Are Sweep Attacks CC Attacks?

[memnarch_129]

This question came up in a game at my local FLGS and just wanted to get everybodys opinion on it. The Sweep Attacks of the Catacomb Command Barge use the riders strength and weapon special abilities but it doesnt say anywhere specifically that these are or are not close combat attacks. Now this came up because of Grey Knight weapons (such as the sword or the Warding Stave). Would an individual that has a close combat save (such as the improved saves from Grey Knight weapons or the Wyches 4+ dodge) be able to use these against the Sweep Attacks of the Catacomb Command Barge.

[Tynskel]

Yes. U are using a CC weapon to cause damage.

[SotonShades]

I would say no. Otherwise you would be able to use those saves against things like the DE Jetbiker's Caltrops and the like. Although logically it is a close combat weapon, using the weilder's strength and the weapon's rules, it is an attack made in the movement phase, not the assault phase. As I understand it (without the new codex to hand) the Overlord can then proceed to shoot and assault other units in hand to hand combat. The attacks aren't made in the Close Combat phase, so the combat phase specific saves can't be taken against it.

[DrLove42]

I have to say its not CC as well, but for different reasons

Firstly its just the wrong phase. Its done in the movement phase, not the assault phase. Therefore not assault!

2) Httting. Unless i'm mistaken you hit on a fixed value. This doesn't change, unlike what it would in assault (ie WS differences, stationairy vehicles hit automatically)

3) If it were assault the other guys would get to attack back. They don't

Trust me, it makes sense for thing like Wyches to be able to use their save to get out of the way of things (its not an armour save after all, its fast reflexes to dodge an attack). But I don't think you can

[gcsmith]

No it is not combat attacks since for one the character doesnt mate the usual number of attacks, nor does it say its combat. Its damage done in moving phase that is all.

[Wildeybeast]

The Sweep Attacks of the Catacomb Command Barge use the riders strength and weapon special abilities but it doesnt say anywhere specifically that these are or are not close combat attacks.

Actaully it does, quite clearly in fact. "he can make three special 'sweep' attacks each turn".
It is a unique attack, made in the movement phase, which means any saves/abilities/wargear which specify that they are used against close combat attacks (rather than attakcs in general) are of no use here. Fairly straightforward really.

[MaltonNecromancer]

I'd have to say no as well. They're like the Dark Eldar jetbikey attack thing whose name escapes me.

It's not in the assault phase, it's a different hit.

Fluffwise, basically, yes, it's the Necron Lord doing a close combat attack, but he's just so damn fast on his little Mekon hoverplatform, that you can't get your block in time.

Or somesuch.

[Tynskel]

I don't understand where you guys come up with 'no'.

The rules specifically state these attacks use the close combat weapons on the IC. These ARE CC attacks.

[thecactusman17]

Close combat weapon, yes. But they are also specifically named as "special" attacks. It sounds like GW is specifically saying that these are not close combat attacks, but that their effects are those of your equipped close combat weapon. In fact, that is exactly what it says: "these attacks hit at the characters strength, plus any strength bonuses and special abilities from his close combat weapon." Now we are DEFINITELY not talking about close combat attacks, we have a whole sentence devoted to explaining how these attacks are carried out instead of a simple "attack as though making a close combat attack."

Further, note that the CCB is incapable of engaging and locking into CC. It has no WS, nor does the Lord get to strike back if it is charged.

Further, note that this prevents Trayzyn the Infinite from using his Empathic Obliterator to sweep an Ork mob off the board, as his attacks must be made in Close Combat in order for the ability to go off.

[Tynskel]

ah, but they are still attacks.

you only make attacks in CC.

you shoot guns, and you make CC attacks.


The phase they occur in doesn't really matter, because the main rulebook has instances where you can take wounds in ANY phase.

[MaxKool]

1)You take wounds, in the shooting phase.
2) you can take any "normal" save IR armor save or inv

You don't get to take any improved save from special cc weapons or a WYCH dodge save as for thosE to work u use them in the assault phase.

This is just like the sweep attacks of the de, u can always take normal saves but wouldn't be able to use a dodge save or the improved gk weapon saves as those are used in a different phase.
This is why occasionally they FAQ as to what phase some attacks take place in, so that u can determine what defensive options u have.....

[Wildcard]

In my opinion the "Special" part of the attacks are that:
-Those are made in movement phase
-Those don't take WS into account
- Attacks come from a unit with no WS value

YET

They come from a melee weapon with zero range (i.e you have to fly over the unit, not 2" near it)

I am having a hard time justifying that gk wouln't get their +1 to the invu saves just because these attacks didn't come in assault phase.

Also, close combat attacks always hit vehicles on the rear armor, just like these attacks, regardless of the true facing the 'barge moves over'...


This is just like the sweep attacks of the de, u can always take normal saves but wouldn't be able to use a dodge save or the improved gk weapon saves as those are used in a different phase.

FYI "The Nemesis force sword increases the bearer's invulnerable save by +1 against close combat attacks..."

There is no mention of it working only in certain phase

[MaxKool]

They are cc attacks in name for Sure , let's go over some thing to try and come to a semi logical results

This is called a special cc attack but dosnt happen in the cc phase. The unit being attacked in no way interacts with the attacker. It is a fixed to hit number. The only thing about cc in this attack is that it uses the speci rules of the wep used by the lord.

This attack is special and in this, does not follow the normal rules for 40k. IE causing cc wounds in the movement phase. We have all the rules for doing this special action. All this wargear is designed to be used in cc. This is not normal cc it is special covered by its own rules. If not stated to count as cc wounds then no gear that grants a benefit to cc saves would apply. As the scope of the wargear is not included in this "special" rules for this "special" attack.
It is not just a cc attack, it is a SPECIAL cc attack. Not following the normal rulebook as normally cc attacks don't happen in the movement phase.

I will look in my all my codex at home and see if I can find another time when cc type wounds are caused out of phase and if it males sence there to have the cc saves...


As if gk need anymore advantages... I hate that army and book.
Used to like it, abhor it now....

[memnarch_129]

Wildcard is correct that the Grey Knight weapon saves do not specify what phase they can be used in. what the Sweep Attacks boil down to is whether they are CC attacks or not. I never imagined my little question would end up a two page discussion over the CCBs Sweep Attacks.

[thecactusman17]

tynskel, that is not true. Close combat attacks and shooing attacks are specific types of attacks that occur in the shooting and assault phases. Some models can make attacks outside of those two phases, but that does not make the attacks shouting our cc unless stated as such. Look at dark eldar envenomed blades, for example. Those wounds occur in the assault phase but are specifically called out as being distributed like shooting. In the case of the ccb, we are talking about a model that cannot engage in assault. It has no WS at all. The barge is making the attacks here so far as game mechanics are concerned, using that stats and gear of the passenger, not the other way around

[Wildcard]

@memnarch: Well, my post about the phase was towards MaxKools claim about gk weapons used in different phase.

As for your original question:

This may not be clearly stated anywhere, but as far as i have understood it, assault phase and close combat are different things (there is no close combat phase in the game).

I would say that all models that get bonuses in close combat get the benefits they have, be that gk's improved invulnerable save, dark eldar dodge and what ever else there might be in other codexes.

Grenades and other stuff that is specifically stated to only work in assault phase (or the turn someone begins his assault) will not work against (s)weeping strikes :)

--
I dont get where people get that if attack has "special" word it ignores/bypasses all the benefits from the 'defending units' rules and wargear??
There are already special type of shooting and close combat attacks in the game, and although i agree that in those cases, bonuses, restrictions, usage etc etc are clearly pointed out (as well as if it actually is shooting or close combat attack).

Unless this is ruled by FAQ as silly as the GK pair of falchions were (just the opposite direction) i just cant see how these attacks wouldn't be considered as CC attacks (although special ones).


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Guardsmen have holy Terra-pattern lasguns with the following profile: 24" Sx APx Rapid Fire, Special
They auto cause wounds just by pointing them at things, and rip open landraiders with only by mere scratch from the bayonets. Oh boy, are these guns something Special ;)

/Edit
@memnarch: never mind the first line, read it wrong like you were pointing it out on me... Should probably go to bed already, cos its getting late :)
/Edit

[AbusePuppy]

Although they are resolved in a not-dissimilar manner to CC attacks and are made using the stats from a CC weapon, they are not close combat attacks. (Contrast the wording of the Barge's ability with the Ork Boarding Plank upgrade, which is a close combat attack.) Like the Reaver Jetbike's special flyby attack, it is neither shooting nor close combat, being instead a special attack outside of the normal sequence.

[Angelofblades]

If a barge were to perform a sweeping attack on a vehicle. What would you be hitting at?

[thecactusman17]

Angel, I'd argue that your attack is occurring at whatever point you first interacted the vehicle at. If you want to hit rear, your dude can hop out. It is an open topped vehicle after all.

[Tynskel]

This is totally a close combat attack----

1) look at CC attacks against vehicles--- to hit is based upon speed. Now, why can't this be the reverse?

2) The weapon that is doing the attacks is a CC weapon.

They are 'special' because they are not in the Assault Phase... but, by no means, does make them any less a CC attack.

[Wildcard]

If a barge were to perform a sweeping attack on a vehicle. What would you be hitting at?

Page 52: Sweep Attack: "--The unit suffers a hit at the charachters strenght, plus any strenght bonuses and special abilities from his close combat weapon. Hits against vehicles are resolved against vehicles are resolved against rear armour--

However, has it been stated anywhere how the following is ruled out:

Page 52: Sweep Attack: "--On a sweep attack where the to hit dice roll is a 6, you can choose which model the resulting wound( if there is one) is allocated against--"

Say, if you hit 3 times, can you 'stack' all 3 wounds to the leader of the squad (Sergeant, Justicar, Nob, etc etc), or do you have to follow normal wound allocation rules (one wound per model until all models have taken a wound and so on)?

[gcsmith]

At no point is cc attack assumed in the rules. If it was it wouldnt need to mention hitting rear armour and getting weapon benefits. Also prcedence (bladevanes) says hello. Only thing we no aare wat its rules say. Not wat it doesnt say.

[Tynskel]

At no point is cc attack assumed in the rules. If it was it wouldnt need to mention hitting rear armour and getting weapon benefits. Also prcedence (bladevanes) says hello. Only thing we no aare wat its rules say. Not wat it doesnt say.

Hah, no.
If they didn't mention this hitting rear armor, people would argue whether it hit rear armor.

The rules give you every definition of a CC attack.
1) hit roll based upon speed, see hitting tanks. This is the reverse of hitting tank, now you have a 'tank' hitting you.
2) uses IC CC weapon---- that's a BIG CLUE there.
3) attacks hit rear armor, ie just like a CC attack

[MaxKool]

I think the sticking point for me is it's not the IC doing the attacks. It's the barge, for all we know the weapon is sitting ina holder or similar mount. As u don't use WS and the to hit roll is modified by how much the barge moved. The only thing cc about the attack is that it also usEs the rull for any equipped wep.

Do gk players get improved saves from any wound suffered or just ones caused by "normal" cc attacks. Wich "NORMALY" happen in the assault phase.
This is the normal use of cc items, the sweep Attack is not normal by the brb definition of attacks so IDE think still no.
I think a FAQ is in order for this one... Dice off for now.

U want a fluffy answer? The guys being attacked are not attacking, they are standing around and out of nowhere a dude on a flying barge sweeps down out of the sky and try's to lop their head off.
At no time are they engaged in cc, so why would the defender be using cc gear when they aren't engaged.

Fluffy I know but they do rule out of fluff sometimes, u never know with gw...

[FTE-Charge!!!]

Absolutely not! That is absolute cheese that someone would say they get a cc save! If that is the case than they get saves from DE jetbikes chain snare thingys.

Although it uses the CC weapon of the lord it does not take place in CC, therefore no special saves granted.

[Wildeybeast]

This is totally a close combat attack----

1) look at CC attacks against vehicles--- to hit is based upon speed. Now, why can't this be the reverse?

2) The weapon that is doing the attacks is a CC weapon.

They are 'special' because they are not in the Assault Phase... but, by no means, does make them any less a CC attack.

1) The type of weapon used is irrelevant. A pistol is not making a close combat attack when fired in the shooting phase, because it is in the shooting phase, as it only becomes a CC weapon when used in CC. The context in which the weapon is being used is what matters. Is has to be used in CC to make it a CC attack.

2) So how do we know when we are fighting a combat? P35 tells us "Units that have one or more model in base contact with enemies are said to be 'locked in combat'. You get into this position by following the assault rules on the previous pages. At no point of the sweep attack have you met any of the criteria necessary to be considered to be in combat.

3) RAW is actually very clear on this. You are making a unique attack called a sweep attack. You just happen to be doing it using a CC weapon. If the barge just had a big spike on it which 'attacked' them, we would not be making this argument. No would argue that the Mawloc's teror from the deep is either a shooting or CC attakc, it is just a unique attack, which happens to follow the same game mechanics as a template shooting attack because its far easier than making up a whole new set.
This is a unique attack, using a CC weapon, which follows the same mechanic as CC. That is not the same as a CC attack because you have not entered CC following the valid rules, nor is there any reference at all to you being in CC, or making a CC attack. As such, any defences which specify as being 'against CC attacks' are not valid. Of course, if the wording is 'against attacks made with CC weapons', then you are fine as it an attack using a CC weapon.

[Tynskel]

wait, you are saying it is a CC attack... but doesn't use cc...
dumb.

If it is using CC rules for every step of the way, which it is, then it is a CC attack.

The mawloc is a poor example--- nothing about it is described as either shooting or cc. (there are blast weapons in CC and in shooting).

[Wildeybeast]

wait, you are saying it is a CC attack... but doesn't use cc...
dumb.

If it is using CC rules for every step of the way, which it is, then it is a CC attack.

The mawloc is a poor example--- nothing about it is described as either shooting or cc. (there are blast weapons in CC and in shooting).

Before you go calling people dumb, perhaps you should actually read carefully what I am saying

1) What I said was it is an attack (a special sweep attack) which is made using a CC weapon, not a CC attack as he is not in CC! Though having just re-read the rules it doesn't actually say he uses a CC weapon at all, he simply makes three attacks, so he could be chucking rocks at them as he zooms past for all we know. Edit Scratch that als t bit, it does say he gets bonuses from his CC weapon.

2) It is not using CC rules every step of the way, because as I explained, with clear rules references, he has not followed the procedure for entering combat (assaulting), nor is he in b2b contact and thus cannot be classed as being in combat according to the combat rules laid down in the rulebook. It just uses the hit and wound mechanic because that is the way the game works, just like the mawloc uses the blast shooting mechanic but isn't shooting or for that matter entering combat.

3) Nowhere in the mawloc rules does it say anything about making shooting or CC attacks, I quite agree. And guess what, nowhere in the sweep attack rules does it say anything about shooting or CC, you just make a special sweep attack! Thank you for emphasising my point for me.

[MaxKool]

Ding ding ding..... U win teh internetz Wildy, u basically summed up what I was thinking, but couldn't find the rout words.

I agree with you 100% it is not a cc attack as it dosnt follow any of the rules for a legal close combat, it is just a special attack that happens to use the weapons special abilities.

[Yriel_The_Angelic]

Ding ding ding..... U win teh internetz Wildy, u basically summed up what I was thinking, but couldn't find the rout words.

I agree with you 100% it is not a cc attack as it dosnt follow any of the rules for a legal close combat, it is just a special attack that happens to use the weapons special abilities.

Reminds me of the whole Arjac throwing his thunderhammer debate.
"If the person hit by Arjac throwing his Thunderhammie survive do they get reduced to initiative 1?"
BoLS Whiners: No!! Because it has it's own profile and thus uses it's new given profile!
BoLS Whiners 2: Nah-uh! It says here that it's a thunderhammie!
BoLS Whiners: It say's it under fluff! Not in the profile!
GW: Yes, it's a freaking Thunderhammer.

[Tynskel]

Hmmm... I still don't follow- I wasn't calling you dumb I was saying yr statement was dumb. Big difference!

You move the model into b2b. Ie you fly through the unit.
You hit the unit with your CC weapon, based upon speed ie like the tank rules
You hit armor on rear, just like CC


What is not CC about this!!!!!!!

[MaxKool]

Reminds me of the whole Arjac throwing his thunderhammer debate.
"If the person hit by Arjac throwing his Thunderhammie survive do they get reduced to initiative 1?"
BoLS Whiners: No!! Because it has it's own profile and thus uses it's new given profile!
BoLS Whiners 2: Nah-uh! It says here that it's a thunderhammie!
BoLS Whiners: It say's it under fluff! Not in the profile!
GW: Yes, it's a freaking Thunderhammer.

Um no

That was being stupid, Its a thunderhammer.
This isnt about the rules of the wep.

Its weather its a CC attack, wich not only GK but opens up quite a few holes. If GK guys start taking their +1 saves then Ill start using my wych 4++.

And basicly make the attack a waste of time....

Its not a CC attack. Its a special attack that uses the profile of the weapon as a bonus. If it used the profile of a gun equiped would that make it shooting?? The only thing CC about it is that. Nothing else, the models arnt even engaged or locked. Its just a sweep.....


Problem is everyone wants to pidgeon hole everything new into one of 2 kinds of attacks, Shooting and CC. Its not always so clear... things are labled special for a reason. THEY DONT FOOLOW ANY RULES but the ones defined in their profile.

Its just like my Skaven in 7th with all their "special" mounts and units. People were allways trying to say its a chariot or its a monster mount ect... Low and behold when 8th came out... It showed them as SPECIAL units with their own rules. Cause thats what special means, Follows its OWN special rules. NOT some other ones.... CC rules dont apply here, just the rules given in the attack.
Do they Say "the lord makes 3 CC strikes from his mount"
NO they say he makes 3 sweeping attacks (with their own rules for hitting and damage)

[MaxKool]

Hmmm... I still don't follow- I wasn't calling you dumb I was saying yr statement was dumb. Big difference!

You move the model into b2b. Ie you fly through the unit.
You hit the unit with your CC weapon, based upon speed ie like the tank rules
You hit armor on rear, just like CC


What is not CC about this!!!!!!!

Flying over a unit is NOT base to base, This is why you jump over units and can ram with skimmers. If they were ever officialy in Base you wouldnt be able to do this as you would "contact" somthing and have to stop.


Its not cause it dosnt SAY IT IS

It never once says that the lord makes CC attacks. It says he makes Sweep Attacks.

What are sweep attacks? Read the special rules. The ONLY time it says anything about CC is mentioning the wepon. All other ref are to SWEEP attacks.

Thats why they arnt CC cause it NEVER, NOT once refers to them as CC. It says 'Sweep' Attack

[Tynskel]

Flying over a unit is NOT base to base, This is why you jump over units and can ram with skimmers. If they were ever officialy in Base you wouldnt be able to do this as you would "contact" somthing and have to stop.


