Declaring Assaults

[BigDunc]

We're at the game store. I shoot and do not kill one of your units 10" away. We get to the assault phase. I declare an assault against the same unit which is still alive. Is this illegal? Do the rules keep me from declaring this assault?

 

 

This time I shoot and kill one of your units within 5". We get to the assault phase. I declare an assault against the same unit which is now dead. Is this illegal? Do the rules keep me from declaring this assault?

 

 

 

Any takers?

[Gurth]

In case #1, you can declare an assault all you like, but your models won't move: "if you misjudge the distance and the unit is unable to reach its target, then the unit does not move and that assault is ignored" (p. 33, WH40K rulebook 5th edition). Your trick would have worked in third edition, under RAW anyway :ermm:

 

In case #2, there is no unit to declare an assault against, and on that same page 33 of the rulebook, in the summary it says:

1. Move assault units
   
   • Pick a unit.
     
   • Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault.
     

which seems to rule out declaring assaults against a unit that is dead, because you obviously can't choose a unit that is not on the table.

[LPetersson]

1) You can declare assault, but unless you can assault more than the standard 6" then the assault will fail.

 

2) You can't assault a unit that's no longer there, so no, you can't assault in that case. The only exception AFAIK being if you shot and killed a transport and then assault the unit inside.

[maturin]

Is there a purpose to these interesting, if seemingly irrelevant, conjectures?

[BigDunc]

There is, but I need to rewrite what I'm asking to be more specific.

[BigDunc]

My purpose here is to make the distinction between having the potential to declare an assault and declaring an assault.

 

 

(1) A unit can declare a charge. (2) A unit declares a charge. These sentences propose different truths. One can be true while the other false. A unit can declare a charge but not do so. Also, (2) requires (1) to be true, but (1) does not require (2) to be true. Declaring a charge requires an enemy unit. Since there is not a unit to declare a charge against the assault doesn't happen when the shooting target is destroyed. BUT, since (1) doesn't require (2), the potential ("can") to declare a charge does not require an enemy unit.

 

Here's an anology. You're at work. 'You can go to lunch' and 'You go to lunch'. Again, two different propositions. One can be true while the other is false. I can go to lunch but instead I'm working. Now apply the clause when a unit is destroyed. The boss says I can only eat at Taco Bell, but the 'meat' created a singularity and destroyed the only Taco Bell in town. Since the Taco Bell doesn't exist I can't eat lunch, but since having the potential to go to lunch doesn't require going to lunch, it also doesn't require Taco Bell.

 

 

So in the second example above, I agree that you cannot declare the assault against the dead unit... but do you have the potential to declare an assault against the dead unit?

[BearersOfSalvation]

Is there a purpose to these interesting, if seemingly irrelevant, conjectures?

 

I'm guessing he wants to multi-assualt other stuff nearby - if you can successfully assault the unit that you shot at with even a single model, then the rest of the unit can assault into anything else nearby. So in the 5" case you can't declare a charge at all because your only valid target no longer exists. But if you declare an assault on the guys 10" away (presuming you have the normal 6" charge range), you can't multi-assault anything else nearer to you, because the first guy you move has to make it to your target unit or the charge fails and you just sit in place.

 

EDIT: To whatever you're asking, it would really help if you came out and explained what you're really trying to do instead of dancing around being cagey about the real question. Either you're on some weird philosophical tangent (answer is 'yes, they have the potential of declaring a charge but not of making a charge if the unit exists'), or you're asking about a specific special rule that might have errata or different wording than your paraphrase.

 

EDIT 2: Misread the 5" case originally.

[Legatus]

The boss says I can only eat at Taco Bell, but the 'meat' created a singularity and destroyed the only Taco Bell in town. Since the Taco Bell doesn't exist I can't eat lunch, but since having the potential to go to lunch doesn't require going to lunch, it also doesn't require Taco Bell.

You are only able to go to lunch to Taco Bell. There is no Taco Bell. ==> Therefor you are not able to go to lunch.

 

 

So in the second example above, I agree that you cannot declare the assault against the dead unit... but do you have the potential to declare an assault against the dead unit?

No.

 

You examples are off. You are talking about "being able to do something" and "actually doing something". But in this 40K example the two things you describe are pretty much the same thing. The unit would only be allowed to assault (and declare an assault against) the target it fired at. Since that unit is not available anymore, the unit cannot declare an assault. "cannot" pretty much means "does not have the potential". Note that the unit is not "not declaring an assault", it is "not able to declare an assault". They are not simply "not doing something", as you described in your example, they are "not able to do something".

