Blood Talons attack allocation problem.

[DokSnyder]

Hi there,

 

I was at a tournament last week. In one of the games I had the following problem:

My Furioso with Blood Talons charged a Necron Lord + a unit of Destroyers. Since I had the higher Ini (FC) I attacked first and chose to attack the Destroyers with all my attacks. I killed them off, gaining 2 attacks. The plan was to attacks the Necron Lord now, using the (hopefully) remaining attacks. My opponent then argued that, since I didn't attack the Lord in first place, and he being an independent character, the remaining attacks would be lost.

I reread the entry for the Blood Talons, where it says that he will attack until no enemies are left in CC or he runs out of attacks. But I couldn't find anything to support either theory and hence chose to avoid the conflict.

(He killed my Furioso afterwards with his Lord)

 

What do you guys think? How is it played?

 

-Dok

[daboarder]

yep you can't attack the lord.

However that lord is now on the receiving end of a very nasty CC loss.

[DokSnyder]

Good thing we played it right then. ;)

Sadly, he killed my Furioso with 2 penetrating attacks, so he wasn't losing the CC.

[daboarder]

oh.....ouch

[Morticon]

Had this same problem with my mate playing BA.

 

However, came to a different conclusion.

 

 

If you read the talons rules:

 

"..for every unsaved wound caused with a blood talon in CC, the dreadnought immediately makes an additional attack".

 

Combat rules pg: 49:

 

"when the attacks are resolved, independent characters are always treated as a separate single unit”

"when the attacks are resolved'

 

As a result, it looks like you can move on to multiple squads/units.

[Whitefireinferno]

I agree wit h Morticon I reckon they would flow over but yeah.

[daboarder]

I would love them to flow over but too me it just seems wrong, there are very few benefits to being an IC and the overkill drawback seen here is probably one of the few.

[Morticon]

I would love them to flow over but too me it just seems wrong...

 

 

Agreed. I was on the receiving end of this in our game, and I did try to argue that - but it did seem that his argument was stronger than anything else I could put up.

 

Any counter thoughts to this gents?

 

Theres nothing worse than being accused of trying to squeeze more power from a solid dex (and its bound to happen).

 

And once again, id rather be correct rather than better/worse off.

[Hurrey]

I could be wrong here but when assaulting a unit with an IC attached you can only attack the IC if you are in base to base with the model itself?

If a taloned furioso had left over attacks after wiping a unit and therefore was left out of base to base with the IC his attacks would not carry over. I have never played in a Games workshop or at a tournament though, so interpretations of mine are just that, interpretations.

 

We tend to play it differently for the sake of speed and treat ICs as part of the unit for assault purposes. So as my nid nemesis and I play the attacks would have carried over however like I say we cut a corner or two due to the fact we only have a couple of hours from set up to pack up normally.

 

 

Doksnyder did'nt state wether he was in base to base with the lord which prompted this little train of thought for me. Feel free to derail me as I have not been in the hobby as long as most ^^

 

Regards

 

H

[Morticon]

I could be wrong here but when assaulting a unit with an IC attached you can only attack the IC if you are in base to base with the model itself?

H

 

100% right Hurrey - this is assuming the IC is in BtB contact too!

[JamesI]

Assuming the IC is in base to base, the dread can allocate extra attack to him. Nothing says each attack must swing at the same target as the original, and when an attack is made you can allocate what target you want to hit if engaged with more than one.

 

I've lost several ICs to that.

[Isryion]

Assuming the IC is in base to base, the dread can allocate extra attack to him. Nothing says each attack must swing at the same target as the original, and when an attack is made you can allocate what target you want to hit if engaged with more than one.

 

I've lost several ICs to that.

 

 

I agree with James on this. My opponent and I played it this way in my last game. Ask yourself this question, too, since IC act like separate units. If a talon dread found itself in contact with two units would he only be able to attack one? No. See p. 41 of the BRB. All that it says is that you have to allocate your attacks before rolling to hit. How would you be able to allocate attacks before knowing how many you have? The Blood Talon rules don't contradict this, which I think they would have to do in order to limit the follow-up attacks to a single unit.

 

For those who argue you can't do this, why not just allocate one attack each round to the character? That should settle the issue.

 

EDIT: In fact, after checking the Blood Talon rules, the last line is pretty clear. It says that it generates additional attacks "until no further unsaved wounds are caused, or all the enemy are slain." It doesn't mention anything about the unit, the original target, or any other such limitation.

[mysteriousmaskedmystery]

the point of allocating your attacks to the squad first is that they will be more likely to succeed and that will give you more attacks in the end.

 

i just don't see how you are limited. it doesn't have anything in it saying that you are. it says, "...until all the enemy are slain." in lieu of more specific guidance i'd say that means what it says, "all the enemy," in base to base contact.