Its not cause it dosnt SAY IT IS

It never once says that the lord makes CC attacks. It says he makes Sweep Attacks.

What are sweep attacks? Read the special rules. The ONLY time it says anything about CC is mentioning the wepon. All other ref are to SWEEP attacks.

Thats why they arnt CC cause it NEVER, NOT once refers to them as CC. It says 'Sweep' Attack

you forgot the part about speed related hits... yeah, that's how cc's hit fast moving vehicles...
you forgot the part about the part that the barge is flying through the unit... just like jump pack units fly into units...

you did remember that the weapon doing the damage is the CC weapon...

Lemmy think here... How does my CC weapon do damage, oh now I remember, by whacking my opponent over the head. No Wait!!! That's not CC!!!! You are in a vehicle! You can't whack them on the head.



You are totally right. The Necrons use Technomancy to astral project there staff onto the tops of the heads of their opponents.

[MaxKool]

you forgot the part about speed related hits... yeah, that's how cc's hit fast moving vehicles...
you forgot the part about the part that the barge is flying through the unit... just like jump pack units fly into units...

you did remember that the weapon doing the damage is the CC weapon...

Lemmy think here... How does my CC weapon do damage, oh now I remember, by whacking my opponent over the head. No Wait!!! That's not CC!!!! You are in a vehicle! You can't whack them on the head.



You are totally right. The Necrons use Technomancy to astral project there staff onto the tops of the heads of their opponents.

Ok Ill reply to each point

1) Speed related hits, It suppilies ITS OWN RULES for them, not a 4+/6+
So NO its not the same its SPECIAL it does not refrance the BRB in any way shape or form.

2) Jump Infantry are not Skimmers, Skimmers move over units WITHOUT making contact with them.
As I said this is how u can Ram with a skimmer. So No Skimmer is NOT making base to base contact

3) The rules for how the hit is resolved are a combination of its own rules, 3+/4+ to hit
and using the special properties of the wepon equiped.

I dont use my # of attacks like CC, I dont use my WS like CC and I dont have base to base contact like CC

Face it dude, you are taking similar rules and shoehorning this special attack into a normal CC attack.

more or less, a faq can always go either way.... just ask a tyranid player :(

[Tynskel]

You mean, ask a space wolf player.

The different to hit roll is irreverent: uses the same framework that vehicles use in CC- ie based upon speed.
This is not a ram: the CC weapon is used, not the armor of the vehicle.
Your point three is a repeat.

I don't know if you have noticed, but there are MANY special rules that are CC attacks that 1) don't use the attack profile, 2) do not use the WS profile.
Ex: Seth whirlwind attack. No WS, No Attack profile used.
People don't argue about them! And thats ONLY because they occur in the assault phase. However, there are assault phase attacks that don't count in assault eg, one Ctan power.

The point is: it smells like a duck, it tastes like a duck, it moves like a duck----- but you say it is a cow.
IT IS A DUCK!

[Demonus]

At no point is cc attack assumed in the rules. If it was it wouldnt need to mention hitting rear armour and getting weapon benefits. Also prcedence (bladevanes) says hello. Only thing we no aare wat its rules say. Not wat it doesnt say.

"from his close combat weapon."


Nope doesnt mention close combat at all.....

[Wildeybeast]

You mean, ask a space wolf player.

The different to hit roll is irreverent: uses the same framework that vehicles use in CC- ie based upon speed.

The point is: it smells like a duck, it tastes like a duck, it moves like a duck----- but you say it is a cow.
IT IS A DUCK!

And again I point out that the mawloc terror from the deep rule uses the same rules mechanic for a blast shooting attack, but you aren't claiming that to be a blast shooting attack. Or are you?
At the end of the day, you are applying RAI (at least as you see intend them), but RAW is very clear that you are making a unique sweep attack, which has its own rules outlined in the Necron codex. You are not making a CC attack because at no point do the rules refer to you being in CC or making a CC attack, you make a sweep attack using a CC weapon.

[Tynskel]

By definition that you a stating that using a CC weapon is not a CC attack. That does not work.

Also, the Mawloc attack has been ruled as a Shooting attack, ie you get a cover save. If it was a CC attack you could not claim a cover save.

[MaxKool]

Ok, listen. Plain and simple.
I understand where u are coming from, but codex books are here to give us unique rules. By definition they only follow the rules as written in the codex. U can't take rules from the brb and combine them with a unique rule to fi in blanks. It's either exactly as written in the codex or it will be faqd.

The to hit mechanic dosnt match the brb, it shares a to hit roll SIMILAR to the BRB vehicle rules but again i will repeat that it IS differant and u cannot say they are exactly the SamE as they are not.
The rules in the brb modify the to hit roll based on how far the vehicle being ATTACKED has moved not the other way around .This is not the Same, Similar but different enuf to have unique rules.

All your bs about base to base is wrong, the rules for the sweep attack NEVER use the words base to base, therefor you CANNOT put words that arnt there. That's picking and choosing rules mate...
A skimmer moving over units is NEVER in base contact, any assumption by u is just that. Again this is why I mentioned tank shocking skimmers, skimmers flying over units are not making base contact in any way described in the brb. Stop saying they are, it's flat out wrong.
The descriptiOn of the attack even states "as it flys OVER a unit" not through, so being a skimmer flying OVER ... no base contact.If the rules said "a lord on a command barge can make a special close combat sweeping attck as he flies over the unit" u would be bang on. But it dosnt say that, it gives a name to a unique attack and only the rules presented should be used.

I'll say again that they will FAQ it however they want, but to assume u are right based on the Incredibly simplistic narrow view that all attacks must be either shooting or cc is just wrong.

Play it how u want, but as far as I'm concerned it's not as simple as u are stating and u have repeatedly added words from differant rules and made them work to fit what u think is right...
Case in point, if the tank I'm trying to sweep has moved why dosnt it modify the to hit roll I have to make? It's because it's NOT following those rules, they are just similar rules but NOT the not the same.

Your whole areguemet is based on the BARGES special attack using the lords wep properties making it cc. How about if I had a wep that granted extra attacks in cc? This would not apPly as I'm not is cc and it has it's own rules,
LoOk at it this way, the only part of the sweep attacks rules that ref. CC is the weapon properties, all other rules are unique and absolutely not the same as the cc rules.

Whatever tho do whatever u want and wait for a FAQ

[MaxKool]

Ok, listen. Plain and simple.
I understand where u are coming from, but codex books are here to give us unique rules. By definition they only follow the rules as written in the codex. U can't take rules from the brb and combine them with a unique rule to fi in blanks. It's either exactly as written in the codex or it will be faqd.

The to hit mechanic dosnt match the brb, it shares a to hit roll SIMILAR to the GUI vehicle rules but again i will repeat that it IS differant and u cannot say they are exactly the SamE as they are not.
The rules in the brb modify the to hit roll based on how far the ATTACKER has moved. This is not the SamE.. Similar but different enuf to have unique rules.
All your bs about base to base is wrong, the rules for the sweep attack NEVER use the words base to base, therefor you CANNOT put words that arnt there. That's picking and choosing rules mate...
A skimmer moving over units is NEVER in base contact, any assumption by u is just that. Again this is why I mentioned tank shocking skimmers, skimmers flying over units are not making base contact in any way described in the brb. Stop saying they are, it's flat out wrong.
The descriptiOn of the attack even states "as it flys OVER a unit" not through, so being a skimmer flying OVER ... no base contact.If the rules said "a lord on a command barge can make a special close combat sweeping attck as he flies over the unit" u would be bang on. But it dosnt say that, it gives a name to a unique attack and only the rules presented should be used.

I'll say again that they will FAQ it however they want, but to assume u are right based on the Incredibly simplistic narrow view that all attacks must be either shooting or cc is just wrong.

Play it how u want, but as far as I'm concerned it's not as simple as u are stating and u have repeatedly added words from differant rules and made them work to fit what u think is right...
Case in point, if the tank I'm trying to sweep has moved why dosnt it modify the to hit roll I have to make? It's because it's NOT following those rules, they are just similar rules but NOT the not the same.

Your whole areguemet is based on the BARGES special attack using the lords wep properties making it cc. How about if I had a wep that granted extra attacks in cc? This would not apPly as I'm not is cc and it has it's own rules,
LoOk at it this way, the only part of the sweep attacks rules that ref. CC is the weapon properties, all other rules are unique and absolutely not the same as the cc rules.

Whatever tho do whatever u want and wait for a FAQ

[Angelofblades]

So if it's not a cc attack, can one use a cover save against it?

[Tynskel]

Ok, listen. Plain and simple.
I understand where u are coming from, but codex books are here to give us unique rules. By definition they only follow the rules as written in the codex. U can't take rules from the brb and combine them with a unique rule to fi in blanks. It's either exactly as written in the codex or it will be faqd.

The to hit mechanic dosnt match the brb, it shares a to hit roll SIMILAR to the GUI vehicle rules but again i will repeat that it IS differant and u cannot say they are exactly the SamE as they are not.
The rules in the brb modify the to hit roll based on how far the ATTACKER has moved. This is not the SamE.. Similar but different enuf to have unique rules.
All your bs about base to base is wrong, the rules for the sweep attack NEVER use the words base to base, therefor you CANNOT put words that arnt there. That's picking and choosing rules mate...
A skimmer moving over units is NEVER in base contact, any assumption by u is just that. Again this is why I mentioned tank shocking skimmers, skimmers flying over units are not making base contact in any way described in the brb. Stop saying they are, it's flat out wrong.
The descriptiOn of the attack even states "as it flys OVER a unit" not through, so being a skimmer flying OVER ... no base contact.If the rules said "a lord on a command barge can make a special close combat sweeping attck as he flies over the unit" u would be bang on. But it dosnt say that, it gives a name to a unique attack and only the rules presented should be used.

I'll say again that they will FAQ it however they want, but to assume u are right based on the Incredibly simplistic narrow view that all attacks must be either shooting or cc is just wrong.

Play it how u want, but as far as I'm concerned it's not as simple as u are stating and u have repeatedly added words from differant rules and made them work to fit what u think is right...
Case in point, if the tank I'm trying to sweep has moved why dosnt it modify the to hit roll I have to make? It's because it's NOT following those rules, they are just similar rules but NOT the not the same.

Your whole areguemet is based on the BARGES special attack using the lords wep properties making it cc. How about if I had a wep that granted extra attacks in cc? This would not apPly as I'm not is cc and it has it's own rules,
LoOk at it this way, the only part of the sweep attacks rules that ref. CC is the weapon properties, all other rules are unique and absolutely not the same as the cc rules.

Whatever tho do whatever u want and wait for a FAQ

I would agree with you, however you forgot one thing: GW uses fluff in their rules. The Barge is flying low, and the character is bonking people on the head with his CC weapon. In this respect, units with invulnerable save in CC, like grey knights or dark eldar with dodge saves, would be able to try to get out of the way of the weapon.

This is simple:
1) the mechanic is the same as vehicle moving--- just because the number is different doesn't make it a different mechanic. As we have witnessed in other codexes--- the rules in a codex MODIFY the rulebook.

2) Uses a CC weapon (duh)

3) uses attacks (only CC weapons use attacks!)

sounds like a duck, tastes like a duck, waddles like a duck, dives like a duck, swims like a duck---- it is a COW!
Nope--- It is a Duck.

[Maelstorm]

Hmmm... Sounds like spoiled Grey Knight players trying to salvage their own cheese.

[Gir]

Page 52: Sweep Attack: "--The unit suffers a hit at the charachters strenght, plus any strenght bonuses and special abilities from his close combat weapon. Hits against vehicles are resolved against vehicles are resolved against rear armour--


I would like to point out that it doesn't say that the attack is caused by the close combat weapon, the attack is made up of the overlords strength with any bonuses his close combat weapon has.

[Drakkan Vael]

I might add that the attacks are made in the movement phase.

Why not keep it simple? They are attacks. Period.

As to the cover save: are you shot at? No, so no cover save.

Regarding the Mawloc argument: The attacks from Terror from the Deep have NOT been ruled as shooting attacks. The FAQ simply allows cover saves to be taken against it. Shooting is not mentioned at all.

[Tynskel]

Hmmm... Sounds like spoiled Grey Knight players trying to salvage their own cheese.

I play neither Grey Knights or Dark Eldar. I could care less about there rules.

[Tynskel]

I might add that the attacks are made in the movement phase.

Why not keep it simple? They are attacks. Period.

As to the cover save: are you shot at? No, so no cover save.

Regarding the Mawloc argument: The attacks from Terror from the Deep have NOT been ruled as shooting attacks. The FAQ simply allows cover saves to be taken against it. Shooting is not mentioned at all.

Cover is granted to shooting attacks. This is a shooting attack by proxy. Just as the barge attacks are CC attacks by proxy.

[Gir]

Cover is granted to shooting attacks. This is a shooting attack by proxy. Just as the barge attacks are CC attacks by proxy.

Sorry bro, it's not a cc attack. It's just a generic attack that obtains str from the overlord and special rules from his close combat weapon.

[SotonShades]

I play neither Grey Knights or Dark Eldar. I could care less about there rules.

You very obviously could care less as you are arguing quite strongly for the point :P If you couldn't care less about their rules, this wouldn't matter to you at all.

On a side note, this thread has mostly boiled down to Tynskel and Maxkool making the exact same argument as a repost to the other; essentially "yes it is", "no it isn't" but wordier. I made my argument against the special combat saves before, so I'm not going to fall in to that same pattern, but wouldn't it be nice to hear a few more peoples views on the subject matter without having to filter out the repeated arguments?

[Tynskel]

Sorry bro, it's not a cc attack. It's just a generic attack that obtains str from the overlord and special rules from his close combat weapon.

Sorry bro, but attacks are made in CC unless otherwise stated.

[Tynskel]

You very obviously could care less as you are arguing quite strongly for the point :P If you couldn't care less about their rules, this wouldn't matter to you at all.

On a side note, this thread has mostly boiled down to Tynskel and Maxkool making the exact same argument as a repost to the other; essentially "yes it is", "no it isn't" but wordier. I made my argument against the special combat saves before, so I'm not going to fall in to that same pattern, but wouldn't it be nice to hear a few more peoples views on the subject matter without having to filter out the repeated arguments?

I don't care what the rules of another codex are. What I do care about is that their implementation is consistent. Sweep attack uses close combat mechanisms, and it is only logical that all reactionary close combat mechanisms would be activated as well. Obviously, you don't get to attack back, because the rule states nothing about attacking back, so the only way you could attack back would be in the assault phase. However, since the target is being hit by a cc weapon, any special ability that is reactionary will apply back

For ex
If the target unit was Gabriel Seth, and the Necrons lord rolled a 1 to hit, Seth would automatically hit back at str 4.
Seth is just a B@d MoFo like that.

[Wildeybeast]

So if it's not a cc attack, can one use a cover save against it?

No. The sweep attakc rules expressly forbid you from takign cover saves, which I would take as another indication that these are a unique attack. If they were CC attacks, there would be no need to mention cover saves as you don't get these in combat. So it is obviously a nunique attack with its own special ruels and as such needs clarification about whether you get cover saves, since it is neither a shooting nor CC attack.

[Tynskel]

No. The sweep attakc rules expressly forbid you from takign cover saves, which I would take as another indication that these are a unique attack. If they were CC attacks, there would be no need to mention cover saves as you don't get these in combat. So it is obviously a nunique attack with its own special ruels and as such needs clarification about whether you get cover saves, since it is neither a shooting nor CC attack.

No. They mention no cover saves because everyone automatically thinks you get a coversave for anything unless it was explicitly in the assault phase--- and even then, blast powers in the assault phase people still ask about cover saves.

The fact that it doesn't grant cover saves is in line with the fact that it is a CC attack.

1) You bonk them with your CC weapon
2) they don't get cover saves, just like CC attacks
3) hit is dependent on speed, just like CC with vehicles
4) vehicles are hit on rear, as in CC

It is a CC attack.
The Codex rules are an Extension of the Rulebook rules. If they were independent of the Rulebook rules, you wouldn't need the Rulebook at all! Logically, since everything about the Sweep Attack rules are in line with the CC rules logically means it is a CC attack.

[Drakkan Vael]

No. They mention no cover saves because everyone automatically thinks you get a coversave for anything unless it was explicitly in the assault phase--- and even then, blast powers in the assault phase people still ask about cover saves.

The fact that it doesn't grant cover saves is in line with the fact that it is a CC attack.

1) You bonk them with your CC weapon
2) they don't get cover saves, just like CC attacks
3) hit is dependent on speed, just like CC with vehicles
4) vehicles are hit on rear, as in CC

It is a CC attack.
The Codex rules are an Extension of the Rulebook rules. If they were independent of the Rulebook rules, you wouldn't need the Rulebook at all! Logically, since everything about the Sweep Attack rules are in line with the CC rules logically means it is a CC attack.

We all know that you think it is a CC attack, while a lot of other people (me included) think it is not.
Let's keep it that way.
We agree to disagree.

[Tynskel]

We all know that you think it is a CC attack, while a lot of other people (me included) think it is not.
Let's keep it that way.
We agree to disagree.

I disagree.
Whoops!

[Drakkan Vael]

I disagree.
Whoops!

Sadly not even remotely funny.

By the way: Your logic is flawed.

There are several things that do NOT work like CC.

1) attacks are not made in initivative order
2) opponent is not allowed to strike back
3) you can't fight CC out of a vehicle
4) hit is not dependent on enemy movement but on your own (Unlike in CC)
5) Overlord might disembark and attack in CC after the Sweeping Attacks have been made

[Tynskel]

Sadly not even remotely funny.

By the way: Your logic is flawed.

There are several things that do NOT work like CC.

1) attacks are not made in initivative order
2) opponent is not allowed to strike back
3) you can't fight CC out of a vehicle
4) hit is not dependent on enemy movement but on your own (Unlike in CC)
5) Overlord might disembark and attack in CC after the Sweeping Attacks have been made

Aw, that's too bad that you have no sense of humor. You are right--- that statement is flawed logic!

Actually, your argument is irrelevant.

This is still a special attack in the Movement Phase. The rules for sweep attack do not state to 'activate the assault phase'.

In fact, 'sweep attacks' is a classic 'interrupt', just like Deathmark counter deep strike--- would you say the Deathmarks do not count as moving because they Deep Strike in the enemy turn, out of order of normal play? Would you say that if the Deathmarks 'Deep Strike' into terrain, they do not have to worry about 'Dangerous Terrain Checks' because this is in the "opponent's turn"?

No.

