Countercharge and defensive grenades

[Iron_Chaos_Brute]

If, say, a squad of Plague Marines charges a squad of Blood Claws and the Claws pass their leadership test for countercharge, do they get their +2 Attacks?

 

It says in the rulebook that countercharging models gain their +1 attack for assaulting exactly as if they had assaulted. The Claws would turn this into +2 with their special rule, but would the defensive grenades (assaulting models do not recieve their bonus attacks for assaulting) cancel this out?

[WarpSpawn]

I could be mistaked but I think the key is the "as if they have assaulted" bit.

 

In other words, they have not actually assaulted, they only behave as if they had in a limited fashion. I would therefore say any rule that relies on them actually assaulting would not kick in, including defensive grenades.

 

Presumably the logic would be that the other side are too busy with their own assault to worry about using defensive abilities.

[Iron_Chaos_Brute]

Yes, but for Plague Marines, their offensive and defensive grenades are one and the same.

 

Even if you had 2 types, why not throw one of both?

[WarpSpawn]

Yes but the rules do not differentiate between seperate offensive and defensive, versus swiss army pen-knife grenades.

 

So, whilst the real world logic rationale may not fit them perfectly, the RAW explaination still stands. "Like assauting" is still not "assaulting". I Can't Believe It's Not Assaulting, if you will.

 

In a similar fashion, a non-infantry model moving like infantry is still not infantry, and therefore may not ride a transport. It's not what it's like that matters, it's what it is, or at least counts as.

[SpideyScott]

it actually says they get the +1 assualt bonus exactly as if they too had charged assaulted that turn. I dont see the problem there and neither do other people when SW players claim there blood claws get there +2 assault bonus for counter charging.

 

For counter charging they dont just get an extra attack but it specifically states they get the +1 assualt bonus in the BRB. The rule for defensive grenades says the enemy unit does not gain the +1 assualt bonus so i would think they would not get the the attack bonus for counter charging.

[WarpSpawn]

Yes, but they have not assaulted, they have simply gained one of the bonuses associated with assaulting.

 

It actually says "models assaulting" against them get no assault bonus, so their status as actually "assaulting", not just behaving a bit like they are assaulting, is of critical importance.

 

Edit: I'll be honest, I am not familiar with the Blood Claws rules so i'll try and look that up later but I stand by everything I've said here in relation to counter-attack and the assault bonus it confers in general.

[maniclurker]

WarpSpawn: I believe you are correct. Defensive grenades work when YOU get assaulted. However, this in not the case. You are assaulting. They are counter-charging. They get the bonus as if they had charged. If you really want to get down to it, you can only assault in your own assault phase. If it is not the SW players assault phase, then they cannot assault.

 

Also, it just doesn't make since that you'd use DEFENSIVE grenades when you assault. That'd be like dropping a flash bang at your feet, so that you blind the guy you just charged.

[WarpSpawn]

Thanks for that.

 

I know there is one or two always on, aura type things floating around that count as grenades (something in the Daemon Codex springs to mind, though I forget the name), where it might make sense for it to work no matter what, but the rules do not make that distinction either. As long as it uses grenade rules, it requires the enemy to actually be assaulting for it to count.

 

I've also had chance to look at the Space Wolf book and the Blood Claw rules. I see nothing ther to change my mind. If aything, there may be some room for debate about the extra attack they get (though not much) but it seems they are the same as everyone else when it comes to whether or not defensive grenades apply to a given situation.

[SpideyScott]

I could be mistaked but I think the key is the "as if they have assaulted" bit.

 

In other words, they have not actually assaulted, they only behave as if they had in a limited fashion.

 

Why would they only behave as if they had in a limited fashion? nothing in the rule supports that statement. It says exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn. why bother saying exactly if its not exactly?

 

Counter charge grants you your assault bonus while defensive grenades denies that assault bonus if people want to play it a different way go ahead. I think its best if you agree before hand with the SW if CC is an assault bonus. If you decide its not then SW units with CC and true grit would then get the bonus attack for true grit and CC.

[WarpSpawn]

Why would they only behave as if they had in a limited fashion?

 

Why should they not?

 

If they meant it to follow all of the rules for assaulting, why did they not say "counts as assaulting", or similar?

 

The very inclusion of a statement like "as if they had" implies they have not or are not, only selectively or conditionally applying the rules as if they had. Aside from an error in the text, this can mean little (if anything) else.

 

I put it to you then that the rules do indeed support my position and there is nothing to support your position that they are actually charging.

