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.

Treated as having =/= as having.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Treated as having =/= as having.

In the 40k rules, they are the same.

Not sure you're right there. They are functionally almost identical but treated as doesn't mean is.

For example you treat something as difficult terrain for a given unit. It doesn't make that terrain difficult, you just make the difficult terrain check.

For a ccw, if a model had no listed ccw and could purchase one if treated as = is, then that model could get +1 attacks since it has now got 2 ccws.

Once you purchase one you no longer qualify for the not having a weapon with the melee type...

"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." P.51

 liturgies of blood wrote:
For example you treat something as difficult terrain for a given unit. It doesn't make that terrain difficult, you just make the difficult terrain check.

As far as that unit is concerned it is difficult terrain. There's no difference.

For a ccw, if a model had no listed ccw and could purchase one if treated as = is, then that model could get +1 attacks since it has now got 2 ccws.

You should reread the "free" CCW rules.

So from reading everything from this so far:
AP2 side (Group A) is saying that all CC attacks are effected by Smash.
AP- side (Group B) says only weapons are effected by Smash.

Having both books in front of me, as well as a 3rd book (which will be relevant later in the post).

C:CSM, p67, Combat Familiar, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence "A model with a combat familiar makes two additional Strength 4 AP- Melee Attacks"

BRB p42, Smash, 2nd Paragraph, 1st 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's attacking with an AP1 weapon)

So group A's point of view is that the wording of smash affects all close combat attacks, resolving their AP at 2. The parenthesis, however, provides an exclusion in the case where the model is using an AP1 weapon. This can be extrapolated that any close combat attack, with the exclusion of Hammer of Wrath attacks, and attacks made with an AP1 weapon, are instead resolved at AP2.

Group B says that because the Combat Familiar is not a weapon, it does not benefit from it's attacks being resolved at AP2, due to the exclusion of AP1 weapons keeping their AP value. This can be extrapolated that only close combat attacks made with weapons are modified to AP2, unless they are AP1. Any model that either has no close combat weapons, or any attacks gained due to a special rule or wargear that does not come from a weapon, are not at resolved at AP2.

This is where Book#3 comes in. Since this is technically a debate on the application of the Smash rule, any other codex is effected by it as well. Book#3 is Codex: Tyranids. By the wording of the section labeled "Tyranid Close Combat Weapons," on page 33, Tyranid models are not armed with close combat weapons, and use their natural appendages to make their attacks in close combat. Group A's view would allow any model in this codex with the Smash special rule to have their attacks resolved at AP2, including bonus attacks, such as from the Crushing Claws biomorph. Group B's view, however seems to be that because Tyranid models with the smash rule strikes with no weapons, and therefore the Smash rule never applies to their attacks, nor any bonus attacks derived form the previously mentioned Crushing Claws biomorph.


From reading this 10 page thread of verbal tennis, this is as much insight into the issue as I can gain. I side with Group A, as it seems to take the more logical approach. Group B seems to want to use the exclusion as the primary precedence, instead of the primary context of the rule.

And one last thing, everyone seems to love throwing around this 'permissive rule set' phrase, could someone please direct me to the location where such is mentioned in the BRB? I have been unable to locate it anywhere.

 StarHunter25 wrote:
And one last thing, everyone seems to love throwing around this 'permissive rule set' phrase, could someone please direct me to the location where such is mentioned in the BRB? I have been unable to locate it anywhere.

That is because you won't find it anywhere in the rulebook. The premise behind permissive rules is that the rules have to give you permission to do something in order for you to be able to do that. All the rules for Warhammer are either - "you can do this" or "you cannot do that". The other type of rules (restrictive?) allow you to do anything you want in the game except when it says you cannot.

Look at this way - in order to play a game you have to be told what everything can do, otherwise how do we know who can do what? Laws are the opposite - they tell us what we cannot do. We can do whatever we want as long as we don't break a law in the process.