Remember, the Codex is modifying the standard rules: Because the interrupt does not state the assault phase is being used, you do not follow the standard rules for assault. However, there are still keywords being used: CC weapon, strikes based upon speed, hitting rear armor, no cover saves. All of these are exactly from the assault rules. And since the Codex is built upon the Rulebook framework, and is NOT independent of the Core Rulebook, the logical conclusion is that these are CC attacks. There is nothing in this rule that would suggest otherwise.

[dannyat2460]

unfortunalty i see the sweep attack as a special type of attack which means the rule book dosnt have the rules to be modified by the codex the codex is making it up from scratch. Yes there are parts of the rules from CC at work here but there are also other factors taken from the shooting phase as well as the movment phase.

I belive the thing that defines CC however is the assault phase summary but with the sweep attack there is only 1 criteria met, roll to hit and to wound and opponent takes saving throws as required

[MaxKool]

Yah I kinda gave up on this one... (at the time) 2 pages of just repeating myself... bah...

Anyhow, Yah More opinions are needed...

You guys know how I think about it...

Actualy all the people ive played sofar also play it as a Unique attack.... IE Like CC but not Quite CC

Basicly my opponents have been playing like, Any wargear that works normaly when Engaged in CC dosnt work as you are not engaged... its just a "CC like attack"

[Angelofblades]

Well if a vehicle has say an invul save, would it get that then? Typically invul saves cover damage from all sources, regardless of what phase it happened in. So would it be correct in assuming that you would still get an invul save? (DE flicker fields, SoB's etc)

[Tynskel]

yup.

[Tynskel]

Yah I kinda gave up on this one... (at the time) 2 pages of just repeating myself... bah...

Anyhow, Yah More opinions are needed...

You guys know how I think about it...

Actualy all the people ive played sofar also play it as a Unique attack.... IE Like CC but not Quite CC

Basicly my opponents have been playing like, Any wargear that works normaly when Engaged in CC dosnt work as you are not engaged... its just a "CC like attack"

Yay! Let's be ambiguous about how we apply our rules!

[Gir]

1) You bonk them with your CC weapon

No you don't. It doesn't say that anywhere.



2) they don't get cover saves, just like CC attacks

There are a lot of non cc attacks that ignore cover saves. Might as well put down a flamer template.



3) hit is dependent on speed, just like CC with vehicles

What? CC with vehicles is based on the speed of the attack vehicle, sweep attack is based on the speed of the command barge. They are completely different.



4) vehicles are hit on rear, as in CC

Shooting a vehcile in the rear is also a hit on rear! They must be close combat attacks too.



It is a CC attack.

No, it's a special "sweep" attack, as it explicitly says in the codex.

[Tynskel]

No you don't. It doesn't say that anywhere.



There are a lot of non cc attacks that ignore cover saves. Might as well put down a flamer template.



What? CC with vehicles is based on the speed of the attack vehicle, sweep attack is based on the speed of the command barge. They are completely different.



Shooting a vehcile in the rear is also a hit on rear! They must be close combat attacks too.



No, it's a special "sweep" attack, as it explicitly says in the codex.

1) Uh, I said Bonk. Read the Barge description--- the Lord is bonking people with his staff.
You may think is a illegitimate use--- but time and time again, GW has mixed fluff with rules.
Additionally--- it says to APPLY YOUR CC WEAPON AND STRENGTH characteristics. Hah!

2) You are NOT shooting, and template weapons are a very specific exception to the cover rules. Also note, once again, it fits their fluff.

3) Uh, note that this is a vehicle moving fast? You are attacking from a vehicle... How is this different? If you just think about the laws of physics (of which unlike most 40k armies, the Necrons constantly have throughout the fluff state that they use), a fast moving vehicle to hit is the same thing as a fast moving soldier to hit.

4) Once again, this is not a shooting attack--- there is NO mentioning of shooting, the only mentioning is CC abilities, which is NOT shooting. Also, Shooting is completely dependent on direction of attack, whereas CC only requires rolling to hit the vehicle, and you always hit rear armor. If you notice you can come up with 270 degrees of attack which are not from the rear with the barge. How does it the rear? Oh yeah, because it is a CC attack.


I have stated this before. Codex rules are used with the Rulebook. They build upon the rulebook's foundation. Sometimes they override the rulebook specific rules, but, in this case, they don't. They are in addition to the normal rules, and they are using specific rule sets, of which, are ALL found in CC rules.

This is a CC attack. Your grey knights get +1 to inv., your wyches get 4+ dodge save. Seth can punch the barge if the Lord is incompetent. ect ect.

[Drakkan Vael]

Most who have been writing in this thread do not deny that the sweeping attacks uses some of the CC rules.
But not all and not even the majority.

Yes, the sweep attack rules stated come from the CC section of the rulebook.
Yes, they are in addition to the normal rules.

The only point doubtful (not to you, we all got that) is, if it is indeed a CC attack and not an attack that uses parts of the CC rules.

In my opinion it is a special form of attack, albeit a special form of CC attack but does not use most of the CC rules (no initiative order, no attacks from opponent, made in movement phase, not depending on WS, not depending on enemy movement).

[Wildeybeast]

4) Once again, this is not a shooting attack--- there is NO mentioning of shooting, the only mentioning is CC abilities, which is NOT shooting.

Really? There is NOmention of it being a CC attack either, the only time the phrase 'CC' is used is in reference to S bonuses from a CC weapon. There is no mention anywhere at all of being in CC, or of making a CC attack, nor have you gone through the process necessary to enter CC (assaulting) and there are clear and explicit references to making a unique sweep attack and pretty much everyone disagrees with you and you still want to maintain it is a CC attack?

I guess all I can say is fair play to you for having the conviction in your beliefs to stick by them in the face of fairly convincing evidence to the contrary, the sign of a true believer.

[MaxKool]

Yay! Let's be ambiguous about how we apply our rules!

What was the point of this ? I stated my intention to back off as it was getting nowhere between us. We need some other peeps to join in and get some more input. Then I told you how my lgs and recent tourney played it.

This is what u say to that?

Piss off man, there was no reason for that post.

All u do is keep repeating yourself and when somone does point out a difference u gloss over it and say it's the same even when it is . Your argument is weak, other people have come on and offered reasons why they think the way they do and u just keep repeating yourself.
I will NOT repeat my argument every page now that I see how u do..
That's one way to get a post count eh....

Actualy, I'm not even sure what we are arguing anyway... Wargear that is used while engaged in cc is what this was originally about.

I would be willing to go so far as to say yes it might be a special cc attack but being that you are not engaged in cc undont have the benefit of any special wargear used in cc when u are attacked.
A WYCH save is differant as it's a special unit rule NOT a peice of wargear.
But either way I'm sure u will argue for another 7 pages....



I'm gonna pass this topic off to Wildy , u give me a headache man

[Dont-Be-Haten]

So I've been lurking throughout this debate (argument), and to be honest rather timid to post xD

This is verbatim from page, 52 of the Necron Codex

"Sweep Attack: Whilst a character remains embarked on a Catacomb Command Barge, he can make three special 'sweep' attacks each turn. These attacks can be made in the Movement phase against one enemy unit that the Catacomb Command Barge moves over. All attacks must be resolved on the same unit.

Roll To Hit and To Wound separately for each sweep attack. If the Catacomb Command Barge moved at combat speed this turn, a Sweep Attack hits on a 3+, otherwise it hits on a 4+. For each success, the unit suffers a hit at the character's Strength, plus any Strength bonuses and special abilities from his close combat weapon. Hits against vehicles are resolved against rear armour. On a Sweep Attack where the To Hit dice roll is a 6, you can choose which model the resulting Wound (if there is one) is allocated against. Cover Saves are not permitted against Wounds caused by Sweep Attacks."

The 'Sweep' Attack is not referred to as a close combat attack and there for is not considered one. (It has already been stated, but for good measure...you only use the IC's profile strength, and any attributes given by its CC weapon.)

For whomever the Bloke was that asked about allocating rolls, you obviously only allocate rolls of 6s, not roll one 6 and allocate all 'sweep' attacks that hit.

Cover Saves are not permitted for the guy/gal that asked about that.

Trayzn's Empathic Obliterator only works in the assault phase; as you resolve it in close combat. After all blows have been struck, but before the assault results are determined; So no to whomever asked if Trayzn's ability would work. (pg. 59 Necron Codex)

Besides trolling is there a real point to continue this conversation for now? The only relevancy is for competitive play and Most players mutually agree that you would not get your close combat wargear saves but your normal armour/invulnerable save if allowed. A TO is probably going to rule it however they see fit regardless of your argument...(or until the any FAQs are resolved).

[Tynskel]

where do you come up with 'most players'?

The rules use CC rules. ie CC attack. The whole thing uses CC rules. The description is a CC attack. Where's the 'it isn't a cc attack' come from?

I mean, come on---
to hit based on speed, ie CC attack
Use str + characteristics of CC weapon, ie CC attack
Hits rear armor, ie CC attack


You guys keep calling it a Cow when it clucks like a duck, swims like a duck, LOOKS like a duck. It is a Duck!

[MaxKool]

Guys, honestly.... 7 pages and I've read several differant logical reasons why it's NOT a cc attack.
But record boy here just keeps saying the same thing every 2nd post..

Give up I did.... Lmao

[Tynskel]

Guys, honestly.... 7 pages and I've read several differant logical reasons why it's NOT a cc attack.
But record boy here just keeps saying the same thing every 2nd post..

Give up I did.... Lmao

Seriously, you do not refute the argument I have. That's why I repeat it. Because I looking for someone to refute the statement.

Saying it isn't a CC attack just because it doesn't say CC isn't the correct response, that's like me saying I am awesome because I say so. That, in no way, means that I am actually awesome. What would make me awesome is if I demonstrated being awesome by being awesome. Citing Rulebook rules explaining WHY it is not a CC attack is the correct argument.

The reality is: the rules in Sweep Attack follow the rules for CC attacks. There are NO other rules being cited in the Sweep Rules. If they said 'shooting' along with the CC rules, then I would be agreeing with you. The problem is that the only rules they bring up are ONLY CC rules.

[p13th0r4]

I don't understand where you guys come up with 'no'.

The rules specifically state these attacks use the close combat weapons on the IC. These ARE CC attacks.
It actually says
the unit suffers a hit at the character's strength, plus any bonuses
then it says
and special abilities from the CC weapon.

The IC is not using the CC weapon, just the special abilities, his strength, and any strength bonuses. If you are to continue down this path then you must address that the RAW don't say he's using a CC weapon. They only use it's abilities and thus no Combat is initiated, only hits.

my vote is no, it's not a CC attack.

[Tynskel]

Again,

I also retort with the speed argument, the fact that it uses a CC weapon, the spanking the armor on the rear. All of which are directly from CC.

Once again, you are NOT refuting my argument. All you are stating is that you don't think it is a CC attack, but are not using any Rulebook rules to demonstrate why.

And your argument is flawed... it is using all the CC abilities but but but but it isn't CC!

It is a Duck. Clucks like a duck, waddles like a duck, flies like a Duck, swims like a duck...
not a cow.

[Gir]

Again,

I also retort with the speed argument, the fact that it uses a CC weapon, the spanking the armor on the rear. All of which are directly from CC.

Once again, you are NOT refuting my argument. All you are stating is that you don't think it is a CC attack, but are not using any Rulebook rules to demonstrate why.

And your argument is flawed... it is using all the CC abilities but but but but it isn't CC!

It is a Duck. Clucks like a duck, waddles like a duck, flies like a Duck, swims like a duck...
not a cow.

What you're saying is that it has webbed feet and a bill so it must be a duck, when in fact it's a platypus.

[dannyat2460]

What you're saying is that it has webbed feet and a bill so it must be a duck, when in fact it's a platypus.

Funny but not really useful lol

Ok so you want a rule to show that is isnt a CC attack how about because it says it is a sweep attack,

your argument is because it shares rules with CC attacks it must be a CC attack but if it was a CC attack why dosnt is say it is a CC attack it would work in the same way, hitting on rear, ignoring cover, getting things from the CC weapons.

But as it dosnt say this is a CC attack it must therefore be a special sweep attack with its own rules that can be found in the codex NOT the rulebook. You only refure to the rulebook for the defernition of:

Embarked
Movement Phase
combat speed

every other part of the rule is explained in the SWEEP ATTACK ability

[Tynskel]

Funny but not really useful lol

Ok so you want a rule to show that is isnt a CC attack how about because it says it is a sweep attack,

your argument is because it shares rules with CC attacks it must be a CC attack but if it was a CC attack why dosnt is say it is a CC attack it would work in the same way, hitting on rear, ignoring cover, getting things from the CC weapons.

But as it dosnt say this is a CC attack it must therefore be a special sweep attack with its own rules that can be found in the codex NOT the rulebook. You only refure to the rulebook for the defernition of:

Embarked
Movement Phase
combat speed

every other part of the rule is explained in the SWEEP ATTACK ability

As we know it is a special attack, does not mean it is outside the framework of the rules.
We know that the attack is MADE in the movement phase, while embarked, at different speeds. However, the rules that are specific to the attack are all CC based- they even address the speed issue, a CC rule- and there are instances of shooting harping in the movement phase, movement happening in the shooting phase, ect ect. Do you consider these things NOT to follow the respective rules that they are generated from?

The point is, the sweep attack makes no reference to shooting, ie it is not a shooting attack. The only things they reference, of which there are multiple, are ALL CC attack rules: speed related hit, vehicles hit on rear, using CC weapon, no cover saves. That's 4 lines of rules.that are self consistent and are all from the same section of rules: assault.

There is no line of evidence to suggest otherwise.

[SotonShades]

other than cc attacks being made when models are in base contact, or within 2" of a model from the same unit who is, which the necron lord/overlord cannot be because he is nounted in the command barge, and the command barge isn't because it passed over the attacked unit and ended it's movement before the attacks are made?

How about the fact no inititive order is used? Another deciding factor in whether or not something is a CC attack. No inititive and no chance to strike back would suggest it is more like a shooting attak (though I am not making the argument that it is a shooting attack).

Also, if you lose more models than your opponant from CC attacks, you have to take a Ld test, at appropriately lower Ld, which you don't here (although you could force a Ld check if they lose 25% of the unit... again, more similar to shooting)

Also, you keep mentioning that the To Hit roll is based on speed like combat. That is always the speed of the traget, not the speed of the attacker, so I can't really see how that must make it a CC attack. Otherwise we need to start making it harder for beasts and cavalry (or garganutam creatures for that matter) to hit in CC if they have moved their maximum 12" assault and half fleeted.

It is a Duck. Clucks like a duck, waddles like a duck, flies like a Duck, swims like a duck. Or a goose. Or a Swan. Or a Moorehen, s seagull, any number of waterfoul. And trust me, a lot of those do no taste so good wrapped in a crispy pancake with hoi sin sauce.

[Tynskel]

What you bring up here shows that it is a special attack, but does not refute that it is a CC attack, all you are demonstrating is that not every single rule from a phase is being used---- what's your point?

If you note, other interrupts in the game DO NOT use ALL of the rules for their specific section they are referencing. That is not a valid argument in this respect.

The point is still valid: sweep attack only references CC rules. There are no shooting rules cited. The attack is CC. Anyone with CC saves can use them. Anyone with CC counters can use them (eg Seth punching you in the face for missing).

[Wildeybeast]

We know that the attack is MADE in the movement phase, while embarked, at different speeds. However, the rules that are specific to the attack are all CC based- they even address the speed issue, a CC rule- and there are instances of shooting harping in the movement phase, movement happening in the shooting phase, ect ect. Do you consider these things NOT to follow the respective rules that they are generated from?

The point is, the sweep attack makes no reference to shooting, ie it is not a shooting attack.

Even if we accept your argument that it uses CC mechanics, (which as several people have pointed out, it doesn't because they are not precisely the smae as the CC mechanics) you are not using ALL the CC mechanics. The rules presented here are not sufficient to make a CC attack in the assault phase, you require a lot more. They have simply taken some of the rules mechanics from the assault phase and used them here because the game works on using basic principles. After all the process for wounding is the smae in for shooting, psychic attakcs and combat. The mechanics outlined in the sweep attack are not sufficient to make a CC a legal attack in the assault phase so why are they enough to count as one here?

And again, you seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that there is no reference to making a CC attack, you have infered that there is based on some similiarities. There is however, a clear reference to making a sweep attack.

[Tynskel]

As I said before, there are other interrupts that do not follow all of the rules from their respective section(s) yet there was no question about them being shooting. Even now, there is no argument that the reflection from the lych count as shooting, even though the lych guard aren't shooting.

Why is this any diffferent? Why is it when the description of what happens (lord bonking people with their staff) and the rules (using cc characteristics, hit based upon speed, hitting rear armor, ect, all of which are CC attack rules) all of the sudden it is NOT a cc attack?

This is completely inconsistent!

Someone explain this to me, using the Rulebook, not some hogwash. Give examples from other codexes and the Rulebook.
Don't give me this garbage of what you 'think'. Your opinion is pointless to me when this is an argument about a rule construction.

[dannyat2460]

ok so your saying that its the same as other interupt abilities???

just like coteaz ive been expecting you rule that states, immediatle makes an out of sequence shooting attack

this specificaly states it is a shooting attack so follows the rules for shooting just out of phase

what others were you refering to i have my opinions but now is your chance to change my mind

[Tynskel]

ok so your saying that its the same as other interupt abilities???

just like coteaz ive been expecting you rule that states, immediatle makes an out of sequence shooting attack

this specificaly states it is a shooting attack so follows the rules for shooting just out of phase

what others were you refering to i have my opinions but now is your chance to change my mind

Nope, the dispersion shield rules, for example: They do not state that the Lych Guard are shooting at all, yet people assuming it is 'shooting'.

What I am stating is that the reader, for example, who states that the Lych Guard counts as a shooting attack, which means it gains all the benefits or drawbacks of a shooting attack (ie cover saves, ect.), and then states the sweep attack is not a CC attack is being incoherent and inconsistent in their applications of rules.

[dannyat2460]

Well yes it dosnt state it is shooting but what it does say is it is done in the shooting phase, after saves have been made. you then get to assign hits to a squad within 6", the squads controlling player then allocates the hits and takes any saves if any they have then remove casualties,

Oh look ive just covered the entire conditions of the shooting phase

1 check line of sight and pick target (dosnt need line of sight its an area affect, and then choosing a target)

2 check range (is it within 6")

3 roll to hit (it automaticaly hits)

4 roll to wound (using S of the original shot)

5 take saving throws (using original AP)

6 remove casualties

shooting over

this is a shooting attack as it fills ALL the criteria of a shooting attack all be it added onto the end of the enemys shooting phase.

Now back to the sweep attack.

