hitting vehicles

[Legatus]

In a multiple fight including enemy vehicles and other unit types, the result of the fight is worked out as normal against the latter, ignoring the vehicles.

BRB, page 63, "Assaulting Vehicles", "Combat result"

 

So the rules anticipate that there will be fights where both an enemy unit and an enemy vehicle will be involved. Obviously in that case the attacks against the vehicle would be made in initiative order, as otherwise it would screw over the whole combat system if some models would strike at initiative order while some models would strike out of order.

The next quote, however, is even more telling:

 

When engaged in close combat against a squadron, enemy models roll to hit and for armour penetration against the squadron as a whole. Damage results have the same effect as described above, and are allocated against the squadron at each initiative value, in the same way as a normal combat.

BRB, page 64, "Units of Vehicles - Squadrons", "Assault Phase"

 

So there is a specific situation described where attacks against vehicles are made in initiative order. Since there are two situations described where vehicles would be attacked in initiative order, it stands to reason that attacking a lone vehicle would be resolved in the same way.

 

In fact, I do think that is what the rules for assaulting vehicles are saying.

 

I think someone has argued that the paragraph "Launching an assault" describes that the move is done as for normal assaults, and that it would have been redundant to state that unless the vehicle assault rules are based off of the premise that they do not work at all like regular assaults, unless the rules point it out.

I disagree with that, as the following paragraphs "Rolling to hit against vehicles", "Armour penetration in close combat", "Combat result" and "Successive turns" all describe where the combat differs from a regular combat. The first two paragraphs in that section, "Vehicles and Assaults" and "Assaulting Vehicles" are nothing but flavour text, and the paragraph "Launching an assault" is the first one containing rules on how assaults against vehicles work. That this paragraph describes how the assault move against vehicles work like in a regular assault is just like starting the description with "Assaults against vehicles work like regular assaults except for these following differences..."

 

So I would say the rules for assaulting vehicles describe in which way they differ from a regular assault.

 

 

The page could be broken down like this:

 

VEHICLES AND ASSAULTS

"Flavour Text"

 

ASSAULTING VEHICLES

"Flavour Text"

 

Launching an assault

Start out as normal... (moving into contact)

 

Rolling to hit against vehicles

Hits are determined in a different way, due to the vehicle having no Weapon Skill. However, the way a model's attacks are determined is the same. E.g. a model cannot use two different special weapons to attack, but can split attacks between multiple enemy units. etc.

 

Armour penetration in close combat

"wounding" works in a different way, due to the vehicle having an Armour value instead of a Toughness value.

 

Combat results

Vehicles don't count for combat result.

 

Successive turns

Vehicles are not locked in combat, but can be attacked again in the next Assault phase if they are still in contact.

[hisdudeness]

Ntin, your application of the 0 or null characteristic is wrong. Zero-level characteristics refer to creatures, not to vehicles. (See notes [1] and [2]). I do not see a 0/null character statement for vehicles, in fact I see an entire separate chapter for vehicles. Your rule quote (p7) is for non-vehicle types, as the paragraph above that one tells us to refer to p56 for vehicle characteristics.

 

The vehicle chapter (p56) states their characteristics are different. Vehicles not having a WS, I, or A characteristic in no way cause a problem in assault as p63 tells us exactly how units and vehicles interact during the assault phase. Your rhino example is invalid, as vehicles do not have an Attack value. Vehicles do not have a ‘-‘or a ‘0’ value for WS, I, or A. They don’t have those characteristics at all, as p56 tells us.

 

Where does it say follow all normal rules for assault, except for the following situations? And then in some of those following situations just tell us to refer to the normal assault rules. THAT is redundant. We are told specifically when to refer to the normal assault rules. Why tell us to refer to those normal rules if we are already following the normal rules? By your thinking GW could have done away with the entire page but for the roll to hit table. I see specific parts where you are told to follow the rules as normal. Elsewhere, you do as the vehicle and assaults section tells us.

 

I have laid out in 2 separate ways (narrative and bullets) my reasoning on what the rules tell us to do. Show me where is says use normal assault rules what assaulting vehicles. Assaulting a vehicle is completely separate process than normal assaults. These processes have 2 separate sections detailing how to proceed in each case.

 

Gc08, there are no rules that the vehicle assault section does not cover. To assault you need to be in BtB, I see rules for that. To hit, yup those are there also. Armor penetration, also there. Combat results, check. Later turns…got them. What more do you need? Do you really need to order a one sided combat?

 

BTW, I took your agreement as sarcasm. And I did not deflect the blame, the post was a trap set for you that someone else disarmed before you stepped in it. When I argue a point I attack it as I think my opponents will. One of the counter points I found was “what about multiple combats” as that is the only situation that I could think of that initiative would be used with a vehicle. I thought I squished it with that line, but realized I was wrong once I read the entire paragraph. But that did not stop me from throwing it out for you to step in.

 

 

[1] p6, 3rd paragraph: “For all models except vehicles these…” I take it as the rules following apply to all units except vehicles.

[2] p7,3rd section( Vehicle characteristics): “…,vehicles have different rules and their own set of characteristics.” These are found on p56 as the following sentence states.