 

The unit is only allowed to assault the unit it shot at. The unit it shot at is gone. ==> Therefor the unit cannot assault, and cannot legally declare an assault.

[BlkTom]

The boss says I can only eat at Taco Bell, but the 'meat' created a singularity and destroyed the only Taco Bell in town. Since the Taco Bell doesn't exist I can't eat lunch, but since having the potential to go to lunch doesn't require going to lunch, it also doesn't require Taco Bell.

You are only able to go to lunch to Taco Bell. There is no Taco Bell. ==> Therefor you are not able to go to lunch.

 

 

So in the second example above, I agree that you cannot declare the assault against the dead unit... but do you have the potential to declare an assault against the dead unit?

No.

 

You examples are off. You are talking about "being able to do something" and "actually doing something". But in this 40K example the two things you describe are pretty much the same thing. The unit would only be allowed to assault (and declare an assault against) the target it fired at. Since that unit is not available anymore, the unit cannot declare an assault. "cannot" pretty much means "does not have the potential". Note that the unit is not "not declaring an assault", it is "not able to declare an assault". They are not simply "not doing something", as you described in your example, they are "not able to do something".

 

The unit is only allowed to assault the unit it shot at. The unit it shot at is gone. ==> Therefor the unit cannot assault, and cannot legally declare an assault.

 

 

Correct. This is to prevent you from 'cheating' and getting free movement. Thus why if your further than 6" away (12" for Cav) from Charge range, you do not move at all. Your also not allowed to pre-measure, though if your able to shoot, you can technically measure it so you can make sure your within charge range. Though if your opponet is clever, they take any kills off of the front rank. The only rule exception for shooting at a target, killing it, and still charging is a transport (that is activily carry troops). If it is destroyed and deploys troops, you can now charge the troops deployed, even though you fired on the transport. You can't charge if you run either, but if you have Fleet you can still charge.

 

This is a pretty black and white rule, so I kinda fail to see the need for ambiguity.

[BigDunc]

The dancing around is necessary because 40k players tend to be very dogmatic and often deny a conclusion without looking at the premises.

 

 

You examples are off. You are talking about "being able to do something" and "actually doing something". But in this 40K example the two things you describe are pretty much the same thing. The unit would only be allowed to assault (and declare an assault against) the target it fired at. Since that unit is not available anymore, the unit cannot declare an assault. "cannot" pretty much means "does not have the potential". Note that the unit is not "not declaring an assault", it is "not able to declare an assault". They are not simply "not doing something", as you described in your example, they are "not able to do something".

 

The unit is only allowed to assault the unit it shot at. The unit it shot at is gone. ==> Therefor the unit cannot assault, and cannot legally declare an assault.

This is a very good response, Legatus, thank you.

 

I don't think it follows that if you cannot assault that you cannot declare an assault. For example, when a unit is out of assault range you cannot assault but that doesn't mean you can't declare the assault in the first place. When exactly do you check for the enemy unit? Is it not when you declare the assault? "I'm assaulting that unit". If the unit doesn't exist it's during this actual declaration that you determine whether you can assault or not. The fact that we can see there isn't a unit there doesn't mean we ignore the timing of the process. To go back in time and say that you now don't have the ability to even declare an assault in the first place seems kind of contradictory. You have to have the ability to declare the assault before you declare an assault against an enemy unit.

 

I acknowledge that this is probably overly technical, but does it make sense?

[Leonaides]

Not really. Technically, I suppose you can declare an assault with any unit that hasnt fired a heavy or rapid fire weapon, whether or not it actually has an enemy unit within range. However, declaring an assault, wasting the time measuring (and if you did it to me I would absolutely make you measure that range), me saying "No, you are out of range", moving on to the next unit and testing again will annoy me, annoy you, waste time and make you look liek a fool. It will also nicely pre-measure just about any range I might be interested in knowing for my next phase. Still want to try it?

[SeattleDV8]

Again BRB pg.33 "Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault."

If there is no unit, you may not declare an assault against it.

[maturin]

I don't think the rules are written to cover existential quandries like this one.