The "permissive ruleset" idea is more about how the rules are written rather than a rule itself. If 40k was a restrictive ruleset rather than permissive, that would mean you could do anything the rules didn't explicitly forbid, such as deep striking during the assault phase, or during your opponent's turn (Deathmarks notwithstanding), we'd turn Warhammer into Calvinball 40k. Pretty much every game is a permissive ruleset.

The Tyranid CCW argument is an interesting one, though there is debate on whether or not Scything Talons, etc. count as close combat weapons or not, certainly those with Claws and Teeth are armed with close combat weapons according to the Codex entry on page 83.

If combat familiar said " A model with combat familiar gains 2 additional attacks." I would agree that Smash affects it. Since it states "S4, AP- attacks" I would label it as a more specific rule and treat it much the same as HoW attacks.

Fragile wrote:
If combat familiar said " A model with combat familiar gains 2 additional attacks." I would agree that Smash affects it. Since it states "S4, AP- attacks" I would label it as a more specific rule and treat it much the same as HoW attacks.

The problem here is you then get into the problem of every close combat weapon not listed in the rulebook being more specific then Smash, and suddenly the majority of MCs are attacking at AP-. Plus Hammer of Wrath doesn't get an exception because you're told to make it at AP-, it gets an exception because it is one of the two exceptions listed in the Smash rule, Combat Familiar is not.

Fragile wrote:
If combat familiar said " A model with combat familiar gains 2 additional attacks." I would agree that Smash affects it. Since it states "S4, AP- attacks" I would label it as a more specific rule and treat it much the same as HoW attacks.

And the only reason Smash doesn't work with HoW is because its explicitly called out as not working.
It's like rules matter or something.

Fragile wrote:
If combat familiar said " A model with combat familiar gains 2 additional attacks." I would agree that Smash affects it. Since it states "S4, AP- attacks" I would label it as a more specific rule and treat it much the same as HoW attacks.

So Black Mace DPs strike at AP4?

Oh, no, they dont. HoW is Ap- because it is stated that smash doesnt work on it, no other reason

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The problem here is you then get into the problem of every close combat weapon not listed in the rulebook being more specific then Smash, and suddenly the majority of MCs are attacking at AP-. Plus Hammer of Wrath doesn't get an exception because you're told to make it at AP-, it gets an exception because it is one of the two exceptions listed in the Smash rule, Combat Familiar is not.

The difference is that Combat Familiar is not a weapon, so the comparisons to weapons are inaccurate.

And the only reason Smash doesn't work with HoW is because its explicitly called out as not working.
It's like rules matter or something.

Only on even numbered days of the month do they matter. Odd numbered days are a free for all. And HoW is not the topic of discussion here.

So Black Mace DPs strike at AP4?

Again, your comparing apples to oranges. The CF is a wargear item that grants two specific attacks not a weapon. That is more specific than the general Smash USR.

Fragile wrote:

And the only reason Smash doesn't work with HoW is because its explicitly called out as not working.
It's like rules matter or something.

Only on even numbered days of the month do they matter. Odd numbered days are a free for all. And HoW is not the topic of discussion here.

Hmmm I wonder who brought up HoW....

Fragile wrote:
If combat familiar said " A model with combat familiar gains 2 additional attacks." I would agree that Smash affects it. Since it states "S4, AP- attacks" I would label it as a more specific rule and treat it much the same as HoW attacks.

Oh - you did! So yes, you introduced it to the topic of discussion. Please, tell the class why HoW has an exception but CF doesn't and yet they should be treated the same.

So Black Mace DPs strike at AP4?

Again, your comparing apples to oranges. The CF is a wargear item that grants two specific attacks not a weapon. That is more specific than the general Smash USR.

How is a weapon less specific than another piece of wargear?

How is a weapon less specific than another piece of wargear?

