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.

 ductvader wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
But you only gain the benefits of Smash, whether choosing to use it or not, on close combat attacks.

And no, you do not get to use The Perfect Warrior, for the same reason.

Do you get a choice to be AP2? I thought it was without choice. Because then Fexes could just AP6 themselves in Feed.

Feed is explicitly AP- and not a Close Combat attack, so an irrelevant point.

As much as I wish it allowed them to strike at STR 10 at themselves, this seems to be the best reasoning.
You can Force Weapon because a) the Weapon has the Force rule, and b) the FAQ gives you permission to use the model's psychic charge.

An MC hits itself with AP2, because the Smash rule says that all attacks from the MC are resolved at AP 2.

You don't get to use the "double strength" part of the Smash rule because nothing gives you permission to make that choice; it's not an "every attack made by the model" ability (like the AP2), nor is it a property of the weapon being used.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
But you only gain the benefits of Smash, whether choosing to use it or not, on close combat attacks.

And no, you do not get to use The Perfect Warrior, for the same reason.

Do you get a choice to be AP2? I thought it was without choice. Because then Fexes could just AP6 themselves in Feed.

Feed is explicitly AP- and not a Close Combat attack, so an irrelevant point.

Forgot that, but thanks for going "classic rigeld" on that comment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 iGuy91 wrote:
As much as I wish it allowed them to strike at STR 10 at themselves, this seems to be the best reasoning.
You can Force Weapon because a) the Weapon has the Force rule, and b) the FAQ gives you permission to use the model's psychic charge.

An MC hits itself with AP2, because the Smash rule says that all attacks from the MC are resolved at AP 2.

You don't get to use the "double strength" part of the Smash rule because nothing gives you permission to make that choice; it's not an "every attack made by the model" ability (like the AP2), nor is it a property of the weapon being used.

This is how I will be playing it.

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
But you only gain the benefits of Smash, whether choosing to use it or not, on close combat attacks.

And no, you do not get to use The Perfect Warrior, for the same reason.

Do you get a choice to be AP2? I thought it was without choice. Because then Fexes could just AP6 themselves in Feed.

Feed is explicitly AP- and not a Close Combat attack, so an irrelevant point.

Forgot that, but thanks for going "classic rigeld" on that comment.

? All I did was point out an incorrect statement. I didn't address the rest because I didn't have an answer.
Which is how I normally operate so... thanks? I guess? If you were trying to be insulting you failed miserably.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ductvader wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
But you only gain the benefits of Smash, whether choosing to use it or not, on close combat attacks.

And no, you do not get to use The Perfect Warrior, for the same reason.

Do you get a choice to be AP2? I thought it was without choice. Because then Fexes could just AP6 themselves in Feed.

Feed is explicitly AP- and not a Close Combat attack, so an irrelevant point.

Forgot that, but thanks for going "classic rigeld" on that comment.

? All I did was point out an incorrect statement. I didn't address the rest because I didn't have an answer.
Which is how I normally operate so... thanks? I guess? If you were trying to be insulting you failed miserably.

Now that IS classic Rig. LOL

Would anyone expect Rigeld not to be Rigeld? Because then it wouldnt be Rigeld.

We know that MSS hits happen instead of regular attacks. We know that you use the weapons special rules to determine the attacks effects. We know that Smash special rule gives MC's ap2 in close combat.


So if the weapon you are hitting yourself with is a CCW, why do you not get AP2?

Yessssssssssssssssss you can

Eihnlazer wrote:
We know that MSS hits happen instead of regular attacks. We know that you use the weapons special rules to determine the attacks effects. We know that Smash special rule gives MC's ap2 in close combat.


So if the weapon you are hitting yourself with is a CCW, why do you not get AP2?

I see your point and given how the rules written and the fact that you are being hit with a close combat weapon it's entirely logical to expect that they're close combat attacks.
But this isn't logic, it's Warhammer 40k, and these hits are not defined as close combat attacks and so do not benefit from Smash.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

But this isn't logic, it's Warhammer 40k, and these hits are not defined as close combat attacks.

Hmm... could I take Cover saves against them then? AFAIK only close combat attacks (and some other stuff like Dangerous Terrain?) deny you Cover Saves.

According to RAW if the model was in area terrain, had Stealth and/or Shrouded, or had some other form of non-directional cover save granted to it, it would be able to take said cover save against MSS hits.

I wouldn't do it though, that's just mean.
Granted, so are Mindshackle Scarabs...

 PrinceRaven wrote:

I wouldn't do it though, that's just mean.
Granted, so are Mindshackle Scarabs...

Well, I guess I'll hold off on pressing it then. As long as my opponent doesn't try the old "I get to say which model in b-2-b is affected" trick. ;-)

Or, its a close combat attack. You are using your Melee weapon, after all.

While it seems counter-intuitive for an attack made with a melee weapon to not be a close combat attack, MSS hits aren't defined as being so.

