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

And CF attacks are always AP-. Hence conflict. One rule requires you to be AP2 the other requires you to be AP-.

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

ML makes no reference to what BS the shots are resolved at. It is a set modifier, for the rest of your post to hold true ML has to state that it modifies the BS snap shots are resolved at. It does not.

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

And CF attacks are always AP-. Hence conflict. One rule requires you to be AP2 the other requires you to be AP-.

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

ML makes no reference to what BS the shots are resolved at. It is a set modifier, for the rest of your post to hold true ML has to state that it modifies the BS snap shots are resolved at. It does not.

CF is Str4 ap-, All CC attacks made my MC's are resolved at ap2.( Unless they're AP1 as we know)

Not seeing the conflict. Seems cut and dry. CF is just another poorly written rule from GW.

Fling - yes, you lied. You stated another lie there when you said I did not provide any reason why Marker lights worke d- when I did, repeatedly. You just ignore it as you dont like it as an answer, but it doesnt alter the truth.

Your argument is done, as it has been debunked more than once. Until you can provide a rules quote to support why black mace is AP2 while CF isnt, which you HAVE NOT done, I will not respond to you. There is no value in doing so, as there is no evidence that anyone else misunderstands the rule.

You see no conflict with one saying saying you must be AP- and the other saying you must be AP2. So how do you resolve the attack if you do not use AP- you are breaking the CF rule. Likewise if you do use AP- you ate breaking the smash rule. How would you resolve it without breaking either rule?

Fling, I'm seeing the same conflict of AP- v AP2 (CFv Smash) as AP4 v AP2 (Black Mace v Smash). And yet you still have not answered why Smash applies to one and not the other.

Fling, any attack is ap - unless stated otherwise. A MC without any weapons is making ap "-" attacks that are resolved as per smash at ap 2.

In the interests of trying to reduce how much we go round in circles I'll clarify my position again:

Smash is a set modifier that sets the AP of CC attacks to 2 (page42).
Black Mace is a weapon with a weapon profile of AP4.
CF is war gear that adds 2 attacks and set modifies them to AP- (and S4).

Are we all agreed on the above? (Yes I know Nos thinks that resolves at is a magical set modifier that works differently whenhe wants it to).

So Smash vs Black Mace is easy. One is a base profile the other a modifier so modifier wins as modifiers specifically modify base profiles. If you disagree with this simple you have to look which rule is more specific, and fortunately here smash tells us how it interacts with weapons in that the only weapons that beat it are AP1. So again here Smash wins.

What about Smash vs CF. Well both are set modifiers so neither wins. Smash does not specify how it interacts with set modifiers from other special rules and neither does CF. So no resolution either way there. So we have no way to resolve the conflict until the rulebook comes in on page 7 and says the codex rule wins. So we get AP- on those CF attacks.

Nos' stance has been that resolves at is a special set modifier that doesn't actually modify anything but simply changes what you do when resolving an attack. However this means that resolves at beats everything unless that thing also alters the resolved at value. Essentially he is creating 3 values for a stat the one the stat actually is, one it is modified to and the one it is resolved at. Hence breaking MLs as they are modifiers with specific permission to over rule certain set modifiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fling, any attack is ap - unless stated otherwise. A MC without any weapons is making ap "-" attacks that are resolved as per smash at ap 2.

Sorry but this is not correct. All normal CC attacks are made with a weapon now and use the AP of the weapon. A MC with no weapons counts as having a CCW which has a profile of S- "as user" and AP-. Smash modifies that weapon profile as it is a set modifier to AP2.

CF does not give a set modifier, it just has a profile.
Otherwise a bolter has a set modifier or anything that has a number in a rule is a set modifier.

CF does not give a set modifier, it just has a profile.
Otherwise a bolter has a set modifier or anything that has a number in a rule is a set modifier

What type of profile? A characteristic profile or a weapon profile? If it is not one of those two it is a set value modifier (as those are the only 2 types of profile listed). It does not create a new type of profile because it does not say that it does (indeed it does not mention profiles at all).

FlingitNow wrote:]In the interests of trying to reduce how much we go round in circles I'll clarify my position again:

Smash is a set modifier that sets the AP of CC attacks to 2 (page42).

No, it resolves the attcks at AP2. Try to be precise in your wording, for once.

FlingitNow wrote:]Black Mace is a weapon with a weapon profile of AP4.

Agreed

FlingitNow wrote:]CF is war gear that adds 2 attacks and set modifies them to AP- (and S4).

Disagree. State where the modifier is, page and paragraph. There is a profile given for 2 attacks. Or are you claiming that a weapon profile is a set modifier, as it lists an AP value?

LIsting an AP value does not make it always a set modifier. If you disagree, page and paragraph

FlingitNow wrote:]Are we all agreed on the above? (Yes I know Nos thinks that resolves at is a magical set modifier that works differently whenhe wants it to).

