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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

No, you claimed that because it specified AP1 weapons as an exception, it must only mean weapons. Then you started talking about context, which you have no backing for.

I can't believe this actually reached 6 pages...

I agree with nosferatu1001 on this one.

The CF gives extra attacks. They are CC. They are inflicted by an MC. MS's have Smash. Smash makes all their CC attacks AP2 (unless it's HoW or Ap1).

So the CF attacks are AP2.

The CF gives extra attacks. They are CC. They are inflicted by an MC. MS's have Smash. Smash makes all their CC attacks AP2 (unless it's HoW or Ap1).

So the CF attacks are AP2.

The good old circular logic argument. Look I can make the exact same argument mean the reverse:


The Smash makes attacks AP2. The CF gives extra attacks these are AP-. They are inflicted by an MC. These attacks are from the CF.

So the CF attacks are AP-.

One rule makes the attacks AP2 the other makes them AP-. The CF rule is not a weapon profile as some are trying to claim. It is a rule on how to resolve those 2 specific attacks, Smash still also covers these attacks hence you have a conflict.

Regarding the "codex rule trumping the rulebook rule", I think you are looking at it wrong. It's the codex Daemon Prince entry that specifies it has the Monstrous Creature rule. While that rule references the main rulebook, it is effectively granted to the model from the codex entry. Which means that Smash is also effectively derived from the codex entry, and should for all intents and purposes be treated as though it was a codex rule.

How do you know the DP is a monstrous creature with the Smash special rule? It says so in the codex.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The CF gives extra attacks. They are CC. They are inflicted by an MC. MS's have Smash. Smash makes all their CC attacks AP2 (unless it's HoW or Ap1).

So the CF attacks are AP2.

The good old circular logic argument.

I don't think that means what you think it means. A circular logic argument is one where the conclusion is used as a premise for said argument. For instance:
1. Everything written in 'Holy Bible' is true.
2. It is written in 'Holy Bible' that everything written in it is true.
C. Everything written in 'Holy Bible' is true.

Baktru's argument is a standard deductive argument, which, unlike yours, does not have obvious flaws in its reasoning.

Circular argument because his argument assumes that Smash over rules the AP of CF and that therefore the AP is 2. Which is the entire point he assumes the end result then deduces it from that assumption.

How is that not a circular argument.

Do we agree that smash says that AP of all CC attacks is 2?
Do we agree that CF says that its attacks are AP-?

If we agree these two premises we can move forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also in his argument he neglects to mention the relevant part of CF so a more accurate representation of his argument would be:

The Smash allows you to have your attacks to double their strength. The CF gives extra attacks these are AP-. They are inflicted by an MC. These attacks are from the CF.

So the CF attacks are AP-.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Circular argument because his argument assumes that Smash over rules the AP of CF and that therefore the AP is 2. Which is the entire point he assumes the end result then deduces it from that assumption.

How is that not a circular argument.

Seems like more of an assumed premise that the profile given by Combat Familiar doesn't interfere with the Smash rule's ability to resolve attacks at AP 2.

Do we agree that smash says that AP of all CC attacks is 2?
Do we agree that CF says that its attacks are AP-?

If we agree these two premises we can move forward.

I agree that Smash state to resolve attacks at AP 2 and Combat Familiar states that it grants attacks and lists a profile for them. I do not agree, as you have phrased the premises, that this causes a conflict, or that Smash interacts with said profile any different than it would with any weapon profile listed as Strength 4 AP -.

And the Black Mace says it's attacks are AP4
What is allowing this double standard where the Mace benefits, but the CF does not? You still haven't answered that yet.

Both are close combat attacks.
Both are made by the model.
Both have a listed AP value

The only difference? One is a weapon, but that makes no difference as Smash effects "all close combat attacks", not just those by weapons.

There is a weapon profile for the CFs close combat attacks? Which page is that listed on I can't see it even in the reference page. So please say where this profile is. Given that you don't agree that CF states its attacks are AP- despite this clearly being written in the rule then we have no common basis to even start from. You continue interpreting the rules based on profiles that don't exist and refuse to accept what is clearly written in CF. At this point we'll have to agree to disagree. If you do decideto read the CF rules come back and we can discuss it further.

Heck even grendel has now conceded his side of the argument.

No, because you have missed a key word - "resolved"

Smash resolves attacks at AP2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
There is a weapon profile for the CFs close combat attacks? Which page is that listed on I can't see it even in the reference page. So please say where this profile is. Given that you don't agree that CF states its attacks are AP- despite this clearly being written in the rule then we have no common basis to even start from. You continue interpreting the rules based on profiles that don't exist and refuse to accept what is clearly written in CF. At this point we'll have to agree to disagree. If you do decideto read the CF rules come back and we can discuss it further.

Heck even grendel has now conceded his side of the argument.

Try reading more carefully. Prince Raven stated there was a profile for CF - which there is

You then made up a statement saying they had stated there was a weapon profile. THis is not true.