I challeng you to show that the sweep attack fills ALL criteria to be a CC attack even if its just out of the resolve combats step.

[Tynskel]

You are not doing the lych guard correctly. You don't have to follow all the steps, for example you do not need to check range. You simply pick a unit with 6 inch. There's no guess work involved. The attack is not elicitly stated as a shooting attack, just that the lych guard are hit by a shooting attack, in the opponent's phase (not your own).

You don't roll to hit as it is automatic.

You are inferring these rules, just as the sweep attack is inferred.
When it comes to CC attacks:
You roll to hit, based upon speed, a cc rule
You use you cc weapon, a cc rule.
You hit armor on the rear, a ccrule
The opponent gets no cover save, a cc rule.

What is your point? Both of these scenarios do not follow all of the rules, but some of the rules, yet people follow them differently. I would wager that the Sweep Attack follows more, in this case, because these are the rules for the actual application of attacks, not the maneuvers to engage.

[MaxKool]

Ok Ty, u are refuting your own argument now.
What was posted above is exactly what I'm talking about. They lych shields is just like a shooting attack.
There are plenty of shooting attacks that auto hit, so u refuting that is bs.
Death ray anyone?

It follows every rule for shooting, baring the original shot. And happens in the shooting phase. If


If u argue that the lych shield dosnt count as a shooting attack then u sure as he'll can't say the sweep is a cc attack as it follows even less of the base cc rules than the shield.

Being that u are the only person still defending this point , and there are numerous people saying u are wrong I'm gonna stick with the majority in this case. Unless u come up with a new argument, it hasn't changed in 6 pages so IDE challenge u to come up with Somthing new cause what u have now isn't Convincing anyone who'd posted here.
Seriously the lych question just made it worse... It's way more like a shooting attack than a sweep attack is like cc.

Again I will repeat, Somthing with it's own rules, complete and all there in the codex in no way HAS to jive with the brb. The codex is the place for self contained rules, and if it dosnt specificy reference the brb or a term in there than u dont go and just say it is cause u say it is.

It's differant from almost anything that's come Out before, it's an IC in a solo transport with a new kind of attack available to him. Why do u get to be the one to fill in blanks.

[Wildeybeast]

As I said before, there are other interrupts that do not follow all of the rules from their respective section(s) yet there was no question about them being shooting. Even now, there is no argument that the reflection from the lych count as shooting, even though the lych guard aren't shooting.

Why is this any diffferent? Why is it when the description of what happens (lord bonking people with their staff) and the rules (using cc characteristics, hit based upon speed, hitting rear armor, ect, all of which are CC attack rules) all of the sudden it is NOT a cc attack?

This is completely inconsistent!

Someone explain this to me, using the Rulebook, not some hogwash. Give examples from other codexes and the Rulebook.
Don't give me this garbage of what you 'think'. Your opinion is pointless to me when this is an argument about a rule construction.

Referencing the rulebook? Ok. You aren't making a CC attack as you aren't in CC because you haven't assaulted aren't in B2B. There is in a fact a whole section on it that explains quite clearly how you fight a CC. I'm pretty sure I explained this quite some time ago.

And when it comes to 'garabage that people think and aren't mentioned in the rules' where are you getting this phrase 'CC characteristics' from? You seem to rely on it quite heavily, but as far as I was aware, you have characteristics and that is it. Sure, some are of use in CC, but not exclusively and I'm pretty certain that at no point is the phrase 'CC characteristics' mentioned in either the RB or the sweep attack rules. So before you make comments like"Your opinion is pointless to me when this is an argument about a rule construction" you should perhaps stop making up rules terms yourself and use what is actually written in the books, in the correct fashion.

[Tynskel]

Ok Ty, u are refuting your own argument now.
What was posted above is exactly what I'm talking about. They lych shields is just like a shooting attack.
There are plenty of shooting attacks that auto hit, so u refuting that is bs.
Death ray anyone?

It follows every rule for shooting, baring the original shot. And happens in the shooting phase. If


If u argue that the lych shield dosnt count as a shooting attack then u sure as he'll can't say the sweep is a cc attack as it follows even less of the base cc rules than the shield.

Being that u are the only person still defending this point , and there are numerous people saying u are wrong I'm gonna stick with the majority in this case. Unless u come up with a new argument, it hasn't changed in 6 pages so IDE challenge u to come up with Somthing new cause what u have now isn't Convincing anyone who'd posted here.
Seriously the lych question just made it worse... It's way more like a shooting attack than a sweep attack is like cc.

Again I will repeat, Somthing with it's own rules, complete and all there in the codex in no way HAS to jive with the brb. The codex is the place for self contained rules, and if it dosnt specificy reference the brb or a term in there than u dont go and just say it is cause u say it is.

It's differant from almost anything that's come Out before, it's an IC in a solo transport with a new kind of attack available to him. Why do u get to be the one to fill in blanks.

My point is that it does NOT follow all of the rules in the shooting phase. In fact, there's nothing about rolling to hit, or 'checking range'. Ie, if you choose a unit not in range, there is no penalty, because it doesn't say 'shooting'.

So, why isn't the Sweep Attack following the same format? Why does the Lych Dispersion Shield count as a shooting attack and the Sweep Attack does not?

The thing is, the Sweep Attack has more direct references to the 'act' of close combat as described by the RULES for actually attacking your opponent than the Dispersion Shield does in relationship to shooting.

[dannyat2460]

My point is that it does NOT follow all of the rules in the shooting phase. In fact, there's nothing about rolling to hit, or 'checking range'. Ie, if you choose a unit not in range, there is no penalty, because it doesn't say 'shooting'.

So, why isn't the Sweep Attack following the same format? Why does the Lych Dispersion Shield count as a shooting attack and the Sweep Attack does not?

The thing is, the Sweep Attack has more direct references to the 'act' of close combat as described by the RULES for actually attacking your opponent than the Dispersion Shield does in relationship to shooting.

when is there ever a penalty for trying to shoot a unit out of range? oh ya the shots automaticaly miss (Exactly the same for the shield rebound attacks if there is no unit in range the shots are discarded/miss) that is your penalty.

also rolling to hit no you dont roll as you auto hit just like template weapons or do you roll to hit with your flamers or roll to hit from an explosion from a tank?

as for your final statment Tynskel how does it have more the shield satsfies ALL criteria of a shooting attack where as the sweep attack has about 4 of the 13 out of the assault phase

[Tynskel]

when is there ever a penalty for trying to shoot a unit out of range? oh ya the shots automaticaly miss (Exactly the same for the shield rebound attacks if there is no unit in range the shots are discarded/miss) that is your penalty.

also rolling to hit no you dont roll as you auto hit just like template weapons or do you roll to hit with your flamers or roll to hit from an explosion from a tank?

as for your final statment Tynskel how does it have more the shield satsfies ALL criteria of a shooting attack where as the sweep attack has about 4 of the 13 out of the assault phase

Yes, the shield misses if there is no unit in range. However, the rule no where states that if you pick a target and it is out of range that you cannot pick something else- that's because it is not an official rule of dispersion shield. That means you are inferring this section.

Why aren't you inferring this part for the Sweep Attack? That's because you are not using the same rules convention to apply to all the rules.

This is what I am trying to state, one is inferring more for the dispersion shield than the Sweep Attack.
CC attack rules are just the act of attacking- of which the Sweep Attack follows all the rules- roll to hit on speed, hit rear armor, use lose combat abilities, and ignore cover save. CC attack rules are NOT the entire assault section. That would be Assault. At no point did I say that Sweep Attack follows the Assault Rules, I have only stated that it follows the CC attack rules.

In the dispirsion shield, basically nothing is a shooting attack. It is more of an area effect that singles out one unit, of which there are many abilities that do this, too. However, because the FLUFF states it is a shoot being reflected, the general audience has attributed the shooting rules to it. If you are going to do that then you should do the same for Sweep Attack--- the FLUFF says it is a CC Attack!!!

[dannyat2460]

Its nothing to do with the fluff tho CC does not explain everything the sweep attack does, where as shooting does explain everything its even in the same phase to make things easier, Yes a sweep attack uses the CC weapon + users S+ special abilities, but thats where it ends.

you keep saying speed but its the speed your going at not them.

you keep saying ignores cover saves but there are plenty of things that ignore cover and they always say ignore cover in there rules just as here.

hit rear armour ya fine but theres some shooting attacks that state where on the armour you hit regardless of facing,

there is nothing you are saying that definatly shows it is a CC attack and it seems nothing is going to convince you to look at it as what it is a Special attack that does not follow any BrB rules exactly thats why it gives you all the rules in the codex entry

[Dont-Be-Haten]

So to move away from the CC thing since it was answered like 9 pages ago. How do you all feel about the sweeping attacks going off if the barge goes over two units locked in assault? Do you believe you still get the sweep attacks or no?

[dannyat2460]

Its a special attack that dosnt follow the normal rules as such it can be used to hit one of the units (guessing the enemy) that it has passed over even if they are locked in combat

[Tynskel]

Its a special attack that dosnt follow the normal rules as such it can be used to hit one of the units (guessing the enemy) that it has passed over even if they are locked in combat

yup. The rule states a unit you fly over. Why would this restrict flying over an assault? Also, the rule specifically states you only attack one unit, so you would have to pick which unit in assault you would bonk heads.


No, it is not in the same phase. This is a repulse from the Lych Guard, so it is out of phase.

I keep stating speed, because there is a precedent for speed in the CC rules, not Assault, but specifically CC. And, this is silly, if a tank moves 12" and then you move up to it, the tank is still moving 12"!

Yes, and CC attacks, once again, state they ignore cover saves.

Hah! Actually, your shooting argument is flawed--- it is ALWAYS from a direction. Read the rules for those shooting attacks--- Mines, ALWAYS attack from below (which uses the same armor value as rear), Barrage ALWAYS attacks from above (which uses the armor value of the side). Seeker missiles ALWAYS hit from the direction they came from. ect ect.

CC ALWAYS hits rear, regardless of the direction of attack.


I am sorry, man, but to say that there's nothing that convincingly states it is CC is the same that could be said for Dispersion Shield. I gave every rule that is for a CC attack (note, I did not say Assault, there is a big difference), and you are not convinced, where as I have shown that Dispersion Shield doesn't actually follow shooting rules.

[MaxKool]

The problem is Ty is the rule u keep quoting (speed related hits) isn't the same rule. It's differant, and unfortunately they means it dosnt mean **** in this arguement. And that's why no one is listening to you. In this game tonnes of the mechanics are similar and some even happen in the same phase. That does not however make them the same.

Rolling to hit a vehicle is differant than rolling to hit a WS. Based model. They are similar and even come from the same rules section(cc) but they arnt the same.

Please, stop making us repeat ourselves over and over....

I realy dont personaly care one way or the other.. I'm just sick of u repeating the same WRONG info over and over again. Similar is not the same and being that this attack even has its own name u cant use the logic of similar rules. If u want to compare rules find an exactly the same mechanic, post it and show Somthing exactly the same that works in the way u are saying. If. It sory man use the rules it has, u dont get to pick and choose how it interacts. I'm even fine with wyches and similar getting to use their rules. What I will not allow is wargear options that NORMALY only work when engaged in cc to work. Ie the ward stave, as the unit isnt engaged in cc in anyway.

[thecactusman17]

Tynskel, I don't know what language you play in natively, so it's posssible that you are missing something. In the english codexes, nothing is "speed" based, it's "Initiative" or "weapon skill" based. Initiative has a definition, which to loosely translate, is the intent or desire to accomplish something. In the case of Initiative in close combat, the values represent the ability and intent to make close combat attacks faster or slower than the opponent. So Space Marines are able to make their attacks at I4 due to their heightened reflexes and superior training to Orks, while Eldar are naturally even faster. Weapon Skill, which we use to hit things, describes the relative level of training with the chosen weapons of the model in close combat.

WS and Initiative are both fundamental elements of the close combat phase. Without using either one, it's impossible to be in close combat. Note that the rulebook itself states that models are NEVER in close combat with models that have no weapon skill, though in the case of vehicles we are given rules for striking them anyway.

Because models without a WS are NEVER in close combat with a vehicle that has no WS, the vehicle and its passengers could likewise NEVER be engaged in close combat back. And thus, we could NEVER count the barge as making close combat attacks, nor the embarked model, which being embarked can NEVER be engaged with a disembarked model unless either the model or the barge had rules to the contrary. The Barge NEVER claims that the occupant is engaged in close combat, nor does it even state that the model can even BE engaged in CC while in the vehicle. The model's strength and weapon are used instead to determine the strength and rules of any hits made by a Sweep attack. Because the Empathic Obliterator must cause wounds IN CLOSE COMBAT, which we have established can NEVER occur between the Barge and the models outside of it, the Empathic Obliterator DOES NOT WORK in flyover attacks.

[Tynskel]

Hahahah!

I am sorry, you need to read the section on vehicles. they are hit based upon speed. Just like Sweep Attack.

I am sorry you had to waste 2 paragraphs of the Internet on your bold typeface.
You are assuming a vehicle flying over head has a weapon skill, clearly it does not. The pilot may have weapon skill, but the point in this case is just simply timing, just like the wych dodge save is simply timing...

[thecactusman17]

Vehicles are also never in close combat unless they have a weapon skill, which is why their movement speed is used to determine to-hit. Check that. I'll wait.

Back yet? Great: Your vehicle was never in close combat and CANNOT ENGAGE IN CLOSE COMBAT.

It is impossible for your attacks which activate in CLOSE COMBAT to activate when coming from the command barge.

Glad we cleared that up.

[Tynskel]

Vehicles are also never in close combat unless they have a weapon skill, which is why their movement speed is used to determine to-hit. Check that. I'll wait.

Back yet? Great: Your vehicle was never in close combat and CANNOT ENGAGE IN CLOSE COMBAT.

It is impossible for your attacks which activate in CLOSE COMBAT to activate when coming from the command barge.

Glad we cleared that up.

Obviously you are having some trouble here. The to hit vehicles is based upon speed because they move much much faster than an infantry model. Thiss is the same case as the barge flies by. The ability of the Necrons overlord to hit an opponent is based upon timing for speed, just like hitting a vehicle is based upon time for speed. There is no 'dueling of swords' in this case. I don't know if you have noticed, but it isn't the vehicle attacking, per se, but the lord on board who is moving soooooooo fast that it is about timing.

Haha, you analogy for 'your attacks cannot activate' is unfounded. Here's why: if you interrupt a phase with a different type of rule, then you are saying you cannot execute such rule. That's completely unfounded in the rules that are constructed. You are denying the capability to shoot in the movement phase (of which there are rules for)m deep strike during your opponent's phase (of which there are rules for).

Basically, you are not using the rule book at all to deconstruct the interpretation of the rules. Your interpretation is AT BEST inconsistently applied, of which is one of my arguments, as well.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Cactus,

I feel like trolling a moment.

Here is Ty. Here is a Brick Wall. Need I say more?

This guy is obviously not going to back down, I'm just waiting for an Admin to start going back and deleting his repeated posts over, and over. Until they FAQ it he's going to continue to argue this point to exhaustion.

Everyone in my gaming group has agreed that the Sweep Attacks, for now, are not considered Close Combat Attacks. If the FAQ turns out that the special sweep attacks are actually played as close combat attacks, then we will play it as such.

Until then, my gaming group will play the sweep attacks as a special attack with no close combat gear saves. But other saves if acclible will still be used, and if someone from outside our group wishes to disput it, we will simply roll a dice if they remain adamant about it.

[thecactusman17]

Obviously you are having some trouble here. The to hit vehicles is based upon speed because they move much much faster than an infantry model. Thiss is the same case as the barge flies by. The ability of the Necrons overlord to hit an opponent is based upon timing for speed, just like hitting a vehicle is based upon time for speed. There is no 'dueling of swords' in this case. I don't know if you have noticed, but it isn't the vehicle attacking, per se, but the lord on board who is moving soooooooo fast that it is about timing.

Haha, you analogy for 'your attacks cannot activate' is unfounded. Here's why: if you interrupt a phase with a different type of rule, then you are saying you cannot execute such rule. That's completely unfounded in the rules that are constructed. You are denying the capability to shoot in the movement phase (of which there are rules for)m deep strike during your opponent's phase (of which there are rules for).

Basically, you are not using the rule book at all to deconstruct the interpretation of the rules. Your interpretation is AT BEST inconsistently applied, of which is one of my arguments, as well.

Tynskel, if this is your interpretation of things then I have to point out two things: You are wrong, and you are unable or unwilling to read your rulebook.

Thank you for your time. Hopefully, your repeated visits to this part of the site to reinforce (for everyone to see and, by now, disagree with) are making the owners of BoLS a small amount of money due to ad revenue.

In the mean time, I would highly recommend reading your 5th edition rulebook, preferably a real copy and not whatever it is you've been reading. There are specific rules about the assault phase, close combat, and how those rules interact with vehicles that you are clearly not reading, or ignoring. Until you go and read those rules, I'm afraid that no amount of debate or argument you or anyone else attempts with you shall have any significant effect. If it helps, those rules were clearly stated in my last post.

Again, vehicles cannot, no matter how much they try, be engaged in close combat if they do not have a Weapon Skill. That is why the command barge states that its attacks are a form of "special attack." There ARE rules for hitting vehicles in the assault phase. Note that this does not mean that the attacks are close combat attacks, merely that there are rules to cover that scenario. Those rules certainly do not reciprocate back from the vehicle back to the attacking models. I am sorry that you are having so much trouble grasping the difference, but it's no longer worth my time to continue arguing with someone so unfamiliar with the rules. Learning how to play the game correctly will likely lead to a more entertaining and fun experience for yourself and your opponent.

[Tynskel]

Tynskel, if this is your interpretation of things then I have to point out two things: You are wrong, and you are unable or unwilling to read your rulebook.

Thank you for your time. Hopefully, your repeated visits to this part of the site to reinforce (for everyone to see and, by now, disagree with) are making the owners of BoLS a small amount of money due to ad revenue.

In the mean time, I would highly recommend reading your 5th edition rulebook, preferably a real copy and not whatever it is you've been reading. There are specific rules about the assault phase, close combat, and how those rules interact with vehicles that you are clearly not reading, or ignoring. Until you go and read those rules, I'm afraid that no amount of debate or argument you or anyone else attempts with you shall have any significant effect. If it helps, those rules were clearly stated in my last post.

Again, vehicles cannot, no matter how much they try, be engaged in close combat if they do not have a Weapon Skill. That is why the command barge states that its attacks are a form of "special attack." There ARE rules for hitting vehicles in the assault phase. Note that this does not mean that the attacks are close combat attacks, merely that there are rules to cover that scenario. Those rules certainly do not reciprocate back from the vehicle back to the attacking models. I am sorry that you are having so much trouble grasping the difference, but it's no longer worth my time to continue arguing with someone so unfamiliar with the rules. Learning how to play the game correctly will likely lead to a more entertaining and fun experience for yourself and your opponent.