[Legatus]

Where does it say follow all normal rules for assault, except for the following situations? And then in some of those following situations just tell us to refer to the normal assault rules. THAT is redundant. We are told specifically when to refer to the normal assault rules. Why tell us to refer to those normal rules if we are already following the normal rules? By your thinking GW could have done away with the entire page but for the roll to hit table. I see specific parts where you are told to follow the rules as normal. Elsewhere, you do as the vehicle and assaults section tells us.

I have adressed that in my previous post, but perhaps you were still typing at yours when I posted mine, so here is a quick re-cap:

 

- The first two paragraphs in the "Vehicles and Assaults" section contain nothing but flavour text.

 

- The third paragraph ("Launching an assault") then begins with some actuall rules text, starting off the rule segment with the explanation that assault moves and determining which models can make attacks work like in

regular assaults.

 

- The final four paragraphs then describe in which major ways assaults against vehicles are different from regular assaults

 

Staring that rules section by pointing out that the first steps are working just like they usually do is a reasonable introduction to a section of rules that are otherwise exceptions to the regular rules. Bascially: "You start your assault against vehicles just as you would in a regular assault, BUT then you have to do it like this..."

 

 

By your thinking GW could have done away with the entire page but for the roll to hit table.

No, the first two paragraphs are flavour text only, and contain no rules. The third paragraph then explains that the assault starts out just like a regular assault. The next four paragraphs then explain how the assault differs, namely how vehicles are hit, how vehicles are damaged, how combat results are determined, and how ongoing assaults work out. Those four steps are different than they are in a regular assault.

 

 

Show me where is says use normal assault rules what assaulting vehicles.

"Because vehicles do not fight in the same manner as creatures of flesh and blood, their rules differ from other models in a number of ways, detailed here."

BRB, page 56, intro to the vehicle rule section

 

So you could say the vehicle section rules describe how vehicle rules differ from regular rules.

 

"As normal, all engaged models will attack."

BRB, page 63, "Launching an assault"

 

Strictly speaking that sentence only states that determining which models get to make attacks is done like for regular assaults. It stands to reason, though, that these attacks are then worked out as they normally would, with the exceptions highlighted in the vehicle rules.

 

 

there are no rules that the vehicle assault section does not cover. To assault you need to be in BtB, I see rules for that. To hit, yup those are there also. Armor penetration, also there. Combat results, check. Later turns…got them. What more do you need? Do you really need to order a one sided combat?

- How many attacks does each model get? The vehicle rules only say which models can attack. They do not say how often they can attack. That is part of the regular assault process, and described on page 37, which I assume you are happily applying to an assault against vehicles.

 

- Can models in contact with two vehicles split their attacks between them? I assume they can, just as they can do in regular assaults (p. 41)

 

- Do special close combat weapons have anny effect against vehicles? Close combat weapons are the final segment of the regular "Assault Phase" section, so are they irrelevant when resolving assaults against vehicles? Can models with two different special CCWs split their attacks between their different weapons, or do they have to pick one?

 

 

One of the counter points I found was “what about multiple combats” as that is the only situation that I could think of that initiative would be used with a vehicle.

Fighting against a vehicle squadron would be another one.

 

When engaged in close combat against a squadron, enemy models roll to hit and for armour penetration against the squadron as a whole. Damage results have the same effect as described above, and are allocated against the squadron at each initiative value, in the same way as a normal combat.

BRB, page 64, "Units of Vehicles - Squadrons", "Assault Phase"

 

So, when fighting against an enemy unit and an enemy vehicle in a multiple combat, you would hit the vehicle in initiative order. When fighting against a vehicle squadron, you would hit them in initiative order. But when fighting against a lone vehicle you wouldn't?

 

 

 

Edit: Spelling.

[hisdudeness]

Legatus, you are correct assaults against squadrons are done in initiative order. But that is an entire separate section that details assault for squadrons not for single vehicles. It is a specific example for a specific unit composition. Squadrons follow different rules than single vehicles, much like single characters follow different rules than full squads.

 

Not having an initiative value does not screw the combat system, as the vehicle does not attack back. So no one is striking out of order. As I said before, that situation is a gray area and would have to be house ruled. I do not believe the rules on p63 describe how they differ from normal assaults. I believe they describe exactly how to handle assaulting vehicles and if needed refer us to the normal rules when (and only when) they are the same.

 

The assault rules also refer to shooting rules, so can I pull other shooting rules in to the assault against vehicles? We are told to do armor penetration the same way as normal shooting, so I guess I get a cover save if I am assaulted while in area terrain or behind a barrier. What other rules can we pull in from other sections because one specific situation says do X as normal?

[SeattleDV8]

Where does it say follow all normal rules for assault, except for the following situations? And then in some of those following situations just tell us to refer to the normal assault rules. THAT is redundant. We are told specifically when to refer to the normal assault rules. Why tell us to refer to those normal rules if we are already following the normal rules? By your thinking GW could have done away with the entire page but for the roll to hit table. I see specific parts where you are told to follow the rules as normal. Elsewhere, you do as the vehicle and assaults section tells us.

You do notice that you are contradicting your self?

