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.

tag8833 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

As for RaW:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Context states it is a close combat attack, and not a 3rd type, foer which you have to make up rules to cover the operation of.

Occams suggests your interpretation is unlikely to be correct.

MSS is replacing CC attacks, so even though there is no wording to say it IS a CC attack, there is no support for a non-CC attack either.
Because both types "do not exist" in the RaW, it stays a CC attack as it was before...

How about the fact that it isn't an "attack" at all. It is "hits". If you are so certain it is an attack, you should be rolling to hit.

Lots of things cause hits without being an attack. For instance a grounding check. Those things require the rules to give us the stats of the attack, and what rules apply to it. In the case of a failed grounding check, it is S9 ignores armor (essentially AP:2). In the case of Mindshackle Scarabs it is S:Model, abilities and benefits of weapon. You are treating it as if those rules don't exist, and thus we need to write them, but they do exist and they are clear.

I agree, the rules exist: Grouding makes you roll a S9 Ignores armor wound. How is that not a CC attack of the ground against your flyer? CC attack that start directly at the "to wound" stage. Because the hits are already generated.

Or: Many CC attack hit automatically, what is wrong with a CC attack skipping the "To Hit" phase of combat resolution?

[Edit]
I amend above statement that the Grounded test on page 49 falls under the "shooting attack" category, and you resolve it as such, starting at step 4. Roll to wound.
This is also why the rule specifies "no armour or cover saves".
If this was "not a shooting attack" and "not a CC attack", then how do you know what to do with "a hit suffered"? As soon as you roll to wound you are either following page 12 or page 20.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Close combat attack have a specific allowance to get around the need to measure between the firing unit. Have you found that permission for your non close combat attack yet? Pages and graph this time, not an assertion which does not address the question.

Pg. 25
After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular initiative step, Wounds are allocated, saves taken and casualties removed.

At no point in that entry does it specify those wounds have to be from CC attacks. They are allocation rules for ANY wounds inflicted during the initiative step of an assault phase assault phase. Therefore, you can have non-CC attacks in assault that are still allocated and resolved in the same way. Thus MSS doesn't have to be CC attack, and therefor since nothing says it is, Smash rule doesn't apply at all.

chanceafs wrote:
Pg. 25
After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular initiative step, Wounds are allocated, saves taken and casualties removed.

Wait, let me find that exact phrase, and it's heading:

The Assault phase
Fight Sub-Phase
Fight Close Combat
Allocating Wounds

There it is =)

Have you noticed the third heading it is under?
Oh and the first one too? That means it is included in the summary on page 20, part B.2


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would even go further and quote page 24, as it's within the same part:

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks:
- Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

I do think that this covers MSS, Acid Blood, mandiblasters, etc

 BlackTalos wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
Pg. 25
After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular initiative step, Wounds are allocated, saves taken and casualties removed.

Wait, let me find that exact phrase, and it's heading:

The Assault phase
Fight Sub-Phase
Fight Close Combat
Allocating Wounds

There it is =)

Have you noticed the third heading it is under?
Oh and the first one too? That means it is included in the summary on page 20, part B.2


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would even go further and quote page 24, as it's within the same part:

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus Attacks:
- Other bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

I do think that this covers MSS, Acid Blood, mandiblasters, etc

That chain specifies things that happen during close combat, which MSS clearly does. However you're second quote is irrelevant as MSS specifically states it happens instead of 'normal close combat attacks' thus specifically bypassing your quote from pg. 24 (as made clear by the fact that it specifies d3 hits and the FAQ's mention that items that add more attacks DO NOT work). Just because something causes wounds during close combat, does not mean it is a Close Combat ATTACK. Would you define a wounds caused by a vehicle explosion as Close Combat Attacks?

So let me get this straight.

Hits caused by MSS are not close combat attacks, even though they use melee weapons which can only be used to make close combat attacks?

Yeah. I'm wondering this. Looks like a close combat attack, acts like a close combat attack that auto hits, etch.

You can be a close combat attack and auto hit.

Then again if things that auto-hit are not cc attacks or ranged attacks, what does that mean for template weapons when firing Overwatch?

If MSS hits aren't CC attacks...does that mean you can take cover saves against them?

 Janthkin wrote:
If MSS hits aren't CC attacks...does that mean you can take cover saves against them?

You are so driven by the idea that MSS are CC "attacks". That you've forgotten that doesn't mean anything even if they are.

