Are Sweep Attacks CC Attacks?

[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.