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.

 FlingitNow wrote:

According to Fling the S6 from a relic blade isnt a profile value, but a set modifier

Another Nos lie. I have not said this. I said it was S6 on the profile. I was then asked what about if the FAQ hadn't happenedhow to handle it. The rules state it is a power weapon with extra rules (S6) so we use the unusual power weapon profile with the additional rule of S6. I assume this would resolve as a set modifier as the unusual power weapon profile gives a strength to use. Though you could have substituted in the S6 to the profile.

Quick question, hypotheticall as I'm not sure it's possible but...

A model with a Relic Blade and Furious Charge.
If its a set modifier then the +1Str cannot be applied from FC.

If it's a value, the FC bonus can be applied, making attacks on the charge S7.

Which is it?

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
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.

Here we are page 12 this was on.

So every single weapon and attack in the game is a set modifier?
You'll quickly find the game breaks down completely if you try that.

No because pages 50-51 tell us how weapon profiles work. Note how CF makes no mention of profiles and no mention of the attacking with 2 weapons rule on page 51. So we can conclude either:

1) CF is not a weapon, nor does it provide a weapon profile. It is a series of modifiers.
Or
2) CF is a long hand profile neglecting to mention that or stating a range (ccws have the stated range "-"). Which means you have to choose between it and your other weapon whenever you attack in assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

According to Fling the S6 from a relic blade isnt a profile value, but a set modifier

Another Nos lie. I have not said this. I said it was S6 on the profile. I was then asked what about if the FAQ hadn't happenedhow to handle it. The rules state it is a power weapon with extra rules (S6) so we use the unusual power weapon profile with the additional rule of S6. I assume this would resolve as a set modifier as the unusual power weapon profile gives a strength to use. Though you could have substituted in the S6 to the profile.

Quick question, hypotheticall as I'm not sure it's possible but...

A model with a Relic Blade and Furious Charge.
If its a set modifier then the +1Str cannot be applied from FC.

If it's a value, the FC bonus can be applied, making attacks on the charge S7.

Which is it?

Furious charge changes the models strength not the weapons strength. Most weapons in cc reference the models strength hence how the FC bonus works. But the relic blade is strength 6 so what you do to the models strength is irrelevant the relic blade is always So unless you have a modifier that applies to weapons rather models.

 FlingitNow wrote:
[2) CF is a long hand profile neglecting to mention that or stating a range (ccws have the stated range "-"). Which means you have to choose between it and your other weapon whenever you attack in assault.

Do Longhand profiles ever mention a range for CCW's? Seems a bit redundant, is there an example of one that does?
See the Servo arm for reference.

And it wouldn't make you choose between weapons due to the rest of the CF rule, you can't leave out the rest of the rule after all.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Furious charge changes the models strength not the weapons strength. Most weapons in cc reference the models strength hence how the FC bonus works. But the relic blade is strength 6 so what you do to the models strength is irrelevant the relic blade is always So unless you have a modifier that applies to weapons rather models.

Quite right, I knew Furious Charge would be a bad one for an example.

So a Theoretical +1Str that effects a models weapons?
Would have on effect on a set modifier,
Would effect a value.

Servo arms as stated are problematic. They also aren't weapons as it stands.

Do you have an example of a long hand profile without a range? Also it seems pretty clear that FaQ is a stop gap to help 5th Ed codexes that didn't have profiles for melee weapons. This is not a 6th ed codex, also a long hand profile still needs to give the full information of a profile. CF does not nor does it state profile.

Also if it is a weapon profile pg 51 comes into play. I'm not sure what you're seeing in the rule that stops this being the case? Please explain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would effect a profile value it would not effect a set modifier as per pg2. If you're trying to get me to admit that if CF is a profile then smash wins I've already stated this.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
[2) CF is a long hand profile neglecting to mention that or stating a range (ccws have the stated range "-"). Which means you have to choose between it and your other weapon whenever you attack in assault.

Do Longhand profiles ever mention a range for CCW's? Seems a bit redundant, is there an example of one that does?
See the Servo arm for reference.