You can't take a specific rule and override it with a general rule. The MSS rule specifically states that a model's USRs don't apply.

Consider the tyranid tails. They are clearly a CC attack, but they still don't get access to smash, Toxin sacs or Adrenal Glands.

ETA:

 BlackTalos wrote:
[Edit]
I amend above statement that the Grounded test on page 49 falls under the "shooting attack" category, and you resolve it as such, starting at step 4. Roll to wound.
This is also why the rule specifies "no armour or cover saves".
If this was "not a shooting attack" and "not a CC attack", then how do you know what to do with "a hit suffered"? As soon as you roll to wound you are either following page 12 or page 20.

Either page would take you through the same steps in the case of Grounding test. You don't need to worry about wound allocation, because there is only 1 eligible model. You don't need to worry about armor or cover because it forbids them. It happens during the shooting phase, but that doesn't make it a shooting attack.

What about vector strike. In your vision of the game when everything is either a CC attack or a shooting attack, what is it? It uses random wound allocation which is in the shooting section. Does that in your mind mean that only shooting attacks can use random wound allocation? What about wounds caused by psychic perils? Are they CC or shooting?

tag8833 wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
If MSS hits aren't CC attacks...does that mean you can take cover saves against them?

You are so driven by the idea that MSS are CC "attacks". That you've forgotten that doesn't mean anything even if they are.

You can't take a specific rule and override it with a general rule. The MSS rule specifically states that a model's USRs don't apply.

Consider the tyranid tails. They are clearly a CC attack, but they still don't get access to smash, Toxin sacs or Adrenal Glands.

If MSS "specifically states that a model's USRs don't apply" then we wouldn't have a 5 page thread on the topic. The difference is tyranid tails do specifically state they do not benefit from any special rule the model has.

I really want a clear cut answer on this as it pretty key to the necron army in todays meta. Imo I think it seems pretty obvious since it sates "the victim strikes out at his allies"..."when it"s his turn to attack" If I strike (definition: hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand, or a weapon, or other implement) my ally in the close combat step what else could it be besides a close combat attack since as specifically stated by the word strike the attack is with a hand, weapon, or other implement.

Another peice of evidence in my mind is that it states "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." thus saying his attacks are in the round of combat and is under my control.

I would hope that gw clears this up but it seems unlikely since they already "faqed" MSS a mere 2 years ago >.>. Regardless though to me without any other information the attacks are ap2 and benefit from normal combat protocol (poison preferred enemy ect). Also since it is a close combat attack and the model is in my control(see second piece of evidence) when it makes its close combat attacks "it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack",

chanceafs wrote:
That chain specifies things that happen during close combat, which MSS clearly does. However you're second quote is irrelevant as MSS specifically states it happens instead of 'normal close combat attacks' thus specifically bypassing your quote from pg. 24 (as made clear by the fact that it specifies d3 hits and the FAQ's mention that items that add more attacks DO NOT work). Just because something causes wounds during close combat, does not mean it is a Close Combat ATTACK. Would you define a wounds caused by a vehicle explosion as Close Combat Attacks?

An exploding vehicle will be a CC attack if it happens during the Assault Phase, and a shooting attack if it happens during the shooting phase. It's always within a certain phase and follows certain basic rules, otherwise you get stuck with no method of resolving.

How does MSS bypass p24? You are resolving hits against yourself: Model - You, targeting - You.

It's a special rule that changes the target of your attack, and specifies D3 Hits, without bonuses. That does not mean it changes the type of attack? Unless you can show a set of rules that say so?

I'll even add a more "out of phase attack": Soul Blaze.
It's a shooting attack, as the rule even specifies "no cover saves". Why would they say no cover saves if it's one of those weird (non-existent) Non-shooting, non-CC attacks? surely those just hit and wound and ignore cover and... etc (per no page of the rulebook)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tag8833 wrote:
What about vector strike. In your vision of the game when everything is either a CC attack or a shooting attack, what is it? It uses random wound allocation which is in the shooting section. Does that in your mind mean that only shooting attacks can use random wound allocation? What about wounds caused by psychic perils? Are they CC or shooting?

