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.

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.

Cool so MLs can't effect the be of snap shots. That is a pretty weird way of playing that rule. I doubt many people would agreewith you here. For one the Tau codex...

 FlingitNow wrote:

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.

Cool so MLs can't effect the be of snap shots. That is a pretty weird way of playing that rule. I doubt many people would agreewith you here. For one the Tau codex...

They can, because their rule says they can.
If it didn't specifically mention Snap Shots, then no it couldn't.

 FlingitNow wrote:

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.

Cool so MLs can't effect the be of snap shots. That is a pretty weird way of playing that rule. I doubt many people would agreewith you here. For one the Tau codex...

Yet again you are claiming something that isnt true

BS of snap shots can be modified by ML because the codex specifies that, instead of always resolving at BS1 they are can be resolved at higher than BS1 by using ML tokens

DOes CF have similar wording? Or are you yet again making an argument with absolutely no basis, putting words in others mouths and in general failing to follow the tenets by providing any rules to back up your assertions?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

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.

Cool so MLs can't effect the be of snap shots. That is a pretty weird way of playing that rule. I doubt many people would agreewith you here. For one the Tau codex...

Yet again you are claiming something that isnt true

BS of snap shots can be modified by ML because the codex specifies that, instead of always resolving at BS1 they are can be resolved at higher than BS1 by using ML tokens

DOes CF have similar wording? Or are you yet again making an argument with absolutely no basis, putting words in others mouths and in general failing to follow the tenets by providing any rules to back up your assertions?

I've justified my position through out with rules. You've made a statement about how you interpret "resolved at" and are now saying that that interpretation does apply in other situations because you don't want it to.

You've said that resolved at comes in ignoring modifiers and causing no conflict with them. If you apply this to MLs who do not use the resolved at language then the ML modifies the snap shot bs but the shot is still resolved at Bs1. Why is the shot not resolved at bs1? You can't use the more specific rule over rides this because you've stated that the resolved at wording by passes any conflict and therefore any ability to over ride the rule without also using the resolved at wording.

So how are you over riding the resolved at wording in the ML situation. Modify the bs all you want it resolves at bs1 just as smash resolves at AP2.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So how are you over riding the resolved at wording in the ML situation. Modify the bs all you want it resolves at bs1 just as smash resolves at AP2.

Again, because the Marker Light rule states, quite clearly, that it alters Snap Shots.
It's not just a BS increase, it mentions Snap Shots specifically.

If it didn't, then it wouldn't.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So how are you over riding the resolved at wording in the ML situation. Modify the bs all you want it resolves at bs1 just as smash resolves at AP2.

Again, because the Marker Light rule states, quite clearly, that it alters Snap Shots.
It's not just a BS increase, it mentions Snap Shots specifically.

If it didn't, then it wouldn't.

Yes it alters the bs of the snap shots but the shots would still be RESOLVED at Bs1 under your definition of how resolved at works. Unless you're saying resolved at can create a conflict with modifiers which if more specific can then over ride the resolved at Bs?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So how are you over riding the resolved at wording in the ML situation. Modify the bs all you want it resolves at bs1 just as smash resolves at AP2.

Again, because the Marker Light rule states, quite clearly, that it alters Snap Shots.
It's not just a BS increase, it mentions Snap Shots specifically.

If it didn't, then it wouldn't.

Yes it alters the bs of the snap shots but the shots would still be RESOLVED at Bs1 under your definition of how resolved at works. Unless you're saying resolved at can create a conflict with modifiers which if more specific can then over ride the resolved at Bs?

I'm not suggesting any conflict. The rules work quite well together.
Modifiers can be applied to BS that the shot is resolved at, as shown by the Marker Light rule.

2 rules:
1). Alters the BS of a model
2). Alters the BS that Snap Shots are resolved at.

The Grey Knight Psyocculum follows rule 1).
Marker Lights follow rule 2).

The FAQ posted earlier tells that things that follow rule 1). have no effect on rule 2).
So the Psyocculum effects the models BS, but has no effect on the BS that Snap Shots are resolved at.

The BS of Snap Shots is a value that can be modified. To date only one rule has allowed this: Marker Lights.


Edit: This is the FAQ I was refering too:

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.

These are set modifiers to a models BS, but they have no effect on the BS that a Snap Shot is resolved at.

FlingitNow wrote:

I've justified my position through out with rules.

Where? Every time you have been asked to actually support, you hand wave away.

Consistently ignoring the Smash rule for a start

FlingitNow wrote:You've made a statement about how you interpret "resolved at" and are now saying that that interpretation does apply in other situations because you don't want it to.

Do not lie, it reduces your credibility.

FlingitNow wrote:If you apply this to MLs who do not use the resolved at language then the ML modifies the snap shot bs but the shot is still resolved at Bs1.

Sigh. ALready been explained to you what is going on, but you dont want to listen, as it proves you wrong - again.

ML SPECIFIALLYT STATE they can alter the BS a snapshot is resolved at.