 

I have laid out in 2 separate ways (narrative and bullets) my reasoning on what the rules tell us to do. Show me where is says use normal assault rules what assaulting vehicles. Assaulting a vehicle is completely separate process than normal assaults. These processes have 2 separate sections detailing how to proceed in each case.

see above statement , you admit that sections of the normal assault rules are used, but claim here that they are complete.

They are not, the entire launching an assault section is missing Pg. 33- 37

 

Gc08, there are no rules that the vehicle assault section does not cover. To assault you need to be in BtB, I see rules for that. To hit, yup those are there also. Armor penetration, also there. Combat results, check. Later turns…got them. What more do you need? Do you really need to order a one sided combat?

again pg. 33-37 , Declare attacks; disallowed attacks; Move assaulting units....etc.

 

You still have not shown where we are told to ignore Int when assaulting vehicles.

I believe Legatus has proven that we do attack in Int order , just like any assault.

[hisdudeness]

Squadrons and initiative order: The reason for this is that damage results for squadrons differ from lone vehicles. As soon as the squadron is down to a single vehicle the damage results change. You need a way to affect that timing issue, and instead of make a new mechanic GW used one they already had.

 

For example, if you have 3 landspeeders and they get assaulted by a zerker squad. On I5 they immobilize 2 LS (resulting in a wreaked result). Now the champion can attack with the on I1 with a PFist, and gets an immobilized result. Since the lone LS is not a squadron any more he is just immobilized, not destroyed.

[hisdudeness]

SeattleDV8, this is a perfect example of why grammar is a silly basis for a rule argument. This is a poorly worded response. I read it and know what I am trying to convey, but after re-reading it I can see where my point is lost.

 

My point is that IF you follow the normal assault rules for the entire assault against vehicles, why then do the rules tell use to do so again. i.e.: the assault move reference. I was told by other responses that GW did not restate the normal assault rules in the vehicle assault section because it would be redundant, and that GW does do redundancy. I am merely showing how that line of thinking also shows redundancy thus disproving the ‘redundancy’ point.

 

My second point that you addressed, is that we only refer to other section of the rules when A) we need to follow a set process and encounter an impasse in that process, ;) or when we are told to. We are given a complete process with no impasses. Going in Init order or not going in Init order does not stop the process, as vehicles don’t attack back thus not needing a segmented assault phase. We are told when to refer to other sections (assault moves and armor penetration).

 

I over stated the self-contained nature of the vehicle assault rules, but I thought it was given that no rule process in the book are completely self-contained. My bad I was wrong.

[SeattleDV8]

Points for you admiting a mistake.

 

We do know that normal assaults go in Int. order.

We also know that vehicles in squardrons are attacked in Int. order.

Vehicles being assaulted follow the normal assault rules except where stated, ie Rolling to hit, Armour Penetration, combat results, grenades and succesive turns.

Since nothing is mentioned in the exceptions we have to follow the normal rules for assaults.

This means that all assaults go in Int order.

The odd side would be an assault though terrain, could result in all of the attacks at Int 1.

[Ntin]

Ntin, your application of the 0 or null characteristic is wrong. Zero-level characteristics refer to creatures, not to vehicles. (See notes [1] and [2]). I do not see a 0/null character statement for vehicles, in fact I see an entire separate chapter for vehicles. Your rule quote (p7) is for non-vehicle types, as the paragraph above that one tells us to refer to p56 for vehicle characteristics.

Null is not the same as zero.

 

For your first foot note, the part of the quote you chose not to include states the range of characteristic values are 0-10. An exception to this range limitation is vehicle armor values that range from 10 to 14. As foot note [1] adds nothing to either of our arguments I still say that Vehicles still have WS: 0 and I: 0. Vehicles are required to have WS: 0 to denote they are unable to attack or defender themselves in close combat. Since WS: 0 is not on the “to hit” chart the caveated rule is added under the vehicle sections for a subset of the normal assault rule on how to deal with vehicles in close combat. Vehicles also are required to have I:0 to denote where in the initiative order they are at.

 

As for your second foot note. It would be redundant to reprint on every vehicle entry every zero characteristic they possess when the majority of vehicles in the game do not possess (and therefore have a ‘0’ or ‘-‘). In the same stroke it would be redundant to add an “inv” column for model statics when the vast majority of models do not possess an invulnerable save. If all models were printed in a fully expanded characteristics block what would that add to the game? Do I need to know Dreadnoughts have sv ‘-‘? Do I need to know Striking Scorpions have movement 6”? Model entries are condensed so that only relevant information is printed.

 

The vehicle chapter (p56) states their characteristics are different. Vehicles not having a WS, I, or A characteristic in no way cause a problem in assault as p63 tells us exactly how units and vehicles interact during the assault phase. Your rhino example is invalid, as vehicles do not have an Attack value. Vehicles do not have a ‘-‘or a ‘0’ value for WS, I, or A. They don’t have those characteristics at all, as p56 tells us.

Are you trying to disprove my transformer rhino koan or my 30 attack rhino contradiction?

