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.

 Happyjew wrote:
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?

Not 100% sure on 3, but yes.

 Happyjew wrote:
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?

3, 4 and 5 (and 6) are all completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Also "resolved at ap2" does not create a conflict in the same way resolving a snap shot at bs1 does not create a conflict on a bs5 model.

I brought up 3 because it seems to have popped up recently. I'm trying to understand the AP- side.

 Happyjew wrote:
I brought up 3 because it seems to have popped up recently. I'm trying to understand the AP- side.

Fair enough. It looked like you were trying the age old trick of getting someone to agree to a premise and then using it to insinuate that they have agreed to a false conclusion drawn from those premises. Apologies for my bluntness on that

 grendel083 wrote:

 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.

By virtue of Page 7, telling us that Codex Trumps rulebook tells us we have to ignore the BRB. If something says Str4 in the codex and something else says use the models Str, like the BRB, we have to ignore the users str because of P.7

So yes the rules do tell us what to ignore.

There is a conflict here because the CF is not a weapon. The mace is a weapon and, in context, Smash lets you override the codex AP4 from the mace because it is a weapon and Smash addresses weapons.

 DeathReaper wrote:
By virtue of Page 7, telling us that Codex Trumps rulebook tells us we have to ignore the BRB. If something says Str4 in the codex and something else says use the models Str, like the BRB, we have to ignore the users str because of P.7

So yes the rules do tell us what to ignore.

There is a conflict here because the CF is not a weapon. The mace is a weapon and, in context, Smash lets you override the codex AP4 from the mace because it is a weapon and Smash addresses weapons.

The context of Smash is not weapons, but all close combat attacks.
If you can prove that Smash applies only to weapons, then you have a very valid argument.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash addresses weapons.

Citation needed. This is simply not true RAW.

The mace, or any weapons are basic rules, the more advanced rule is the rule that all attacks whith weapons less than ap 1 are ap-.

You have a basic vs Advanced situation here, just because the Basic rule comes from a codex does not matter in the slightest.

Rules go: Basic(The rules that explain Movement, Shooting, and Melee), < Advanced(the rules that modify Movement, shooting, and Melee), < Codex(Rules that modify Movement, Shooting, or Melee that conflict with the advanced rules).

Basic rules state that Melee attacks use a weapon, and that you use that weapon's profile. Advanced rules state that all attacks by Smash are AP2 instead of their normal AP, unless they are already AP1. Just because the Codex weapon specifies a different AP does not change the Advanced rule, it is still following the basic rule. The advanced rule then modifies it(to AP2).

This is not a hard concept to follow: Is the rule in question Modifying a basic rule? if so then it is advanced.

The basic rules for melee attacks is that they follow the stats for the weapon used.

A Combat familiar is an entirely different set of attacks not covered by the Basic rules(it is not affected by effects that reduce attacks and it has its own profile); the combat familiar is its own advanced rule and is thus not effected by any of the basic rules, it does not use the profile of any weapons carried by the model.

However the AP of those attacks, made by a model, may be further changed via certain advanced rules.

The rule that all attacks made by a model are AP2 is more advanced that a rule that gives a weapon profile(S4 AP-) as weapon profiles are basic rules.

Kel - that's a very well thought out position, nicely put.
However all all relies on the theory that that the rules in question are in conflict.

Now Smash doesn't change the AP of a weapon or attack. At the end of the day the Mace is still AP4. But the rule deos tell you to resolve it at a different AP, in this case AP2.

Similar rules are Snap Shot and Unwieldly. The BS of a model is never changed, but the shot is resolved at BS1. Similar, the models inititative is never changed, but they swing at step 1.

You have an actual value, and a value that it is resolved at. This is not a conflict, but simply following a rule.

If these were conflicts then there are many times a codex would change the BS of Snap Shot.

Please show why following a rule is a conflict. I'm really not seeing any conflict in the Smash rules.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash addresses weapons.

Citation needed. This is simply not true RAW.

I have cited it, it is in this post:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/533892.page#5748675

So without going thru all the arguing has a conclusion been reached.

 grendel083 wrote:
Kel - that's a very well thought out position, nicely put.
However all all relies on the theory that that the rules in question are in conflict.

Now Smash doesn't change the AP of a weapon or attack. At the end of the day the Mace is still AP4. But the rule deos tell you to resolve it at a different AP, in this case AP2.

Similar rules are Snap Shot and Unwieldly. The BS of a model is never changed, but the shot is resolved at BS1. Similar, the models inititative is never changed, but they swing at step 1.

