hitting vehicles

[hisdudeness]

Gc08, I did give a rules quote in my comical example as I did not want to see the exact argument you brought up. “Steve now needs to hit so looking at p63,…” On that page in the ‘to hit’ section, we are told what to do. You et al. are inserting “by init order” somewhere in that section. You are asking the question because to what to gain a benefit that I do not see being given.

 

A PFist can attack on I1 all day long, but when you do not use the characteristic in a given situation then it has no bearing on the situation. i.e. Init in the shooting phase.

 

You say timing matters, I do not. Cool, the first 9 guys score a immobilize result and then you roll the PFist. You are allowed to roll at different times for different weapons, even if they take affect at the same time (p18, ‘fast rolling’).

[Legatus]

hisdudeness:

 

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?

There are a lot of unit combinations where some models would usually attack before the rest. It is not limited to units where one model is equipped with a powerfist.

 

- A Broodlord (I7) could immobilise a vehicle before his Genestealer retinue (I6) attacks.

 

- A Striking Scorpion Exarch (I6) could immobilise a vehicle with his Scorpion Claw or Biting Blade before the other Striking Scorpions (I5) attack.

 

- A Space Marine Captain (I5) with Relic Blade or Krak Grenades could immobilise a vehicle before his squad (I4) attacks.

 

Almost all Eldar and Ork units have squad leaders with higher initiative.

 

End there are other reasons why you might want to attack in order, and not just to get an immobilised result for the following attackers. Imagine Lysander and a squad of Space Marines attack an open-topped vehicle. The Marines all attack with Krak grenades, which means on a penetrating hit they will make the vehicle explode on a roll of 5+, but it is also possible that they will only glance it, then wrecking it at a roll of 6, or simply destroy it due to multiple weapon destroyed/immobilised results. When Lysander attacks the vehicle, he can only get penetrating results (unless it has rear armour 11+), and he will make it explode on a roll of 4+ thanks to his +1 for the damage table rolls. So if Lysander attacks that open topped vehicle, you can be pretty sure that it will explode, while when the other Marines attack, it may not explode and only be wrecked.

So you would want the other Marines to attack first, possibly destroying the vehicle without an explosion before Lysander gets to attack, thus preventing the explosion that would potentially damage your own unit.

 

---

 

Ntin:

 

Like the quote you brought up models with a characteristic of 0 do not possess that characteristic.

Creatures with '0' characteristics have "no ability in that field". That is not the same as "not having that characteristic". I.E. a model with WS 0 is not able to fire a weapon. It still has the BS characteristic. A model with WS 0 has no combat abilities, and is automatically his by attackers. That is not the same as not having a WS 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.

No, the rules for '0' characteristics are explained right in the beginning on page 7. It does not require additional special rules. The vehicle rules give distinct rules and do not fall back on the basic rules for '0' WS characteristic.

 

 

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.

It is generally assumed that the rules tell you what you are able to do. They do not tell you what you cannot do.

 

The rules explain how other models are attacked. The rules explain how vehicles are attacked.

 

 

Gift of Chaos cannot affect a Razorback for the very reason it has T: ’-‘.

Gift of Chaos does not affect a Razorback because "Models without a Toughness characteristic cannot be affected."(C:CSM, p. 88)

 

Now see BRB page 8, "Characteristic Tests":

 

"Of course, if a model has to take a test for one of its characteristics with a value of 0, it automatically fails."

 

If Vehcles had a Toughness or '0' or '-' then you would be able to attack them with Gift of Chaos, because all that power requires to harm the enemy is a roll over the target's Toughness. It would autokill any model with T: '-'. Vehicles are not T: '-'.

 

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: ‘-‘.

Your Fiends of Slaanesh have an "armour save" of '-'. That means were they ever to take an armoru test, tehy would automatically fail, as described in the rules for zero-characteristics. Were they under the influence of a rule that increased the armour save they would benefit from it, as now their "armour save" characteristic would not be '-' anymore. Vehicles, on the other hand, do not even have the armour save characteristic, and therefor would not benefit at all from such a rule.

[hisdudeness]

The Initiative vs. No Initiative order for assault against vehicles is pretty much played out. We are just throwing examples back and forth, not really adding any new info. Just about every angle has been brought to light so others may make an informed decision on how they want to play it.

 

This back and forth has been enjoyable and I think we have all learned a little bit from the research conducted.

[Legatus]

I have been trying to give examples for why a player would want to know whether or not his models would strike at Initiative order, and that it therefor becomes an issue if the lack of reference in the vehicle design rules is interpreted as there not being any order.