 

Can you declare a charge against a unit that does not exist? I don't know - but if you ponder that, then you must also ponder if you could declare a charge against any unit that has ever, or never existed - in your game, or in any potential game of Warhammer 40k. Can you declare a charge against a unit that once existed in a previous game on your table, perhaps 3 editions ago? Can you declare a charge against a point in space that perhaps was once occupied by a unit?

 

B)

[Legatus]

I don't think it follows that if you cannot assault that you cannot declare an assault. For example, when a unit is out of assault range you cannot assault but that doesn't mean you can't declare the assault in the first place. When exactly do you check for the enemy unit? Is it not when you declare the assault? "I'm assaulting that unit". If the unit doesn't exist it's during this actual declaration that you determine whether you can assault or not. The fact that we can see there isn't a unit there doesn't mean we ignore the timing of the process. To go back in time and say that you now don't have the ability to even declare an assault in the first place seems kind of contradictory. You have to have the ability to declare the assault before you declare an assault against an enemy unit.

A unit that is simply out of range of suitable targets can still "generally" perform and declare assaults. You are not allowed to measure before declaring the assault, so the unit can declare an assault even if it is obvious to the players that it is not within range. If the unit is not within range, then the assault is not successful and the unit is ignored.

 

However, there are certain circumstances that can "generally" deny a unit the ability to even assault at all.

 

As described on page 33, a unit is not allowed to assault if:

 

- it is already locked in combat

- it ran in the shooting phase

- it has gone to ground

- it has fired rapid fire weapons or heavy weapons in the shooting phase

- it is falling back

plus if it has fired in the shooting phase it can only assault the unit it shot at.

 

All of those restrictions are already in place at the beginning of the Assault Phase. There is no ambiguity as to whether or not the unit "might" be able to assault this turn. If any of the above restrictions are given (and no exception like "relentless" applies), then the unit cannot assault this turn.

 

E.g. a unit that has gone to ground, but right next to them is an enemy unit. The unit obviously cannot assault, nor can the player declare that the unit is assaulting. Or a tactical squad that has rapid fired it's boltguns in the previous shooting phase. In the following Assault Phase the owning player cannot declare that they are assaulting anyone.

 

In case of a shooting target that is no longer on the table, it will most likely already be gone at the start of the Assault Phase (I cannot think of any effects that would remove models at the beginning of the assault phase or after assaults have been declared off the top of my head), so the unit that had just fired is now not allowed to assault any of the units on the board. The player cannot declare that they are assaulting any of the available units.

[BigDunc]

Again BRB pg.33 "Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault."

If there is no unit, you may not declare an assault against it.

Isn't "declare which enemy unit...." the declaration? The previous step is "pick a [friendly] unit" and the next step is going to be "move the assaulting unit" so they BRB quote must be the declaration. If I've declared an assault that presupposes having the ability to declare an assault. This presupposition is not effected by the existence of a unit.

 

 

Not really. Technically, I suppose you can declare an assault with any unit that hasnt fired a heavy or rapid fire weapon, whether or not it actually has an enemy unit within range. However, declaring an assault, wasting the time measuring (and if you did it to me I would absolutely make you measure that range), me saying "No, you are out of range", moving on to the next unit and testing again will annoy me, annoy you, waste time and make you look liek a fool. It will also nicely pre-measure just about any range I might be interested in knowing for my next phase. Still want to try it?

Technically ok, but weird, right? Imagine if the scenario I'm suggesting actually happened. My opponent shot and killed one of my units 1" away without using rapid fire or heavy weapons. During the assault phase he declares an assault against the dead unit and measures out 1". The measuring can get a little shady, but otherwise do you say "you can't do that, it's illegal"? Or you do think in your head, "well, he used only pistols and assault weapons so he can declare an assault, but since my unit isn't there anymore he automatically fails." I think most of us would shrug and say, "Ok... aaaand your assault fails".

 

 

@Legatus- The bullets work differently than the "In addition..." clause. The bullets take away your ability to declare an assault while the clause limits who you can declare against, but does not take away your ability to declare. If my shooting target dies I still have the ability to declare an assault but it's pointless since declaring against that target automatically fails and I can't assault other units, so declaring against them is pointless.

 

 

Can you declare a charge against a unit that does not exist? I don't know - but if you ponder that, then you must also ponder if you could declare a charge against any unit that has ever, or never existed - in your game, or in any potential game of Warhammer 40k. Can you declare a charge against a unit that once existed in a previous game on your table, perhaps 3 editions ago? Can you declare a charge against a point in space that perhaps was once occupied by a unit?