You have an actual value, and a value that it is resolved at. This is not a conflict, but simply following a rule.

If these were conflicts then there are many times a codex would change the BS of Snap Shot.

Please show why following a rule is a conflict. I'm really not seeing any conflict in the Smash rules.

Pretty much this. I don't see a conflict just a smooth transition. Otherwise the Black Mace would be a conflict as well.

yellowfever wrote:
So without going thru through all the arguing has a conclusion been reached?

Nope, come back next week.

 grendel083 wrote:
Kel - that's a very well thought out position, nicely put.
However all all relies on the theory that that the rules in question are in conflict.

Now Smash doesn't change the AP of a weapon or attack. At the end of the day the Mace is still AP4. But the rule deos tell you to resolve it at a different AP, in this case AP2.

Similar rules are Snap Shot and Unwieldly. The BS of a model is never changed, but the shot is resolved at BS1. Similar, the models inititative is never changed, but they swing at step 1.

You have an actual value, and a value that it is resolved at. This is not a conflict, but simply following a rule.

If these were conflicts then there are many times a codex would change the BS of Snap Shot.

Please show why following a rule is a conflict. I'm really not seeing any conflict in the Smash rules.

Smash, First sentence: All of the Close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2(unless it is attacking with an AP1 weapon).

It is the very first sentence that tells you it is modifying the attacks to be at a different AP(unless the AP of the attack is already better).

You are making your attacks.

Basic rules has the Black mace pipe up and say "OOh, I a the weapon you are making your attack with, therefore as a weapon you use my AP!"

Then the advanced rules for smash step in and say: "Sorry, but I am a More advanced rule regarding AP while maki8ng attacks, you are now AP2."

CF steps in and says: I am an advanced, codex-specific rule and I say you get to make 2 more melee attacks with my weapon profile."


The Mace is a weapon and thus a basic rule.
Smash is a special rule, thus an advanced rule and supersedes the basic weapon rule.
CF is a codex specific rule and thus negates the use of any weapons for it's bonus 2 attacks in favor of its own profile, which then has the AP modified to 2 by Smash as the basic rule of a weapon profile is superseded by the advanced rule of smash.

It is an inception thing, a rule within a rule that gets superseded by an outside rule.

We have many of these in 40k.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Smash, First sentence: All of the Close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2(unless it is attacking with an AP1 weapon).

It is the very first sentence that tells you it is modifying the attacks to be at a different AP(unless the AP of the attack is already better).

Not quite, it's saying the attacks are resolved at AP2, it's not modifying the AP of the weapon. AP of the mace remains at AP4, but any close combat attacks with it are resolves at AP2.
It's a subtle but important difference.

Similar to Snap Shots, the shots are Bs1, but the models ballistic skill is never modified.

It is exactly stating that it is modifying attacks.

But that still does not change the CF attacks.

The weapopn is not modified, how the attacks are resolved is.
The AP of the attack doesn't come into play (unless it's AP1).

Is it a close combat attack? Yes, then it's resolved at AP2
No rules conflict is created, as Smash tells us what AP the attack is resolved at.

And even if the AP of the weapon/attack was directly modified, then again there is no conflict as there is no longer two AP values, only one modified value.

Just for the sake of clarity, the blurb on page 7 informs us that basic rules are pages 10-31. Weapon profiles are not introduced until page 50 and are thus advanced rules - page 7 even uses a boltgun as an example of a "special kind of weapon".

tgjensen wrote:
Just for the sake of clarity, the blurb on page 7 informs us that basic rules are pages 10-31. Weapon profiles are not introduced until page 50 and are thus advanced rules - page 7 even uses a boltgun as an example of a "special kind of weapon".

You're quite right, thanks for pointing that out.
So all weapon profiles are in fact Advanced Rules.

It says basic trumps advanced, but the CF is not a basic rule either.

Neither Smash, Black Mace or Combat Familiar are basic rules.

Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

 McNinja wrote:
Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

When dealing with multiple modifiers, yes.
But we're not dealing with multiple modifiers.
And if we were, they would all be set modifiers.

 grendel083 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

When dealing with multiple modifiers, yes.
But we're not dealing with multiple modifiers.
And if we were, they would all be set modifiers.

Oh? And so what is Smash? It sets the AP value of the MC CC attacks to 2. The CF sets both the S and AP of the two extra attacks at S4 AP-. The specificity of the CF overrides the specificity of the Smash rule.