 

I was disagreeing with these statements in particular:

 

As attack order would not come up as vehicles do not attack back so there is no reason to determine attack order.

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.

 

As I have highlighted by my examples, there is the legitimate question of attack order in combat against vehicles. Thus it is one of the "holes in the process" just like the other issues that are not adressed in the vehicle assault rules. And just like those "holes", it can be easily solved by adhering to the basic assault rules in all points that are not specifically described in the vehicle assault rules.

[SeattleDV8]

I agree, in a vehicle assault we follow the rules for a normal assault except where the vehicle rules over-rule them.

You follow general rules until you have specific over rides.

[hisdudeness]

Legatus, I was not saying that giving examples is bad, just that all relevant rules have been presented and that nothing new will come from continuing the discussion.

[rat of vengence]

Page 63.

 

"Units that still have models in base contact with a vehicle in its Assault phase may attack it again, just as in a normal ongoing combat...

 

Emphasis mine.

 

So, here is a direct reference to the normal assault rules in the Vehicles and Assaults section. It is not self contained. So how do these models attack in its assault phase? Just as in a normal ongoing combat. Hey, a normal ongoing combat involves initiative order doesn't it? :D

 

RoV

[hisdudeness]

RoV, that's new.

 

But it can also be explained as you continue later assault phases as normal. i.e. use the normal continuing assault rules when dealing with units still locked in combat.

 

It is also not the only reference to normal assault rules, but does add more to consider.

[rat of vengence]

RoV, that's new.

 

But it can also be explained as you continue later assault phases as normal. i.e. use the normal continuing assault rules when dealing with units still locked in combat.

 

It is also not the only reference to normal assault rules, but does add more to consider.

Later ones? so the first assault phase doesn't need initiative, but later ones do? That just doesn't make sense. Either they do, or they don't, and that quote clearly shows they do. It seems pretty clear cut to me.

 

RoV

 

 

Edit; more sense to make

[hisdudeness]

I was misunderstood; we follow normal rules for continuing the combat next turn.

 

For example, when assault results are a draw. This is exactly what the line refers to. Since models are not locked into combat as normal, the rules had to address the issue on whether you are allowed to continue the assault in later assault phases or not.

 

This is further proof that if initiative order was an issue then it would be stated in the rules. I believe the issue was not addressed because common sense dictates that you do no need to order a combat when only one side preforms any actions.

[rat of vengence]

I was misunderstood; we follow normal rules for continuing the combat next turn.

Perhaps you would like to edit your post so it does say what you meant then :rolleyes:

Yes, we follow normal rules for ongoing combat. My point precisely. A normal ongoing combat has the opponents fighting in initiative order. If it wasn't so, it wouldn't be a normal ongoing combat. There is no exception to this, and the rules explicitely state that it is a normal ongoing combat. It doesn't say ""Units that still have models in base contact with a vehicle in its Assault phase may attack it again, just as in a normal ongoing combat except for the bit about initiative.".

 

For example, when assault results are a draw. This is exactly what the line refers to. Since models are not locked into combat as normal, the rules had to address the issue on whether you are allowed to continue the assault in later assault phases or not.

A draw? Since this rule is in the Assaulting Vehicles section, how is a draw remotely relevant? You CAN'T draw against a vehicle with no WS!

 

This is further proof that if initiative order was an issue then it would be stated in the rules. I believe the issue was not addressed because common sense dictates that you do no need to order a combat when only one side preforms any actions.

Then that's RAI, not what they actually say. As legatus correctly pointed out, there are common sense reasons why initiative order is important. But you disregarded his common sense because it wasn't RAW. And then go and use common sense to explain your interpretation?

 

 

 

RoV

[thade]

Holy moley, did I let you all down by not jumping into this earlier. @_@ B) This got monstrous.

 

I only have two things to weigh in on.

 

Null and Zero are different. Zero is a value. Null is an absence, an emptiness. This is very subtle and often unimportant, but there it is. It's not clear whether '-' in the rules means "null", but I'm not sure it even matters in this discussion as it really boils down to my second point.

 

The assaults part of the vehicle chapter highlights the things that are different from the assault chapter; since it never mentions initiative order, initiative order still takes precedence; i.e. it matters. Consider the following...

 

My I5 Wolf Lord, I4 Wolf Guard (vet marines), and Lone Wolf with an I1 Power Fist charge into a multiple assault versus a Rhino and the unit that just disembarked from it. You can imagine who's in base to base with whom as this example carries out. I5 Wolf Lord has a Frost Blade (str 5) and splits his attacks...2 against the back of the Rhino and the rest against the unit, as he is in BTB with both.