You could think about and discuss such things, but none of those things are relevant to our situation. OTOH, a very recently deceased unit that is still effecting the assault capabilities of the unit that killed it is relevant, even if it is not on the table.

[Grey Mage]

Again BRB pg.33 "Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault."

If there is no unit, you may not declare an assault against it.

Isn't "declare which enemy unit...." the declaration? The previous step is "pick a [friendly] unit" and the next step is going to be "move the assaulting unit" so they BRB quote must be the declaration. If I've declared an assault that presupposes having the ability to declare an assault. This presupposition is not effected by the existence of a unit.

You cant declare it on something that doesnt exist. If the unit is destroyed, it no longer exists.

 

As for declaring an assault on a unit you obviously cannot reach- yes, it can be done. The only reason Ive ever seen it done however was so the person could get a free measurement to an enemy unit, and it resulted in a stern talk from the TO about shenanigans and honorable play.

 

Technically ok, but weird, right? Imagine if the scenario I'm suggesting actually happened. My opponent shot and killed one of my units 1" away without using rapid fire or heavy weapons. During the assault phase he declares an assault against the dead unit and measures out 1". The measuring can get a little shady, but otherwise do you say "you can't do that, it's illegal"? Or you do think in your head, "well, he used only pistols and assault weapons so he can declare an assault, but since my unit isn't there anymore he automatically fails." I think most of us would shrug and say, "Ok... aaaand your assault fails".

 

You cannot declare an assault at an open patch of ground- you have to be able to identify a unit in play. There are no rules provided for attempting to assault the dead, nor are there rules for attempting to assault a model in a different game or on a display case.

[Wildfire]

To whatever you're asking, it would really help if you came out and explained what you're really trying to do instead of dancing around being cagey about the real question.

 

^This. The feeling I'm getting from your posts is the same one I get when the kids try to trick me into allowing something that their mother has already said no to. Lucky for you I can't ground you.

[maturin]

OTOH, a very recently deceased unit that is still effecting the assault capabilities of the unit that killed it is relevant, even if it is not on the table.

 

 

Methinks perhaps we are getting closer to the crux of BigDunc's existential shenanigans here...?

 

Grey Mage has it. Declaring which unit you're assaulting is an integral part of your declaration. (Are we getting into tautologies here?)

 

 

BigDunc - I can't make a judgement as to what is relevant or not, since we don't know the point of this mental....foreplay. In any of the cases you've provided, the end result is still the same. Your unit can't do anything useful in the assault phase. It's up to you to disprove the status quo.

[BigDunc]

Here's the point.

 

Black Templar's Accept Any Challenge vow:

"Any unit that can declare a charge (ie, has not fired rapid fire or heavy weapons) must do so if they are in range of an enemy unit at the start of their assault phase."

 

The only requirement to 'trigger' AAC is that a unit be able to declare a charge.

 

When the target of shooting dies, does the target take with it to the grave the ability of the shooting unit to declare an assault? I don't think that it does. It only takes away the ability to execute an assault. The shooting unit retains the ability to declare an assault which triggers AAC, which must now be fulfilled. AAC requires an assault be carried about against any enemy unit within range. If such an enemy unit exists, AAC and the pg33 clause are in conflict and both cannot be satisfied.

 

Thus far we have only talked about a dead enemy unit, the more difficult situation. What about an enemy unit that is obviously out of assault range? In this situation, as Grey Mage stated, the unit is able to declare an assault. Having the ability to declare an assault triggers AAC and with a non-target enemy within range again creates a conflict between the limitations of the clause and the requirements of AAC.

 

In conflicts between the general rules of the BRB and specific rules within Codices, Codices take precedence.

 

If the Codex takes precedence, in both situations, then units effected by AAC can, and in fact must, assault an enemy unit within assault range even if that unit was not their shooting target.

[Grey Mage]

The reason they do not declare an assault is because they cannot. Why? Because they shot at a different target and thus can only assault that target. Note that the rule says they must declare a charge, not that they must actually assault the unit.

 

Declaring usually leads directly to assaulting- word=deed- but since you cannot legally declare -and the rule shows it must be legal- you cannot assault.

 

Edit: In fact, if you wanted to be a rules-lawyer about it and really really get down to the nitty-gritty wed have to notice that it says 'declare a charge'. There are no charges in 40k, only assaults, and thus the rule as a whole fails.