You just cannot stop with the lying and personal attacks can you? Reported.

FlingitNow wrote:]So Smash vs Black Mace is easy. One is a base profile the other a modifier so modifier wins as modifiers specifically modify base profiles. If you disagree with this simple you have to look which rule is more specific, and fortunately here smash tells us how it interacts with weapons in that the only weapons that beat it are AP1. So again here Smash wins.

Actually Smash works against ALL close combat attacks. All of them.

FlingitNow wrote:]What about Smash vs CF. Well both are set modifiers so neither wins.

HEre is where your incorrect premise destroys your argument. You have created, out of thin air, this concept that AP- from the close combat attacks is a set modifier. It isnt. You juyst made that up, to fit your argument

FlingitNow wrote:]So we have no way to resolve the conflict until the rulebook comes in on page 7 and says the codex rule wins. So we get AP- on those CF attacks.

Apart from where you are told that ALL attacks are AP2, unless a weapon specifies it is AP1. Now, which one is more specific here? Oh, thats right, NOT CF. Guess this means CF doesnt "win", and the attacks are AP2

FlingitNow wrote:]Nos' stance has been that resolves at is a special set modifier that doesn't actually modify anything but simply changes what you do when resolving an attack.

Stop lying about my stance. I have corrected you on this. I have not said it is a special set modifier. Try to avoid lying.

FlingitNow wrote:]However this means that resolves at beats everything unless that thing also alters the resolved at value. Essentially he is creating 3 values for a stat the one the stat actually is, one it is modified to and the one it is resolved at. Hence breaking MLs as they are modifiers with specific permission to over rule certain set modifiers.

Nope, still wrong. Stop making things up.

It's a attack profile, it tells you that it's two attacks at S4, AP "-". Same as a servo arm is a weapon's profile. Only models or certain terrain pieces have characteristics profiles.

It's not a set modifier unless it modifies something. 2 additional attacks at a given profile is not a modifier as per the brb's definition of modifier.

FlingitNow wrote:

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

And CF attacks are always AP-. Hence conflict. One rule requires you to be AP2 the other requires you to be AP-.

There is nothing in the Combat Familiar rules that say anything like "these attack are always AP -" "these attacks are resolved at AP -" or "these attacks are unaffected by the model's special rules"

FlingitNow wrote:

CF does not give a set modifier, it just has a profile.
Otherwise a bolter has a set modifier or anything that has a number in a rule is a set modifier

What type of profile? A characteristic profile or a weapon profile? If it is not one of those two it is a set value modifier (as those are the only 2 types of profile listed). It does not create a new type of profile because it does not say that it does (indeed it does not mention profiles at all).

There are things with a profile that aren't weapons or characteristics, such as psychic shooting attacks and Vector Strike (note that, unlike Combat Familiar, these attacks are specified to be resolved at Str User AP 3, and are thus unaffected by special rules).

PSA are weapon profiles.

So Nos is again incorrectly calling me a liar whilst accusing me of personal attacks which just beggars belief.

So CF has a weapon profile? Therefore please tell its type as this is required for a profile.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So Nos is again incorrectly calling me a liar whilst accusing me of personal attacks which just beggars belief.

where Flingitnow lies about my position and brings a personal attack wrote:
Are we all agreed on the above? (Yes I know Nos thinks that resolves at is a magical set modifier that works differently whenhe wants it to).

This post contains the lie - I did not, and do not "think" that resolve is a "magical set modifier that works differently whenhe (sic) wants it to"

So yes, you are lying

The personal attack is a) you are attacking me, the indifivual by saying b) I have belief in a "magical" set modifier.

I am really shocked that I would have to point this out in such detail to you. Well, not that shocked. Do you now agree that what you posted was a lie? For a start you cannot actually know what I am thinking, just make a guess - or is this another case where you "know" something you cant actually know, like when you claim to know the authors intent when they wrote the rules?


[quote=FlingitNowSo CF has a weapon profile? Therefore please tell its type as this is required for a profile.

Bollocks it is. An attack does not need a type when it is a cc attack or a special attack, calling it a weapon's profile is shorthand for what people call somehting that has a stength and AP value. If you want to play stupid games, what is the weapon type of Lucius the eternal's attacks that are inflicted when he passes a save? Or do those attacks not count because they use a set modifier too?

What is the issue here? We have 2 attacks with a stated profile, we have another rule that dictates that all attacks are made at AP2.

Vector Strike - Reoslved at Strength: User AP: 3, cannot be altered, even by codex rules, without explicit permission (Iron Arm does not increase Strength of a Vector Strike)

Snap Shot - shots are resolved at BS 1, cannot be altered, even by codex rules, without explicit permission (unaffected by Signum, affected by Markerlights)

Smash - Close Combat attacks resolved at AP 2, cannot be altered, even by codex rules, without explicit permission (Affected by Hammer of Wrath and AP 1 weapons, unaffected by AP 3+ weapons)

Combat Familiar does not have permission to override the AP 2 of Smash, therefore it does not according to the rules as they are written.