I was about to come to VS: it is indeed shooting done in the movement phase - it even says you count as shooting one weapon in the next shooting phase.
You get cover saves against shooting: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461360.page

All psychic attacks are usually shooting too: find one that does not mention cover saves? Also the psyker counts as "shooting one weapon" P69

Any other examples?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lamo wrote:
I really want a clear cut answer on this as it pretty key to the necron army in todays meta. Imo I think it seems pretty obvious since it sates "the victim strikes out at his allies"..."when it"s his turn to attack" If I strike (definition: hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand, or a weapon, or other implement) my ally in the close combat step what else could it be besides a close combat attack since as specifically stated by the word strike the attack is with a hand, weapon, or other implement.

Another peice of evidence in my mind is that it states "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." thus saying his attacks are in the round of combat and is under my control.

I would hope that gw clears this up but it seems unlikely since they already "faqed" MSS a mere 2 years ago >.>. Regardless though to me without any other information the attacks are ap2 and benefit from normal combat protocol (poison preferred enemy ect). Also since it is a close combat attack and the model is in my control(see second piece of evidence) when it makes its close combat attacks "it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack",

Clear cut for most of us: Yes it's a CC attack, but No, you cannot Smash. (i'll let others agree or disagree)

I am with PrinceRaven on this one.

 BlackTalos wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lamo wrote:
I really want a clear cut answer on this as it pretty key to the necron army in todays meta. Imo I think it seems pretty obvious since it sates "the victim strikes out at his allies"..."when it"s his turn to attack" If I strike (definition: hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand, or a weapon, or other implement) my ally in the close combat step what else could it be besides a close combat attack since as specifically stated by the word strike the attack is with a hand, weapon, or other implement.

Another peice of evidence in my mind is that it states "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." thus saying his attacks are in the round of combat and is under my control.

I would hope that gw clears this up but it seems unlikely since they already "faqed" MSS a mere 2 years ago >.>. Regardless though to me without any other information the attacks are ap2 and benefit from normal combat protocol (poison preferred enemy ect). Also since it is a close combat attack and the model is in my control(see second piece of evidence) when it makes its close combat attacks "it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack",

Clear cut for most of us: Yes it's a CC attack, but No, you cannot Smash. (i'll let others agree or disagree)

But since given that the model is your control (since the model is returned to its owner control at the end of the combat phase and thus you have control of the model). Why would you not be allowed to elect to smash?

"Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or himself, if on his own orin a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and
benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice)."

3 things:

- "attacking normally", so you cannot smash
- where does it say you have control? You can choose the weapon is all.
- you only benefit from Melee weapons char. no USR that the model may have to "choose" to use.

Also, smash requires that you "when it makes it's close combat attacks, choose to instead make a smash attack" But MSS is "before any blows are struck" so you can't choose to do smash as it's not the model's initiative step (not even I10).

You cannot "Instead" "Instead", it's one or the other. Either smash replaces MSS (no rules support) or MSS replaces smash (so you just MSS)

tag8833 wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
If MSS hits aren't CC attacks...does that mean you can take cover saves against them?

You are so driven by the idea that MSS are CC "attacks". That you've forgotten that doesn't mean anything even if they are.

You can't take a specific rule and override it with a general rule. The MSS rule specifically states that a model's USRs don't apply.

Consider the tyranid tails. They are clearly a CC attack, but they still don't get access to smash, Toxin sacs or Adrenal Glands.

I wonder if you are confusing me with someone else. I asked a very simple question - if MSS hits aren't CC attacks, does that mean cover saves apply? CC wounds are specifically excluded from cover saves (as are a bunch of other types of attacks, including vector strike). But the general rule is "you can take cover saves against wounds".

I think we are dangerously close to an impasse where further discussion is not going to change anyone's mind. I am ok with 40k having rules that inflict 'hits' and 'wounds' without being either CC or Shooting 'attacks'. You disagree on that point, and feel like every hit or wound inflicted has to come from either a CC or shooting attack. This isn't a completely unreasonable position, and probably should be in its own thread instead of the MSS thread.

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
What about vector strike. In your vision of the game when everything is either a CC attack or a shooting attack, what is it? It uses random wound allocation which is in the shooting section. Does that in your mind mean that only shooting attacks can use random wound allocation? What about wounds caused by psychic perils? Are they CC or shooting?

I was about to come to VS: it is indeed shooting done in the movement phase - it even says you count as shooting one weapon in the next shooting phase.
You get cover saves against shooting: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461360.page

1) No cover saves against vector strike.
2) If you run, you usually can't shoot, does that mean that running counts as a shooting attack?