Reading page 7 again helps.

 McNinja wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

When dealing with multiple modifiers, yes.
But we're not dealing with multiple modifiers.
And if we were, they would all be set modifiers.

Oh? And so what is Smash? It sets the AP value of the MC CC attacks to 2. The CF sets both the S and AP of the two extra attacks at S4 AP-. The specificity of the CF overrides the specificity of the Smash rule.

Reading page 7 again helps.

Except Smash doesn't set the AP to 2, it simply resolves the attack as AP2. Just like Unwieldy weapons are resolved at Init 1, or Snap Shots are resolved at BS1.

 McNinja wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

When dealing with multiple modifiers, yes.
But we're not dealing with multiple modifiers.
And if we were, they would all be set modifiers.

Oh? And so what is Smash? It sets the AP value of the MC CC attacks to 2. The CF sets both the S and AP of the two extra attacks at S4 AP-. The specificity of the CF overrides the specificity of the Smash rule.

Reading page 7 again helps.

As I said, if you want to think of them that way, they're all set modifiers. Therefore redundant, as the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of multiple set modifiers.

Now what makes you think the CF is more specific than Smash? If you're going to say "because it's from a codex" then please don't, and look back at the other times this has been mentioned.
Because in that case the Black mace is also more specific than Smash, so must attack with its "set modifier" AP of 4.

 Happyjew wrote:
Except Smash doesn't set the AP to 2, it simply resolves the attack as AP2. Just like Unwieldy weapons are resolved at Init 1, or Snap Shots are resolved at BS1.

Also this.

 grendel083 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Aren't you supposed to apply set modifiers last? Since Smash is in the rulebook and is a general rule, the specifics of how the CF works is laid out specifically in its entry. The Specific overrides the general.

When dealing with multiple modifiers, yes.
But we're not dealing with multiple modifiers.
And if we were, they would all be set modifiers.

Oh? And so what is Smash? It sets the AP value of the MC CC attacks to 2. The CF sets both the S and AP of the two extra attacks at S4 AP-. The specificity of the CF overrides the specificity of the Smash rule.

Reading page 7 again helps.

As I said, if you want to think of them that way, they're all set modifiers. Therefore redundant, as the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of multiple set modifiers.

Now what makes you think the CF is more specific than Smash? If you're going to say "because it's from a codex" then please don't, and look back at the other times this has been mentioned.
Because in that case the Black mace is also more specific than Smash, so must attack with its "set modifier" AP of 4.

 Happyjew wrote:
Except Smash doesn't set the AP to 2, it simply resolves the attack as AP2. Just like Unwieldy weapons are resolved at Init 1, or Snap Shots are resolved at BS1.

Also this.

They're still set modifiers. They modify that value to a set value. In the case of Unwieldy, they set the I to 1 regardless of anything, and Snap Shots are fired at the set value of BS1 until something like a piece of wargear in a codex overrides that set modifier by being more specific. Like how the CF entry specifies the S and AP of those two extra attacks.

yellowfever wrote:So without going thru all the arguing has a conclusion been reached.

Yes, two have, with one group concluding that combat familiar attacks are affected by Smash as per RAW, the other group concluding that combat familiar attacks aren't affected by Smash, and both groups repeatedly making the same arguments and thoroughly failing to convince the other side.

McNinja wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Except Smash doesn't set the AP to 2, it simply resolves the attack as AP2. Just like Unwieldy weapons are resolved at Init 1, or Snap Shots are resolved at BS1.

They're still set modifiers. They modify that value to a set value. In the case of Unwieldy, they set the I to 1 regardless of anything, and Snap Shots are fired at the set value of BS1 until something like a piece of wargear in a codex overrides that set modifier by being more specific. Like how the CF entry specifies the S and AP of those two extra attacks.

Not at all, otherwise models wielding Unwieldy weapons would be initiative 1 for characteristic tests (Jaws of the World Wolf, for instance) which is not the case.

McNInja - CF is not a set modifier, it is the initial profile

You are claiming something that is impossible - you cannot "set modify" your initial profile, otherwise everything is applied last - the profile of a normal CCW, for example, could never be altered under your contention.

Smash simply resolves your attack at AP2. ALL close combat attacks made by the model.

CF is a pair of Close Combat attacks made by the Daemon Prince, and therefore would be resolved at AP2. DRs contention that "all close combat attacks..." some how means "all close combat attacks made by weapons" has no basis in rules, contextual or otherwise. THat is simply made up.