And it wouldn't make you choose between weapons due to the rest of the CF rule, you can't leave out the rest of the rule after all.

Since the profile includes "Melee" you can only ever use it in CC (Page 50).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also if it is a weapon profile pg 51 comes into play. I'm not sure what you're seeing in the rule that stops this being the case? Please explain.

Certainly, the first 3 words of the rule you're referring to.
I assume you're referring to "More than one weapon"?

It would effect a profile value it would not effect a set modifier as per pg2. If you're trying to get me to admit that if CF is a profile then smash wins I've already stated this.

But which one is the Relic Blade?
A value or a set modifier?
And why?

Rigeld range "-" confers the melee type page 50. Not seeing the reverse (that melee confers the range "-"). So the long hand profile:

A) does not state it is a profile
B) is missing information required in a profile

Still think it is a weapon profile? Please give evidence of why it can be a partial profile without ever stating it is a profile...

Edit: removed double post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relic blade is a profile value as it is a weapon with a weapon profile that fits the weapon profile format laid out on pages 50-51.

As for the first 3 words of the rule do you mean:

"If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must..."

Or

"A model with a combat familiar makes two additional..."

Which one resolves this? And how exactly?

Not a lie Fling. Just the truth.

A relic blade is a profile, same as CF generates a profile for attacks. Otherwise every weapon in the game is a set modifier.

One way lies absurdity, one way you just follow the clear as day rules and apply Smash to ALL attacks. That would be ALL attacks, not just "those you want to apply it to"

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld range "-" confers the melee type page 50. Not seeing the reverse (that melee confers the range "-". So the long hand profile:

A) does not state it is a profile
B) is missing information required in a profile

Still think it is a weapon profile? Please give evidence of why it can be a partial profile without ever stating it is a profile...

Rigeld2's quote was from the second column of page 50, under "Type" -> "Melee Type"

Relic blade is a profile value as it is a weapon with a weapon profile that fits the weapon profile format laid out on pages 50-51.

As for the first 3 words of the rule do you mean:

"If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must..."

Or

"A model with a combat familiar makes two additional..."

Which one resolves this? And how exactly?

You missed the first 3 words completely there.
"Unless otherwise stated"

 FlingitNow wrote:
Rigeld range "-" confers the melee type page 50. Not seeing the reverse (that melee confers the range "-"). So the long hand profile:

A) does not state it is a profile
B) is missing information required in a profile

Still think it is a weapon profile? Please give evidence of why it can be a partial profile without ever stating it is a profile...

Edit: removed double post.

The one thing I don't understand in your argument is what stats Combat Familiar is modifying. Page 2 says that modifiers effect characteristics, and I would like to know what characteristics are being modified.

 Nilok wrote:
The one thing I don't understand in your argument is what stats Combat Familiar is modifying. Page 2 says that modifiers effect characteristics, and I would like to know what characteristics are being modified.

We'd all like to know that.
It's not modifying anything, that's it's values are not set modifiers, but values.

Not a lie Fling. Just the truth.

A relic blade is a profile, same as CF generates a profile for attacks. Otherwise every weapon in the game is a set modifier.

I think you have misunderstood the terms lie and truth you appear to have them backwards.

You said I stated that a relic blade is a set modifier and not a profile. I said it was a weapon with a weapon profile. So this is a lie. That is not the truth. I answered a hypothetical situation where Relic blade didn't have a profile would the S therefore be a set modifier.

So CF generates a weapon profile now, something you yourself have denied repeatedly. It is a partial profile with no permission to be a profile, trying to force an FAQ about 5th codexes Nellie weapons to apply to a 6th end piece of wargear... Which then creates a massive problem with the multiple weapon rules on page 51...

Or you can just see CF as wargear like it says it is, that grants benefits in the form of a series of modifiers. Which is you know just following what the rules say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The one thing I don't understand in your argument is what stats Combat Familiar is modifying. Page 2 says that modifiers effect characteristics, and I would like to know what characteristics are being modified

Attacks and Strength and the weapon profile characteristic of AP.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So CF generates a weapon profile now, something you yourself have denied repeatedly. It is a partial profile with no permission to be a profile, trying to force an FAQ about 5th codexes Nellie weapons to apply to a 6th end piece of wargear... Which then creates a massive problem with the multiple weapon rules on page 51...