 BlackTalos wrote:
All psychic attacks are usually shooting too: find one that does not mention cover saves? Also the psyker counts as "shooting one weapon" P69

What about Psychic perils. That is when you roll a 1 + 1 or a 6 + 6 on psychic tests. Rules can be found on page 67. How about dangerous terrain? What about Boss Pole wounds? What about Gets Hot wounds or failed nova charges?

 Happyjew wrote:
If MSS "specifically states that a model's USRs don't apply" then we wouldn't have a 5 page thread on the topic. The difference is tyranid tails do specifically state they do not benefit from any special rule the model has.

I would say that Heavy Bolters specifically state that they are not Pinning. Would you disagree? If not, what word would you use for how we know that Heavy Bolters are not Pinning?

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or himself, if on his own orin a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and
benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice)."

3 things:

1) "attacking normally", so you cannot smash
2) where does it say you have control? You can choose the weapon is all.
3) you only benefit from Melee weapons char. no USR that the model may have to "choose" to use.

Also, smash requires that you "when it makes it's close combat attacks, choose to instead make a smash attack" But MSS is "before any blows are struck" so you can't choose to do smash as it's not the model's initiative step (not even I10).

You cannot "Instead" "Instead", it's one or the other. Either smash replaces MSS (no rules support) or MSS replaces smash (so you just MSS)

1) when you attack with a monstrous creature you are under normal circumstance given the choice to smash attack or not.
2) control is inferred by "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." if I do not control the model then who returns control of the model to the opponent? is it controlled by casper the friendly ghost?
3) Since I have control I can choose to use smash "Additonally, when it makes its close combat attacks attacks, it can choose to instead
make a Smash Anack." (quote straight out of smash rule) So if you say its a close combat attack then any close combat attack out of a monstrous creature can use smash attack. This choice (yes or no) must be made ever time it attacks in close combat regardless of which player is controlling its close combat attacks.

Tag - no, specifically stating would require you know, actual words stating that. Omitting is not stating.

Lamo - the degree of control is stated though, choosing the weapon and activating force weapons. So it does return to control. But not unlimited control.

 Janthkin wrote:
I wonder if you are confusing me with someone else. I asked a very simple question - if MSS hits aren't CC attacks, does that mean cover saves apply? CC wounds are specifically excluded from cover saves (as are a bunch of other types of attacks, including vector strike). But the general rule is "you can take cover saves against wounds".

You make a very good point. I guess I still would call them "Hits" and not "Attacks". They definitely happen as a result of CC, and I don't think cover saves would apply.

Are there any examples of non-shooting attacks getting cover saves? If not, how do you conclude that the general rule is "you can take cover saves against wounds"?

ETA:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Tag - no, specifically stating would require you know, actual words stating that. Omitting is not stating.

Correction noted. I should have said "specifically omitted". Because weapon USRs are specifically included.

You would be able to, except they pretty much all have Ignores Cover (Terror from the Deep) ignore all saves (Perils of the Warp) or you are told you cannot take cover saves against them (dangerous terrain, Vector Strike). Mindshackle Scarabs is pretty unique in that it doesn't ignore cover saves.

EDIT: I found one, you can take cover saves against Bombing Runs.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You would be able to, except they pretty much all have Ignores Cover (Terror from the Deep) ignore all saves (Perils of the Warp) or you are told you cannot take cover saves against them (dangerous terrain, Vector Strike). Mindshackle Scarabs is pretty unique in that it doesn't ignore cover saves.

EDIT: I found one, you can take cover saves against Bombing Runs.

Going back just a few months, Terror from the Deep did allow Cover Saves taken. So did the special ability on the Doom of Malan'Tai.

Also, there are maledictions that cause wounds or hits to be made, which are also neither Shooting nor CC-attacks.

Hmm I also don't have my BRB here so I can't check that now, but if it is a CC-attack and follows CC allocation rules, can the creature affected by MSS even have the MSS attacks allocated to itself then?

I'm with Raven on this one. They're auto "hits" not auto attacks. No such thing as auto attacks as you would still have to roll to hit. You have shooting attacks which generate hits and you close combat attacks which generate hits. Hits are their own thing.

tag8833 wrote:
I think we are dangerously close to an impasse where further discussion is not going to change anyone's mind. I am ok with 40k having rules that inflict 'hits' and 'wounds' without being either CC or Shooting 'attacks'. You disagree on that point, and feel like every hit or wound inflicted has to come from either a CC or shooting attack. This isn't a completely unreasonable position, and probably should be in its own thread instead of the MSS thread.

