Are Sweep Attacks CC Attacks?

[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 [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8F8bFghhA8[/url]

[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 [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8F8bFghhA8[/url]

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.