the model".

OK just so I understand:
1. All close combat attacks are resolved at AP2 (Smash)
2. CF gives the model 2 attacks made at S4, AP-.
3. All attacks are made with a weapon.
4. Smash specifically states that HoW (which is a cc attack) is not affected by Smash.
5. You can only gain the benefit of 1 weapon at a time.
6. Am I missing anything?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
No, smash says "all attacks" the only reference to weapons is a reminder that if a weapon is ap1, to use that instead.

Do not ignore the context on which the CC rules were written. They assume all models attack with a weapon.

Nobody is making assumptions here except you. You are basically saying that it doesn't affect the familiar because of some imagined restriction that is found nowhere in the rules. You cannot say the rules "assume" things without evidence, otherwise you are arguing intent.