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
What about vector strike. In your vision of the game when everything is either a CC attack or a shooting attack, what is it? It uses random wound allocation which is in the shooting section. Does that in your mind mean that only shooting attacks can use random wound allocation? What about wounds caused by psychic perils? Are they CC or shooting?

I was about to come to VS: it is indeed shooting done in the movement phase - it even says you count as shooting one weapon in the next shooting phase.
You get cover saves against shooting: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461360.page

1) No cover saves against vector strike.
2) If you run, you usually can't shoot, does that mean that running counts as a shooting attack?

1) The thread i linked you should point you in the right direction. You CAN have cover saves against VS.
[Edit] Until the FAQ obviously added a specific wording that you cannot
2) How is this relevant? It replaces shooting attacks, just like you can play through a CC phase with no CC on the board?

tag8833 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
All psychic attacks are usually shooting too: find one that does not mention cover saves? Also the psyker counts as "shooting one weapon" P69

What about Psychic perils. That is when you roll a 1 + 1 or a 6 + 6 on psychic tests. Rules can be found on page 67. How about dangerous terrain? What about Boss Pole wounds? What about Gets Hot wounds or failed nova charges?

They are all resolved as shooting attacks from their point on, yes? i do not see the issue? They all contain wording to stop normal shooting rules such as Cover saves or Look-out sirs from happening.

Lamo wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or himself, if on his own orin a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and
benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice)."

3 things:

1) "attacking normally", so you cannot smash
2) where does it say you have control? You can choose the weapon is all.
3) you only benefit from Melee weapons char. no USR that the model may have to "choose" to use.

Also, smash requires that you "when it makes it's close combat attacks, choose to instead make a smash attack" But MSS is "before any blows are struck" so you can't choose to do smash as it's not the model's initiative step (not even I10).

You cannot "Instead" "Instead", it's one or the other. Either smash replaces MSS (no rules support) or MSS replaces smash (so you just MSS)

1) when you attack with a monstrous creature you are under normal circumstance given the choice to smash attack or not.
2) control is inferred by "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." if I do not control the model then who returns control of the model to the opponent? is it controlled by casper the friendly ghost?
3) Since I have control I can choose to use smash "Additonally, when it makes its close combat attacks attacks, it can choose to instead
make a Smash Anack." (quote straight out of smash rule) So if you say its a close combat attack then any close combat attack out of a monstrous creature can use smash attack. This choice (yes or no) must be made ever time it attacks in close combat regardless of which player is controlling its close combat attacks.

1) You as the owner of the model, yes. Since when does the enemy choose when your model smashes?
2) "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." refers to choosing the target of his attack, rather than being forced by MSS to attack his unit or himself. The owning player still rolls the dice to attack himself. You never roll in place of your opponent in 40k.
Your models are always controlled by yourself, never by the enemy. Even p147: puppet master "makes a shooting attack as if it was one of your models" Your opponent still rolls the shooting dice against himself.
3) view 2). Also "Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack." That means that, replacing the D3 hits and the attack described in MSS, you make a smash attack (and Half the A characteristic). Are you allowed to do this? please show how?
The choice is not made "every time it attacks", or you would smash instead of hammer of Wrath, instead of Stomp, instead of MSS etc... I'm sure you can see that this is not allowed. Only when he attacks using his "A" Characteristic in CC does he make the choice.

Black Talos - nope, no cover saves against VS, as they have FAQ'd this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black Talos - nope, no cover saves against VS, as they have FAQ'd this.

Just Edited, thanks.

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
I think we are dangerously close to an impasse where further discussion is not going to change anyone's mind. I am ok with 40k having rules that inflict 'hits' and 'wounds' without being either CC or Shooting 'attacks'. You disagree on that point, and feel like every hit or wound inflicted has to come from either a CC or shooting attack. This isn't a completely unreasonable position, and probably should be in its own thread instead of the MSS thread.

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
What about vector strike. In your vision of the game when everything is either a CC attack or a shooting attack, what is it? It uses random wound allocation which is in the shooting section. Does that in your mind mean that only shooting attacks can use random wound allocation? What about wounds caused by psychic perils? Are they CC or shooting?

