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:
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.

Then since Codex trumps rulebook why are you adamant that Tyranids use CCWs in assault?

Also why do you make exception for one wargear but not another?

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

What does the rule actually say - the exact words, not what you're inserting.

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.

So when you erroneously said it didn't include Melee in the profile you were just wrong? Or deliberately misleading?

So smash still deals with weapons alone DR? Despite the actual words used - ALL ATTACKS - and your own statement being proven wrong?

Classic
Fling - there is a profile there, with a type. Try again with your rule less argument trying to claim a profile is a modifier. According to your idea of "rules" all weapons are set modifiers

I think I can take that as you conceding then Nos as you refuse to use any rules in your argument and refuse to address the rules posted to support my case. Then you make a deliberate lie yet again about what I've said. How does a defined profile = a modifier?

 FlingitNow wrote:
How does a defined profile = a modifier?

That is what we want to know. You claim the Combat Familiar (which has a profile) is a set modifier, yet claim that a weapon (which also has a profile) not only is not a modifier but is affected by Smash.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So smash still deals with weapons alone DR? Despite the actual words used - ALL ATTACKS - and your own statement being proven wrong?

Only if you ignore the Context of Smash and the CC rules am I incorrect. However if you do not ignore the context then I am correct

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

Then since Codex trumps rulebook why are you adamant that Tyranids use CCWs in assault?

Because the Tyranid Codex says that Tyranids have CCW's...

The codex also states that Tyranids don't use CCWs. Regardless if they have them or not they do not use them. Oh look, a conflict. Therefore codex wins and Tyranids don't use CCWs.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

So when you erroneously said it didn't include Melee in the profile you were just wrong? Or deliberately misleading?

The Combat familiar does not have a proper profile. it just says it grants 2 Str 4 AP- Melee Attacks.

They are Melee attacks, but it is not a Melee weapon.

So not wrong or deliberately misleading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
The codex also states that Tyranids don't use CCWs. Regardless if they have them or not they do not use them. Oh look, a conflict. Therefore codex wins and Tyranids don't use CCWs.

The Fluff says they do not use them, there are not any actual rules that say that though.

Wasn't there a rule (or faq or something) talking about shorthand profiles?

I looked for it but couldn't find it but I'm sure I remember something like that...

rigeld, I know in the FAQs for older codices there is something about longhand profiles instead of the standard weapon profile. Is that what you are thinking of?

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think I can take that as you conceding then Nos

Think what ever you like, it has no bearing on reality.

FlingitNow wrote:as you refuse to use any rules in your argument

Another lie. Try to stop doing that, it is very immature

I have used rules. You on the other hand continually make up rules, misrepresent what th. Rules actually say, and have made up a new class of modifier that doesn' exist - one thatis a profile and itself a modifier. Impressive

FlingitNow wrote:and refuse to address the rules posted to support my case.

Apart from every time i, and others, did? That you then ignored, or made up oterh rules for us to refute, and so on?

Smash applies to ALL ATTACKS. CF is an attack, with a profile. If you ignore smash you break the smash rule. If you apply smash you break no rules. Apart from the ones you made up, of course.

Fling wrote:Then you make a deliberate lie yet again about what I've said.

Erm, nope. Not at all. You created a brand new set modifier rule, not found in any rulebook

Fling wrote:How does a defined profile = a modifier?

It doesn't. But given that is what you're claiming, please, find a rule to support that assertion of yours. CF HAS A PROFILE. try Reading the rules a little more.carefully.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DR - so you can ignore rules, claiming fluff, and ignore a rule which states ALL ATTACKS and claim, in apparent Good faith, that that DOESN'T mean all attacks but only those made with ccw, despite you being shown direct evidence that contradicts your assertion?

Please, give up on this. This argument is patently absurd and lacking even the vaguest hint of rules support.

 Happyjew wrote:
rigeld, I know in the FAQs for older codices there is something about longhand profiles instead of the standard weapon profile. Is that what you are thinking of?

Thanks!

FAQs wrote:You’ll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don’t worry – these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document.

So a longhand profile is literally the same as a normal profile. Looks like the CF is a longhand profile to me.

You claim the Combat Familiar (which has a profile)

Citation please.

