Are Sweep Attacks CC Attacks?

[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.