 

Where does it say follow all normal rules for assault, except for the following situations? And then in some of those following situations just tell us to refer to the normal assault rules. THAT is redundant. We are told specifically when to refer to the normal assault rules. Why tell us to refer to those normal rules if we are already following the normal rules? By your thinking GW could have done away with the entire page but for the roll to hit table. I see specific parts where you are told to follow the rules as normal. Elsewhere, you do as the vehicle and assaults section tells us.

I do not need to prove where it does say where it follows the normal rules except the changes made on page 63. This is how an argument works you need to disprove my hypothesis by stating where in the rules it says models will all strike at once. My argument is based on the normal conventions presented in the rulebook. You have yet to present anything that could resemble an argument based on quotation from the rulebook. Your entire argument thus far has been based on disproving other forum members with conjecture with your interpretation of the rules.

[Legatus]

Ntin:

 

Null is not the same as zero.

The rules actually define "0" as being the same as "-" though.

 

"Some creatures have been given a '0' for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a '-')."

BRB, page 7, "Zero-Level Characteristics"

 

The vehicle rules then specifically confirm that they have no WS (besides not including a WS in the vehicle characteristics).

 

"As the vehicle has no WS, the score needed for a hit depends on the speed of the target"

BRB, page 63, "Rolling to hit against vehicles"

 

And as page 7 explained, a model with WS '0' (which is the same as WS '-' ) would be automatically hit according to the regular WS vs WS comparison rules.

 

Furthermore, there are certain rules that specifically work differently on models with a Toughness value or without a Toughness value, or with a WS or without a WS. The Codex Chaos Space Marines has a few such examples, but I am sure there are more.

 

Example, Gift of Chaos:

"If the D6 roll scores over the victim's Toughness, the victim is transformed into a shapeless blob of flesh and is removed as a casualty (...)

Models without a Toughness characteristic cannot be affected."

 

If vehicles had Toughness '0' (or Toughness '-') then it would be an auto-success. But because tehy have no Toughness characteristic at all, they are not affected.

 

Another example would be attacks that hit on a fixed roll, though they are then usually clarified in FaQs to only hit at that roll against models with a WS, but not against vehicles.

 

---

 

hisdudeness

 

My second point that you addressed, is that we only refer to other section of the rules when A) we need to follow a set process and encounter an impasse in that process, B ) or when we are told to. We are given a complete process with no impasses.

- So how do you determine the number of attacks each model gets without refering back to the regular assault rules? The vehicle rules do not explain that you determine the model's number of attacks that way.

 

- How do you determine whether models in contact with two different vehicle units can split their attacks between them? Again, that is explained in the regular assault rules.

 

- How special close combat weapons work (like powerfists) is explained in the end of teh regular assault rules. Does that mean they do not work against vehicles, since the vehicle assault rules do not refer back to the regular assault rules for this?

 

 

Going in Init order or not going in Init order does not stop the process, as vehicles don’t attack back thus not needing a segmented assault phase.

The problem is that now combat against vehicles will play out differently, depending on the circumstances of the combat.

 

A) CSM unit with Powerfist in combat against a tactical squad and a Land Speeder (which has moved 12" the previous turn). The Powerfist and four other Chaos Marines are engaged with the Land Speeder.

The four regular CSM attack first at Initiative 4 with grenades, needing 6s to hit the Land Speeder. They score an 'immobilised' result. Then the Tactical squad attacks the Chaos Marines (they could potentially kill the Powerfist before it is able to strike the speeder). At Initiative 1 the powerfist attacks, and now automatically hits the speeder, as it is immobilised.

 

B ) CSM unit with Powerfist in combat against a squadron of Land Speeders (which have moved 12" the previous turn).

The CSM attack first at initiative 4, needing 6s to hit. They immobilise all the speeders. Now the Powerfist attacks, hitting automatically.

 

C) CSM unit with Powerfist in combat against a single Land Speeder (which has moved 12" the previous turn).

If in this case the CSM and the Powerfist attack at the same time, the powerfist cannot benefit from damage results that were caused by the models attacking before it, leading to a different combat result than in the cases where other models were involved. Even if exactly the same number of CSM is attacking the vehicle, it will play out differently.

[SeattleDV8]

Ntin:

 

Null is not the same as zero.

The rules actually define "0" as being the same as "-" though.

 

And they also are defined as different, AP- is not the same as not having an AP score.

Vehicles do not have certain characteristics, it does not always mean they are treated as an zero.

In some cases ,like Ld, they are treated as a 10.

[Albion de Heaven]

@Albion de Heaven:

 

P63 LRB, second column, top paragraph, last sentence: "In a multiple fight including enemy vehicles and other unit types, the result is worked out as normal against the latter, ignoring the vehicles."

 

You can not mutli-assault a unit and a vehicle at the same time. So Initiative still does not come into play.

 

 

"result" means consolidation and checking winning side, it doesn't mean "how the combact is done" :huh:

[pingo]

Interesting stuff all this.

 

B ) CSM unit with Powerfist in combat against a squadron of Land Speeders (which have moved 12" the previous turn).

The CSM attack first at initiative 4, needing 6s to hit. They immobilise all the speeders. Now the Powerfist attacks, hitting automatically.