Yay, Snide remarks! That makes for great conversation.

I have the rulebook, and you will have noticed everything I have been saying is right out of the rulebook.
You'll notice that vehicles are hit based upon speed. If you'll note, it isn't about your weapon skill, because you are moving too fast, or stationary.
Hence, why the Sweep Attack is based upon speed. The vehicle is moving too fast for the opponent to parry or deflect. The lord does not have time to make a flashy move. Just enough time to make one 'sweep' (ho ho ho! you see what I did there).

I find it hilarious that this is the ONLY argument people have. They are not combating ANYTHING else. Because the rules are directly from close combat.

[Drakkan Vael]

I find it hilarious that this is the ONLY argument people have. They are not combating ANYTHING else. Because the rules are directly from close combat.

It is not the only argument people have, but you keep ignoring all we have stated so far. I find it amazing that you are unable to see that.

For example:
On your argument that the sweeping attacks are based upon speed. Yes they are, but on your own speed.
The to-hit-a-vehicle-with-a-close-combat-weapon is not based on your speed but on the speed of the vehicle you try to hit. It is NOT the same mechanism only because speed is mentioned in both.

Nobody here except you considers the sweeping attacks to be CC attacks.

[Wildeybeast]

It is not the only argument people have, but you keep ignoring all we have stated so far. I find it amazing that you are unable to see that.

True dat. I'm amazed people are still arguing with him, he has no itnerest in considering anyone's viewpoint other than his own to be right and ignores any rules references which are contrary to his own. Which is fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and until such time as GW roll out the faq, we can't conclusively prove him wrong. My only concern is that they won't actually bother to FAQ this since it is so blatantly obvious that they are not CC attacks but a unique sweep attack.....

[Tynskel]

It is not the only argument people have, but you keep ignoring all we have stated so far. I find it amazing that you are unable to see that.

For example:
On your argument that the sweeping attacks are based upon speed. Yes they are, but on your own speed.
The to-hit-a-vehicle-with-a-close-combat-weapon is not based on your speed but on the speed of the vehicle you try to hit. It is NOT the same mechanism only because speed is mentioned in both.

Nobody here except you considers the sweeping attacks to be CC attacks.

No, the other arguments have been refuted:

You use your CC weapon (duh).
you hit rear armor--- the ONLY argument is that you can shoot rear armor. Yeah, ONLY if you are face thing rear direction. CC attacks ONLY hit rear armor. They are omni-directional. Someone brought up barrage, but note, barrage weapons are still one direction (from top, which is the same value as side armor). Land mines are another example, but once again, they are directional, hitting the bottom of the vehicle (and, once again, is the same value as rear).

You ignore cover saves. Yes, there are examples of specific weapons, but note, weapon attributes are not attacks. In fact, they never have been! However, CC attacks ALWAYS ignore cover saves.

The argument of speed is intuitive. It makes complete logical sense. That would be the 'weakest' link. However, it is icing on the cake, at that moment.

This is a CC attack.

[Drakkan Vael]

No, the other arguments have been refuted:

You use your CC weapon (duh).
you hit rear armor--- the ONLY argument is that you can shoot rear armor. Yeah, ONLY if you are face thing rear direction. CC attacks ONLY hit rear armor. They are omni-directional. Someone brought up barrage, but note, barrage weapons are still one direction (from top, which is the same value as side armor). Land mines are another example, but once again, they are directional, hitting the bottom of the vehicle (and, once again, is the same value as rear).

You ignore cover saves. Yes, there are examples of specific weapons, but note, weapon attributes are not attacks. In fact, they never have been! However, CC attacks ALWAYS ignore cover saves.

The argument of speed is intuitive. It makes complete logical sense. That would be the 'weakest' link. However, it is icing on the cake, at that moment.

This is a CC attack.

You mean you refuted the arguments. That does not make it a general rejection.
It places you in a very lonely spot. That's all.

And no not the shooting thing, but the rest.


This is a CC attack.

That is all there is to your argument.

[Wildeybeast]

He also ignored the part where people refuted his arguments.

[Caldera02]

Nobody here except you considers the sweeping attacks to be CC attacks.

I do but I haven't bothered to say anything yet because it's an argument that nobody will be able to win until an FAQ is written. Both sides have valid points but nothing concrete.

[Tynskel]

I do but I haven't bothered to say anything yet because it's an argument that nobody will be able to win until an FAQ is written. Both sides have valid points but nothing concrete.

Wheee!
I am glad I am not the only 'idiot' on this forum.

[Tynskel]

He also ignored the part where people refuted his arguments.

Actually, I didn't. If you read that previous post I had, I go through all the arguments that people had.

I'll repeat for ease of use:
No, the other arguments have been refuted:

You use your CC weapon (duh).
you hit rear armor--- the ONLY argument is that you can shoot rear armor. Yeah, ONLY if you are face thing rear direction. CC attacks ONLY hit rear armor. They are omni-directional. Someone brought up barrage, but note, barrage weapons are still one direction (from top, which is the same value as side armor). Land mines are another example, but once again, they are directional, hitting the bottom of the vehicle (and, once again, is the same value as rear).

You ignore cover saves. Yes, there are examples of specific weapons, but note, weapon attributes are not attacks. In fact, they never have been! However, CC attacks ALWAYS ignore cover saves.

The argument of speed is intuitive. It makes complete logical sense. That would be the 'weakest' link. However, it is icing on the cake, at that moment.

This is a CC attack.

[thecactusman17]

Tynskel, I am violating my own previous statement here and I'll own up to that, but have you noticed that all of these had to be specifically outlined in the rule? That is to say, these could just as easily be shooting attacks that always hit rear armor, never allow a cover save, and which have a different profile dependent on which weapons the character is carrying because regardless of where they might be coming from, the attacks have those rules anyway?

For all that I decry Matt Ward, I'm sure that he could have said "resolve all wounds and armor penetration rolls as though they were close combat attacks." There are plenty of other items that explicitly say "resolve as shooting" in the movement and assault phases. The issue with Close Combat is very simple: it only occurs in the assault phase. It doesn't just happen each time you use a piece of gear held or thrown by the model, it's a specific phrase that only appears in the assault section of the book.

Let's find some examples of weapons that would seem to interact with the sweep rule strangely if it counts as a close combat attack.

Note something specific about Empathic Obliterator: It happens "before the Assault Results are determined." That can only mean that the Obliterator has to work in the assault phase, it calls out a specific element of the game that can only occur in the Assault phase as the trigger.

Note also Varguard Obyron a few pages later: his "Cleaving Counterblow" activates when a close combat attack misses. If you miss with a model heading over Obyron on his own, does he get to counterattack? No! Not unless he was attacked by a close combat attack, because he makes them when it is his turn to strike--which he never gets when attacked by the Barge. If Obyron doesn't get to strike (assuming he still lives, of course), they can't be close combat attacks.

By the same token, here are a few more weapons that break or act strangely if the Sweep is a close combat attack:

Guantlets of Fire (reroll to hit and to wound in close combat)
Tesseract Labyrinth (can be used in lieu of close combat attacks, requires "base to base contact")
Humiliating Defeat: close combat attacks that kill characters generate additional combat resolution points

Note that every item except Guantlets of Fire that says close combat attacks are made in a manner that can only be accomplished in assault, or have benefiets that only affect the outcome of an assault. Close combat MUST be a state that can only be attained in the assault phase in order for those rules to make sense.

[Uncle Nutsy]

condition 1: does it enter CC as normal? no.

condition 2: does it happen during the assault phase? no.

condition 3: does it involve a weapon skill? no.


therefore, it is not a close combat attack. If anyone at your FLGS tries to argue this, they are trying to find a loophole.

[Tynskel]

However, they don't say shooting attacks (which there is no such thing, there are 'shots'), AND the all of the abilities follow the CC rules.

I have already addressed these concerns:

Example:
Seth Punches you in the face for missing--- he's a Bad Mofo
Grey Knights get the +1 Inv
Wyches Dodge

The rule states to use the characteristics of the weapon and character!
Gauntlets of fire re-roll to hit n' wound.
Tesseract -- never in B2B. Cannot apply.
Humiliating Defeat: generates combat resolutions. is meaningless unless the unit is locked in combat.

Empathic Oblitereator applies before assault results are determined--- pow! What's wrong here? I don't see the problem.

In the assault phase you apply the results. If the unit is not locked in combat, they are subject to Morale Rules if they lose 25%.

[Uncle Nutsy]

You use your CC weapon (duh). nope.


you hit rear armor stated in the rule itself


CC attacks ALWAYS ignore cover saves. and?

[thecactusman17]

However, they don't say shooting attacks (which there is no such thing, there are 'shots'), AND the all of the abilities follow the CC rules.

I have already addressed these concerns:

Example:
Seth Punches you in the face for missing--- he's a Bad Mofo
Grey Knights get the +1 Inv
Wyches Dodge

The rule states to use the characteristics of the weapon and character!
Gauntlets of fire re-roll to hit n' wound.
Tesseract -- never in B2B. Cannot apply.
Humiliating Defeat: generates combat resolutions. is meaningless unless the unit is locked in combat.

Empathic Oblitereator applies before assault results are determined--- pow! What's wrong here? I don't see the problem.

In the assault phase you apply the results. If the unit is not locked in combat, they are subject to Morale Rules if they lose 25%.

Actually, there are several rules and gear pieces in WH40k which state, verbatim, "distributed as a shooting attack" or are referred to as a "shooting attack." Examples include Envenomed Blades (Dark Eldar) and the wounds caused by explosions. It's also a notable element of the new psyker rules, which call out "psychic shooting attacks" as now needing to roll to hit with the Ballistic Skill. Shooting attacks are defined by the rule book and FAQs as a ranged attack which must roll to hit (or place and scatter a template if within range) before rolling to wound. And they must specifically wound or remove models from play.

Empathic Obliterator specifically states that it occurs immediately before assault resolution. No assault resolution = no trigger point for Empathic Obliterator.

Tesseract: Can absolutely apply. Place the barge into B2B with something after flying over it.

There are several weapons which definitively DO NOT have the words "close combat" in their rules, despite the fact that they are hand-to-hand weapons, such as the Warscythe. The argument we are making is that Close Combat is a specific statement of fact, not a general idea. That Close Combat actually involves two people in close proximity trading blows--something that the sweep attack most definitely isn't even remotely trying to simulate. If it happens in close combat, it's because something occurs that requires the prolonged presence of the weapon or model, such as a counterblow, follow-up strike, or a psychic shockwave pulsing out from the weapon itself.

You are right that at any moment things can be FAQ'd, errata'd, or clarified by the author. But until they are, myself and many others are pointing out that Close Combat as it exists now is something that is treated in a specific way, wholly unique to the assault phase. It's not just randomly entered into when two models get near each other, it is a critical element of representing the melee of the assault phase.

Everything else--hitting on rear armor, no cover saves, using close combat weapons--it's all irrelevant. Because the rules aren't referring back to the rulebook, they are instead referring to a specific scenario and procedure laid out within the codex itself. This same reason is why until recently, some models had differently functioning Force Weapons, Psychic Hoods, Smoke Grenades, made Target Priority Checks, and numerous other things that are no longer part of the game or which were rendered obsolete by new rulebooks. Codex Overrides Rulebook, and in the case of Sweep attacks that means that they happen in the movement phase and are not considered a shooting or close combat attack.

They are, as explicitly stated in the codex, "special."

[Caldera02]

So I've been lurking throughout this debate (argument), and to be honest rather timid to post xD

This is verbatim from page, 52 of the Necron Codex

"Sweep Attack: Whilst a character remains embarked on a Catacomb Command Barge, he can make three special 'sweep' attacks each turn. These attacks can be made in the Movement phase against one enemy unit that the Catacomb Command Barge moves over. All attacks must be resolved on the same unit.

Roll To Hit and To Wound separately for each sweep attack. If the Catacomb Command Barge moved at combat speed this turn, a Sweep Attack hits on a 3+, otherwise it hits on a 4+. For each success, the unit suffers a hit at the character's Strength, plus any Strength bonuses and special abilities from his close combat weapon. Hits against vehicles are resolved against rear armour. On a Sweep Attack where the To Hit dice roll is a 6, you can choose which model the resulting Wound (if there is one) is allocated against. Cover Saves are not permitted against Wounds caused by Sweep Attacks."



So I had not known what the verbatim for the rule was until I found this in the thread. It confirms what I thought on why I think this is a close combat attack.

" he can make three special 'sweep' attacks each turn" - meaning the IC is making the attacks, not the vehicle. He is making attacks......as far as I am aware, there are only two types of attacks in this game, shooting or close combat. Am I right? Can anyone think of an instance that this is not true?

"Roll To Hit and To Wound separately for each sweep attack. If the Catacomb Command Barge moved at combat speed this turn, a Sweep Attack hits on a 3+, otherwise it hits on a 4+. " - I think I remember someone mentioning because it hits on a fixed number that it is not a close combat attack? Would that then make a space wolf player with wolf tooth necklace then not be making CC attacks?

"For each success, the unit suffers a hit at the character's Strength, plus any Strength bonuses and special abilities from his close combat weapon" - Since we are using the character's close combat weapon, this would lead me to believe we are not in fact using a shooting attack. That must mean we are using the other form of attack in this game...close combat?

"Hits against vehicles are resolved against rear armour" - I agree with the person who said this is put in to solve arguments about which facing the attack goes on. so that is not concrete on close combat nessicarily.

"Cover Saves are not permitted against Wounds caused by Sweep Attacks" - This last bit pulls at my brain too. Why would the author go out of his way to write this little tidbit and not also say.....no close combat saves either.

Somewhere along the way someone used DE jetbikes as an argument. I think that is not a good example as the rule for them states it is a shooting attack so irrelevant in this case. The only thing it has in common is an attack that is out of phase.

I gotta say the only thing that truely bothers me about this debate is the sheer number of people who would gladly play in a way where they get to use an attack that thier opponent has no defense in. I envision someone playing the sweep attack in this way and saying, "No my guy hits yours and he's dead and nothing you can do about it". This game is supposed to be fun between two people, why would you play this way?

Also, one last thing. To derail my own argument and message my part of the brain that likes to think about the other side of the debate. Another example of this kind of attack that I can think of is a Deff Rolla. I apologize if someone stated it already and I missed it. So how does that play into this argument I wonder?

[dannyat2460]

well as you say it is the guy doing the attacking but using the barge, there is only 2 normal ways to attack shooting a CC but its not the only ways your models can kill the c'tan shards with worldscape is a good example able to kill guys in there movement is a very good ability/attack and these fall under a 3rd special attacks

as for the death roller its a good point but actualy argues against your point of it been CC as it is done in the movement phase all the same but is in itself a special attack that follows different rules but does follow some of the same rules as other things eg shooting and cc and ramming but isnt counted as any of them

[Wildeybeast]

So I had not known what the verbatim for the rule was until I found this in the thread. It confirms what I thought on why I think this is a close combat attack.

" he can make three special 'sweep' attacks each turn" - meaning the IC is making the attacks, not the vehicle. He is making attacks......as far as I am aware, there are only two types of attacks in this game, shooting or close combat. Am I right? Can anyone think of an instance that this is not true?

I can. When you are making a sweep attack. Note how the codex defines at as neither a shooting attack nor a CC attack but as a sweep attack, because that's what it is - a unique attack called a sweep attack. it's right there, written in plain English. I'm not sure why people are finding this confusing.

[Wildeybeast]

Actually, I didn't. If you read that previous post I had, I go through all the arguments that people had.

I'll repeat for ease of use:
No, the other arguments have been refuted:

You use your CC weapon (duh).
you hit rear armor--- the ONLY argument is that you can shoot rear armor. Yeah, ONLY if you are face thing rear direction. CC attacks ONLY hit rear armor. They are omni-directional. Someone brought up barrage, but note, barrage weapons are still one direction (from top, which is the same value as side armor). Land mines are another example, but once again, they are directional, hitting the bottom of the vehicle (and, once again, is the same value as rear).

You ignore cover saves. Yes, there are examples of specific weapons, but note, weapon attributes are not attacks. In fact, they never have been! However, CC attacks ALWAYS ignore cover saves.

The argument of speed is intuitive. It makes complete logical sense. That would be the 'weakest' link. However, it is icing on the cake, at that moment.

This is a CC attack.

And yet you seem to have forgotten that you were maintaining that is used 'CC characteristics' - a term that you had rather inventively made up to try and back up your argument. I note that since I called you on it, you have quietly dropped it from your line of reasoning as if you had never mentioned it. That alone should be enough to prove to people that your arguments are bull. But just in case that isn't convincing enough, you contradict yourself (or at least have a somewhat limited command of english): "CC attacks ONLY hit rear armor. They are omni-directional." (FYI - omni means all, not one). And then we have the fact that your speed argument is based on you drawing parallels between similar rules. However 'logical' this may be, it is unreliable as a way for solving rules debates because where does it stop? What makes one parallel reliable and another not? It is far too subjective a method to be useful. Seriously dude, I admire the strength of conviction you have in your views, but your reasoning is somewhat...unsound. You can't honestly expect people to take your arguments seriously.

[Caldera02]

well as you say it is the guy doing the attacking but using the barge, there is only 2 normal ways to attack shooting a CC but its not the only ways your models can kill the c'tan shards with worldscape is a good example able to kill guys in there movement is a very good ability/attack and these fall under a 3rd special attacks

as for the death roller its a good point but actualy argues against your point of it been CC as it is done in the movement phase all the same but is in itself a special attack that follows different rules but does follow some of the same rules as other things eg shooting and cc and ramming but isnt counted as any of them

The ctan thing is indirectly kills things so that's different.

As you will note, I directly stated that my last paragraph is arguning against so I don't see your point there.

[Uncle Nutsy]

i'm just amazed that the main participants in this thread are still arguing over a rule that's an open-and-shut case.

[Tynskel]

And yet you seem to have forgotten that you were maintaining that is used 'CC characteristics' - a term that you had rather inventively made up to try and back up your argument. I note that since I called you on it, you have quietly dropped it from your line of reasoning as if you had never mentioned it. That alone should be enough to prove to people that your arguments are bull. But just in case that isn't convincing enough, you contradict yourself (or at least have a somewhat limited command of english): "CC attacks ONLY hit rear armor. They are omni-directional." (FYI - omni means all, not one). And then we have the fact that your speed argument is based on you drawing parallels between similar rules. However 'logical' this may be, it is unreliable as a way for solving rules debates because where does it stop? What makes one parallel reliable and another not? It is far too subjective a method to be useful. Seriously dude, I admire the strength of conviction you have in your views, but your reasoning is somewhat...unsound. You can't honestly expect people to take your arguments seriously.

uh. So I used a wrong vocab word. whatever. Doesn't deter from my argument.

