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.

Fling - those attacks did not exist, and they were created to have this fixed strength and ap. They have not modified a single, damn thing, and no matter your condescension on this, you have yet to provide any proof that this is a set modifier

Given the rules on modifiers themselves disagrees with your assessment, until yo ucan provide rules that show this new type of set modifier isnt jsut something you made up, I will stop responding to your argument - it is utterly pointless to do so.

At the moment this is just acting as a general service message, so others dont think your argument has merit.

FlingitNow: Of course Combat Familiar applies to the extra attacks. Likewise, the Black Mace applies to attack made with it, but attacks made with an AP 4 weapon by something with Smash are still AP 2.

As for furious charge + combat familiar, that would depend on whether the strength is considered a set modifier or not, unlike AP and number of attacks Strength is a model characteristic... I'd say, given the rules for modifiers, you'd go from the strength of the model, +1, then set to 4 by Combat Familiar.

I'm not stating it is a new type of modifier I am using the modifier rules page 2:

"Certain pieces of war gear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it"

Does CF add to the attacks characteristic? If yes then it is a modifier. If no citation required as CF disagrees with you.

"... or even setting its value"

Does CF set the value of the S & AP of those attacks? If yes then it is a modifier. If no citation required as CF disagrees with you.

Again, you are claiming that these attacks, added from nowhere, inherit a Strength and AP that is then changed.

Prove that they do. page and para. NOw.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CC rules are written on the basis that all models have a CCW as per the quotes about CCW's i gave earlier (Page 51)

Great - now if you can find any rule that says all CC attacks are made with a CCW you might possibly have a point. You're making an assumption without support to make that jump.

All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CC rules are written on the basis that all models have a CCW as per the quotes about CCW's i gave earlier (Page 51)

Great - now if you can find any rule that says all CC attacks are made with a CCW you might possibly have a point. You're making an assumption without support to make that jump.

All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Hammer of Wrath.
Cleansing Flame

Shall we carry on, disproving you again? I thought you had noted these before, as they keep getting brought up every time you make your claim above

MOST close combat attacks are made with a Close Combat weapon. Not all. You have simply made up that claim, and have no rules backing to support it

So, can you now accept your error?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The CC rules are written on the basis that all models have a CCW as per the quotes about CCW's i gave earlier (Page 51)

Great - now if you can find any rule that says all CC attacks are made with a CCW you might possibly have a point. You're making an assumption without support to make that jump.

All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

All models have a CCW. This does not mean that all CC attacks are made with a CCW.
What weapon is a Combat Familiar's attacks made with?
What weapon is a Hammer of Wrath made with?
What weapon is a Cleansing Flame made with?
What weapon does a Chariot use?

Again, you are claiming that these attacks, added from nowhere, inherit a Strength and AP that is then changed

How else would you resolve attacks that have been added? Unless you're claiming that there is no way to resolve the extra attacks from charging, warp speed, rage etc that add attacks?

So you are still claiming that CF is a new magical profile that isn't defined anywhere in the rules. Please find some rules to support your stand point.

Or ANY rules that state CF isn't a series of modifiers? As I've proven that they are and you have yet to come up with a single shred of evidence that they are not...

HoW and CF do not disprove that the CC rules (the ones that detail how to attack in CC on pages 20-28) are written on the basis that all models have a melee weapon to attack with.

There is no mention of CF or HoW in the CC rules...

Not an error, and you have disproven nothing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
HoW and CF do not disprove that the CC rules (the ones that detail how to attack in CC on pages 20-28) are written on the basis that all models have a melee weapon to attack with.

There is no mention of CF or HoW in the CC rules...

Not an error, and you have disproven nothing.

And the CC rules don't dictate anything about Smash. You're attempting to relate them and you should not.

Sigh. Still not getting through.

"Profile" is not simply a defined 40k term. Using it deos not require that I find a page and paragraph for it. Understand this trivial concept?

No, you hve asserted they are a set modifier. Not proven. The yawning chasm between the two is called "your lack of rules support for your claims"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
HoW and CF do not disprove that the CC rules (the ones that detail how to attack in CC on pages 20-28) are written on the basis that all models have a melee weapon to attack with.

There is no mention of CF or HoW in the CC rules...

Not an error, and you have disproven nothing.

And Smash, which is not on those pages, states it applies to ALL attacks - which would include HoW, apart from that pesky exclusion you so conveniently forget.
You claim that ALL close combat attacks are made with a CCW is debunked, agreed? Can we at least get you to agree on the trivially debunked arguments you have made, so we can see where your rules deviation is going on?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
HoW and CF do not disprove that the CC rules (the ones that detail how to attack in CC on pages 20-28) are written on the basis that all models have a melee weapon to attack with.