Quick question: if all 3 speeders are simultaneously immobilized, then you will have to remove 2, right? Since in a squadron immobilized counts as destroyed?

 

How do you pick which 2? Just the controlling player's choice I guess.

 

 

It seems to me that all this makes powerfists all the more deadly as you have a chance of getting an auto-hit with it, even if the vehicle had moved in the previous turn. Unusally, this is a good time to have I1. Another case in favour of giving your tactical sergeant a powerfist.

 

EDIT: actually, I just thought: that'll be 2 or 3 auto-hits depending if he charged or not...

[hisdudeness]

Morning all, hope everyone is rested for round 2. I like this, we are really getting some good foundations for this issue.

 

SeattleDV8, I have no issues admitting when I am wrong. But I have not been shown anything that counters my core understanding of the rule in question. You and others contend that we follow the normal assault rules that are in turn modified by the vehicle and assaults (VaA) section. In short the assault combat process is modified by the exceptions on p63. I say that the VaA section is a separate process and are thus followed from start to finish. No argument presented comes close to disputing this view. I have mostly received arguments for the opposing view (modified assault rules) and I have tried to address them line by line.

 

Your first point: correct, NORMAL assaults go in Init. order.

Second: I addressed the reason for thins in post 31.

Third: Where is this in the rules? This is an assumption, a logical one but still an assumption, and the core of our difference.

Fourth: Again core difference, modification vs. separate.

Fifth: Not backed up by a line in the text, an assumption based on the above sentences.

Sixth: Assumption based on your view as correct, I see it as having no bearing on the assault.

 

Ntin, You are wrong about the WS:0, p63 specifically tells us that vehicles have no WS. Nowhere are we told that no value equates to a value of 0 or ‘-‘. If a vehicle had WS0, we are told (in the same paragraph you quote) that a WS0 is an auto hit in assault. I used note 1 to show that the entire chapter deals with creature models and not vehicles. As later in the chapter (p7) we are told exactly where to look for vehicle characteristics. On that page we are not told to treat any characteristic that is not listed as 0. Your thinking, I can say that creature models have a armor value of 0 and say that I can use the armor penetration rules to wound. The second note is not redundant, as vehicles have a completely different stat line than other models and we are even told this in the vehicle characteristics section on p56, “However, their characteristics are different.” Not modified, not as listed and everything not listed is 0. But different.

 

I was just pointing out how the rhino example is invalid as the rhino has neither a 0 or 30 for its attack value. It does not have an attack characteristic period.

 

Yes you do need to prove that the rules tell us to do something. These are permissive rules, we do as they tell us. Yes you are using the NORMAL conventions. Assaulting a vehicle is not a normal convention and we are told (p63) how to handle the nonstandard interaction between vehicles and other units. As far as quotation: do I need to quote page 63? As that is what I am basing my argument on as the narrative example shows.

 

Legatus, in complete agreement about the characteristics.

 

You are trying to disprove my point but addressing my idea of ‘self-contained’ rule section. I have already stated that I over stated the nature of that the section. Rules sections are not self-contained, but are modified by specific rules. The example you give are impasses, in which we do need to refer to other areas to guidance on how to proceed.

 

Second point, yes assaults against vehicles play out different and the different process is laid out on page 63.

 

A) Your example is based on the assumption at your view is correct and contains no quoted rules and thus does not advance your view.

 

:huh: Correct, but for the fact that all three are wreaked as they are still a squadron and all immobilized results are treated as wreaked. That is by rules on p64. You just proved that squadrons are assaulted in Init. order…congrats.

 

C) Again assumption that your view is correct.

 

Pingo, all three are wreaked as they are still a squadron until the end of that init score.

[Legatus]

Forgot about the wrecked results, oh well.

 

A) CSM unit with Powerfist in combat against a tactical squad and a Land Speeder (which has moved 12" the previous turn). The Powerfist and four other Chaos Marines are engaged with the Land Speeder.

The four regular CSM attack first at Initiative 4 with grenades, needing 6s to hit the Land Speeder. They score an 'immobilised' result. Then the Tactical squad attacks the Chaos Marines (they could potentially kill the Powerfist before it is able to strike the speeder). At Initiative 1 the powerfist attacks, and now automatically hits the speeder, as it is immobilised.

A) Your example is based on the assumption at your view is correct and contains no quoted rules and thus does not advance your view.

Then perhaps you would care to describe how a combat between 3 Chaos Marines (two regular, one Champion with powerfist) on one side and one Land Speeder (moved 12", in contact with all three CSM) and 5 Tactical Marines (all regular) on the other side would play out. At what point do the regular Chaos Marines and the Champion with powerfist each make their attacks?

Do all CSM that want to attack the speeder get to attack before the tacticals can attack at Initiative 4, even the powerfist? Or do they all go last, after the tacticals get to attack them? Or do the regular Chaos Marines get to make their attacks against the vehicles at Initiative 4, which is when the tacticals can make their attacks as well, while the Champion gets to make his powerfist attacks at Initiative 1?

 

 

C) CSM unit with Powerfist in combat against a single Land Speeder (which has moved 12" the previous turn).