So I suggest you reword your post so it doesnt accuse someone of doing something they didnt do.

Smash resolves all attacks at AP2. Agreed?
CF grants attacks at a specific AP - AP-. Agreed?
Conclusion: When you resolve these close combat attacks, you do so at AP2 as to do otherwise breaks the Smash rule. Ap2 does not conflict with the CF rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:
There is a weapon profile for the CFs close combat attacks? Which page is that listed on I can't see it even in the reference page.

There is no weapon profile, it's not a weapon. No one has claimed it is.

Given that you don't agree that CF states its attacks are AP- despite this clearly being written in the rule then we have no common basis to even start from. You continue interpreting the rules based on profiles that don't exist and refuse to accept what is clearly written in CF. At this point we'll have to agree to disagree. If you do decideto read the CF rules come back and we can discuss it further.

Actually I have always agreed the CF says it's attacks are AP-. Have you not read anything posted here? Look at my post above where I said it had an AP listed

"Both are close combat attacks.
Both are made by the model.
Both have a listed AP value "

Do you also notice the Black Mace has an AP4 in its profile?

Heck even grendel has now conceded his side of the argument.

Actually he's noticed you haven't even read his arguments, nor answered any questions. You do have a counter position I assume? Please share it. I'll ask again.

Black Mace and Combat Familiar:
Both are close combat attacks.
Both are made by the model.
Both have a listed AP value.

Why does the Mace gain the benefit of Smash but the CF does not, given that Smash effects "all close combat attacks" not just those of weapons.

Smash resolves all attacks at AP2. Agreed?
CF grants attacks at a specific AP - AP-. Agreed?
Conclusion: When you resolve these close combat attacks, you do so at AP2 as to do otherwise breaks the Smash rule. Ap2 does not conflict with the CF rule

So you're arguing resolves trumps makes attacks. Essentially saying there is no conflict because the attacks are still AP- but the resolution is at AP2? Is that correct?

As for Princes post he said profile. There is no mentioned profile if not a weapon what type of profile is he talking about a model profile? Because it does fit that either. Profile is a word with specific references in the rules. Profile is not an appropriate word to use in conjunction with the CF or you'll get to the point where Rigeld2 is claiming that CF is a weapon...

Grendel I accept that you concede you don't have to keep posting a question that has been repeatedly answered. You're just trolling now.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld2 is claiming that CF is a weapon...

Also, no he isn't.

Rigeld2 wrote:The CF rules are silent on if it's with a weapon or not.

I won't speak for others, but he hasn't claimed the CF is a weapon. And it's irrelevant if it is or not, as the rules for Smash cover, and I quote, "All close combat attacks", not just weapons.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Grendel I accept that you concede you don't have to keep posting a question that has been repeatedly answered. You're just trolling now.

Any more personal attacks I should report? This WAS a good-natured debate. And my question hasn't been answered.

I'll ask again.

Black Mace and Combat Familiar:
Both are close combat attacks.
Both are made by the model.
Both have a listed AP value.

Why does the Mace gain the benefit of Smash but the CF does not, given that Smash effects "all close combat attacks" not just those of weapons.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Grendel I accept that you concede you don't have to keep posting a question that has been repeatedly answered. You're just trolling now.

Can we avoid comments like this please.

Having just read all this I'm now pretty convinced they are AP2.

Fling - yes; in essence you end up with 2 AP values, but only care about one, the AP2.

CF has a "profile" - just not a specific profile i.e. weapon, model. It was clearly being used as a short hand term

To compound you then claimed Rigeld said it was a weapon - which is the exact opposite of what Rigeld said. Please try to read others posts more carefully, as it will make your argument more concrete when one side cannot simply point out all the errors you have made when trying to state their arguemnts.

The model makes two attacks, initially at AP-, that are resolved at AP2 due to Smash. Unless you try to claim Smash only talks about weapons (which is does not, it is explicit in that it covers ALL CC attacks made by the model) you have no possible argument against this - page 7 does not come into play

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

No, you claimed that because it specified AP1 weapons as an exception, it must only mean weapons. Then you started talking about context, which you have no backing for.

That is not what I said.

All of the CC rules, smash included were written on the basis that attacks are made with weapons. The following quotes prove that.

"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.

That is an assumption you are making, with no textual basis

"All close combat attacks" is pretty clear - all of them.

You have no argument against this

DeathReaper: So, because some of the rules specify weapons all of them do regardless of whether the actual rule states that it is limited to attacks made by weapons? I'm sorry but that's what logicians call an association fallacy and is flawed line of reasoning that is considered invalid as an argument. If you want to form a convincing argument I recommend applying logic and using valid/sound reasoning.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
DeathReaper: So, because some of the rules specify weapons all of them do regardless of whether the actual rule states that it is limited to attacks made by weapons? I'm sorry but that's what logicians call an association fallacy and is flawed line of reasoning that is considered invalid as an argument. If you want to form a convincing argument I recommend applying logic and using valid/sound reasoning.