There is no mention of CF or HoW in the CC rules...

Not an error, and you have disproven nothing.

And the CC rules don't dictate anything about Smash. You're attempting to relate them and you should not.

Smash equates itself to attacking with a weapon, CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

This is because if a model has Smash they make attacks with their weapons at AP2 "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

Smash confirms that the model uses the weapon to attack with.

No, Smash states it applies to ALL attacks. In a parenthetical statement it then tells you what happens if you attack with an AP1 weapon.

Smash would apply to How, apart from the exclusion. Smash would apply to Cleansing Flame as well, if any MC could get it. So, can you perhaps answer how easily your context argument has been destroyed by for once acknolwedging your error?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You claim that ALL close combat attacks are made with a CCW is debunked, agreed?

I claim that the CC rules on page 20-28 are written on the basis that all CC attacks are made with a weapon.

There are some exceptions to this rule such as HoW or CF.

Smash is not one of these exceptions.

CF is one of these exceptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, Smash states it applies to ALL attacks. In a parenthetical statement it then tells you what happens if you attack with an AP1 weapon.

and in context the MC makes attacks with a weapon. Made solid by the parenthetical that shows that MC attack with weapons.

Smash deals with weapons, Combat Familiar is not a weapon it is a special rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash equates itself to attacking with a weapon

That's an incorrect assumption. The only way to override the AP2 is with an AP1 weapon, but that does not mean that only weapons are modified - indeed, if Rending gave AP1 then a Rending MC would not benefit from Smash on Rending attacks.

, CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

This is because if a model has Smash they make attacks with their weapons at AP2 "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

So an AP1 special rule would not be ignored in favor of Smash according to you?

Smash confirms that the model uses the weapon to attack with.

Incorrect - assumption without support.

Profile" is not simply a defined 40k term. Using it deos not require that I find a page and paragraph for it. Understand this trivial concept?

No, you hve asserted they are a set modifier. Not proven. The yawning chasm between the two is called "your lack of rules support for your claims"

Except I have supported it. With rules you have neglected to make any attempt to refute. Hence you've come up with this deliberate lie that I have a lack of rules support for my claim. I presume this is an attempt to hand wave away that your claim lacks ANY support in the rules.

The rules do define profiles. You are claiming this is a new type of profile yet CF makes no mention of that. It does however follow directly the rules laid out for modifiers.

Once again Nos I have to ask you to please provide some rules to support your outlandish claims. Or concede. I don't mind which.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

Not an assumption. Cleansing Flame is a Psychic power, not a CCW as Cleansing flame does not have the Melee type...

And the Combat Familiar has a profile which does not include the word melee or have a - for its range.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is because if a model has Smash they make attacks with their weapons at AP2 "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

So an AP1 special rule would not be ignored in favor of Smash according to you?

There are no AP1 special rules...

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash confirms that the model uses the weapon to attack with.

Incorrect - assumption without support.

It clearly points to the fact by saying "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon" showing that models make attacks with Melee weapons (Confirmed by the context of the CC rules p.20-28), and these attacks are AP2 unless the model with Smash is "attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

Not an assumption. Cleansing Flame is a Psychic power, not a CCW as Cleansing flame does not have the Melee type...

But it counts as having been inflicted in close combat for all purpouses. As such, it's a power that deals close combat hits, proving that you can hit in CC without using a weapon. Hammer of Wrath is further proof of this.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

Not an assumption. Cleansing Flame is a Psychic power, not a CCW as Cleansing flame does not have the Melee type...

But it counts as having been inflicted in close combat for all purpouses. As such, it's a power that deals close combat hits, proving that you can hit in CC without using a weapon. Hammer of Wrath is further proof of this.

Which is not at all what I was saying.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

Not an assumption. Cleansing Flame is a Psychic power, not a CCW as Cleansing flame does not have the Melee type...

The GK FAQ disagrees with you.

And the Combat Familiar has a profile which does not include the word melee or have a - for its range.

You really shouldn't argue rules that you haven't read.

C: CSM page 67 wrote: ... two additional Strength 4 AP- Melee Attacks.

Would you like to try again?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is because if a model has Smash they make attacks with their weapons at AP2 "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

So an AP1 special rule would not be ignored in favor of Smash according to you?

There are no AP1 special rules...

And that precludes the possibility why exactly?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Smash confirms that the model uses the weapon to attack with.

Incorrect - assumption without support.

It clearly points to the fact by saying "unless it's attacking with an AP 1 weapon" showing that models make attacks with Melee weapons (Confirmed by the context of the CC rules p.20-28), and these attacks are AP2 unless the model with Smash is "attacking with an AP 1 weapon"

No - literally all it's saying is that the only way to override the AP2 of Smash is with an AP1 weapon. You're making assumptions to imply it applies in other ways. The bolded literally doesn't exist in the Smash text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
CF and HoW do not deal with weapons.