If in this case the CSM and the Powerfist attack at the same time, the powerfist cannot benefit from damage results that were caused by the models attacking before it, leading to a different combat result than in the cases where other models were involved. Even if exactly the same number of CSM is attacking the vehicle, it will play out differently.

C) Again assumption that your view is correct.

Actually I have described how the situation would play out if the attacks are all done at the same time. That is not exactly "assuming" any view at all. I give a clearly stated premise, which is the way you advocate the rules to work, and describe to what situation that would lead. Namely that you have two combat situations where the same number of models is attacking the same enemy vehicle, but the die rolls are applied differently in both cases, leading to a different result.

[hisdudeness]

Legatus, as I have stated before situation A is a grey area as we are not told how multiple combat and vehicle rules interact, thus we must use our experience and judgment to house rule how we play it. This situation does not disprove my view, but merely shows an exception that is not addressed by the rules. Just like assault v. squadrons is an exception to the vehicle assault rules, but in that case we are given the rules for that specific exception.

 

As for situation C, I was thinking one thing and typing another. I mistyped and confused my point. I meant to say “Again, assumption that my view is correct.” You are correct, the PFist does not benefit from an I1, as Init is not used against vehicles.

 

We cannot just grab rules to fill in hole we believe are there. I see no hole in the process to fill with a rule from another chapter. Others see a hole (attack order) that must be filled with a rule and go to another chapter to fill it. If vehicles could attack back, I would be looking for a rule to fill that hole. The precedent for when to go to other chapters to fill a hole is given (see assault moves and armor penetration) specifically in this section. Not once in the VaA section of the vehicle do the rules tell us to follow the normal assault process. Not once in the Assault chapter are we told to follow the normal assault rules against vehicles, except for the changes listed on p63. So the “We follow normal assault rules” argument is invalid until someone shows me the line in text that tells us to do this.

[Legatus]

The problem is that if you do not fall back on the regular assault rules for all the instances not specifically mentioned in the vehicle assault rules, you end up with a rather large "grey area".

 

Issue 1: How many attacks can a model make against avehicle? The vehicle rules only state that "all engaged models will attack".

 

Issue 2: Can attacks be split between two different vehicle units?

 

Issue 3: Do special close combat weapons work against vehicles, or are all attacks either done with the model's Strength characteristic or using a grenade?

 

Issue 4: Do models with different Initiative values or weapons strike in initiative order?

 

 

If you assume that in all the instances the vehicle design rules do not adress you work them out just like in regular combat, then you got no problem at all, and you know exactly how to work out those situations.

 

If you assume that combat against vehicles only consists of the rules on page 63 and those specific elements they refer to, then you have a lot of problems. You could claim that each model can only make one single attack and that power fists have no effect against vehicles. The description of how many attacks a model gets and how special close combat weapons work are part of the assault rule section. Parts the vehicle assault rules do not refer to.

 

If you take only the vehicle rules, you would answer the Issues above like this:

 

Issue 1: How many attacks does a model get?

- Only one. The VaA rules only say each model attacks. The VaA rules do not specify that they make multiple attacks.

 

Issue 2: Can attacks be split between two different vehicle units?

- No, as there are no rules given for that. But each model only has one attack anyway.

 

Issue 3: Do specialised close combat weapons work against vehicles?

- Only if their rules adress combat against vehicles. So while Rending weapons and Witchblades work as described, powerfists do not work, and Thunderhammers do not double the model's strength but will inflict the additional 'shaken' result as described.

 

Issue 4: Do Models attack in Initiative Order?

- No, there is no order described in the VaA rules. All Attacks are made at the same time.

 

 

While my answer to all of the above issues would simply be: "It works just like in regular combat." A model can get multiple attacks and can split it's attacks against different vehicle units. Special close combat weapons all work as described, and attacks are made in order of initiative.

 

 

But I would not expect anyone to go with "what the VaA say only" with Issue 1-3, and would instead assume that every player applies the basic assault rules for those instances. That leaves Issue 4, which this thread is about. But since we already have a case where during a combat situation attacks against a vehicle are specifically made in order of initiative (when another enemy unit is involved), then it begs the question of why you would not simply apply that element of the basic assault rules to a combat against a lone vehicle as well, assuming that you already are applying basic assault rules in the Instances 1-3 without the VaA rules specifically telling you to do so.

 

Obviously in this argument I am assuming that you would indeed apply the basic assault rules for the Issue 1-3, and are not treating them as a grey area or insist that models can only make one attack without powerfists.

[greatcrusade08]

My own thoughts are the same as Legatus, only i dont see any assumption in taking basic assault rules as the normal.

i dont have therule book with me but isnt the same kind of thing applicable to shooting vehicles?

 

An assault is an assault, i would use the rulebook/codex argument, the main rules are the bread and butter of 40k whilst the vehicle assault section is similar to a codex.. it overrides the main rules but only where stated.. any holes have to be filled in with actual rules, not assumptions.

[DarkKnightCuron]

This is something that's been contested amongst players at my local game shop as well. The problem we run into is the fact that many Tau / Eldar players move their vehicles flat-out, claiming that you hit on a 6+. Now, what we run into is the fact that the non-Tau/Eldar player scores an immobilized result during the shooting phase, then proceeds into the assault. Does this mean that the Tau/Eldar vehicle is hit automatically, or on a 6+?