Also--- CC attacks are omni-directional. It does not matter which direction the attack comes from, it always hits rear armor. This is opposed to shooting which is only one direction.

Saying my reasoning is unsound doesn't cut it. Actually cite a rule that states otherwise. I have found 4 rules that agree with me. Find 4 rules that state otherwise.

[Tynskel]

Actually, there are several rules and gear pieces in WH40k which state, verbatim, "distributed as a shooting attack" or are referred to as a "shooting attack." Examples include Envenomed Blades (Dark Eldar) and the wounds caused by explosions. It's also a notable element of the new psyker rules, which call out "psychic shooting attacks" as now needing to roll to hit with the Ballistic Skill. Shooting attacks are defined by the rule book and FAQs as a ranged attack which must roll to hit (or place and scatter a template if within range) before rolling to wound. And they must specifically wound or remove models from play.

Empathic Obliterator specifically states that it occurs immediately before assault resolution. No assault resolution = no trigger point for Empathic Obliterator.

Tesseract: Can absolutely apply. Place the barge into B2B with something after flying over it.

There are several weapons which definitively DO NOT have the words "close combat" in their rules, despite the fact that they are hand-to-hand weapons, such as the Warscythe. The argument we are making is that Close Combat is a specific statement of fact, not a general idea. That Close Combat actually involves two people in close proximity trading blows--something that the sweep attack most definitely isn't even remotely trying to simulate. If it happens in close combat, it's because something occurs that requires the prolonged presence of the weapon or model, such as a counterblow, follow-up strike, or a psychic shockwave pulsing out from the weapon itself.

You are right that at any moment things can be FAQ'd, errata'd, or clarified by the author. But until they are, myself and many others are pointing out that Close Combat as it exists now is something that is treated in a specific way, wholly unique to the assault phase. It's not just randomly entered into when two models get near each other, it is a critical element of representing the melee of the assault phase.

Everything else--hitting on rear armor, no cover saves, using close combat weapons--it's all irrelevant. Because the rules aren't referring back to the rulebook, they are instead referring to a specific scenario and procedure laid out within the codex itself. This same reason is why until recently, some models had differently functioning Force Weapons, Psychic Hoods, Smoke Grenades, made Target Priority Checks, and numerous other things that are no longer part of the game or which were rendered obsolete by new rulebooks. Codex Overrides Rulebook, and in the case of Sweep attacks that means that they happen in the movement phase and are not considered a shooting or close combat attack.

They are, as explicitly stated in the codex, "special."

You cannot place a unit into B2B unless you call an assault. This, however, does not prevent using CC weapons, ie. they can be used from a distance away from a target (that is a CC rule).

[Wildeybeast]

uh. So I used a wrong vocab word. whatever. Doesn't deter from my argument.

Also--- CC attacks are omni-directional. It does not matter which direction the attack comes from, it always hits rear armor. This is opposed to shooting which is only one direction.

Saying my reasoning is unsound doesn't cut it. Actually cite a rule that states otherwise. I have found 4 rules that agree with me. Find 4 rules that state otherwise.

Rule 1 - you haven't assaulted and thus have not gone through the valid process to enter combat.
Rule 2 - you are not in B2B contact and thus are not in combat.
Rule 3 - Vehicles can't enter combat (since you using the argument of vehicle speed)
Rule 4 - The codex does not provide any rule that overides any of the above, nor does it at any point say you have entered combat or made a close combat attack.

And making me quote rules is not going to deflect from the fact that you are making up rules and pretending like it never happened when called on it. When are you going to admit that there are no such things as 'CC characteristics' and that was just nonsense that you made up? You won't admit it because it completely undermines your credibility and thus your interpretation of the rules, but then people on here aren't stupid and will work this out for themselves.

[Tynskel]

Rule 1 - you haven't assaulted and thus have not gone through the valid process to enter combat.
Rule 2 - you are not in B2B contact and thus are not in combat.
Rule 3 - Vehicles can't enter combat (since you using the argument of vehicle speed)
Rule 4 - The codex does not provide any rule that overides any of the above, nor does it at any point say you have entered combat or made a close combat attack.

And making me quote rules is not going to deflect from the fact that you are making up rules and pretending like it never happened when called on it. When are you going to admit that there are no such things as 'CC characteristics' and that was just nonsense that you made up? You won't admit it because it completely undermines your credibility and thus your interpretation of the rules, but then people on here aren't stupid and will work this out for themselves.

I am not arguing that you are in Assault. I am arguing that these are CC attacks. There's a difference. Just read the CC subset rules. No the cc characteristic comment does not undermine my credibility. I don't understand why you a dwelling on that. The cc rules have characteristics, of which I have demonstrated below.

Speed based attack--cc rule
Using CC weapon -- cc rule
Hitting vehicles on rear--cc rule
The attacks ignore cover, because you are using cc weapons-- cc rule

[Uncle Nutsy]

Speed based attack--cc rule
part of the special rule and doesn't happen during assault.


Using CC weapon -- cc rule

no weapon skill involved, and doesn't happen during assault phase. therefore, not using a cc weapon.


Hitting vehicles on rear--cc rule

included in the special rule itself.


The attacks ignore cover, because you are using cc weapons-- cc rule again, included in the special rule and happens during the movement phase.

If it were a CC attack of any sort, it would be subject to the CC table and the proper process of combat resolution. but it doesn't do any of this because it tells you in the rule what you hit on.


we can argue about this til the cows come home but in the end, you'll still be wrong. If they end up FAQ'ing this rule (which shouldn't happen if people actually read the rule and not tried to argue for advantage), it will say the same thing.

[Rapture]

Wait... Can someone please explain why the fact that the codex rule entry specifically stating that this is a unique (special) attack isn't enough to establish that it is clearly, absolutely, 100% not subject to standard rules regarding CC attacks?

[dannyat2460]

Wait... Can someone please explain why the fact that the codex rule entry specifically stating that this is a unique (special) attack isn't enough to establish that it is clearly, absolutely, 100% not subject to standard rules regarding CC attacks?

because Tynskel wants to argue

[MaxKool]

Wait... Can someone please explain why the fact that the codex rule entry specifically stating that this is a unique (special) attack isn't enough to establish that it is clearly, absolutely, 100% not subject to standard rules regarding CC attacks?

Yah no kidding, I posted that a whole bunch of times WAY back on page 1,2,3,4,5 ect...

The points he is using are similar BUT not the same as the section he keeps quoting. Ive read the CC section over and over and nothing in it is the same as this.


Just let this thread die... Ty will not give up. No matter how many of us post points proving him wrong.

It is a special attack, with all its own rules right in the codex. No BRB needed at all.

[Tynskel]

Yah no kidding, I posted that a whole bunch of times WAY back on page 1,2,3,4,5 ect...

The points he is using are similar BUT not the same as the section he keeps quoting. Ive read the CC section over and over and nothing in it is the same as this.


Just let this thread die... Ty will not give up. No matter how many of us post points proving him wrong.

It is a special attack, with all its own rules right in the codex. No BRB needed at all.

You logic is flawed. Just because something is a special attack does not make it a non CC attack. There are many special rules that are 'special', hence special rules.
Another example is Ld vs Str test. Leadership is a characteristic test that is 'special', it has additional rules, but this in no way means it is not a characteristic.

[MaxKool]

whatever man, stop repeating yourself, its wrong. face it

[Tynskel]

part of the special rule and doesn't happen during assault.



no weapon skill involved, and doesn't happen during assault phase. therefore, not using a cc weapon.



included in the special rule itself.

again, included in the special rule and happens during the movement phase.

If it were a CC attack of any sort, it would be subject to the CC table and the proper process of combat resolution. but it doesn't do any of this because it tells you in the rule what you hit on.


we can argue about this til the cows come home but in the end, you'll still be wrong. If they end up FAQ'ing this rule (which shouldn't happen if people actually read the rule and not tried to argue for advantage), it will say the same thing.
This is a flawed attempt to say it isnt a cc attack. This same logic means that the dispersion shield is not a shooting attack. (along with many many special rules)

All you are saying is that because it isn't in the assault phase it isn't a cc attack.
The whole argument here is about how special rules that happen out of phase still follow the characteristics of the rules they are emulating.

[Wildeybeast]

I am not arguing that you are in Assault. I am arguing that these are CC attacks. There's a difference. Just read the CC subset rules. No the cc characteristic comment does not undermine my credibility. I don't understand why you a dwelling on that.

I'm dwelling on it because you MADE UP A RULE. Not that hard to grasp really. You said that this was an attack that used CC characteristics. Whatever you meant by that, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as 'cc characteristics'. There is not a single reference to it in either the rule book or the Necron codex, it is something you and you alone have concoted to justify your incorrect understanding of the rules.

As an aside, could you give me a single, undisputed rules reference, outside of the Necron sweep attack, where you can be in combat without first having assaulted. Oh, and these 'cc subset rules' you refer to, would these be the ones that are contained within the assault phase section and explicitly state that you must either be in B2B contact or within 2" of a model from your unit that is in B2B to be counted as being in combat and thus being able to fight a CC (p35). Or is there another 'fighting a CC' section in the rulebook that I have missed?

[Rapture]

Nonsense +1

14 pages when the answer is written in the rule? Don''t feed the Troll.

[Uncle Nutsy]

This is a flawed attempt to say it isnt a cc attack. This same logic means that the dispersion shield is not a shooting attack. (along with many many special rules)]

irrelevant.


All you are saying is that because it isn't in the assault phase it isn't a cc attack.
The whole argument here is about how special rules that happen out of phase still follow the characteristics of the rules they are emulating.

oh i'm saying much more than just that. but you'd know that if you actually read what i wrote and didn't disregard it after the first few words. you should go back and re-read what i wrote before making such a wishful comment. and this time, don't rush to a conclusion.


just an anecdote here: i've argued against people that are orders of magnitude more stubborn and won, simply due to wearing them down. So, if you want to continue... by all means, do so. i'll be getting a lot of entertainment out of it.

[Tynskel]

irrelevant.



oh i'm saying much more than just that. but you'd know that if you actually read what i wrote and didn't disregard it after the first few words. you should go back and re-read what i wrote before making such a wishful comment. and this time, don't rush to a conclusion.


just an anecdote here: i've argued against people that are orders of magnitude more stubborn and won, simply due to wearing them down. So, if you want to continue... by all means, do so. i'll be getting a lot of entertainment out of it.

You gotta be more concise: I have four lines of reasoning.
Also, you should look at my post count, good luck.

And, no this is not irrelevant. What I am pointing out is that your Line of reasoning would negate the effects of all interrupts in the game. You are inconsistently applying the rules.

By the way: look up the word characteristics.
I use that word, because the CC rules, ie the direct mechanics, explicitly state the four specifics I brought up.
1) that you use CC weapon.
2) you hit based upon speed
3) you get no cover save
4) you hit rear armor regardless of facing

These are all characteristics of CC. To deny so is admitting that you have no idea what the rules for CC are.

[lattd]

Characteristics of CC and CC characteristics are two different things, the first is things that happen in CC the second is things that only happen and are only used in CC.

I just want to know why you are ignoring the fact the rule says these are a special attack? It uses exactly the same mechanics as the dark elder blade vanes. Are you saying the blade vanes are CC attacks?

[Rapture]

Nonsense +1



just an anecdote here: i've argued against people that are orders of magnitude more stubborn and won, simply due to wearing them down. So, if you want to continue... by all means, do so. i'll be getting a lot of entertainment out of it.



Also, you should look at my post count, good luck.


I am honestly embarrassed for both of you.

The rule is clear. This thread can't die because it never lived. No amount of making up an arguing "CC characteristics" or any other horse crap will change anything.

[Tynskel]

Characteristics of CC and CC characteristics are two different things, the first is things that happen in CC the second is things that only happen and are only used in CC.

I just want to know why you are ignoring the fact the rule says these are a special attack? It uses exactly the same mechanics as the dark elder blade vanes. Are you saying the blade vanes are CC attacks?

What are you talking about? The blade vane uses NONE of the CC characteristics. It has a shooting profile (str4 AP-) you plot a line (similar to JoWW, Blood Lance, ect), and you can take cover saves.

This just further enhances my argument for sweep attacks:
1) CC Weapon
2) Hit rear armor
3) hit based upon speed
4) no cover saves

[lattd]

But the blade vanes hit based upon speed, one of the options gives no cover saves and hit the rear armour of vehicles. so 3/4 of your argument must mean that blade vanes are not shooting attacks.

[Uncle Nutsy]

Nonsense +1





I am honestly embarrassed for both of you.

you don't have to be, really. him, sure. me, nah.


The rule is clear. This thread can't die because it never lived. No amount of making up an arguing "CC characteristics" or any other horse crap will change anything.

exactly. but if he wants to argue for advantage, he can go right ahead. i'll just poke him in the soft spot a few times for it. :D



You gotta be more concise: I have four lines of reasoning.
Also, you should look at my post count, good luck.

four lines of reasoning that all suck. and for post count? you can have ten thousand posts and it still wouldn't matter to me. It's not the amount of posts a person has, but the quality of those posts that actually matter.


And, no this is not irrelevant. What I am pointing out is that your Line of reasoning would negate the effects of all interrupts in the game. You are inconsistently applying the rules. says the guy who's trying to argue for advantage. :D


By the way: look up the word characteristics.
I use that word, because the CC rules, ie the direct mechanics, explicitly state the four specifics I brought up.
1) that you use CC weapon.
2) you hit based upon speed
3) you get no cover save
4) you hit rear armor regardless of facing

These are all characteristics of CC. To deny so is admitting that you have no idea what the rules for CC are.

you do realize you're talking to a person who runs a heavily assault oriented dark eldar army, right? LOL

the speed argument you have is pretty cute aswell. I'd love to see that in the assault section of the rule book but it's just not in there. I love having the pocket rulebook by my side.

[MaxKool]

Ok mabye this MIGHT help...

We had a realy long dicussion about this and similar rules last nit.

When the question of "is this a shooting attack or CC attack" comes up its almost 100% alwasy one of 2 reasons.

1) Do these wounds count for combat rez. If so, then almost always they get classes as "Wounds caused by CC attacks"
2) Do I get some kind of special save, IE Wych saves. Such as the purifiers, it acted similar to shooting but was classed as a CC attack and counting to combat rez.

This sweep attack falls under neither. it is 100% self contained.

It either has to follow the CC rules by the letter or its not a CC attack and somthing differant. It dosnt follow the CC rules to the letter ERGO its not a CC attack.

Seriosly TY, either come up with somthing new or give up. Your arguement has been pointed out BY several posters as NOT the correct awnser. Not because you are wrong per-se becayse they can FAQ how they want to. Why you are wrong is your arguement is based on made up rules, some of the things you skeep quoting are NOT in the BRB. They are YOUR interpretations... and you know what they say about opinions...

Stop spouting as fact your personal interpretations. Your speed arguement is BS, the rule for speed based hits is in the BRB and NOT THE SAME, therefore they wrote special rules for the special attack.
It is selfcontained with NO need to pull anything from the BRB to make it work. If somthing comes up that u need to clarify unfortunately there IS NOT a line in the BRB that covers this rule. The assault section is useless for rules questions for the sweep attack.

It needs a faq(alltho i doubt it will get one as its crystal clear to everyone ive talked to) and untill it does you can only use the rules as presented in the codex. Thats how this game works, YOU dont get to deside how it is ruled.

The way to sumerize it that we came up with last nite is...

Its a special attack, NOT covered in the BRB. It happens in the movement phase, and follows the codex's rules. You use the special properties of the CC weapon, but dont use any of the normal assault/CC mechanics. If the weapon has abilities that only trigger in assault or CC then they dont go off as you are NOT in cc or assault. You are MOVING and getting a SPECIAL attack while MOVING.


Either way.... I hope a mod will lock this thread as it hasnt been going anywhere for 10 pages.....
and its clear you will just keep saying the same OPINION over and Over.... So unless MORE people come and add new things, this thread has TOTALY run its cource.....

[Uncle Nutsy]

exactly max.

it tells you when it happens, what you hit on, and the wound mechanics trigger if the hits are successful.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Hmm this worked for ending the Assault Rules thread, maybe it will work again?..... Duke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU

ps.

sweep attack is not a CC attack, why? because if it was they would have said so "Simples" :D

[Maelstorm]

ROTFLOL

Too funny!

[MaxKool]

Hmm this worked for ending the Assault Rules thread, maybe it will work again?..... Duke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU

ps.

sweep attack is not a CC attack, why? because if it was they would have said so "Simples" :D

Awesome, I havent heard that song in AGES...

1st thing I thought of was the muppet show doing it with some weird monster guy singing it hahaha

[Tynskel]

What I am still seeing here is no negation of my argument, just flawed reasoning of how to use the rulebook.

1) Again, I am talking about CC characteristics. Not all of the CC rules are in the Assault rules section--- the speed argument is in the CC rules of vehicles, which is in the expanded rules section of the rulebook.

2) I am quoting rules from the rulebook. CC attacks are made with CC weapons--- that's in the assault section of the rulebook. Hitting rear armor is in the rulebook in the expanded rules. Negating cover with CC attacks is in the rules section under assault. Hitting based upon speed is in the expanded rules section of the rulebook.



Here's the problem with the counter argument. It is being stated that all special rules are completely self contained. Ie, that they have no interaction with the respective rules section that they emulate. I bring up the example of dispersion shield, which people count as a shooting attack. However, if one were to treat the special rules as completely independent of shooting rules, then it would not necessarily receive a cover save. However, it is implied that this is a shooting attack. The implied reasoning of a shooting attack means that it follows the rules for shooting, ie gains a cover save. Or one could say Seth's counter attack move (when you roll a '1' to hit, seth automatically hits back) is not a CC attack. At that point, it is independent of the assault phase, and the possible wound caused would not count as part of combat resolution. Once again, it is implied that this is a CC attack and is subject to the CC rules.

However, the codex independence argument is flawed, because the construction of the rules is such that the codex rules are in addition to the rulebook rules. Some of the codex rules modify or change rulebook rules (eg. droppod does not suffer mishap for landing scattering into a unit), and hence the 'codex trumps rulebook' statement. The codex rules fit within the framework of the rulebook rules, and are not an independent ruleset. They must be used in conjunction with the rulebook.

[Tynskel]

Either way.... I hope a mod will lock this thread as it hasnt been going anywhere for 10 pages.....
and its clear you will just keep saying the same OPINION over and Over.... So unless MORE people come and add new things, this thread has TOTALY run its cource.....