 

When do his vehicle attacks resolve? Why not right now (when it makes sense) as the rest of his attacks resolve now? Well, he needs 6s to hit, and wouldn't you have it, he rolls awesomely and hits, managing to score an immobilized result. The rest of his attacks carry into the unit and slaughter some noob Chaos Marines. The unit goes next at I4, simultaneously with the Chaos Marines, all marine to marine. Finally, the Power Fist toting Wolf Guard goes against the Rhino's rear armor, at his I1, and well the Rhino is Immoblized, so per the rules he auto-hits.

 

So you see, Initiative Order is important during vehicle assaults, and should not be disregarded. <3

 

Cheers,

Thade

 

The I5 commander at his initiative attacks...and hits the v

[greatcrusade08]

I think legatus had it right:

We need to know if initiative order is used since it raises certain questions, namely will a higher Initiative model immobilise a vehicle and lower initiative auto hit it?

 

since we need to know this information we have to find rules for it... namely basic assault rules.

When we find a hole we dont fill it with assumptions or guesses we have to fill it with the rules.

 

Personally i think this isnt even close to a grey area rule, its pretty obvious what the answers are, however the fact that someone can disagree highlights my personal issues with the "most important rule".

If someone diagrees with every logical argument then youll have no point but to roll off for it, if your rolling for every little rule that comes up then the tactical game is lost.. and with it alot of the essence of the game.

 

My argument is if we are 90% certain what a rule means then go with it! dont argue wording when logic and commom sense are telling you how it should be.

 

My 2 cents

Gc08

[hisdudeness]

No, we follow the normal rules for the specific issue of continuing combat in later turns. I do not see a blanket statement in that sentence. I see a specific situation in which we are told to reference normal assault rules. Without that line we could have the issue that the vehicle could not be assaulted again in later turns. True they are not locked in combat. But you are also within the 1” ‘no-fly zone’ around models, which would be an issue if not specifically addressed.

 

The same for when we follow the normal rules for the specific issue of launching an assault against vehicles. Same can be said for armor penetration in assaults against vehicles. The rules mention shooting rules as normal, even though it is for a specific issue. By your thinking it is a blanket statement that covers the entire process. Can I pull some of the shooting rules into the combat? If my vehicle is assaulted while in area cover, do I get a cover save? The shooting rules say I do. And because the section on armor penetration (p63) mentions that we follow the normal rules for shooting I can get a cover save.

 

Everyone seems to take the few references to normal assault rules for very specific situations as an invitation to use everything else you find around that reference. As p63 tells us, assaults against vehicles are different. The page does not say that the normal assault rules are modified or follow normal assault rules with the exceptions listed below. The page tells us exactly what to do.

 

We are told exactly how to launch the assault. We are told exactly how to hit in the assault. We are told exactly how to ‘wound’ in the assault. We are told exactly how determine combat results. In the ’to hit’ paragraph I do not see anything telling us to reference normal assault rules on how to hit. So unless you are trying to tell me that the reference in the paragraph before gives you permission to continue to reference the normal assault rules, you are wrong. If the section said something like, “attack in Initiative order and determine D6 score needed to hit as follows:” you would have me dead to rights.

 

The fact that if you order something and it has a different result is not a valid reason that it must be ordered. That is the argument being used with the Tac squad with a PFist. If I order the attacks the result will be different so we must order the attacks because the order matters. That is the primary reason we are given that assault against vehicles are to be ordered. Not a rule quote, but an example.

 

Can I use a Tac squad without a PFist as my example on why we do not order the attacks? All of them attack at the same time, so there is not reason to order the attack.

[thade]

Can I use a Tac squad without a PFist as my example on why we do not order the attacks? All of them attack at the same time, so there is not reason to order the attack.

You are effectively ordering the attack as if you have a tac squad with no power fist, they all got at I4. :D So that is neither for nor against your assertions.

 

I think the multiple assault example highlights it very clearly...the I5's attacks split against the vehicle and the unit resolve before any other attacks go. Resolve = they inflict wounds/damage before anything at a later initiative, so in my example any Chaos Marines he kills don't get their attacks back (they die in I5 before they go in I4) and the vehicle gets Immobilized at I5, so attacks that go at I4 and thereafter auto-hit per the rules.

 

If it's the case that Initiative is disregarded for vehicles, how do the attacks resolve instead? If I understand what you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong here) but you seem to be asserting that in my example, the attacks would happen thus:

 

Any attacks allocated against the Chaos Marines happen in Initiative order per the normal assault rules.

Any attacks allocated against the vehicle happen all at once, outside of initiative.