[greatcrusade08]

the rule clearly states you hit auto if he vehicle is immobilised OR didnt move in the previous turn.

 

Is the vehicle immobilised when you assault? then its an auto hit.. theres no contesting this, the issue here is whether or not attacks happen at initiative and if its possible for a higher I character to immobilise a vehicle and lower I models to hit auto

[hisdudeness]

Legatus, you are focusing on my one statement of self-contained rules. I have amended that statement to include looking elsewhere to fill the holes in a process.

 

The first 3 issues listed are holes in the process and to fill them we do look elsewhere in the rules. Issue 4 is not a hole in the process. As attack order would not come up as vehicles do not attack back so there is no reason to determine attack order. Why would anyone even ask that question, but to try and turn a drawback of the PFist into a benefit?

 

A) For example: (Both narrative and game terms)

 

Steve: ”Dave, I assault your vehicle.” (Launch assault as per p63.)

Dave: ”That sucks, my vehicle does not attack back…so, uh…what order do we attack in?” (Pouts, not in the rule book but that is what i do when my vehicle is assaulted)

Steve: ”Correct you just sit there as you can’t attack back. So my first guy will pull out his Leatherman and remove the back left road wheels. The second guy will

stick a banana in the exhaust. The third...<5 mins later>…After the first 9 guys slow your tank down (and we wait for Initiatives 3 and 2 to react), the dude

with the glowing fist dragging on the ground can catch-up and strangle the driver through the driver side view port.” (After nominal waiting for I10-I5, all

I4 guys roll to hit and roll results. Now (after nominal waiting for I3 and I2) I1 PFist rolls to hit and roll results.)

 

^_^ Or we can say (much more realisticly):

 

Steve: “Dave I assault your vehicle.” (Launch assault as per p63.)

Dave: ”That sucks, my vehicle does not attack back…so have at her?” (Pouts, again not in rules book but normal reaction)

Steve: “All my guys jump on her like the whore of a prom queen she is. She’s going down (no pun intended)!” (Steve needs to hit so looking at p63, we are told to

refer to table for the D6 score needed to hit. And rolls squad at one time, nominating dice for the PFist. )

 

Vehicle assault is a completely one sided process, thus not needing an order to be addressed by the rules. At no point should attack order even need to be asked. Vehicle assault is different than noraml assaults (p63 Combat results : "Combats against vehicles are very different from those amoung other unit types.") and follow the rules on p63, refering to outside rules as needed to fill holes.

[pingo]

the rule clearly states you hit auto if he vehicle is immobilised OR didnt move in the previous turn.

 

Is the vehicle immobilised when you assault? then its an auto hit.. theres no contesting this, the issue here is whether or not attacks happen at initiative and if its possible for a higher I character to immobilise a vehicle and lower I models to hit auto

Indeed. Shooting happens before assault, just as movement happens before shooting. The effects have already occurred when the next phase starts.

 

For instance, if some of your models are shot and killed in the shooting phase, they are no longer present to take part in the assault phase.

 

If a vehicle is destroyed in the shooting phase, it is no longer present to be the target of an assault.

 

Ergo, if a vehicle is immobilized in the shooting phase, it is 'in the state of immobilization' when the assault phase begins.

[greatcrusade08]

;) Or we can say (much more realisticly):

 

Steve: “Dave I assault your vehicle.” (Launch assault as per p63.)

Dave: ”That sucks, my vehicle does not attack back…so have at her?” (Pouts, again not in rules book but normal reaction)

Steve: “All my guys jump on her like the whore of a prom queen she is. She’s going down (no pun intended)!” (Steve needs to hit so looking at p63, we are told to

refer to table for the D6 score needed to hit. And rolls squad at one time, nominating dice for the PFist. )

 

Vehicle assault is a completely one sided process, thus not needing an order to be addressed by the rules. At no point should attack order even need to be asked. Vehicle assault is different than noraml assaults (p63 Combat results : "Combats against vehicles are very different from those amoung other unit types.") and follow the rules on p63, refering to outside rules as needed to fill holes.

 

I havent seen a convincing argument here, the use of 'realism' whilst very comical is no substitute for actual rules.

There is a question of attack order here, if the frist 9 guys in a tac squad immobilise a vehicle would the slower powerfist auto hit.

According to the rules if a vehicle is immobilised your attacks auto hit.

 

So we NEED to know if initiative order happens, as p.63 mentions nothing on attack order we have to use the basic rules to as you say "fill in the holes".

 

In this case pure RAW says that power fists strike at I1 and your atatcks happen in initiative order..

[Ntin]

Ntin:

 

Null is not the same as zero.

The rules actually define "0" as being the same as "-" though.

 

"Some creatures have been given a '0' for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a '-')."

BRB, page 7, "Zero-Level Characteristics"

 

The vehicle rules then specifically confirm that they have no WS (besides not including a WS in the vehicle characteristics).