PLease define how you remove casualties. You cannot use random allocation, as you know where the attack is coming from. So shooting or close combat?

What do you mean, shooting or close combat? There are only 3 ways to allocate wounds: closest, random & selective. There is no "close combat wound allocation" and "shooting wound allocation" there is only wound allocation.

No, there is another distinction you have forgotten - is it closet (where equal owning player decides) or closest (if equal randomise)? Given we cannot use closest to the firing model, as there isnt one.

One is performed when in close combat, the other from (usually) shooting.

Or, its a close combat attack. Results in a functional set of rules.

It would be more functional if they were close combat attacks, but if wishes were Space Marines the Imperium would conquer the galaxy.

You failed to answer the query - do you use the method whereby the controlling player chooses or the attacking player?

Your interpretation - that an attack made by a close combat weapon, in place of your normal attacks, with all bonuses and penalties available to that close combat weapon in play, that just auto-hit - is NOT a close combat attack (oh, and it coutns for combat resolution or not?) leads to non functional rules, as you cannot determine how to remove casualties.

This means you have a VERY hig bar to prove your interpretation correct. You have not reached it.

In the case of equidistant models you use random allocation as per the default allocation rules. These are modified in the case of close combat attacks but, as stated, these are not close combat attacks.

Don't go shifting the burden of proof, as the person making the assertion that these hits are close combat attack that lies with you.

I havent - I have given why it is a close combat attack. A cuople of times now. It does nto need to redefine it as a close combat attack,, it needs to state it is not one.

So youre using random, why is that? The source of the attack is clear.

Even better, why are you using the shooting phase wound allocation process at all? IF it is not a shooting attack, nor a close combat attack, what permission do you have to use ruels that have phrases such as "firing model" in them?

FOr vector strikes they had to errata in that they use random allocation. Where is the errata showing the allocation method you can use?

Or, given the preponderence is on it being a close combat attack, having it as a close combat attack makes some sense, and allows you to continue with the game.

I am using the wound allocation rules found in the shooting phase section because that is where the wound allocation rules happen to be located in the book.

Again, you have not proved it is a close combat attack, you have proved it is like a close combat attack, and done instead of close combat attacks.

It is performed instead of your *normal* close combat attacks, meaning it is an *abnormal* close combat attack

A run is performed instead your normal shooting attacks, therefore it is an abnormal shooting attack.

I know Nos is rarely wrong, but this time I don't think he has proven any permission to count these as close combat attacks, even if other 'aspects' of it act in such a way as a close combat attack would.

My take? Only rules on weapons, hence the FAQ for Force Weapons. No Smash in any form.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I am using the wound allocation rules found in the shooting phase section because that is where the wound allocation rules happen to be located in the book.

Again, you have not proved it is a close combat attack, you have proved it is like a close combat attack, and done instead of close combat attacks.

So it doesnt count for combat res?

How do you get aaround needing to determine distance to the firing unit? By guessing?

Would furious charge effect the resolvable hits?

That's a good question, it says it uses the model's Strength...

"In a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it adds +l to its Strength characteristic until the end of that phase."

I'd say yes, as Furious Charge modifies the characteristic and Mindshackle Scarabs doesn't specify unmodified.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
That's a good question, it says it uses the model's Strength...

"In a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it adds +l to its Strength characteristic until the end of that phase."

I'd say yes, as Furious Charge modifies the characteristic and Mindshackle Scarabs doesn't specify unmodified.

It doesn't say "Unmodified Strength", so any modifiers to the models strength be they special rule based or psychic powers that are in effect would count. It also doesn't say "benefits from the abilities and penalties of the model's USRs" Thus, USRs that increase strength like furious charge are the only way that a model's special rules can effect MSS. All other modifiers come from the weapons. If the model is a carnifex with Toxin Sacs, 2 sets of Scything Talons, then the Carnifex suffers d3 S9 AP6 hits. No Smash, No Poison. If the Carnifex is kitted out with 2 sets of TL-Devourers, and thus has no CC weapon, he would suffer d3 S9 AP- hits. If it was a Tyrant with a bonesword, it would be d3 S6 AP3 hits with ID on 6's.

The Force weapon FAQ is confusing because the warp charge comes from the model holding the force weapon, and not the weapon itself, but the USR comes from the weapon. If GW had wanted the model's USRs to apply, they would have written it or FAQed it. They had ample opportunity to do so, and the RAW are clear. I therefore conclude that they are the RAI.

I think MSS is a stupidly written rule. It should just cause a model to do its normal CC attacks at its own unit. However, it is clearly written. Weapon USR's apply, model USR's don't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I am using the wound allocation rules found in the shooting phase section because that is where the wound allocation rules happen to be located in the book.

Again, you have not proved it is a close combat attack, you have proved it is like a close combat attack, and done instead of close combat attacks.

So it doesnt count for combat res?

How do you get aaround needing to determine distance to the firing unit? By guessing?

Pr - found an answer to these yet?