 

Such a complex rules interpretation would warrant a mention in the instructions, no? But, there is none.

 

As has been highlighted by many people already, the vehicle assault rules state that they address the differences. As no where is it mentioned that Initiative Order is disregarded for vehicle combat, then it's clear that there is no difference between vehicle and normal assaults with regards to Initiative Order. This is good, as we've seen, because otherwise multiple assaults versus vehicles and infantry would not work out.

 

...

 

Everyone (including all of the big guns we see resolving rule disputes every day) seems to rest with the idea that Initiative Order still holds in assaults versus vehicles; you, man, are the only one maintaining otherwise. This sort of reminds me of a thread I got into a pretty heated debate on with regards to whether a unit of marines could perform a Sweeping Advance when joined with an IC in Terminator Armor. That was like this...an almost grey area, but everybody but me was convinced that I was wrong. I got two things out of that thread...

 

1. You can't treat the Warhammer rules as if they are Law; they are not bulletproof and so sometimes you just have to rely on the interpretations of the older players...specifically because they have a back log of old rules and they know what things have changed and why, so they have a better handle on the rules than those of us who are newer.

 

2. When everybody seems convinced it's one way and you are convinced it's the other way, it's time to admit that you are wrong. Even if it's ambiguous (and believe me, I understand this can be frustrating) it's best to just side with the majority because, at the very least, it means when you meet new groups of people to play with you'll be on the same ground.

 

While this advice is not directly related to the topic, I feel it's relevant. I really hope it helps. It took months for me to process it, but it finally did help me.

 

Cheers,

Thade

[Ntin]

Can I use a Tac squad without a PFist as my example on why we do not order the attacks? All of them attack at the same time, so there is not reason to order the attack.

 

Sure? It is a pointless example.

 

I am not even sure what the discussion is at this point. People are just splitting hairs or arguing semantics.

[thade]

Can I use a Tac squad without a PFist as my example on why we do not order the attacks? All of them attack at the same time, so there is not reason to order the attack.

 

Sure? It is a pointless example.

 

I am not even sure what the discussion is at this point. People are just splitting hairs or arguing semantics.

That was my feeling as well, but it compelled me to try and clear up the confusion nevertheless.

 

A lot of rules arguments boil down to semantics, which is sad, because it really is the worst kind of argument. =\ "It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." >_<

[SeattleDV8]

No, we follow the normal rules for the specific issue of continuing combat in later turns. I do not see a blanket statement in that sentence. I see a specific situation in which we are told to reference normal assault rules. Without that line we could have the issue that the vehicle could not be assaulted again in later turns. True they are not locked in combat. But you are also within the 1” ‘no-fly zone’ around models, which would be an issue if not specifically addressed.

Yes it does, we do a 'normal assault with the exceptions given (on pg.63) for vehicles.

 

The same for when we follow the normal rules for the specific issue of launching an assault against vehicles. Same can be said for armor penetration in assaults against vehicles. The rules mention shooting rules as normal, even though it is for a specific issue. By your thinking it is a blanket statement that covers the entire process. Can I pull some of the shooting rules into the combat? If my vehicle is assaulted while in area cover, do I get a cover save? The shooting rules say I do. And because the section on armor penetration (p63) mentions that we follow the normal rules for shooting I can get a cover save.

A straw man that you have tried to use before. It is specific in the rules that it is close combat and is a D6+strength of the attacker for Armour Penetration.

 

Everyone seems to take the few references to normal assault rules for very specific situations as an invitation to use everything else you find around that reference. As p63 tells us, assaults against vehicles are different. The page does not say that the normal assault rules are modified or follow normal assault rules with the exceptions listed below. The page tells us exactly what to do.

We are told exactly how to launch the assault. We are told exactly how to hit in the assault. We are told exactly how to ‘wound’ in the assault. We are told exactly how determine combat results. In the ’to hit’ paragraph I do not see anything telling us to reference normal assault rules on how to hit. So unless you are trying to tell me that the reference in the paragraph before gives you permission to continue to reference the normal assault rules, you are wrong. If the section said something like, “attack in Initiative order and determine D6 score needed to hit as follows:” you would have me dead to rights.

Except we don't need the wording. In normal attacks we go in Int. order, in mixed attacks we go in Int. order, In attacks on vehicle squadrons we go in Int. order, but somehow an attack on a single vehicle is treated different?? Without any rule or anything to imply that they are treated different??

 

The fact that if you order something and it has a different result is not a valid reason that it must be ordered. That is the argument being used with the Tac squad with a PFist. If I order the attacks the result will be different so we must order the attacks because the order matters. That is the primary reason we are given that assault against vehicles are to be ordered. Not a rule quote, but an example.