The latter explicitly states that. The former says nothing on the subject. Why the assumption?

Not an assumption. Cleansing Flame is a Psychic power, not a CCW as Cleansing flame does not have the Melee type...

But it counts as having been inflicted in close combat for all purpouses. As such, it's a power that deals close combat hits, proving that you can hit in CC without using a weapon. Hammer of Wrath is further proof of this.

Which is not at all what I was saying.

Really?

DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FlingitNow: Smash does not specify that it affects the AP of weapons,

All attacks are made with weapons, so in context the Smash rule applies to weapons.

Which amusing is followed by

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:All attacks are made with weapons. Agreed?

Clearly not.

The CF is not a weapon and the models makes attacks because of it.

and

DeathReaper wrote:All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Which is demonstrably false and has been proven so.

The attacks from Cleansing Flame are melee attacks, but the Cleansing Flame Psychic power does not have a range of Melee in its profile.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Which is demonstrably false and has been proven so.

No it really is not false, as my quotes have shown.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The attacks from Cleansing Flame are melee attacks, but the Cleansing Flame Psychic power does not have a range of Melee in its profile.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Which is demonstrably false and has been proven so.

No it really is not false, as my quotes have shown.

So all of the following CC attacks use weapons?
Hammer of Wrath
Cleansing Flame
Tyranid close combat attacks
Combat Familiar

 DeathReaper wrote:
The attacks from Cleansing Flame are melee attacks, but the Cleansing Flame Psychic power does not have a range of Melee in its profile.

GW FAQ wrote:Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack.

ohai. By definition (because the rules defined it as such) Cleansing Flame is a close combat attack. Perhaps you'd like to read the actual rules for once - you might find it enlightening.

As I have said, there are a few exceptions of CC attacks that do not use CCW's, such as Cleansing flame, HoW Etc...

However "Tyranid close combat attacks" do use weapons as I have shown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The attacks from Cleansing Flame are melee attacks, but the Cleansing Flame Psychic power does not have a range of Melee in its profile.

GW FAQ wrote:Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack.

ohai. By definition (because the rules defined it as such) Cleansing Flame is a close combat attack. Perhaps you'd like to read the actual rules for once - you might find it enlightening.

I read "the actual rules for once" This statement was not needed or appreciated.

Just because the FaQ defines it as a CC attack does not mean it has the Melee range in its profile.

DR, you claimed that all cc attacks are made by weapons. rigeld said no they are not, here is a small list of cc attacks that are not made by weapons - therefore you statement is false. You then claimed your statement (all cc attacks are made by weapons) is true. Now you are saying there are exceptions.

So, are all CC attacks made by weapons, yes or no?

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, you claimed that all cc attacks are made by weapons. rigeld said no they are not, here is a small list of cc attacks that are not made by weapons - therefore you statement is false. You then claimed your statement (all cc attacks are made by weapons) is true. Now you are saying there are exceptions.

So, are all CC attacks made by weapons, yes or no?

You must not have understood what I wrote.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I claim that the CC rules on page 20-28 are written on the basis that all CC attacks are made with a weapon.

There are some exceptions to this rule such as HoW or CF.

 DeathReaper wrote:
As I have said, there are a few exceptions of CC attacks that do not use CCW's, such as Cleansing flame, HoW Etc...

However "Tyranid close combat attacks" do use weapons as I have shown.

So the statement

DeathReaper wrote:All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Is demonstrably false. Thank you for finally agreeing.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
As I have said, there are a few exceptions of CC attacks that do not use CCW's, such as Cleansing flame, HoW Etc...

However "Tyranid close combat attacks" do use weapons as I have shown.

So the statement

DeathReaper wrote:All CC attacks are made with a CCW. That is the basis on which the CC rules were written as all models have a CCW.

Is demonstrably false. Thank you for finally agreeing.

It is not false, it is simply the base rule and to what I was referring.

Almost all rules have exceptions to the rule. It is the way the ruleset is written.

Right - so giving an absolute is false.
Regardless - there are attacks that do not use CCW. Therefore you're artificially limiting Smash by saying that it only applies to CCW attacks and not all attacks (which isn't me changing the rule, it's what the rule actually says).

Have you picked up a copy of C: CSM yet to read the rule you're attempting to discuss? Until you have I'm not sure why you're even debating the issue.

Limiting Smash is done within the rule itself (and the context of the CC rules), I am not limiting it.

P.S. I have read the Combat Familiar rules and it clearly states AP- and Codex Trumps since there is a conflict that is not overriden by Smash as Smash deals with weapons.