The mods get involved not because of long list of pages. There are plenty of examples of this in the BoLS thread history. The mods get involved when arguments devolve into personal attacks, or if the postings are off topic.

The point here is that this thread is doing neither. There are no real personal attacks going on, and the thread is on topic.

If you are done with this topic, then you just need to stop posting. You'll notice that topics 'fade away' because people stop posting.

[thecactusman17]

We have one poster making a single argument about his personal interpretation and about a dozen or more making refutations with direct rules backing. The thread is done. The question in so far as rules from the existing game system is answered.

Tyn, if your friends are cool with that then play how you want. But this is the rules forum. It's for asking questions about game rules. And right now, in 5th edition with all released and relevant FAQs and codexes taken into consideration, and the wording of the rule in question, there are now 15 pages almost entirely filled with people explaining in detail how your argument is wrong, and how your supporting evidence is invalid and irrelevant. The question is answered. The argument is over, except for your stubbornly repeating yourself.

That's a noble goal, to stand by your convictions. But this thread no longer serves any purpose and should make way for other threads. At least until an FAQ comes along, anyway.

[Tynskel]

no, the rules that are cited actually conflict with interpretations of all other rules. That is a major problem with the argument.

[Uncle Nutsy]

show us where close combat weapons are used to their fullest extent (assault specific effects included) happen during the movement phase.

[Tynskel]

hah,

I already have.

1) you use the cc weapons and effects. (see CC weapons)
2) you hit rear armor (see extended rules section on cc with vehicles)
3) you deny cover saves (see CC effects)
4) you hit based upon speed (see extended rules section on cc with vehicles)

Again, these are all CC rules.
It really sounds redonkulous to me that when the Necron codex explicitly states that you use the CC weapon, that you guys are trying to tell me it doesn't.

As I said before, does anyone have a counter argument to the fact that what they are saying here begs the reinterpretation of other interrupts? For example, the Dispersion Shield counting as a shooting attack? Just like Sweep Attack, it doesn't explicitly state 'shooting' or 'cc' attack, but uses the effects of shooting. And Blade Vanes, it doesn't explicitly state shooting attack, yet it uses the effects of shooting. Seth's interrupt doesn't say it is a close combat attack, yet it uses the CC rules, ect. ect.

[MaxKool]

Ok Ty this Is why your argument is worthless and no one agrees with you.

The speed rules, are not refranced in anyway. It has it's own rule. There is no need imPlied at all to read the section in the Brb. The rule is complete in the codex. Therefore u can't say it's the same. Its worded differently and 100% independant of the cc section,and as such is a differant rule. Your continued quoting of an illrelevent rule is incorrect.

Cc characteristics is not listed anywhere in the Brb as a defining term with the rules, Stop using this made up reasoning, it's your own opinion.

Again, if it is a cc attack that follows the Brb there would be no need to mention ignoring cover saves as cc attacks always do this without mention. Same with hitting rear armor, if it followed the Brb exactly as you say then what about walkers. Ha, he sweep attack hits rear on even those. If it was exactly he same as the brb this wouldn't be the case would it. And if I read the cc section regarding vehicles it contradicts the codex, therefore is not the same and the codex rules.

Your arguement is weak, based on your own interpretations of the brb and in no way reflects the rules. As it has it's own rules differant the the brb.

I have now pointed out why each of your points don't cut it. U can argue all u want, but I have shown that all your points are base on incorrect assumptions.
There is zero need to look in the BRB with regards to the sweep attack. It references the brb in no way and is totally self contained. No wording is even employed to encourage the brb.

[thecactusman17]

hah,

I already have.

1) you use the cc weapons and effects. (see CC weapons)
2) you hit rear armor (see extended rules section on cc with vehicles)
3) you deny cover saves (see CC effects)
4) you hit based upon speed (see extended rules section on cc with vehicles)

Again, these are all CC rules.
It really sounds redonkulous to me that when the Necron codex explicitly states that you use the CC weapon, that you guys are trying to tell me it doesn't.

As I said before, does anyone have a counter argument to the fact that what they are saying here begs the reinterpretation of other interrupts? For example, the Dispersion Shield counting as a shooting attack? Just like Sweep Attack, it doesn't explicitly state 'shooting' or 'cc' attack, but uses the effects of shooting. And Blade Vanes, it doesn't explicitly state shooting attack, yet it uses the effects of shooting. Seth's interrupt doesn't say it is a close combat attack, yet it uses the CC rules, ect. ect.

The Dispersion shield ALSO doesn't technically count as a shooting or close combat attack. Which means that there is no limit on the saves that can be taken against it, and the facing is determined as normal, based on the direction the attack is coming from. And because it's not a close combat or shooting attack, you can allocate saves as desired. So where is your question coming from?

Tynskel, all of the rules for hitting, wounding, and determining things like armor facing, cover etc. are right there in the rule. They never reference any part of the rulebook dealing with close combat. Every part of the rule refers back to the codex itself and most of that directly to the rule itself--which never mentions being a close combat attack, and explicitly mentions that is is an attack type: "a special 'sweep' attack." If this were an issue of looking at the rulebook, nobody wold be arguing with you. The rule is 100% self contained within the army codex, it can't be supplanting any whole phase of the game, it's a separate thing entirely.

BTW, I think that pretty soon, that "sweep" attack won't be all that special. I think that this is going to get its own rule in 6th edition, clearing this up once and for all. Note that these attacks have shown up in two of the last three codexes, all of which have new rules and terminology, and if release rumors hold true then 6th edition is well into the design phase by now.

[Uncle Nutsy]

hah,

I already have.

1) you use the cc weapons and effects. (see CC weapons)
2) you hit rear armor (see extended rules section on cc with vehicles)
3) you deny cover saves (see CC effects)
4) you hit based upon speed (see extended rules section on cc with vehicles)

Again, these are all CC rules.
It really sounds redonkulous to me that when the Necron codex explicitly states that you use the CC weapon, that you guys are trying to tell me it doesn't.

As I said before, does anyone have a counter argument to the fact that what they are saying here begs the reinterpretation of other interrupts? For example, the Dispersion Shield counting as a shooting attack? Just like Sweep Attack, it doesn't explicitly state 'shooting' or 'cc' attack, but uses the effects of shooting. And Blade Vanes, it doesn't explicitly state shooting attack, yet it uses the effects of shooting. Seth's interrupt doesn't say it is a close combat attack, yet it uses the CC rules, ect. ect.

no that's not a precedent. that's just you quoting yourself again and intentionally misunderstanding rules. Again. :D

time for a complete tear-down...


you use the cc weapons and effects. (see CC weapons) Since this is happening in the movement phase, you still use the cc weapon (duh) but if the weapon in question has 'in close combat' in its' rules the effects do not trigger


you hit rear armor (see extended rules section on cc with vehicles) well, if you read the rule (and i'm starting to really doubt you did now), you'd know it was already spelled out in the rule.


you deny cover saves (see CC effects) no need to "see cc effects" because well.. it's spelled out clearly in the rule. but you'd know that if you read it.


you hit based upon speed (see extended rules section on cc with vehicles) oh you mean where the to-hit value changes on the speed of the vehicle when you launch an assault against said vehicle? yeah guess what, that's not happening because..... the vehicle is moving during the movement phase... and you're not assaulting.

so you are completely, horribly, utterly, indisputably, and irrevocably wrong. on everything. if your argument was a pile of wood, it would now lay in broken chunks and splinters and i would have just lit fire to it.

I did like the blade vane bit of your argument. made me chuckle.

I think I figured out why you want this to be a CC attack so bad. You want to use the effects from orikan's staff of tomorrow, or the effects of trazyn's empathic obliterator. but you can't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs

[Tynskel]

The Sweep Attack rule is emulating the CC rules. And the description is a CC attack.
You guys are saying it isn't a CC attack because... I don't know why. You are just saying it isn't--- the point I am making is that it is using all CC based rules. These rules are coherent and consistent.

This is why I say quack like a duck argument: it is using all the same rules as CC!

as for the argument for the Dispersion Shield argument--- the only mention of cover saves is in the shooting phase, and the denial of cover saves is in the assault phase from CC attacks. I don't know where you get the idea that you ALWAYS get a cover save. You only get cover saves from shooting.

However, this does not counter that people treat it like a shooting attack, which is what people do.

[SeattleDV8]

Yes , it does emulate the CC rules, but it not 'using all the same rules'
It is a special attack that is simular to CC
It uses some of the same rules but not all of them.


As to the cover save only being for shooting attacks that is simply not true.
Tyranid FAQ

Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from
the Deep attack?
A: Yes.
Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds inflicted
by the Doom of Malant’tai’s Spirit Leech ability?
A: Yes.

[Uncle Nutsy]

i've torn his argument to pieces; we've told him the wording is in the rule. He simply want to act like his interpretation is right and he'll argue it until he's blue in the face.

at this point, he's acting just like a child going 'la la la la i can't hear you!' with his fingers in his ears.

I can just see how he would be at a tournament and someone used a sweep attack. he'd argue with the opponent until someone called over a judge... and then he'd argue with the judge, which would result in him becoming "That guy" and being ejected from the game.

[Tynskel]

we all know it is a 'special' attack. That's because it isn't happening in the assault phase. That's what makes it special.

I'll concede the argument about cover saves and shooting (note, this does not mean conceding the cover saves and close combat attacks).

Note that special attacks don't always follow ALL of the rules, yet they are still categorized by their type of attack. See the blade vane--- it is a shooting attack based upon its attributes. It doesn't follow ALL of the shooting rules, yet is considered a shooting attack.

How about Seth's Counter Attack? It doesn't follow all of the rules for CC, but yet it is considered an assault attack. See a whole list of special abilities in other codexes. The point is that Special Attacks don't follow all the rules, but they follow characteristics of the rules, which is what defines what type of attack it is.

[Tynskel]

i've torn his argument to pieces; we've told him the wording is in the rule. He simply want to act like his interpretation is right and he'll argue it until he's blue in the face.

at this point, he's acting just like a child going 'la la la la i can't hear you!' with his fingers in his ears.

I can just see how he would be at a tournament and someone used a sweep attack. he'd argue with the opponent until someone called over a judge... and then he'd argue with the judge, which would result in him becoming "That guy" and being ejected from the game.

you have not torn my argument to pieces. You have said nothing that negates the rules. You need to cite something that says this isn't how it works. I have now brought up multiple codexes that follow the same format--- they follow SOME of the rules from a section and are considered the attack they are emulating, not ALL of the rules, yet no one denies that these attacks are the respective attacks.

Why is Sweep Attack being treated different? There is no reason to do so.

[MaxKool]

we all know it is a 'special' attack. That's because it isn't happening in the assault phase. That's what makes it special.

I'll concede the argument about cover saves and shooting (note, this does not mean conceding the cover saves and close combat attacks).

Note that special attacks don't always follow ALL of the rules, yet they are still categorized by their type of attack. See the blade vane--- it is a shooting attack based upon its attributes. It doesn't follow ALL of the shooting rules, yet is considered a shooting attack.

How about Seth's Counter Attack? It doesn't follow all of the rules for CC, but yet it is considered an assault attack. See a whole list of special abilities in other codexes. The point is that Special Attacks don't follow all the rules, but they follow characteristics of the rules, which is what defines what type of attack it is.

GW doesnt work on an "other" codex precedent. Its all over the map, so that arguement means squat. Ive been on that end of it before. U cant use other ruleings from other books, because simply I can contradict pretty much any ruling with the opposite somwhere in some other book. The system isnt designed this way, and interprting rules in this manner is flat out WRONG and will get you nowhere fast.

Nowhere does it say bladevanes are shooting. U can count them as anything U like. Phil like Matt designed a special rule and didnt use ANY of the wordings for "counts as" attacks that you keep screaming about . They dont happen in the shooting phase, and those words are never mentioned. There are plenty of examples of GW using the term "treated as a shooting attack" or "Treated as/resolved as a CC attack". But in both these examples they dont use those terms anywhere.

Not everything HAS to be a USR and either shooting/CC. Where in the BRB does it say that all attacks are classed as either CC or Shooting implicitly? it dosnt , and the rule of the codex taking precedent and specific taking as well. The codex is king in this case, and the codex has all the rules self contained. NO need for BRB at all, and the words "Resolved as/treated as CC attack or anything similar just arnt there. So u still dont need to goto the BRB cause u have all the rules. Its a werid special one that has its own rules and interacts independantly of the BRB minus basic rules (movement ect..)


Seriously If you dont have anything but this and Other codex precedents(wich are worthless) then i think thats that.

[thecactusman17]

Blade vanes are another rule where all relevant information is in the rules. We don't refer to the shooting rules at all. We only know that units with cover saves will get them. The only rules we worry about in the Bladevanes entry from the rulebook are the rules for distributing wounds and the rules for flat out--which function as they normally would in any part of the game, shooting, close combat etc.

Tynskel, you are failing to grasp the fundamental flaw in your argument: just because something is an exception to the rules does not mean it replaces the rules, or takes on other rules from the game to implement itself. "Seth's" attack happens in close combat--that is, when he is locked in combat with another enemy model.

We have cited multiple times the ONLY two relevant facts in the argument, in almost every single post since this question was asked: The Necron codex itself explicitly states that it is a different type of attack, and furthermore, that CODEX OVERRIDES THE RULEBOOK. Which means that the Rulebook is being overruled by the codex, which is again explicitly stated in both the rulebook AND relevant FAQs and Erratas.

The ONLY WAY in which the sweep attack can be a close combat attack is if the next Necron FAQ states that it is. Even if they allow close combat abilities and responses to work, this will not make it a close combat attack unless they state explicitly that it is.

[Tynskel]

the whole codex overrides rulebook argument: it only overrides if it is 'overriding'. In this case, it is taking a CC attack and putting it in the movement phase. By you own admission, this must be the interpretation. Otherwise, how would you be arguing that point? Otherwise, there is nothing being overridden.

I don't understand your argument with seth--- are you saying you are counting it as a CC attack BECAUSE it happens in the assault phase, but it would NOT be a CC attack if it happened in the shooting phase? This is my point--- that is an inconsistent application of the rules.

Blade vanes has the relevant rules in the section--- of course, because you have to describe everything in the rule so people are not confused---- that still does not deter from the fact that it is a shooting attack accomplished in the movement phase.

Of course the Necron Codex states that it is a 'different' attack--- uh yeah! it is in the movement phase! However, all of its rules AND its description are CC. You have not actually debunked this. You need to cite something---- pick other rules and deconstruct them.

[The Twilight Fade]

With the intent of staying neutral in this the thought of Trazyn swooping down and dispatching half a squad of orks in a single swing looks pretty cool in my minds eye.

But for in game purposes I can see why they are probably going to rule against this, no-one can really say until the FAQ is released as the FAQs are so inconsistant. The 4,000,000 post "argument" over the nemesis dreadknight was only solved by an FAQ and who knows which direction GW will take on this one.

Could you have ever bet on them not allowing primes in a pod or SiTW not affecting psykers in vehicles?

Only time will tell I guess

[MaxKool]

Holy crap man, where anywhere in the Brb or codex does it say bladevanes are shooting attacks?
There are things in the game the allow specific things to happen during shooting but should not apply to bladevanes and don't. Does that mean I can use my dispersion shield to bounce the hits away?
It isn't shooting and u need to stop this, this world work if u call them shooting......


If u can't either come up with Somthing new, or a supporter or 2 then just stop posting the same **** over and over. It's wrong we all know it and u alone are repeating the same wrong argument over and over.

If anyone else is looking to this for the answer here it is...

NO it is not a cc attack, unless gw faqs it for now it is a unique attack and u should follow the rules as written in the codex.

Seriously if u dont have Somthing new just stop posting after everyone disagrees with u with the same tired crap.

[Nachodragon]

*whispering voice on the wind*
If you build it... no...
If you ignore him the FAQ will come.

[thecactusman17]

the whole codex overrides rulebook argument: it only overrides if it is 'overriding'. In this case, it is taking a CC attack and putting it in the movement phase. By you own admission, this must be the interpretation. Otherwise, how would you be arguing that point? Otherwise, there is nothing being overridden.

I don't understand your argument with seth--- are you saying you are counting it as a CC attack BECAUSE it happens in the assault phase, but it would NOT be a CC attack if it happened in the shooting phase? This is my point--- that is an inconsistent application of the rules.

Blade vanes has the relevant rules in the section--- of course, because you have to describe everything in the rule so people are not confused---- that still does not deter from the fact that it is a shooting attack accomplished in the movement phase.

Of course the Necron Codex states that it is a 'different' attack--- uh yeah! it is in the movement phase! However, all of its rules AND its description are CC. You have not actually debunked this. You need to cite something---- pick other rules and deconstruct them.

Bladevanes are not a shooting attack. Just like the Sweep Attack, it is its own rule that generates wounds in a particular way, and has all rules self-contained, including which actions enemy models may take against it.

You are continuously trying to state that some attacks are examples of an X attack to support your argument. But movement based attacks are never considered to be a "shooting" or "close combat" attack unless it explicitly states that is how you resolve the attack. In fact, the abilities you have continuously expressed ALSO do not state what type of attack they are. Even the Void Mine, a shooting attack if there ever was one, was only changed in the FAQ to state that it couldn't be fired if the vehicle was shaken or stunned, not that it was a shooting attack.

It's time that you started paying attention to the arguments we're making. Sweep Attacks are Sweep attacks. not close combat attacks. Not shooting attacks. Just sweep attacks.

[SeattleDV8]

the whole codex overrides rulebook argument: it only overrides if it is 'overriding'. In this case, it is taking a CC attack and putting it in the movement phase.
But thats not what the Codex rule is,
First it states that it is a special attack that has some (and only some) rules that also used in CC (using a CC weapon & ST , hitting a vehicle in the rear and no cover)
A rule that is similar but different to CC , hitting on a set number that is based on the attackers speed, instead of the vehicle attacked speed or WS.
Also the embarked Model gets 3 attacks, You don't use the Characters Attack number as you would in CC.
Then whole sections of CC that are not used, You can't split the attack like in CC
IC's would remain part of the unit for this attack.
The units aren't locked or engaged.
You would use the normal Morale rules if the unit lost 25% or more
And on and on......
The sweep attack rules are self contained and as such over-rule the BRB.



Of course the Necron Codex states that it is a 'different' attack--- uh yeah! it is in the movement phase! However, all of its rules AND its description are CC. You have not actually debunked this. You need to cite something---- pick other rules and deconstruct them

No they are not, only three rules are the same .
You need a great deal more to prove your point.