This is the main problem I'm having with your side of the debate, you really don't have a rule quote to back your assumption.

yes yes pg 63 , but what that is showing is the exceptions to the normal assault rules when dealing with vehicles...not the complete total of the assault rules. you have yet to address the problems that arise if you treat the vehicle rules as complete, as with many special rules you still use the general rules to 'fill in the gaps" This is not unusual with GW.

 

Can I use a Tac squad without a PFist as my example on why we do not order the attacks? All of them attack at the same time, so there is not reason to order the attack.

Seeing as the Tac squad without a Power Fist all attack at Int 4 , what is the point?

[Legatus]

I do think the rules assume that the regular Assault rules are the basis of the Vehicle Assault rules, though it is not explicitely pointed out. The vehicle section does start by exlaining that the rules for vehicles "differ from other models in a number of ways, detailed here." In other words, the Vehicle rules describe in what ways vehicle rules are different from regular rules.

 

There are just cases in the vehicle assault rules where you take for granted that they work like in a regular assault. Prime example would be the number of attacks each model gets. That issue is never adressed by the vehicle assault rules, but no one would doubt that you go by the regular assault rules in that case.

The question about the attack order is similar. Since the vehicle rules do not adress an order of attack, you just go by the regular assault rules again and have your models attack in order of initiative.

 

That the question of attack order does matter in combat against a vehicles cannot be disputed, and I have given enough examples of why it does. If the result is a different one when you attack in order as compared to when you do not attack in order, then the attack order matters.

[hisdudeness]

Everyone (including all of the big guns we see resolving rule disputes every day) seems to rest with the idea that Initiative Order still holds in assaults versus vehicles;

 

Thade, did you just try and pull post count on me? And at the same time pseudo-name drop? Just kidding.

 

I fully believe that ‘everyone’ rests on Initiative Order is that it is the way it has been done and no one has questioned it. This does not make it correct. I’m not frustrated, I use these discussions to make me dig deeper in the rules to better understand them. I know full well that Initiative Order is the accepted way to play it and had no fantasies of changing the status quo. I just did not see the issue as cut and dry as ‘everyone’ claims it is and the more people asserted that it was cut and dry the more I felt I needed to push back.

 

Your multi-combat example is full frontal gray area. The rules in no way address the complex issue.

 

I completely disagree that Vehicles and assaults only address the differences. How is “The assault move is conducted just the same as assaulting other enemy units.” a difference? If p63 modifies the assault rules why restate the obvious?

 

Here is the core of my disagreement, you stated “As no where is it mentioned that Initiative Order is disregarded for vehicle combat,…” Yet nowhere in the assault chapter and nowhere on p63 are we told that we conduct vehicles assault as a normal assault with the exceptions noted on p63. Matter of fact, vehicles are not even mentioned in the assaults chapter. Why? Because vehicles have their own set of rules to deal with such a situation. We are also specifically told that “Combats against vehicles are very different from those among other unit types.”

 

SattleDV8, my example is not a straw man. I am merely applying the prevailing assertion (that since assault moves are done as normal we can pull surrounding rules in to play) to a similar situation (since armor penetration is done as normal I can pull surrounding rules in to play). I say this is the prevailing assertion because as stated above, the rules do not tell us otherwise so everyone must be using the mention of ‘normal assault movement’ as permission to pull any assault rule they want. If you take one as true you must take the other as true.

 

But all this hinges on the core differences on the issue. I say p63 tells us how to assault vehicles. Others say they are just modifications to the normal assault rules. I say no, because we are not told to treat them the same, to follow the same rules. Others say yes, because that is the way it has always been done. Never mind that others cannot quote a rule to back that up.

 

P63 is my quote to back up my view. When we need to know how to assault a vehicle we do not go to the assault chapter, we turn to p63 and do as told. On p63 I still do not see a line that tells me to turn to the assault chapter and follow those rules referring to p63 as needed. In fact I see the exact opposite, I see p63 telling us to refer to specific rules in the assault chapter. Not all of the assault rules, but specific sections of the assault rules.

 

As for the various examples used to discount my view, do what most people do look in the index for the rule. I need to know how many attacks I get in close combat. OK, look in the index….ah, Attacks (A) p6. That section tells me…..the Attacks (A) paragraph tells me: “ This characteristic indicates the number of dice a model rolls when fighting in close combat.” I need to know haw a PFist works. Ok, look in the index…crazy, Power Fists are on page 42.