Now, ANSWER - does CF specifically state it overrides Smash? If you AGAIN fail to answetr your argument will be considered debunked.

FlingitNow wrote:So how are you over riding the resolved at wording in the ML situation. Modify the bs all you want it resolves at bs1 just as smash resolves at AP2.

Wrong.

Done with you. Back up your assertions with rules. Retract your lies. Answer without ducking, providing rules which show that Smash, an advanced rule wchich specifies how you resolve attacks, is overridden by CF. You have shown ABSOLUTELY NOTYHING so far, and your persistent ignorance of the tenets is grating.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have shown ABSOLUTELY NOTYHING so far, and your persistent ignorance of the tenets is grating.

And yet you keep trying, despite it's fairly obvious that he will never ever budge. I commend your patience :-)

I reckon that because it isn't actually a weapon, that it doesn't have its AP value changed.

And by stating that it is the model making the attacks, they hoped to avoid any unnecessary need for having separate models to represent the combat familiar, leading to people thinking that they can get AP2 attacks with it.

I don't see how anyone in their right mind could think that GW actually intended to allow a "stunted humanoid minion" to suddenly be able to pierce Terminator armour, just because they were rolling with a Daemon Prince.

And if you can see how the rules were intended, then the rules-as-written becomes much clearer. You COULD argue that the combat familiar should get AP2 attacks, but then you'd be wrong, and you'd know it too.

Once this is FAQ'd, they'll say that combat familiar attacks do not benefit from AP2 attacks in any way, I'd almost guarantee it. I say "almost" because they've made some odd decisions in the past, like the Warptime ruling for the last Chaos Codex.

a fat guy: We're not arguing intent, I'd agree with you in they likely intended for Smash not to apply, I'm arguing that by RAW it does. If you want, you could start another thread on intent and HYWPI.

That's fine for an argument of intent - and I'd disagree with that as well.

It's absolutely incorrect as written.

a fat guy wrote:
I reckon that because it isn't actually a weapon, that it doesn't have its AP value changed.

That doesn't matter, as Smash affects "All close combat attacks", not just those of weapons.

I don't see how anyone in their right mind could think that GW actually intended to allow a "stunted humanoid minion" to suddenly be able to pierce Terminator armour, just because they were rolling with a Daemon Prince.

And if you can see how the rules were intended, then the rules-as-written becomes much clearer. You COULD argue that the combat familiar should get AP2 attacks, but then you'd be wrong, and you'd know it too.

Once this is FAQ'd, they'll say that combat familiar attacks do not benefit from AP2 attacks in any way, I'd almost guarantee it. I say "almost" because they've made some odd decisions in the past, like the Warptime ruling for the last Chaos Codex.

Ah but this is a rules debate, not a "how it should be played" debate.
If you look back at my very first post in this thread, I said I don't think this is how the rule is intended, and this isn't how I would play it.
But we're debating the rules as written here.

But surely based on rules as intended, rules as written doesn't matter?

If you know what was meant then why not just go ahead with it?

a fat guy wrote:
But surely based on rules as intended, rules as written doesn't matter?

If you know what was meant then why not just go ahead with it?

We can't be sure how they are intended. We can make a guess, but won't be right 100% of the time.
As with most debates, a "how i would play it" answer is given in the first few posts, then it's on to debating the actual rules.
Many people prefer to play the rules how they are written, instead of trying to guess how they were intended.
Short of asking the designer, we just can't be sure on intent.

a fat guy wrote:
If you know what was meant then why not just go ahead with it?

You cannot prove you know what was meant.

Because we don't always know what the writers intend. Sometimes we can make a reasonable guess as to what the intent is (such as LOS with eye-less models or the Tau Bomber issue).
Other times, we think we know what the intent is and despite GWs attempts still have not quite fixed it (see Blasts and Units out of sight).
Finally, there are times when we think we know the intent and GW does a complete 180, such as embarked Farseers not being able to cast codex powers, or they go against their own previous ruling (such as SitW and embarked Psykers).

 grendel083 wrote:

a fat guy wrote:
But surely based on rules as intended, rules as written doesn't matter?

If you know what was meant then why not just go ahead with it?

We can't be sure how they are intended. We can make a guess, but won't be right 100% of the time.
As with most debates, a "how i would play it" answer is given in the first few posts, then it's on to debating the actual rules.
Many people prefer to play the rules how they are written, instead of trying to guess how they were intended.
Short of asking the designer, we just can't be sure on intent.

We can have a pretty good stab at it if we look past the rules and more into the fluff of the wargear though.

The wargear is always described as being a wholly different and separate being from the model that it is bought for. So why would its attacks be affected at all by the parent model?

I always thought that people went here just to clarify rules by the way, but you make it sound like just want to explore the possibilities of rulings. Kind of like a, I dunno, rules club?

I only started commenting to try to help by the way, if you guys just wanna talk about rules as written then I'll clear off!