I was about to come to VS: it is indeed shooting done in the movement phase - it even says you count as shooting one weapon in the next shooting phase.
You get cover saves against shooting: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461360.page

1) No cover saves against vector strike.
2) If you run, you usually can't shoot, does that mean that running counts as a shooting attack?

1) The thread i linked you should point you in the right direction. You CAN have cover saves against VS.
[Edit] Until the FAQ obviously added a specific wording that you cannot
2) How is this relevant? It replaces shooting attacks, just like you can play through a CC phase with no CC on the board?

tag8833 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
All psychic attacks are usually shooting too: find one that does not mention cover saves? Also the psyker counts as "shooting one weapon" P69

What about Psychic perils. That is when you roll a 1 + 1 or a 6 + 6 on psychic tests. Rules can be found on page 67. How about dangerous terrain? What about Boss Pole wounds? What about Gets Hot wounds or failed nova charges?

They are all resolved as shooting attacks from their point on, yes? i do not see the issue? They all contain wording to stop normal shooting rules such as Cover saves or Look-out sirs from happening.

Lamo wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"Instead of attacking normally, he inflicts D3 hits on his own unit (or himself, if on his own orin a challenge) when it is his turn to attack. These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength and
benefit from any abilities and penalties from his Melee weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which weapon he uses, if there is a choice)."

3 things:

1) "attacking normally", so you cannot smash
2) where does it say you have control? You can choose the weapon is all.
3) you only benefit from Melee weapons char. no USR that the model may have to "choose" to use.

Also, smash requires that you "when it makes it's close combat attacks, choose to instead make a smash attack" But MSS is "before any blows are struck" so you can't choose to do smash as it's not the model's initiative step (not even I10).

You cannot "Instead" "Instead", it's one or the other. Either smash replaces MSS (no rules support) or MSS replaces smash (so you just MSS)

1) when you attack with a monstrous creature you are under normal circumstance given the choice to smash attack or not.
2) control is inferred by "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." if I do not control the model then who returns control of the model to the opponent? is it controlled by casper the friendly ghost?
3) Since I have control I can choose to use smash "Additonally, when it makes its close combat attacks attacks, it can choose to instead
make a Smash Anack." (quote straight out of smash rule) So if you say its a close combat attack then any close combat attack out of a monstrous creature can use smash attack. This choice (yes or no) must be made ever time it attacks in close combat regardless of which player is controlling its close combat attacks.

1) You as the owner of the model, yes. Since when does the enemy choose when your model smashes?
2) "If he is still alive, the victim returns to the owning player’s control once all blows in that round of combat have been struck." refers to choosing the target of his attack, rather than being forced by MSS to attack his unit or himself. The owning player still rolls the dice to attack himself. You never roll in place of your opponent in 40k.
Your models are always controlled by yourself, never by the enemy. Even p147: puppet master "makes a shooting attack as if it was one of your models" Your opponent still rolls the shooting dice against himself.
3) view 2). Also "Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack." That means that, replacing the D3 hits and the attack described in MSS, you make a smash attack (and Half the A characteristic). Are you allowed to do this? please show how?
The choice is not made "every time it attacks", or you would smash instead of hammer of Wrath, instead of Stomp, instead of MSS etc... I'm sure you can see that this is not allowed. Only when he attacks using his "A" Characteristic in CC does he make the choice.

Alrighty first of all you as the owner are no longer in control as i have shown a few times thus selection of smash is no longer your choice. Your point 2 i dont exactly understand ill move on past this point. third actually you cant do it durring hammer of wrath because its stated in the rule(which i think is important because by mentioning this means that without this specific amendment it would be allowed), and from my understanding there is nothing that says an imperial knight cant switch its stomp for a smash attack. Wow now having the smash rule almost makes sense on a knight... Although it does say "special attack" so im sure there can be a discusion about that.

So I still dont see why I can't smash with MSS
(

You can't because it is not a close combat attack.

Lamo - no, you havent shown you are entirely under the control of the Necron player, you have misinterpreted the statement

The exact amount of control you are under is defined by the rule. WHen you are returned to the players control, that means IN CONTEXT the control that was taken away has now been returned, and does not imply that full control was ever taken.

An attack that looks like a CC attack, smells like a CC attack, and as a CC attack causes zero issues with the rules - satisfying Occams Razor something chronic - is most likely a CC attack

An attack that is called a CC attack is a CC attack, an attack that is not called a CC attack does not have permission to use CC attack rules.