 

Do I use initiative in close combat with a vehicle? Ok, Initiative…p6. I see, “In close combat, faster creatures gain a massive advantage over slower ones because they get to strike first.” I see two problems. One is references creature vs. creature, not creature vs. vehicle. A creature does no strike first against a vehicle, as the vehicle does not strike back. We do not use I, just like we do not use WS in assault against a vehicle.

 

Legatus, the justification for an interpretation cannot be because it will have a different result than another interpretation. And that is what your ‘attack order matters’ point is made of. The results differ if you do it one way or the other, so we will do it this way. This begs the question what tells us that we order assaults against vehicles? The “Who Strikes First?” section sure doesn’t. I see a bunch of stuff about creatures and agility. I see no mention of vehicles or how a model with an initiative charactistic interacts with a model without an initiative characteristic. But on p63 I do see an example of how model with a characteristic and a model without that characteristic interact, GW made a special rule for it. That would be the 'to hit' table for assaults against vehicles.

[thade]

Everyone (including all of the big guns we see resolving rule disputes every day) seems to rest with the idea that Initiative Order still holds in assaults versus vehicles;

 

Thade, did you just try and pull post count on me? And at the same time pseudo-name drop? Just kidding.

Actually, this was an effort to try and commiserate with you and ease you out of this futile argument you're pumping your energy into. The point of it all was that these rules are not bulletproof. If that's your point, congratulations: you are very late to the table with that assertion.

 

You should keep in mind that people who've played the game for more than the past edition (or even the past two editions) have seen many iterations of the rules and many FAQs and so they do have a better understanding of the rules than we do. You should take their words under consideration instead of exclusively focusing on the 5th Ed rules and how they are not bulletproof.

 

Your multi-combat example is full frontal gray area. The rules in no way address the complex issue.

There's nothing grey about it, which is what everyone has said, all hinging on one thing:

 

I completely disagree that Vehicles and assaults only address the differences. How is “The assault move is conducted just the same as assaulting other enemy units.” a difference? If p63 modifies the assault rules why restate the obvious?

ALL of the things I am about to cite have been brought up repeatedly through this thread.

 

The Vehicle Assault rules appear on page 63.

 

The first two paragraphs are fluffy descriptive text.

 

The third paragraph is where your entire argument hinges: this is the paragraph that states movement to assault a vehicle happens precisely as it does against infantry. Your assertion is that this is the only place where assaults on vehicles and assaults on infantry are the same. This is a weak and baseless assertion. That's what everybody has been trying to tell you. (Keep with me.)

 

The fourth paragraph is rolling to hit versus vehicles, which is the first difference.

 

Fifth paragraph: armor pen, the second difference (no rolling to wound).

 

Sixth paragraph: combat results, which have to do with who "won" combat and who has to take a moral check...the third difference. The seventh paragraph specifically states how combat results differ in this.

 

Finally the fourth difference is the rest of the section, which boils down to the vehicle not being locked down in the assault as infantry would be.

 

The issue of initiative is not addressed at all. Nor is the issue of joining assaults where vehicles are involved, assaulting multiple units where vehicles are involved, whether the charging unit gets extra attacks on the charge where vehicles are involved, etc. There is a reason that these things are not addressed here: they are addressed in the Assault Phase chapter.

 

It's really as simple as that. The Assault rules in the Vehicle chapter do not describe a different phase; they are an addendum to the Assault Phase insofar as vehicles are concerned. Would you really expect them to rewrite the entire Assault Chapter highlighting those small pieces they changed? Or should they just save paper (as they did) and consume the better part of a single page with the differences? If there were no differences, this page wouldn't exist at all. There are differences, and they are highlighted on that page.

 

If you've never seen this sort of writing convention before, I understand the confusion you are experiencing. I'm not sure how to alleviate it for you though.

[Legatus]

Legatus, the justification for an interpretation cannot be because it will have a different result than another interpretation. And that is what your ‘attack order matters’ point is made of.

The point about attacking in a different order leading to different results is just to highlight that the question about attacking order is not any less valid than the question about the number of attacks, as you have suggested. It is a legitimate issue that needs to be resolved. You agree that the number of attacks is important, and you turn to the regular assault rules for answers. But you deny that the order of attack is important and therefore you do not neet to find an answer. I am merely pointing out that it is indeed important. And I am suggesting that you use teh same solution you use for the number of attacks issue.

 

 

This begs the question what tells us that we order assaults against vehicles?

What tells us that models make more than one attack against vehicles? Or that models can use special close combat weapons, other than grenades?

 

From page 63:

 

"all engaged models will attack."

 

"Armour Penetration is worked out in the same way as for shooting (D6 + the Strength of the attacker)."

