Are Sweep Attacks CC 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.

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.

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?

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

ps.

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

[Maelstorm]

ROTFLOL

Too funny!

[MaxKool]

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

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

ps.

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

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.