 

And the rules for defensive grenades only say that if you read them selectively. They do include the line about the unit with them being assaulted. So basically, unless there is a rules quote that confirms the counter-chargers are in a state of "assaulting" (not just getting one of the bonuses for doing so), or that this is irrelevant to defensive grenades, there is no case to answer.

 

But feel free to house rule it your way if you prefer.

[SpideyScott]

i dont see much difference in meaning between the pharse "as if they had" and "counts as".

 

I take the sentence "exactly as if they too had charged that turn" to support my position that they are actually charging but then that brings us back to the first point about meaning.

 

In the end it dont think it will get settled one way or another.

[WarpSpawn]

I could move my lips as if talking. This does not mean I am talking.

 

I could move my arms as if swimming. This does not mean I am in water.

 

I could crease my brow, as if thinking. This does not mean I have 2 brain cells to rub together.

 

Get the point? There is plenty of difference in normal usage between "as if" and "counts as".

 

You can gain a bonus attack, as if assaulting. This does not necessarilly mean you have budged an inch.

 

 

 

 

Just a thought but, if it does count as an assault, that means everything from Furious Charge to Liturgies of Battle/Litanies of Hate would also count, if you can get the right combination of rules. I'm fairly sure this is not supposed to be the case.

[SpideyScott]

I could move my lips and count as talking. This does not mean I am talking.

 

I could move my arms and count as swimming. This does not mean I am in water.

 

I could crease my brow, count as thinking. This does not mean I have 2 brain cells to rub together.

 

do you see my point? Yes thing like Furious Charge could work as well as move through cover. It would make sense for GW to say that CC doesnt count as charging but i my mind they didnt.

[WarpSpawn]

Your examples make little sense in the context used. They certainly are no longer the same sentences as I used. You can make "as if" and "counts as" mean similar things but they will rarely, if ever, mean the same.

 

Edit: Oh and, if you actually read what you said there, all you have accomplished is to say that "counting as" doing something does not necessarilly mean you are doing it either.

 

The point is to for something to behave "as if" it is something does not necessarilly mean it is. To "count as" something, it for all intents and purposes "is" that thing.

[SpideyScott]

my point is you can use your example to prove anything, it doesnt really affect whats in the book. Like i have already said its not going to be seatled one way or another im sorry i just read its meaning differently from you.

 

I could move my lips as if talking. This could mean I am talking.

 

I could move my lips as if talking. This does not mean I am not talking.

 

I could move my lips as if talking. This means I am talking. (assuming i form the correct mouth shapes at the correct times to a deaf person they could understand me)

 

the fact the rule has exactly as if in it can be interperted in different ways by different people that was my point.

[WarpSpawn]

Yes but, if you wish to clearly declare whether or not you are talking, the only ones that would matter are:

 

I am talking

 

or

 

I am not talking.

 

My whole point, which as far as I am concerned RAW supports, it that by doing a component of an action, it does not mean you are doing the whole action. By being granted a part of something, it does not mean you are being granted the whole.

 

RAW is only granting them a part of the assault rules. If you want to deal in absolute, all or nothing statements, the only ones that would have any place in the BRB are:

 

They are assaulting (though they count as assaulting would mean much the same thing)

 

or

 

They are not assaulting.

 

There is nothing else to it.

[Praeger]

Before this gets out of hand, calm down a bit, have a few deep breaths, go outside and kick the dog, and then post again :)

 

"counts as" and "as if" are two difrent things.

 

As mentioned:

 

I could move my lips as if talking. This does not mean I am talking.

 

Thats corect - he is doing it AS IF he was talking. he is ACTING.

 

I could move my lips and count as talking. This does not mean I am talking.

 

This is incorect. If something COUNTS as something else then it is condiered to have all the same laws and propeties applied to it. This does not mean they all can literaly be applied (such as you COUNT as swimming does not mean you actually have to be in the water)

 

The difrence is in the language - when you say something "is like" or "as if" its considered along the line of acting.

 

When somthing "counts as" then the other term is now applied to this as well - so if swinging your arms around wildly in the air "counts as" swimming then when someone says "that guy is swimming" is technicly correct - but if it said "as if" then we would say "that guy swinging his arms is acting like he is swiming"

 

I realise this isnt the best example but hope it makes it a bit clearer. mayeb one of our resident English majors could explain better?

[SpideyScott]

if thats true about "as if" then DH and daemon players have been playing the rites of exorcism wrong. Which states daemons assaulting GK must roll dice for there assault range as if they were moving in difficult terrain. Which if the daemons didnt have the equivalent of frag they would be at init 1. Now your saying they would be at normal init?