 FlingitNow wrote:
What about Smash vs CF. Well both are set modifiers so neither wins.

Wrong. Assuming either are set modifier, then the CF is the value, Smash is the set modifier. The AP- of CF definitely isn't a set modifier, it's the initial value (it modifies nothing, it is modified).

All normal CC attacks are made with a weapon now

Also wrong. Unless you can provide a page quote?
An irrelevant either way. CF is not a weapon, which is fine as Smash works with "all close combat attacks" not just the attacks from weapons.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
What about Smash vs CF. Well both are set modifiers so neither wins.

Wrong. Assuming either are set modifier, then the CF is the value, Smash is the set modifier. The AP- of CF definitely isn't a set modifier, it's the initial value (it modifies nothing, it is modified).

Exactly. The mind boggles that anyone can call the *initial* value of something a "modified" value. Just crazy

grendel083 wrote:

All normal CC attacks are made with a weapon now

Also wrong. Unless you can provide a page quote?
An irrelevant either way. CF is not a weapon, which is fine as Smash works with "all close combat attacks" not just the attacks from weapons.

Yep, there is a rule saying that close combat attacks CAN be made with a weapon, however Hammer of Wrath certainly DOESNT use a CCW yet is a close combat attack. Cleansing Flame is a close combat attack that doesnt use a CCW. And so on.

It's fine Grendel, he argues that I'm wrong because I'm right.
All models count as having a ccw if they have no other weapons and their as such attacks are ap "-" which is the same as all attacks are ap "-" unless otherwise.
Unfortunately CF is additional attacks.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It's fine Grendel, he argues that I'm wrong because I'm right.

We can but try.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

All normal CC attacks are made with a weapon now

Also wrong. Unless you can provide a page quote?
An irrelevant either way. CF is not a weapon, which is fine as Smash works with "all close combat attacks" not just the attacks from weapons.

Yep, there is a rule saying that close combat attacks CAN be made with a weapon, however Hammer of Wrath certainly DOESNT use a CCW yet is a close combat attack. Cleansing Flame is a close combat attack that doesnt use a CCW. And so on.

That reminds me if another point I was going to make with the whole "the context of Smash is CC weapons" argument.
The rule starts with "All close combat attacks", then before it even mentions weapons, it brings up a non-weapon close combat attack (Hammer of Wrath).
You don't set context with the 3rd type of attack mentioned (all, non-weapon, weapon). Non-weapon attacks are mentioned as much as weapon attacks. The context is clearly "all close combat attacks".

Oh definitely, that shoudlnt even be in dispute - I think even DR has accepted that now.

"All close combat attacks" is fairly clear; AL close combat attacks are AP2.

CF is a close combat attack. It is AP2. Only by trying Flings "make up a rule" to try to claim CF is a set modifier can you even attempt to argue the otherwise clear as anything rule.

It's not make up a rule though... it looks more like a fundamental misunderstanding of modifiers and a belief that debates are a marathon not a meeting of ideas to find a conclusion.

Set modifiers isnt a made up rule - claiming that the proffile version of something is a "set modififer" definitely IS a made up rule. As is claiming ALL close combat attacks are made with a CCW, etc.

There hasnt been debate in a while, sadly

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Fling, any attack is ap - unless stated otherwise. A MC without any weapons is making ap "-" attacks that are resolved as per smash at ap 2.

Except every model in the game carries a Close Combat weapon as per the BRB.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Fling, any attack is ap - unless stated otherwise. A MC without any weapons is making ap "-" attacks that are resolved as per smash at ap 2.

Except every model in the game carries a Close Combat weapon as per the BRB.

The relevance of that statement is ... ?

Irrelevant to the contention that every CC attack is made with a weapon, which is proven to be incorrect over and over.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except every model in the game carries a Close Combat weapon as per the BRB.

Doesn't mean every close combat attack is made with a weapon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
What about Smash vs CF. Well both are set modifiers so neither wins.

Wrong. Assuming either are set modifier, then the CF is the value, Smash is the set modifier. The AP- of CF definitely isn't a set modifier, it's the initial value (it modifies nothing, it is modified).

Exactly. The mind boggles that anyone can call the *initial* value of something a "modified" value. Just crazy

This. CF adda additional attacks, Smash modifies the resolution of these attacks.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Fling, any attack is ap - unless stated otherwise. A MC without any weapons is making ap "-" attacks that are resolved as per smash at ap 2.

Except every model in the game carries a Close Combat weapon as per the BRB.

The relevance of that statement is ... ?

I was simply letting him know that "A MC without any weapons" Still is treated as having a CCW.