Nos I'm going to take that post as you conceding. You ludicrous claims have become laughable. You create magical new types of profile and modifier when it suits you and claim any one who us actually following what is defined is doing so.

In this thread you have:

Created a magical "resolved at" set modifier that beats all other modifiers.

Created a magical new War gear Profile that the CF and only the CF has because you want it to be a profile.

Refused to use actual rules.

Let me guess Nos you're going to respond to this with a string of lies, whilst calling me a liar and again refuse to use any rules to support your increasing outlandish claims. Whilst still ignoring that I have proven using rules that CF is a series of set modifiers...

So now that we've pretty well confirmed that it is in fact possible to alter melee attacks which do not use a Close Combat Weapon, thus not neutering Tyranid Monstrous Creatures, can we get this ridiculous game of ping-pong over with and put forward final arguments?

Group A: Give assembled group of statements which you believe clearly show that ANY attack made by a model in close combat with the Smash USR, that is not a HoW attack or by using a CCW that is AP1, is in fact resolved at AP2.

Group B: Give assembled group of statements which you believe clearly show that ONLY attacks made by a model with a close combat weapon are resolved at AP2, unless the weapon is already AP1.

So a longhand profile is literally the same as a normal profile. Looks like the CF is a longhand profile to me.

I said we'd get to the point where Rigeld claimed CF was a weapon.

Star hunter you need yo reread the thread.

Group A are now saying: CF gives a profile (which is either a weapon profile in long hand or magical new type of profile not defined any where) which is therefore modified by Smash.

Group B are saying: both CF and Smash modify the AP of the attacks in question. So you have to resolve the conflict, Smash specifies it over rides any conflict with weapons but CF is not a weapon. Therefore as neither rule is more specific you go to codex over rules rulebook.

So do you believe that CF is a weapon or that it creates a magical new profile type without ever defining it. If you say no to these 2 questions then the only conclusion is that CF attacks are AP-.

StarHunter, for the AP2 side, the only things we need is:
a) The Smash rule states it applies to all close combat attacks (except for HoW and attacks made with an AP1 weapon).
b) Combat Familiar gives the model two additional attacks made at a listed profile.
c) Combat Familiar does not specify that Smash does not apply to these attacks.
d) The only time weapons are even mentioned in the Smash rule is in regards to AP1 weapons.

I think that about covers it. Anything I missed?

Seems good Group A. Group B, your rebuttal?

Please note Star, that it was obviously is not a detailed post but a brief synopsis. for the full argument you will (as fling said) read the whole thread.

I've read the whole thing thing, save maybe a post or two that I thought rather lacking in the logical argument part, and more on the subtle name calling part. It has come down to, what my group calls, arguing over the possible interpretations of "the." Both sides have put forward their arguements, and have honestly spent that last 3-4 pages going back and forth. I've put forward my case on this already. The last thing to think about is that, is two more attacks at S4 AP2 really going to effect a game in such a substantial way when the model is already making 6+ attacks at s6+?

As much as I see this as pretty cut and dry, I would gladly hear a well constructed argument for the opposite view. Using clear wordings of rules, previously made precedence, and a clear and logical connection between those and their personal argument. What I've seen from both sides so far is a whole lot of "You're wrong! NO YOU'RE WRONG!! YOU'RE MORE WRONG!!! YOU'RE EVEN MORE MORE WRONG!!!!

Hyperbole aside, I'd just like to see something of a summary of all of the arguments put forward, as I'd rather not wade through 13 pages once again so I can gain what is apparently a proper view on what has been put forward so far. Is that so much to ask?

And on the whole it has a profile thing, It actually doesn't. In reference section of the codex (the back flappy part), it lists the item in question as
Combat Familiar: Two additional Strength 4 AP- Attacks.
Smash resolves any attacks, save those from Hammer of Wrath or those made with an AP1 close combat weapon, at AP2.

 Happyjew wrote:
StarHunter, for the AP2 side, the only things we need is:
a) The Smash rule states it applies to all close combat attacks (except for HoW and attacks made with an AP1 weapon).
b) Combat Familiar gives the model two additional attacks made at a listed profile.
c) Combat Familiar does not specify that Smash does not apply to these attacks.
d) The only time weapons are even mentioned in the Smash rule is in regards to AP1 weapons.

I think that about covers it. Anything I missed?