 

So blood claws would only get a +1 assault bonus for CC even though they normally get a +2 assault bonus when assaulting?

Would they also get there true grit bonus on top of this as well now? Since the true grit bonus says you dont get the charge bonus for charging not counter charging?

 

sorry for going on im just trying to get this straight in my head. If a rule said treat this weapon as if it was one handed what rules for one handed weapons would you then follow, only part of them? But if it said the this weapon counts as one handed it would follow all of them? Its late here so maybe my brains gone to sleep and i just dont know it lol.

[maniclurker]

I think it really comes down to this... Who assaulted who? Who actually initiated the combat by moving into base to base, charging the other person?

 

Whom ever's assault phase it is, they are charging.

 

The other person is reacting to that charge, and gets a specific bonus for it because of their codex.

[Bran Scalphunter]

I'll throw my hat into the arena here:

 

1. Blood Claws do not have True Grit so that rule does not affect them in any way

 

2. Due to the Berserk Charge rule, Blood Claws gain +2A when they charge.

- Continuing with this idea, due to the new Counter Attack rule, they would gain +2A if they passed their Ld test when charged

- However, the rule does not say they are Assaulting, they merely gain Attacks as if they had charged.

 

Now here's an example: Terminator Squad Joe has 5 Terminators in it, 4 normal and 1 Sergeant. Let's assume that 4 have storm bolters and power fists, and the sarge has a storm bolter and power weapon. They also have the Furious Charge and Counter Attack rules. Does this mean that when they are charged and pass a Ld test, they also gain +1S and +1I from the Furious Charge rule? Of course not, as we all know it's dependent on them actually charging the enemy.

 

Let's carry said theory over to Plague Marines now with their blight grenades and frags- one offensive and one defensive grenade type. Defensive only works when charged by an enemy, while frags only work when charging the enemy. This means that if a squad of Plague Marines charge Terminator Squad Joe, who pass their Ld test, the Plague Marines would get normal attacks for charging and Terminators would attack with normal charge attacks minus the +1S and I from Furious Charge.

 

Hopefully from my long winded post you will see the point I'm trying to make: abilities don't stack in cases like this, and if you can't decide, just roll off with your opponent to see who gets what.

[Praeger]

if thats true about "as if" then DH and daemon players have been playing the rites of exorcism wrong. Which states daemons assaulting GK must roll dice for there assault range as if they were moving in difficult terrain. Which if the daemons didnt have the equivalent of frag they would be at init 1. Now your saying they would be at normal init?

 

This is a difrent topic - but yes, they are playing it wrong.

 

They move "as if" they where in cover. So that specific item. They dont "count as" in cover so they rest of the rules dont apply, just the ones that have specificly been stipulated that act as if it is cover.

 

So in this example - they MOVE as if in cover. They make their attacks as normal.

[Gentlemanloser]

Cover is never mentioned in Rites of Exorcism, nor in the penalties for taking a Difficult Terrain Test when assaulting.

 

How about units with Slow and Purposful? Or units hit by an underground burst from the new Thunderfire?

[WarpSpawn]

Slow and purposeful explicitly says "counts as" moving through difficult terrain, including for assaults, so this one has no room for interpretation that I can see. If they somehow got their hands on the counter-attack rule as well (dunno if this combo exists but seems a bit contradictory), they would presumably not suffer when counter-attacking though.

 

Thunderfire Cannon Tremor rules says "moves as if" in difficult terrain, so by the logic I've so far applied in this thread, I would assume they would not be at initiative 1 when assaulting, never mind about counter-attacking.

 

Either way, difficult terrain should not effect counter-attacking, as far as I am aware at least.

[Gentlemanloser]

Do you really think GW wanted different applications of these rules if one 'counted as moving' and the other 'moved exactly as if'?

 

In game (exmaples of swimming aside! :P) is there a difference?

[WarpSpawn]

Actually, on the slow and purposeful one, I have no doubt whatsoever that the intent is for counter-attacking to bypass it. For one thing, there is the logic already discussed that says is not assaulting, even though it gains one of the bonuses associated with that action. Also worth bearing in mind that the pile in move, that pretty much everyone has (and outwardly appears more like an assault than counter-assault), ignores difficult terrain. Does not seem unreasoable that, if they suffer no penalty for running forwards, they should also not suffer any penalty for running forwards a bit quicker or more enthusiastically.

 

As far as the Thunderfire goes, I am not as convinced about this one but, if it does work the way I suggested, I'm more inclined to blame it on odd wording than a flaw in the logic I (and others) have applied to this thread so far.