 

In case you are wondering what the Strength value might be, I am sure you will find a description on page 6. That sounds like my Captain with Powerfist will make one Attack at Strength 4 when assaulting a Vehicle.

 

 

I completely disagree that Vehicles and assaults only address the differences. How is “The assault move is conducted just the same as assaulting other enemy units.” a difference? If p63 modifies the assault rules why restate the obvious?

Because first pointing out that the initial steps work just like in the regular situation and then continue with where the rules work out differently is a good way to write rules for exceptional cases. Special case rules are usually not just listed as bullet point entries. They are usually introduced.

 

 

But all this hinges on the core differences on the issue. I say p63 tells us how to assault vehicles. Others say they are just modifications to the normal assault rules. I say no, because we are not told to treat them the same, to follow the same rules. Others say yes, because that is the way it has always been done.

I say yes because it is essential in order to resolve the combat against the vehicle to turn to the regular assault rules for various issues. Number of attacks is the most important one, but there are others such as how attacks can be split or how close combat weapons work. And since the combat would play out differently depending on the order the attacks are resolved in, that issue has to be answered too. Since it is an issue, the rules for vehicles would have to specifically point out that attacks are not done in order of initiative. As you can see by the number of people going by initiative order because "that is the way it has always been done", it would have been an important thing to point out if it was not intended to be so.

 

 

P63 is my quote to back up my view. When we need to know how to assault a vehicle we do not go to the assault chapter, we turn to p63 and do as told.

And then we go to the assault chapter for all the issues that the Vehicle Assault rules do not comment on.

 

 

As for the various examples used to discount my view, do what most people do look in the index for the rule. I need to know how many attacks I get in close combat. OK, look in the index….ah, Attacks (A) p6. That section tells me…..the Attacks (A) paragraph tells me: “ This characteristic indicates the number of dice a model rolls when fighting in close combat.”

First: The vehicle rules on page 63 sure did not tell you that models might do multiple attacks.

Second: If you go just by page 6 then your Space Marine Captain with power sword that just charged the vehicle will get 3 attacks. That's the number of attacks in his profile. Page 6 hints that there may be other bonuses, but it does not describe how to get those bonuses or what they amount to.

 

 

I need to know haw a PFist works. Ok, look in the index…crazy, Power Fists are on page 42.

The vehicle rules on page 63 do not tell you that you can use powerfists in combat against vehicles. Special close combat weapons are described in the assault section. Aren't you trying to argue that we do not refer to the assault section unless specifically refered to by the vehicle rules?

 

 

Do I use initiative in close combat with a vehicle? Ok, Initiative…p6. I see, “In close combat, faster creatures gain a massive advantage over slower ones because they get to strike first.” I see two problems. One is references creature vs. creature, not creature vs. vehicle.

And the rules for Attacks from page 6 describe how creatures can unleash a flurry of blows against an "opponent". Vehicles are not opponents. They are things.

Not to mention that the text for "Initiative" is merely a broad description of what "Initiative" represents, and does not actually contain any rules on how Initiative is used in game terms. You would not turn to page 6 to figure out how to use the Strength and Toughness values to wound something either.

 

 

A creature does no strike first against a vehicle, as the vehicle does not strike back.

But as anyone who has tried the game knows, Initiative does not only determine whether your guys or the opponents guys strike first. Initiative also determines which of your guys strike before some of your other guys.

[rat of vengence]

Here is the core of my disagreement, you stated “As no where is it mentioned that Initiative Order is disregarded for vehicle combat,…” Yet nowhere in the assault chapter and nowhere on p63 are we told that we conduct vehicles assault as a normal assault with the exceptions noted on p63. Matter of fact, vehicles are not even mentioned in the assaults chapter. Why? Because vehicles have their own set of rules to deal with such a situation. We are also specifically told that “Combats against vehicles are very different from those among other unit types.”

 

Wow, you can read a lot into (or out of) the rules. Yes, vehicles have their own set of rules, but the quote I keep pointing you to ALSO refers back to the normal assault rules.

 

You still haven't told us where it excepts initiative from normal assault.

 

The point has been made, by several people in several ways, and repeated several times. There is no grey area, it is time to man up and realise you are all alone in this 'interpretation' of the rules. the reason for this is it is wrong.

 

RoV out.

[thade]

I completely disagree that Vehicles and assaults only address the differences. How is “The assault move is conducted just the same as assaulting other enemy units.” a difference? If p63 modifies the assault rules why restate the obvious?

Because first pointing out that the initial steps work just like in the regular situation and then continue with where the rules work out differently is a good way to write rules for exceptional cases. Special case rules are usually not just listed as bullet point entries. They are usually introduced.