 

"As the vehicle has no WS, the score needed for a hit depends on the speed of the target"

BRB, page 63, "Rolling to hit against vehicles"

 

And as page 7 explained, a model with WS '0' (which is the same as WS '-' ) would be automatically hit according to the regular WS vs WS comparison rules.

 

Furthermore, there are certain rules that specifically work differently on models with a Toughness value or without a Toughness value, or with a WS or without a WS. The Codex Chaos Space Marines has a few such examples, but I am sure there are more.

 

Example, Gift of Chaos:

"If the D6 roll scores over the victim's Toughness, the victim is transformed into a shapeless blob of flesh and is removed as a casualty (...)

Models without a Toughness characteristic cannot be affected."

 

If vehicles had Toughness '0' (or Toughness '-') then it would be an auto-success. But because tehy have no Toughness characteristic at all, they are not affected.

 

Another example would be attacks that hit on a fixed roll, though they are then usually clarified in FaQs to only hit at that roll against models with a WS, but not against vehicles.

 

---

 

Null has no value. In mathematics the only times I have encountered null is in set notation and mapping. Even in computer science there is a very limited usage of null arithmetic. Basically you cannot make a comparison such as I:5 <= I: ∅, as the order of ∅ is not defined within any number set. It is within the Warhammer 40,000 rule set that defines that the character ‘-‘ that has the same value as the number 0.

 

Like the quote you brought up models with a characteristic of 0 do not possess that characteristic. Models with WS: 0 require a special rule on how they interact with other models in close combat and we have such a rule in the vehicle section. Models with T: 0 have a vehicle armor value. Models with BS: 0 lack range weapons.

 

If vehicles had an absence of a WS score such as WS: ∅ as other are proposing then by the same logic I should be able to attack walls, the ground, or any other object on the board. For instance the ground has an absence of a WS value I should hit on a 3+, since 3+ is the minimum to hit roll. Since the ground has an absence of a T value then I should hit on a 2+ since 2+ is the minimum to wound roll. Since the ground has an absence of wounds I automatically kill the ground. Finally since the ground has an absence of any kind of save the ground automatically dies plunging everything into an infinite blackness as time and space is torn asunder.

 

Gift of Chaos cannot affect a Razorback for the very reason it has T: ’-‘. Having a characteristic 0 or ‘-‘ is the games way of signifying this model does not have or lacks this characteristic. It would be pointless to print every Razorback as WS: - BS: 4 S: - T: - W: - I: - A: - LD: - SV: - F: 11 S: 11 R: 10. We know since the vehicle lacks a WS it infers it also lacks an S, I, and A characteristics. Since it has an armor value we know it also lacks a T, W, LD, and SV characteristics. As all of these characteristics that define a model are superseded within the vehicle rule section. We know that by having a ‘-‘ value there is an additional set of rules that tell us how this model interacts with the game.

 

Just like Legatus quoted from the book.

 

"Some creatures have been given a '0' for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that field (the same is also occasionally represented by a '-')."

BRB, page 7, "Zero-Level Characteristics"

 

Having a ‘0’ or ‘-‘ is the same as not having the characteristic in question. My Fiends of Slaanesh do not have an armor save, therefore I cannot make an armor save for whatever reason with them because they have SV: ‘-‘. My Soulgrinder cannot make a toughness test because it has a vehicle armor value and T: ‘-‘.

[pingo]

Null has no value. In mathematics the only times I have encountered null is in set notation and mapping. Even in computer science there is a very limited usage of null arithmetic. Basically you cannot make a comparison such as I:5 <= I: ∅, as the order of ∅ is not defined within any number set. It is within the Warhammer 40,000 rule set that defines that the character ‘-‘ that has the same value as the number 0.

 

Like the quote you brought up models with a characteristic of 0 do not possess that characteristic. Models with WS: 0 require a special rule on how they interact with other models in close combat and we have such a rule in the vehicle section. Models with T: 0 have a vehicle armor value. Models with BS: 0 lack range weapons.

But the rulebooks doesn't say models have null WS. It says they have no WS at all. As in, it doesn't exist as a characteristic for them.

 

f vehicles had an absence of a WS score such as WS: ∅ as other are proposing then by the same logic I should be able to attack walls, the ground, or any other object on the board. For instance the ground has an absence of a WS value I should hit on a 3+, since 3+ is the minimum to hit roll. Since the ground has an absence of a T value then I should hit on a 2+ since 2+ is the minimum to wound roll. Since the ground has an absence of wounds I automatically kill the ground. Finally since the ground has an absence of any kind of save the ground automatically dies plunging everything into an infinite blackness as time and space is torn asunder.

Well, no, because terrain is not a unit. You can only shoot and attack other units.

 

Having a ‘0’ or ‘-‘ is the same as not having the characteristic in question. My Fiends of Slaanesh do not have an armor save, therefore I cannot make an armor save for whatever reason with them because they have SV: ‘-‘. My Soulgrinder cannot make a toughness test because it has a vehicle armor value and T: ‘-‘.

Thing is, if a vehicle has WS, or any other characteristic, but at value of 0, then what happens if they become under the influence of a modifier to that characteristic?

 

So what if a Rhino was within 12 inches of Kantor? Would the Rhino then have one extra attack, therefore granting the Rhino 1A?