[Volcatus]

Assuming the IC is in base to base, the dread can allocate extra attack to him. Nothing says each attack must swing at the same target as the original, and when an attack is made you can allocate what target you want to hit if engaged with more than one.

 

I've lost several ICs to that.

 

 

I agree with James on this. My opponent and I played it this way in my last game. Ask yourself this question, too, since IC act like separate units. If a talon dread found itself in contact with two units would he only be able to attack one? No. See p. 41 of the BRB. All that it says is that you have to allocate your attacks before rolling to hit. How would you be able to allocate attacks before knowing how many you have? The Blood Talon rules don't contradict this, which I think they would have to do in order to limit the follow-up attacks to a single unit.

 

For those who argue you can't do this, why not just allocate one attack each round to the character? That should settle the issue.

 

EDIT: In fact, after checking the Blood Talon rules, the last line is pretty clear. It says that it generates additional attacks "until no further unsaved wounds are caused, or all the enemy are slain." It doesn't mention anything about the unit, the original target, or any other such limitation.

 

This is the crux. Pg. 41 clearly states that models engaged with multiple units at the start of a combat may "split their attacks freely between those units." A key word here is "model". It doesn't specify unit, squad, or anything else. A single model can split its attacks across multiple units that it was engaged with at the start of a CC.

[Eberious]

I would have to say yes, attacks will carry on as it very clearly states the rules, as already mentioned in above posts. The only way I could see it not counting towards a IC is if the IC wasnt in base contact. But as both IC and at least 1 member of the other unit were in B2B then attacks against any unit in B2B

 

Edit, my mates sayingthat as you choose to attack the destroyers and not the lord then you cant carry over the attacks. which I disagree with. But'll I'll be asking a GW member soon to see if he can clear it up.

[daboarder]

OH GOODY another thing I missed in the 5th upgrade. I was unsure if it was still possible to split attacks between IC's and other squads like it used to be in 3rd. With this in mind then yes I believe that the lord would be able to be allocated the wounds (providing B2B contact and what not.)

[SamaNagol]

While the logic is sound, I can imagine already the looks I will get from people when I explain this line of reasoning to them. haha

[Isryion]

While the logic is sound, I can imagine already the looks I will get from people when I explain this line of reasoning to them. haha

 

 

Which is why I would say that if there's a concern about it, you could always put one attack on the IC as a compromise. Bear in mind I think the rules are clear, but the BT generate quite a bit of angst already. It might open up new issues, like what if that attack fails? And, as mentioned, it's not optimal.

[Cargaden]

I think the attacks would carry over however you want them as long as the targets are legal. I don't think this should be an issue, as you can't designate targets for attacks you don't have yet. Once you get those attacks, which are immediate, you then designate the target. My take on it is that the extra attacks happen basically at the same point that you nominate where your attacks are going, as the talons grant immediate extra attacks. One of my first battles with twin blood claws, my dread came up against astorath and an honour guard...I put 1 attack on astorath(to prevent such an argument), and the rest on the squad. for every batch of hits against the honour guard, I put one more attack on astorath. Doing it this way seems to stop arguments, but I see no real reason why this needs to be done.

[SamaNagol]

So by this logic..... you can charge a unit with a DC Dread, take your attacks against the unit. Get X number of wounds, and then resolve that first set of bonus attacks against whoever you wish, ie: the IC who is in the unit who has to react and move into b2b if possible.

[Eberious]

So by this logic..... you can charge a unit with a DC Dread, take your attacks against the unit. Get X number of wounds, and then resolve that first set of bonus attacks against whoever you wish, ie: the IC who is in the unit who has to react and move into b2b if possible.

 

No, I would say the IC would have to be in b2b to begin with.

[Cargaden]

Well...yes. As the combat is not resolved yet, and you have attacks yet to be ditributed, the IC, as long as he is in B2B, is a viable target. whether you target him with your initial attacks and use the followup on the squad, or vice versa. There are still unresolved attacks and viable targets to recieve them. That, however, is my opinion. As I stated earlier, I still nominate attacks directly to the IC to avoid any such arguments while playing, and I feel that this is definately something that needs further clarification by GW.

[SamaNagol]

In my model, the IC is in base to base. He reacts to the charge first and moves into b2b, as per the rules of Assault.

[Isryion]

So by this logic..... you can charge a unit with a DC Dread, take your attacks against the unit. Get X number of wounds, and then resolve that first set of bonus attacks against whoever you wish, ie: the IC who is in the unit who has to react and move into b2b if possible.

 

Without a doubt. I'm not sure what you mean by "by this logic" but I think the rules pretty clearly allow it.

[SamaNagol]

I wasnt trying to contradict it, just taking it to it's logical progression.

 

I think opponents would think I was trying to gain an unfair advantage if I played it that way, even if it is, and I agree, RAW.