This is precisely the writing convention I was trying to highlight. The Warhammer rules are not the exception to this; you see this everywhere in instructive literature and rulebooks.

[SeattleDV8]

Your multi-combat example is full frontal gray area. The rules in no way address the complex issue.

Untrue, if you follow the normal assault rules and ignore the vehicle for combat res there are no problems.

 

I completely disagree that Vehicles and assaults only address the differences. How is “The assault move is conducted just the same as assaulting other enemy units.” a difference? If p63 modifies the assault rules why restate the obvious?

But isn't that what you are asking for? A restatment that Int. is used for assaults?

 

Here is the core of my disagreement, you stated “As no where is it mentioned that Initiative Order is disregarded for vehicle combat,…” Yet nowhere in the assault chapter and nowhere on p63 are we told that we conduct vehicles assault as a normal assault with the exceptions noted on p63. Matter of fact, vehicles are not even mentioned in the assaults chapter. Why? Because vehicles have their own set of rules to deal with such a situation. We are also specifically told that “Combats against vehicles are very different from those among other unit types.”

Which comes late in the rules under the Combat results section, where the bulk of the rules exceptions are.

 

SattleDV8, my example is not a straw man. I am merely applying the prevailing assertion (that since assault moves are done as normal we can pull surrounding rules in to play) to a similar situation (since armor penetration is done as normal I can pull surrounding rules in to play). I say this is the prevailing assertion because as stated above, the rules do not tell us otherwise so everyone must be using the mention of ‘normal assault movement’ as permission to pull any assault rule they want. If you take one as true you must take the other as true.

Sorry but claiming that all shooting rules would apply to vehicle assaults is a straw man. As I stated before the rule is clear in it's context.

 

But all this hinges on the core differences on the issue. I say p63 tells us how to assault vehicles. Others say they are just modifications to the normal assault rules. I say no, because we are not told to treat them the same, to follow the same rules. Others say yes, because that is the way it has always been done. Never mind that others cannot quote a rule to back that up.

This is totally untrue, Legatus alone has given several rules quotes, each one backing his argument very well.

 

P63 is my quote to back up my view. When we need to know how to assault a vehicle we do not go to the assault chapter, we turn to p63 and do as told. On p63 I still do not see a line that tells me to turn to the assault chapter and follow those rules referring to p63 as needed. In fact I see the exact opposite, I see p63 telling us to refer to specific rules in the assault chapter. Not all of the assault rules, but specific sections of the assault rules.

 

As for the various examples used to discount my view, do what most people do look in the index for the rule. I need to know how many attacks I get in close combat. OK, look in the index….ah, Attacks (A) p6. That section tells me…..the Attacks (A) paragraph tells me: “ This characteristic indicates the number of dice a model rolls when fighting in close combat.” I need to know haw a PFist works. Ok, look in the index…crazy, Power Fists are on page 42.

Now you are contradicting yourself again.

You claim the vehicle assault are complete but when pressed for answers that are not in that section you go to the 'index' which of course leads you to the 'normal' assault rules ( BTW for the number of attacks you would need to go to page 37 to get the full rules)

 

Do I use initiative in close combat with a vehicle? Ok, Initiative…p6. I see, “In close combat, faster creatures gain a massive advantage over slower ones because they get to strike first.” I see two problems. One is references creature vs. creature, not creature vs. vehicle. A creature does no strike first against a vehicle, as the vehicle does not strike back. We do not use I, just like we do not use WS in assault against a vehicle.

A vehicle doesn't have an Int. score, but the attackers do. Here is where your logic fails , BRB pg 36. "Models make their attack when their Initiative value is reached...." You don't have a specific rule in the vehicle section to over turn this general rule. The 'Who Strikes First' section of the normal assault comes before 'Assaulting though Cover' and '# of attacks' which is still before the first section of the rules that makes a change "Rolling to Hit"

 

Legatus, the justification for an interpretation cannot be because it will have a different result than another interpretation. And that is what your ‘attack order matters’ point is made of. The results differ if you do it one way or the other, so we will do it this way. This begs the question what tells us that we order assaults against vehicles? The section sure doesn’t. I see a bunch of stuff about creatures and agility. I see no mention of vehicles or how a model with an initiative charactistic interacts with a model without an initiative characteristic. But on p63 I do see an example of how model with a characteristic and a model without that characteristic interact, GW made a special rule for it. That would be the 'to hit' table for assaults against vehicles.

Those rules do replace a section of the normal assault rules ie 'rolling to hit' It has nothing to say about when the attackers strike.