[Wildfire]

There is no conflict, because a charge must be declared on the unit fired at.

 

Edit: Ninja'd

[BigDunc]

The reason they do not declare an assault is because they cannot. Why? Because they shot at a different target and thus can only assault that target. Note that the rule says they must declare a charge, not that they must actually assault the unit.

You are correct.

 

Damn, I've been thinking about this topic all day and it just clicked that I'm misunderstanding AAC!

 

AAC in a conditional format reads: IF a unit can declare a charge AND it is within assault range of an enemy unit THEN it must declare a charge.

 

In the case of the shooting target being alive but outside of assault range, AAC and the clause can be satisfied by declare a charge, even if that assault is out of range.

 

In the case of the shooting target being dead, IF the shooting unit retains the ability to declare an assault then there might still be a conflict. Edit: If you can declare a charge but can't declare a charge against the dead unit, you have to declare a charge against a living unit within assault range that was not the target of shooting. IF the unit retained the ability to declare an assault....

 

 

Declaring usually leads directly to assaulting- word=deed- but since you cannot legally declare -and the rule shows it must be legal- you cannot assault.

Usually, but not always, leads directly to assaulting. "Legally" declaring is based on which rule takes precedence. If AAC takes precedence then it's not an illegal declaration.

 

 

Edit: In fact, if you wanted to be a rules-lawyer about it and really really get down to the nitty-gritty wed have to notice that it says 'declare a charge'. There are no charges in 40k, only assaults, and thus the rule as a whole fails.

Wow.

[Grey Mage]

No there isnt- because even if the unit is dead you still shot at it and its thus the only target you could have assaulted- and since its off the board theres no way you can get to it. Because the BRB FAQ says so.

 

And it has to be a legal declaration- AAC says thats the case. So it doesnt override the BRB despite being a codex rule.

 

Edit: In fact, if you wanted to be a rules-lawyer about it and really really get down to the nitty-gritty wed have to notice that it says 'declare a charge'. There are no charges in 40k, only assaults, and thus the rule as a whole fails.

Wow.

Ive had to bring this up a couple times when people were harping on how the BT didnt have assault vehicles and thus couldnt assault out of their landraiders- and then would try to kite them into dreadnaughts they couldnt kill.

[BigDunc]

No there isnt- because even if the unit is dead you still shot at it and its thus the only target you could have assaulted- and since its off the board theres no way you can get to it. Because the BRB FAQ says so.

 

And it has to be a legal declaration- AAC says thats the case. So it doesnt override the BRB despite being a codex rule.

I edited a bit more into my above post regarding this as you were posting.

 

 

All in all, I think the distinction between having the ability to declare an assault and declaring an assault is valid, but it doesn't have the strength or clarity to get much done by itself.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I think you, Big Dunc, and Algesan seriously over-think the rules.

 

You are looking for revelation from something that just isn't revelatory. They are just rules, and not even that great, from a company that is inconsistent and somewhat lazy in their rules approach. GW cannot even act like an adult about things getting FAQed.

eg. A rules doesn't work, so people ask about it. GW takes ages to put forth some kind of a solution, which is the FAQ. But instead of acknowledging they dropped the ball on said rule, they pretend it never really needed fixing in the first place.

*airy fairy voice* "yeah, oh, well, these are the house rules we like to play with and, you know, if you want to play with them, you know, too, that would be cool, as long as you and your mates are all, you know, happy to play by them, yeah."

 

I think you knew, just as I did, within 10 seconds of thinking about AAC 'must assault'. In fact, you did:

The Wave Serpent cannot be assaulted just because the Fire Dragons were wiped out. If you cannot assault the WS then AAC doesn't apply.

 

and in the end, you've come to the same conclusion that you and I already know.

I don't understand why you are going through these mental gymnastics? The profoundness you are looking for just doesn't exist.

 

You and Algesan have great things to say on Tactics and Lists, but you seem to get a bit weird over rules. I've left rules debates because of people trying to get all zen on GWs ruleset.

 

Now I'm not trying to run you down, and if my post has offended you, I do apologise. That is not my goal. It is just a post from a concerned brother.

I do think you and Algesan are not doing yourselves any favours in micro-scoping these things.

Its like zooming in on a low mega pixel picture - it just doesn't work. There is no secret recipe.

 

That is my opinion, anyway. *shrugs*