If you ignore the context, then yes...

all models make CC attacks with a weapon.

this is the very basis in which the CC rules are written as the evidence shows that all models have CCW's. even if they do not have a CCW they are treated as having one, so all models have CCW's.

 DeathReaper wrote:
all models make CC attacks with a weapon.

And what is making the CC attacks - the Combat Familiar or the Demon Prince?

I disagree that Smash is limited "by context" but using your argument changes nothing - Smash still applies.

For one, Codex does not always trump the BRB. For two, even if the Codex was to trump the BRB you'd have to have an undeniable conflict with the rules. But you don't here. Nothing about the Combat Familiar rules conflict with the Smash rules. Point in fact they are fully compatible with one another.

Combat Familiar gives us two additional S4 AP - attacks. Smash makes all attacks AP 2 unless they are already AP 1. So Combat Familiar on a MC is two additional S4 AP2 attacks.

There is no conflict. There is no real dispute. That is the pure RAW of the situation.

Any argument otherwise seems (to me) to be drawn from the mistaken idea that a Combat Familiar is its own entity and not just another piece of wargear, similar to (but not actually) a weapon. While fluff wise that is true, rule wise (as in what is actually written down on page 67 or whatever of the Chaos Space Marine Codex) it is not.

 cowmonaut wrote:
For one, Codex does not always trump the BRB.

The BRB disagrees with this statement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - yes; in essence you end up with 2 AP values, but only care about one, the AP2.

CF has a "profile" - just not a specific profile i.e. weapon, model. It was clearly being used as a short hand term

To compound you then claimed Rigeld said it was a weapon - which is the exact opposite of what Rigeld said. Please try to read others posts more carefully, as it will make your argument more concrete when one side cannot simply point out all the errors you have made when trying to state their arguemnts.

The model makes two attacks, initially at AP-, that are resolved at AP2 due to Smash. Unless you try to claim Smash only talks about weapons (which is does not, it is explicit in that it covers ALL CC attacks made by the model) you have no possible argument against this - page 7 does not come into play

Well you're the second person to accuse me of saying Rigeld claimed it was a weapon. I didn't actually say that. I said we could get to a point where he would be. Because that was the direction he was heading at one point (he was claiming that CF attacks were made with a weapon).

So back on topic. Resolves at trumps modifiers essentially due to timing it ignores a conflict? Is that correct? So if I had a modifier for the AP of the CF it would modify it but would then get trumped by resolved at?

So for instance using the snapshot analogy you brought up earlier. I can modify the Bus of shooting and snap shot comes in and resolves at Bs1. Thus say I use MLs the modify the be ofmy snap shots they are still resolved at bs1. Is that what you are ssaying?

That would be true, if MLs didnt say they can modify the BS of snapshots. Dont try to trap me into saying something you know is untrue.

You are claiming a direction, then claiming they stated a result. Which is it?

Sorry Nos I don't understand that last question could you please explain to me what you are asking.

I also don't understand your stance on the MLs they modify the be of snap shots. We agree and according to your interpretation here those snap shots are then at the bs of what ever they were modified to but resolved at bs1. Explain to me why you think this is different. You can't use specific vs generic because your argument claims that resolves at causes no conflict and just over writes everything due to timing.

No, that is your claim to my argument.

Markerlights specify they alter the BS of Snapshots.

Does the CF specify that it overrides Smash? Page and para if you think so

Otehrwise I am confused how you could think the two situations are remotely comparable. You have a specific override vs a standard "profile" with no specific overide.

Pretty much nothing can alter the BS of a snap shot. This is due to the way the rule is written, further backed up by the following FAQ:

Q: Can the BS1 of a Snap Shot ever be modified by special rules that modify the BS of a model’s Shooting attack (such as Space Marine Signums or Sergeant Telion’s Voice of Experience)? (p13)
A: No.

As with most rules, there's an exception. Marker Lights can alter, but only because the rule specifically says Snap Shots. If it didn't mention Snap Shots, then it wouldn't alter them.

In a similar regard, there is nothing in the CF that suggests it can overrule the Smash rule.

But specifying you over rule a rule is clearly only relevant in the case of a conflict. You're claiming there is no conflict as resolves allows the modification of a stat but when you resolve its use it is at the "resolve at" value, avoiding conflict so no way for MLs to change the Bus you resolve a snap shot at.

So which is it? Is resolves at a set value modifier that can be beaten by a more specific rule. Or is it a magically timed rule that prevents a conflict from occurring?

It avoids conflict.
The BS1 of a Snap Shot is not a modifier of the models BS.

Even if a model had their BS modified to 10 (using the GK Psyocculum for example), any Snap Shots are still resolved at BS1. It's not a modifier, the models BS doesn't even come into play.