It creates no problem with that rules, thanks to those 3 words you left out in the previous quote.
"Unless otherwise stated" you must choose, the CF rules do indeed state otherwise, these are additional melee attacks. Not Bonus attacks applied to the Attack characteristic (see bonus attacks p24).

 FlingitNow wrote:

The one thing I don't understand in your argument is what stats Combat Familiar is modifying. Page 2 says that modifiers effect characteristics, and I would like to know what characteristics are being modified

Attacks and Strength and the weapon profile characteristic of AP.

So are you asserting that a model with Combat Familiar can only attack at S4 AP-?

Set modifiers must be applied after all other modifiers, and if what you assert is true, then Combat Familiar would be one of the worst wargear in the game. It would give you +2 attacks, but reduce your Strength to 4 and make you unable to use the AP of your weapons.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The one thing I don't understand in your argument is what stats Combat Familiar is modifying. Page 2 says that modifiers effect characteristics, and I would like to know what characteristics are being modified

Attacks and Strength and the weapon profile characteristic of AP.

Which weapon? You're saying it modifies the weapon profile?
The weapon the model is carrying?
If that's the case it's now attacking with Curse, Daemon Weapon and Fleshbane? As the model in this example has a Black Mace?

It creates no problem with that rules, thanks to those 3 words you left out in the previous quote.
"Unless otherwise stated" you must choose, the CF rules do indeed state otherwise, these are additional melee attacks

That is not in the rule quoted that is in a rule dealing with ranged weapons. Also CF doesn't specifically state it is allowed to be used with another weapon. It doesn't have to as it is not a weapon...

So are you asserting that a model with Combat Familiar can only attack at S4 AP-?

Set modifiers must be applied after all other modifiers, and if what you assert is true, then Combat Familiar would be one of the worst wargear in the game. It would give you +2 attacks, but reduce your Strength to 4 and make you unable to use the AP of your weapons.

The CF tells you where its modifiers for S & AP apply (to the bonus attacks). So I am not sure what you are talking about here. If CF provides a weapon profile as others are stating then the CF would work how your suggesting due to page 51.

Which weapon? You're saying it modifies the weapon profile?
The weapon the model is carrying?
If that's the case it's now attacking with Curse, Daemon Weapon and Fleshbane? As the model in this example has a Black Mace

I think there is a strong RaW argument that weapon special rules would apply to the CF attacks.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think there is a strong RaW argument that weapon special rules would apply to the CF attacks.

In that case Smash does apply to it.
Since it apparently modifies the weapon the model is using, and you have claimed Smash effects the models weapons.

So Combat Familiar attacks are in fact attacks made with the Black Mace, but with a modified profile? That's what you're saying?

In that case Smash does apply to it.
Since it apparently modifies the weapon the model is using, and you have claimed Smash effects the models weapons

Yes smash does apply. As does CF. One sets the AP to "2" the other to "-". Hence the conflict which page 7 resolves...

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I think there is a strong RaW argument that weapon special rules would apply to the CF attacks.

In that case Smash does apply to it.
Since it apparently modifies the weapon the model is using, and you have claimed Smash effects the models weapons.

So Combat Familiar attacks are in fact attacks made with the Black Mace, but with a modified profile? That's what you're saying?

Careful grendel, your careful application of rules will result in you being told you are lying.

CF generates a long hand profile. Careful application of actual rules shows this. It tells you the values those attacks are made at, and gives you permission to make them.

 FlingitNow wrote:

So are you asserting that a model with Combat Familiar can only attack at S4 AP-?

Set modifiers must be applied after all other modifiers, and if what you assert is true, then Combat Familiar would be one of the worst wargear in the game. It would give you +2 attacks, but reduce your Strength to 4 and make you unable to use the AP of your weapons.