Ha! Yeah it's sort of a combination of "rules club" and clarifying rules.
If you have a question on a rule, ask it, just be clear what sort of answer you want, a strict rules answer, or a more practical "how i would play it answer".

a fat guy wrote:
The wargear is always described as being a wholly different and separate being from the model that it is bought for. So why would its attacks be affected at all by the parent model?

Because the wargear in question says that the parent model makes additional close combat attacks.

I only started commenting to try to help by the way, if you guys just wanna talk about rules as written then I'll clear off!

There is no problem with explaining HYWPI, as long as you make it clear that you are not talking RAW.

So Nos starting from the top:

I have cited the rules I am talking about. I have also never ignored the smash rule at any point. This is you actually lying.

I haven't lied. I asked if I had it right on how "resolved at" works. You said yes that is correct. I applied that to the ML situation and you provided no reason why it worked differently there.

Again you accuse me of lying when we both know that I haven't.That's you lying yet again.

So ML specifically state they alter what Bs snap shots are resolved at do they? Citation please.

No CF does not specifically state it over rides Smash. Does smash specifically state it over rules CF or indeed any other special rule?

"Wrong please stop lying" does not constitute a rules argument nor does falsely calling some one a liar whilst lying yourself. Nor does claiming someone is ignoring the tenets of YMDC.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So Nos starting from the top:

I have cited the rules I am talking about. I have also never ignored the smash rule at any point. This is you actually lying.

I haven't lied. I asked if I had it right on how "resolved at" works. You said yes that is correct. I applied that to the ML situation and you provided no reason why it worked differently there.

Again you accuse me of lying when we both know that I haven't.That's you lying yet again.

So ML specifically state they alter what Bs snap shots are resolved at do they? Citation please.

No CF does not specifically state it over rides Smash. Does smash specifically state it over rules CF or indeed any other special rule?

"Wrong please stop lying" does not constitute a rules argument nor does falsely calling some one a liar whilst lying yourself. Nor does claiming someone is ignoring the tenets of YMDC.

Smash certainly does, I reference the "all of the CC attacks, excepth HoW attacks". Are the CF attacks from the MC? If so than Smash is applied.

Smash certainly does, I reference the "all of the CC attacks, excepth HoW attacks". Are the CF attacks from the MC? If so than Smash is applied.

Yes smash applies. Are the attacks from the CF rule? Then CF applies. They BOTH apply, causing conflict which needs to be resolved. Unless you're claiming that Smash specifically over rides CF in which case I'll need citation.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Smash certainly does, I reference the "all of the CC attacks, excepth HoW attacks". Are the CF attacks from the MC? If so than Smash is applied.

Yes smash applies. Are the attacks from the CF rule? Then CF applies. They BOTH apply, causing conflict which needs to be resolved. Unless you're claiming that Smash specifically over rides CF in which case I'll need citation.

So you're saying the Black Mace also strikes at AP4?
If not, why?

You previously answered with this:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Isn't this just a case of specific vs general. The Smash rule specifies the attacks over rule the AP of any weapon wielded hence the Mace is AP2. Chaos Familiar is not a weapon so the general rule that MCs smash at Ap2 is over ruled by the more specific rule that the attacks an MC makes with its familiar are AP-.

Are you sticking with this answer, or would you like to give a different one?

And we're back to where we were 2 days ago, good job everyone.

Grendel that was clearly a joke based on people miss quoting how general vs specific works. I'll go with the actual answer I have given every time you have asked the question. I will not change from that answer unless that argument gets debunked.

Marker Lights don't modify the BS of the model firing snap shots, it modifies the BS at which snap shots are resolved (as in, it's a modifier that modifies a modifier). It isn't the same as Smash resolving at AP2. If the Combat Familiar said it resolved at AP- there'd be a conflict, but as it is it hits at AP- and is then modified at AP2 because Smash is a set modifier.

it modifies the BS at which snap shots are resolved

Citation please.

it's a modifier that modifies a modifier

But Nos' argument hinges on it not being a modifier. It does not change anything just resolves at a different value.

 FlingitNow wrote:

it modifies the BS at which snap shots are resolved

Citation please.

it's a modifier that modifies a modifier

But Nos' argument hinges on it not being a modifier. It does not change anything just resolves at a different value.

As to the citation read the ML rules it's very clear. If the value I resolve an effect at can be changed by the application of certain rules, then those certain rules are a modifier.
Unlike a snap shot having a weapons profile is not the same as "resolve at" because "resolve at" is used in the rules for an over riding set modifier that doesn't usually allow for any modification unless specifically stated. AP 1 in smash or ML and snap shots being the examples that come up in this thread.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Smash certainly does, I reference the "all of the CC attacks, excepth HoW attacks". Are the CF attacks from the MC? If so than Smash is applied.

Yes smash applies. Are the attacks from the CF rule? Then CF applies. They BOTH apply, causing conflict which needs to be resolved. Unless you're claiming that Smash specifically over rides CF in which case I'll need citation.

It does not specifically, it always if it's a CC attack.