Because Smash specifically tells us how it interacts with weapons nut remains silent on other Wargear perhaps? Which you already know. Also weapons have a profile that Smash modifies. CF does not have a weapon profile and is itself a set modifier like HoW or Vector Strike.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Because Smash specifically tells us how it interacts with weapons nut remains silent on other Wargear perhaps?

Well, yes. If you are talking about AP1 weapons (which is the only time weapons are even mentioned in regards to Smash).

Also weapons have a profile that Smash modifies. CF does not have a weapon profile and is itself a set modifier like HoW or Vector Strike.

So TMCs cannot benefit from Smash as they do not have CCW?

 Happyjew wrote:

Also weapons have a profile that Smash modifies. CF does not have a weapon profile and is itself a set modifier like HoW or Vector Strike.

So TMCs cannot benefit from Smash as they do not have CCW?

Except TMC's are treated as having a Weapon as per Page 51

"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."

All TMC's that are not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, are treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon so Even TMC's have weapons.

So TMCs cannot benefit from Smash as they do not have CCW

Well obviously not with no CCW you can't make any CC attacks... Fortunately page 51 helps us out here.

Bad phrasing on my part -
So TMCs cannot benefit from Smash as they do not use a CCW.

 Happyjew wrote:
Bad phrasing on my part -
So TMCs cannot benefit from Smash as they do not use a CCW.

If not attacking with a CCW you have no profile to resolve the attacks or modify with smash. In 6th Nid MCs have to use a CCW to attack.

What page is it on that says a model has to attack using a ccw?

I know the Tyranid codex says that Tyranids do not wield close combat weapons.

"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 rules are written.

You are given permission to attack with a CCW where is your permission to do so without one. What S and AP would you use and why.

And you are given permission to use AP2 from Smash for all close combat attacks. Where is your permission to do otherwise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You are given permission to attack with a CCW where is your permission to do so without one. What S and AP would you use and why.

Per page 24 of the rulebook you would use the Strength Characteristic of the attacker. Per page 26, you get an armour save unless the attacking model is using a weapon with a good enough AP value. So..Strength of the model, no AP.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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 rules are written.

Sure - but TMCs do not use weapons. So artificially limiting Smash also neuters TMCs.
They can have any number of CCWs. They just don't use them (page 33 C:T)

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh - you did! So yes, you introduced it to the topic of discussion. Please, tell the class why HoW has an exception but CF doesn't and yet they should be treated the same.

Really, so if I say treat something like HoW, please tell the class, would that be affected by Smash or unaffected by Smash. Your grasping at straws attempting to attack something that wasn't said.

This entire discussion comes down to what weight you place on Smash vs CF. Whichever one you think is more specific is the one that will apply.

Well lets see...CF grants the model two additional cc attacks. Smash affects all cc attacks (except HOW and those made with AP1 weapons).

IMO Smash wins.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh - you did! So yes, you introduced it to the topic of discussion. Please, tell the class why HoW has an exception but CF doesn't and yet they should be treated the same.

Really, so if I say treat something like HoW, please tell the class, would that be affected by Smash or unaffected by Smash. Your grasping at straws attempting to attack something that wasn't said.

Well if you treat something like HoW, and HoW has an exception you'd have to create an exception for zero reason... Since HoW has one.

This entire discussion comes down to what weight you place on Smash vs CF. Whichever one you think is more specific is the one that will apply.

And if you think a wargear is more specific you have to dance around why weapons aren't also more specific (also being wargear and all).

rigeld2 wrote:
And if you think a wargear is more specific you have to dance around why weapons aren't also more specific (also being wargear and all).

Lets look at that codex for another piece of wargear that grants additional attacks...

Daemon Weapons. ""....2+, the model gets that many additional attacks .....""

Notice no mention of S or AP in that generic "bonus" attacks? Why would they then specify that the CF is S4 and AP- then?

Because "Daemon Weapon" is a special rule granting the attacks (possibly as a modifier to the models Attack characteristic, not sure the exact wording) and CF is a piece of wargear that grants the owning model additional attacks?