You missed that CF states its attacks are AP-. Smash does not specify that CF does not apply to CF attacks.

Essentially your entire argument is based on ignoring that CF specifies the AP of the attacks is AP-.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
StarHunter, for the AP2 side, the only things we need is:
a) The Smash rule states it applies to all close combat attacks (except for HoW and attacks made with an AP1 weapon).
b) Combat Familiar gives the model two additional attacks made at a listed profile.
c) Combat Familiar does not specify that Smash does not apply to these attacks.
d) The only time weapons are even mentioned in the Smash rule is in regards to AP1 weapons.

I think that about covers it. Anything I missed?

You missed that CF states its attacks are AP-. Smash does not specify that CF does not apply to CF attacks.

Essentially your entire argument is based on ignoring that CF specifies the AP of the attacks is AP-.

Here we go again. Essentially your entire argument is based on ignoring that Smash applies to ALL close combat attacks.

 StarHunter25 wrote:
And on the whole it has a profile thing, It actually doesn't. In reference section of the codex (the back flappy part), it lists the item in question as
Combat Familiar: Two additional Strength 4 AP- Attacks.
Smash resolves any attacks, save those from Hammer of Wrath or those made with an AP1 close combat weapon, at AP2.

The "back flappy part" is irrelevant, the actual rules for it list it as a (long hand) profile (Strength 4 AP - Melee).

Here we go again. Essentially your entire argument is based on ignoring that Smash applies to ALL close combat attacks

Was that an intentional lie? I have NEVER ignored that Smash applies to all attacks. Or that it clearly applies to CF attacks. As do the CF rules. My interpretation takes into account all the rules and does not result in creating a profile type out of thin air, or try to turn the CF into a weapon. It just follows what is laid out in the rules.

As posted page 2 illustrates that CF is a series of modifiers, being a set modifier in the case of AP. Smash is a set modifier effecting AP. Neither rule specifies how it interacts with the other and we have two conflicting set values for AP. Thus by page 7 codex wins and the attacks are AP-.

 FlingitNow wrote:
It does indeed specify weapons. Also if it did not effect the AP of weapons it would effect nothing. It states that only weapons that are ap1 are not changed to ap2. Does it specify all other special rules? It does not so only attacks made with weapons are effected or attacks that don't specify AP or attacks that specify they are effected by smash. CF does not fall into any of these categories.

So you are either ignoring that Smash applies to all close combat attacks (except in two specified situations), or you are making up rules (Smash only applies to weapons). Please let me know which it is and I'll edit my post to address the (possible) error.

Neither. Smash applies to all attacks including CF. As that post states Smash specifies it over rides weapons AP. We do not have specifics on how it interacts with other set modifier APs. Hence in those situations you have a conflict which would need to be resolved. This has been my position all along.

Smash applies to CF. It makes CF attacks AP2. However CF makes CF attacks AP- and you can't be both so you have a conflict. Which page 7 tells us how to resolve.

CF grants two additional Melee Attacks (CSM page 67) and "Weapons with the Melee type can only be used in close combat" (BRB page 50) and Smash has "All of the close combat attacks, except HoW attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP 2 (except AP 1 weapons)(BRB Page 42).

So is it basically the disconnect because CF is not a weapon with a melee type? It is still attacks that only resolve during close combat so wouldn't Smash still affect it?

Except it is a weapon... It has a weapon Type (Melee) it's just written with a different profile.
Edit: so that argument is invalid.
It's also a close combat attack and so the argument that smash doesn't apply (when it explicitly applies to all attacks) is invalid.

There's no rules basis to argue it doesn't apply.

So the whole argument is being reduced down to how the weapon profile is written?

Apparently. The one person that's arguing its not a weapon (bet instead a group of set modifiers for some reason) I have on ignore because he insulted me too many times so I'm only getting half of the argument.

I've proven that it is a weapon, however, so his argument is moot.

rigeld2 wrote:
Apparently. The one person that's arguing its not a weapon (bet instead a group of set modifiers for some reason) I have on ignore because he insulted me too many times so I'm only getting half of the argument.

I've proven that it is a weapon, however, so his argument is moot.

I disagree. it is not a weapon. it is a piece of wagear that provides the bearer with additional attacks that (per the wording for Smash) are resolved at AP2.