[Uncle Nutsy]

you have not torn my argument to pieces.

um if i was able to dissect your argument into little pieces and debunk every single one.. that's usually called 'tearing a bad argument to pieces'


You have said nothing that negates the rules. why would I say anything that negates the rules? last i checked, you were the one arguing every single facet of it.


You need to cite something that says this isn't how it works.

I have the BRB, the dark eldar codex(i know how the bladevane rule works because I have reavers), the spacewolf codex, the IG codex, the tau codex, and the nid codex. If I need to, I can call up a blood angels player, or a daemon player and ask them. So, I can cite PLENTY.


I have now brought up multiple codexes that follow the same format

given your track record, misunderstood every one of them.


they follow SOME of the rules from a section and are considered the attack they are emulating, not ALL of the rules, yet no one denies that these attacks are the respective attacks. there are no codexes with the words 'emulate' in any one of them


Why is Sweep Attack being treated different? There is no reason to do so. yes there is. it's a special rule unto itself.

Go read the necron codex already and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8F8bFghhA8

[Tynskel]

um if i was able to dissect your argument into little pieces and debunk every single one.. that's usually called 'tearing a bad argument to pieces'

why would I say anything that negates the rules? last i checked, you were the one arguing every single facet of it.



I have the BRB, the dark eldar codex(i know how the bladevane rule works because I have reavers), the spacewolf codex, the IG codex, the tau codex, and the nid codex. If I need to, I can call up a blood angels player, or a daemon player and ask them. So, I can cite PLENTY.



given your track record, misunderstood every one of them.

there are no codexes with the words 'emulate' in any one of them

yes there is. it's a special rule unto itself.

Go read the necron codex already and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8F8bFghhA8

You 'cite' the rules, but nothing you have cited actually refutes what I said. All that you have cited states that the necrons codex is using the rules precedents set by the rule book and codecs before them.

I love how people cite 'special' yes, we know it is special, that's because it is a cc attack that is occurring in a different phase.

The denial of cover saves, hit on rear armor, using the CC weapon, and hit based upon speed are all coherent, consistent, and are all CC rules. The description states CC attack. This is a CC attack.

I am not saying this is the assault phase, which is what Seattle is arguing. This is a CC attack, and CC attacks allow certain abilities to be used, such as Grey Knight invuls, Wycherley dodges, and Seth's counter Attack.

[Maelstorm]

I am not saying this is the assault phase, which is what Seattle is arguing. This is a CC attack, and CC attacks allow certain abilities to be used, such as Grey Knight invuls, Wycherley dodges, and Seth's counter Attack.

Let's boil it down to the basics:
. . I think what Tynskel is saying is that he doesn't want another codex's cheese to counter his codex's cheese.

[MaxKool]

Eh voila.

Seth's ability will not trigger, u are not "in cc" go back and read it. Even of they did FAQ it as "wounds caused by cc" that is not the same as BEING in cc. If they FAQ it in this way the only one of your 3 examples that would trigger would be he WYCH dodge. MABYE the stave but I'm not sure the exact wording as I do t play the grey cheese.

The necron codex even has other special rules that say "counted as shooting" look around a bit and u will see those terms used alot in codicies. Strange the left it out of blade vanes and this one. If bladevanes were a shooting attack it wouldn't have to say cover saves can be taken as that NORMALY assumed to be part of shooting rules.

I have a necron, marine, black Templar, dark eldar and nid armies and if u look in all he codicies u find no rules consistency with the faqs and similar rules between books. Because as I told u already gw dosnt work this way. Each book is faqd and delt with on it's own. Precedent means nothing unless coming from the SAME codex.

Now come back with some fresh ideas cause everything u have argued so far HAS been shredded by more than one member. Deal with it. It sucks to be wrong but life's a *****....

[Tynskel]

Hah! That's what I am arguing: The Sweep Attack IS a cc attack, thereby activating passive abilities that are used in cc.

Seth's counter attack is for cc attacks.
Wych dodge is for CC attacks.
Grey Knight Nemesis Swords are activated in CC (+1 to invuls)

All you are saying is that IF this isn't a cc attack, then these abilities wouldn't activate. However, you are not countering that the Sweep Attack is NOT a cc attack.

You need to show that the sweep attacks are inconsistent--- Seattle tried to argue that the rules between CC attacks and Sweep Attack are similar, but not the same, therefore it isn't a cc attack. But that's not how the rulebook works. Previous FAQs have shown that rules that are similar to the rulebook rules ARE emulating the rulebook rules. (eg Tyrant Guard-- the rule doesn't state the Tyrant cannot be targeted, but it was the intent of the rule, and was FAQed as such, and previous precedents for Tyrant Guard were similarly worded.)

What you need to show is places in the rules where rules are emulating a rulebook rule, yet are later refuted as rulebook rules.

[Uncle Nutsy]

Let's boil it down to the basics:
. . I think what Tynskel is saying is that he doesn't want another codex's cheese to counter his codex's cheese.

yeah, pretty much. that and 'i want the rules to be THIS way and nuts to you all!'

oh and ty? for a cc attack to happen, models have to be either in base to base or 2 inches away from each other. but the barge is going to be more than 2 inches away. but you knew this already.

[MaxKool]

Ok, I'm going to say sory to the mods now, I've read the warning and understand but after almost 20 pages of pretty much everyone showing him why he is wrong and him just plugging his ears and ignoring to reply to anything that he dosnt think he can dispute.

Whats is your issue? Do u have a mental issue that prevents you fron understanding what 20pages of refuting mean? Can u read properly? Get your head out of yer ***, u can't read and your have made that clear. You have one shoddy arguement that's has been repeatedly torn to shreds. Regardless if u think so or not, it has.

You keep quoting rules from other books even tho u have been told that's not relevant. Yet u never reply to that fact cause it leaves u with Nothing. Well too bad precedent outside of he codex in question is worthless.
Period. If u had played for a long time I would know this....

Again please come up with Somthing new or don't bother cause what u keep ayin has been refuted regardless of what you think.

Stop being an asshat and accept that pretty much everyone in the 20 page thread has said u are wrong . Sucks that u can't accept this fact and based on this I can only imagine what it would be like to play you.....


Again, sory to the mods.. Warn me if u like but someone had to say it.

I'm taking off notifications for this thread (wich Btw is the only reason I bother to reply... ) and I'm done.

This argument has been settled, we don't need Ty to agree with us. We have shown numerous times what it is and that unless a FAQ says otherwise play it just as written. There is nothing broken about it to play this way, but if played the other way it becomes bloody op in some occasions.... (thats another hint there..


Good day, and thanks to all the other guys for all the differant reasons. It may be useful in he future if Somthing similar comes up.

[Uncle Nutsy]

This is what I imagine Ty looks like throughout this entire thread.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/ferrouscranus.jpg (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm)

[thecactusman17]

You 'cite' the rules, but nothing you have cited actually refutes what I said. All that you have cited states that the necrons codex is using the rules precedents set by the rule book and codecs before them.

We are not stating that it uses rules precedents, we are stating it follows the rules of the game as written in the Battle Rule Book. Which states that codexes can override the rulebook. In this case, by allowing a model to make attacks in the movement phase.


I love how people cite 'special' yes, we know it is special, that's because it is a cc attack that is occurring in a different phase.

The rule in question explicitly states it is not a close combat attack, and likewise explicitly names it as a sweep attack. There is no part of the rule where it is named as a Close Combat attack. There are multiple new rules to resolve the attack that have no precedent in close combat, including the override of unit stats that are vital for close combat. The rule is entirely 100% self-contained and does not reference any part of the movement, shooting or assault rules except for noting the easier roll to hit if moving at slow speeds.



The denial of cover saves, hit on rear armor, using the CC weapon, and hit based upon speed are all coherent, consistent, and are all CC rules. The description states CC attack. This is a CC attack.

These are NOT from the Assault rules. Cover saves and hit on rear armor (even against walkers, which is NOT POSSIBLE in close combat) are self contained in the rule. Strength value and close combat weapons are contained WITHIN THE RULE. THE DESCRIPTION IS IRRELEVANT NEXT TO THE FACT THAT THE RULE EXPLICITLY STATES IT IS A SPECIFIC TYPE OF ATTACK.


I am not saying this is the assault phase, which is what Seattle is arguing. This is a CC attack, and CC attacks allow certain abilities to be used, such as Grey Knight invuls, Wycherley dodges, and Seth's counter Attack.

You are right. It is not the assault phase. You are wrong. This is never referred to as a Close Combat attack, even if it makes sense to let certain units take actions against it from a gameplay perspective. We are saying that you are wrong in calling it a close combat attack. The Sweep Attack rule is a specific type of attack:



a special "sweep" attack.


Note the quotations. That is from the rulebook itself. We are dealing with an entirely new type of attack here, something that is likely to be addressed in 6th edition. Please stop assigning the term Close Combat to this attack. Please stop suggesting that this is an assault-related maneuver conducted during the movement phase. This attack, as is explicitly stated in the Necron codex, is a new attack type.


Insult-laden, poorly written personal attack

insulting image, directed at potentially either of the other two

Stop it, you are not helping. If you think this guy is trolling, alert a mod.

[SeattleDV8]

Hah! That's what I am arguing: The Sweep Attack IS a cc attack, thereby activating passive abilities that are used in cc.
Which is where you are mistaken
Using a CC weapon (or attack) does not equal being 'in CC'


Seth's counter attack is for cc attacks.
Wych dodge is for CC attacks.
Grey Knight Nemesis Swords are activated in CC (+1 to invuls)

All you are saying is that IF this isn't a cc attack, then these abilities wouldn't activate. However, you are not countering that the Sweep Attack is NOT a cc attack.
Not at all, we all agree that the sweep attack uses CC weapons, as it is stated in the rule.
All of the abilities you have mentioned are activatied when the models are 'in CC'
You have yet to prove that.
The Units in a sweep attack are never said to be in CC.
They are never stated to be treated like being in CC or even counts as CC.
None of the above could be used against a sweep attack as none of them are 'in CC'.

(edit Although if the unit that suffers a Sweep attack was already locked in CC, I would allow them to be used)


You need to show that the sweep attacks are inconsistent--- Seattle tried to argue that the rules between CC attacks and Sweep Attack are similar, but not the same, therefore it isn't a cc attack. But that's not how the rulebook works. Previous FAQs have shown that rules that are similar to the rulebook rules ARE emulating the rulebook rules. (eg Tyrant Guard-- the rule doesn't state the Tyrant cannot be targeted, but it was the intent of the rule, and was FAQed as such, and previous precedents for Tyrant Guard were similarly worded.)

What you need to show is places in the rules where rules are emulating a rulebook rule, yet are later refuted as rulebook rules.
Stuff and nonsense, once again you show that it is you that don't understand the GW rules or even basic game design.
You have stated that a sweep attack is the same as being 'in CC'.
It is up to you to prove that.
There is no support for your idea in the sweep rules or any of your arguments made here.
The Rule in the Codex is self contained and complete.

[Tynskel]

wow, Down a logic bunhole here.

Seriously--- using a CC weapon means it isn't a CC attack?
your argument is not stating any proof to your cause, in fact, your argument is supporting my cause--- the point of this argument is that by using CC rules makes it a CC attack---- of which, there have been many precedents made in ALL codexes in this respect. When something emulates a rule from the rulebook, it is, in fact, that rule.

Second--- whoever said that the rule explicitly states it is NOT a cc attack needs to read the Sweep Attack rules again. There's nothing there that says that it is NOT a CC attack.

In fact-- as I have said before-- it uses CC rules!

Don't be so harsh on Uncle Nutsy for his personal attacks in the forum. Even though personal attacks are forbidden on BoLS, this case is okay because it was funny, oh, and look at Uncle Nutsy's name... I think it is obvious why he doesn't understand 40k rulebook rules--- just look at his interpretation of the forum rules.

[Rapture]

Its health regenerates. You have to kill it with fire.

[Uncle Nutsy]

You play GK, don't ya Ty?


Don't be so harsh on Uncle Nutsy for his personal attacks in the forum. Even though personal attacks are forbidden on BoLS, this case is okay because it was funny, oh, and look at Uncle Nutsy's name... I think it is obvious why he doesn't understand 40k rulebook rules--- just look at his interpretation of the forum rules.

trying to take a jab at the name eh? it's all good. You know.. you could have chosen a lot of things to go after, but you chose the name. btw, it's not a personal attack when you're deconstructing the argument and behaviour. People just take too much offense at everything these days and they expect the net nannies to jump in and punish the so-called 'bad' person instead of telling the offendee that they need to grow a thicker skin. This is life. don't expect to be coddled all the way.


There's nothing there that says that it is NOT a CC attack there's a lot of rules written this way, and everyone knows that if it doesn't explicitly say something, it doesn't happen. This is just bad rules lawyering.

[Tynskel]

no, I don't play Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, nor Necrons.
I play good ole Tyranids and Blood Angels. Been Playing since the days of Space Hulk.

And no--- if you haven't noticed, what is written implies how the rules should be used, and many FAQs have shown that this is to be true. Check out the Tyrant Guard, or Doom, or check out Grey Knight FAQ, ect.

[thecactusman17]

What is written implies nothing. The entire rule is self contained, and explicitly names itself as a "sweep" attack.

[SeattleDV8]

wow, Down a logic bunhole here.

Seriously--- using a CC weapon means it isn't a CC attack?
your argument is not stating any proof to your cause, in fact, your argument is supporting my cause--- the point of this argument is that by using CC rules makes it a CC attack---- of which, there have been many precedents made in ALL codexes in this respect. When something emulates a rule from the rulebook, it is, in fact, that rule. .
Nice try,But that isn't true

Second--- whoever said that the rule explicitly states it is NOT a cc attack needs to read the Sweep Attack rules again. There's nothing there that says that it is NOT a CC attack. .

Except the line "...may make threee special 'sweep' attacks..."



In fact-- as I have said before-- it uses CC rules!.
which ones?
Disallowed from attacking an engaged unit? nope
Disallowed from attacking due to several different things happening in the shooting phase-nope
Allowed to come into BtB contact- nope( being a skimmer allows it to pass over enemy units)
Allowed to end your move within 1" of an enemy model-no
Forced to use their full number of Attacks and special CC weapon-no
Using Int-no
Allowing defender to strike back-no
Using defensive grenades-no
Bonus Attacks-no
Rolling to hit vs. WS-no
Rolling to hit vs. a vehicles speed-no
Using the Attackers WS-no
Rolling to Wound, ie attacker ST vs. defenders T- yes
Using CC weapon -yes
allocating wounds yes, but this is from the shooting rules
Taking saves yes, but this is from the shooting rules
No cover saves allowed yes
Removing casualties yes, but this is from the shooting rules
Morale test for taking more wounds than the attacker-no
Penalty to Morale test for number of wounds suffered-no
Sweeping advance-no
pile in-no
Consolidation-no
No retreat wounds-no
Immune to Morale test for losing 25%+ -no
Models falling back from this attack allowed to move though the skimmer as if it wasn't there-no
Attacking a unit falling back would be destroyed if failing a regroup test-no
Attack vs a vehicles rear arc-yes
Attacking a walker against its front armour-no

The Sweep is a special attack that uses some of the CC rules.
Just like CC uses some of the shooting rules.
That no more makes CC shooting as it makes the sweep attack CC.

[thecactusman17]

Excellent list, Seattle. Note also that the "yes" responses aren't given by the assault rules or anything in the rules for close combat, but instead are all specified in the codex rule independent of the main rulebook--another indication that this is a separate rule with no correlation to the Assault Phase or Close Combat rules.

[Tynskel]

Note, that you are using the assault rules, the majority of which have nothing to do with the action of attacking. I have stated this before.

If you just look at the cc rules, you'll note that it is a CC attack. Your to hit references are incorrect- sweep attack hits based upon speed. The other rules about to hit are all the same category- they are not separate rules, they are all the same rule with different ways to implement them. Also, are you telling me that wolf rider cannot use his attacks in CC because he doesn't use his attack characteristic when he uses his 'special' attack? There are MANY special attacks that don't use the attack profile that are considered CC attacks. As I have stated before, if we follow what you have written here most special abilities don't apply to anything in shooting or assault. Are you saying we need to reinterpret them all? This is what I am pointing out, the inconsistencies that people are willing to use to say that Sweep Attack isn't a CC attack.

When you just look at the cc rules, the sweep attack follows all of them: hit based upon speed, no cover, uses cc weapon, hits rear armor.
The rule that it doesn't follow that is a CC rule: is none.

The consolidation is not the act of attacking. Choosing who's engaged is not attacking, no retreat is not attack. All of these are Assault rules.

[lattd]

But your not using all the assault rules.

Firstly you don't hit based on initiative.
Secondly you are not in base to base contact a key part of close combat.
Thirdly you are not attacking during the the assault phase, again a key part of the close combat rules.
Finally it states its a special attack in the rules.

[thecactusman17]

When you just look at the cc rules, the sweep attack follows all of them: hit based upon speed, no cover, uses cc weapon, hits rear armor.


Not a single one of those rules is specific to the assault phase or close combat. Not one. Tell me where in the rule book any of these rules are specific to the close combat rules. Oh, that's right, you can't. Because they aren't there.

We have presented pages, quotations, and numerous other indisputable facts stating, clearly and explicitly, that this is not a close combat attack, does not follow the close combat attack rules, does not follow, in fact, ANY assault rules at all, and repeated these statements while at the same time introducing new, additional evidence to support those arguments. You have done nothing but present the same three arguments. All of which are rules that have little, if any, basis in the assault or close combat rules and ALL of which are specifically named as occurring by the rule independent of any phase or other rule. In some cases, you have made up new rules ("hit based on speed" as part of ANY OTHER rule except for models WITH A WEAPON SKILL hitting a vehicle during the assault phase only) or attempted to reverse the effects of rules to support your argument. We have provided well over 10 pages of strong, researched arguments to refute these. You personally have provided almost the entire opposing argument, consisting of the same statements we prove wrong in every responding post. And I do mean the same, you have quoted your previous posts multiple times, especially over the last 2-3 pages.

There are now only two potential excuses for your arguments:

A) You are unable to grasp basic English, or otherwise unable to comprehend basic game rules,

or

B) You are a troll.

Requesting thread lock, as in either case this thread will not continue to inform anybody.

[dannyat2460]

.....
B) You are a troll.

Requesting thread lock

agreed on both accounts

[Jwolf]

Goodness, Tynskel is fighting everyone again. Shocking! ;)

I believe this has devolved to the point that further discussion is impossible; one side is intractable and the other immovable.

As to how the rule goes, I would allow my opponent to take special CC saves against the attack, but not insist on getting them myself, at least until the FAQ comes out. Certainly the attack quacks like a CC attack, but it just as certainly doesn't constitute an assault or occur in the Assault Phase. This is a definite example of something that needs clarification via FAQ.