The CF tells you where its modifiers for S & AP apply (to the bonus attacks). So I am not sure what you are talking about here. If CF provides a weapon profile as others are stating then the CF would work how your suggesting due to page 51.

I'm sorry, but you can't modify something that doesn't already exist. It would be the same as saying, I will modify nothing, into something.

On Page 2 it reads

Modifiers: Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively.

and

Multiple Modifiers: If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic...

Before you can modify a characteristic, you must find the characteristic being modified. The ability to point to a place and say, this is what it is modifying.
You can't have a modifier pointing to itself. It would be akin to a definition use the word that it is trying to define.

If CF didn't mention that the attacks were S4 AP-. How would you resolve CF. If it simply said "A model with a combat familiar makes two additional Melee Attacks".

Would you

A) resolve those attacks with the normal weapon the model was using
B) claim the game broke as you have no weapon profile to resolve those attacks

 FlingitNow wrote:
If CF didn't mention that the attacks were S4 AP-. How would you resolve CF. If it simply said "A model with a combat familiar makes two additional Melee Attacks".

Would you

A) resolve those attacks with the normal weapon the model was using
B) claim the game broke as you have no weapon profile to resolve those attacks

Definitely B, these are not Bonus Attacks.
We can't "assume" what the attacks should be made with.

Nilok it gives you 2 additional attacks. This is a modifier to your attacks characteristic yes or no?

It tells you these attacks are S4 AP-, this is setting values, that would otherwise be resolved using the those found on a melee weapons profile, yes or no?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Careful grendel, your careful application of rules will result in you being told you are lying.

CF generates a long hand profile. Careful application of actual rules shows this. It tells you the values those attacks are made at, and gives you permission to make them.

I know, silly me.

Do we have any examples of Longhand melee weapons? I think the Dark Eldar have some some in their codex?
For comparison, do they list a range? Despite it being irrelevant?

Really? So how do you resolve the extra attacks granted from Warp Speed or anything else for that matter? Your game must break very often.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If CF didn't mention that the attacks were S4 AP-. How would you resolve CF. If it simply said "A model with a combat familiar makes two additional Melee Attacks".

Would you

A) resolve those attacks with the normal weapon the model was using
B) claim the game broke as you have no weapon profile to resolve those attacks

You would follow the rules as written. As you just described, it would make Combat Familiar very powerful by simply giving +2 attack, but still be well within the rules of 6e.

My assertion is that in order for something to be a modifier, if mode first declare what it is modifying. Combat Familiar only says use itself. Thus it can't be a modifier but a profile.

If Combat Familiar read:
"Two additional attacks resolved at S4 AP-" there would be no question. It would define itself as being the last operation. However, it defines itself as a profile, a first or primary operation.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Really? So how do you resolve the extra attacks granted from Warp Speed or anything else for that matter? Your game must break very often.

Warp Speed is bonus Attacks (p24). Very different from what a CF grants.

Smash doesn't set ap to 2. It resolves all attacks at ap2. Even if its normally ap- there is no conflict so pg7 does not apply.

Just like snap shots resolve at bs1 even if a model has bs7. If you're claiming this is a conflict then every model in a codex resolves snap shots at regular bs.

Nilok - which is what I've been banging my head against the brick wall trying to explain to Fling, before being tired of the insults and lies and giving up. It was much easier.

CF grants you two additional attacks, that you make using a specific set of values. Given you have no existing values to use for these attacks - given you (usually) attack with a CC weapon and THAT profile is used for the attacks, NOT the models [although of course they are often referenced by the profile] - you CANNOT have a modifier at this point

The alternative is the extension of Flings argument, which is that EVERY weapon profile becomes a set modifier

Personally I will just simply follow the really, really clear rules and ignore Flings "interpretation" of the rules.

Do we have any examples of Longhand melee weapons? I think the Dark Eldar have some some in their codex?

To be relevant they need to be from a 6th Ed codex. But all the 5th Ed ones I believe have been faq'd though I'm happy yo be corrected here. The burden of proof is on you as you've stated it is a weapon profile even though it does not say it is, follow the formating for a weapon profile in 6th or give all the necessary information for it to be a long hand profile...