Declaring Assaults

[SeattleDV8]

Ding ,ding ding....we have a winner!!

 

Well stated Marshal Wilhelm.

[Spacefrisian]

Question to the original poster.

 

Do you play Fantasy?

[BigDunc]

On occasion, I do over think the rules. It's an enjoyable and educational process for me. And there is no harm in doing this on a forum. That's what forums are designed to do, discuss things. Were this during game play it would be a bigger problem, even for a pick up game. But that's not the case.

 

 

And to note, this:

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

 

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.

...and this:

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.

....are me conceding that I'm wrong.

 

 

So, yes.... considering I conceded and there isn't any harm in exploring rules... it does feel a little like I'm being kicked while I'm on the ground, MW.

 

 

No, I do not play fantasy.

[Ming]

Me thinks BigDunc was trying to wheedle himself out of having to assault things he is close enough to assault. The BT special rule (vow?) is to get the BTs to act all "assaulty" on their opponents. They have all sorts of quirks and special rules to get them closer to the assault (would some and they run at you!).

 

Say he is 10 inches from a enemy landraider, and 6 inches from an enemy assault terminator squad...the vow causes several choices:

 

1. He could shoot the terminators with pistols and then charge them (would have to under the vow),

2. He could rapid fire bolters at the terminators and then not be able to assault them

3. he could pistol or bolter the landraider, and then because he shot it, not be forced to assault the terminators

4. Or, if he did not shoot anything, the vow compels him to assault the terminators no matter what.

 

Say there is an enemy scout unit 5 inches away, and terminators 6 inches away. He shoots the scouts (as his choice) and wipes them out. Now he does not have to charge anything (maybe he thought he still had to choose something to assault). Rules say if you shoot it, it becomes the primary object of your assault, subject to rapid fire rules that may make non-relentless units unable to assault.

 

Sounds like it was some kind of rules discussion in a recent game he had...

[BlkTom]

I just wish you would have come straight out to the point of this question, as everything before your direct question about ACC feels like a waste of time. I am glad you got your answer.

[Algesan]

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

 

Amen Brother! Preach it! That is the truth, I've even watched them dogmatically assert 4th edition rules that were clearly changed by 5th edition. My guess is that they got in a hurry to play, didn't want to take the time and effort to double check rules they "knew" and stuff gets ingrained. Then "everybody knows that" and we're off to the races.

 

Thanks for starting this thread BTW, the replies are telling. Oh, BTW, BigDunc is not some kind of shill for me, he actually opposes the position I'm defending, it is just that he is actually thinking about the matter and approaching it logically instead of knee-jerking from a "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts" attitude.

 

The unit is only allowed to assault the unit it shot at. The unit it shot at is gone.

 

How does one declare a charge on a unit that isn't there? This is the first step in the process. Declare the assault. You must declare it against a unit on the board. Thanks.

 

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.

 

Again, you must take the first step of declaring a charge against a unit on the board.

 

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?

 

:)

 

LOL! However, the point made, yet again, you must first declare a charge against a unit that is on the board and, as this poster so clearly puts it, it must be on the board now.

 

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.

 

Let me write what is actually being assumed here from the commentary that followed it:

- 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

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

 

To be precise, you read the rules like a checklist, not wave your hands around claiming that everything applies all at once. This is under the section DECLARE ASSAULTS with a subsection of Disallowed Assaults.

 

Correct, we can short cut them to speed up games (by not declaring assaults with units that won't work), but they still work in order, just like they read if we actually do declare an assault as we are entitled to do according to the rules.

 

BTW, I'm going to use pizza instead of mexican for my example:

 

You may only go to lunch if you eat pizza.

 

Disallowed Lunches

- You must not have the pizza delivered.

- You must not pick up carry out pizza.

- You must not get pizza buffet.

- You may not have a drink if you do not order pizza.

- You must be back at work within one hour.

In addition to the above, if there is a Pizza Hut within 10 miles then you must go to Pizza Hut - you may not go to another pizza place if there is a Pizza Hut within 10 miles.

 

So, when the only Pizza Hut within 10 miles away burns down, nobody gets lunch anymore according to the reasoning being used in the common interpretation, no matter how many pizza places are available that fit all of the other conditions. Despite the fact that if there never was a Pizza Hut within 10 miles any other pizza place would do. Suddenly destroyed Pizza Hut within 10 miles = nobody gets lunch.

 

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.

 

"most likely already be gone", heh, if it was killed in the Shooting phase it is gone. Even Necrons waiting for WBB would be considered gone.

 

That is not how the rules read, they say Pick a unit, Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault. Even if I am 100% totally wrong and you are 100% totally right, the assault can still be declared. You are putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

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

 

Again, give another poster a cigar, you cannot declare an assault on something that isn't there.

 

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.

 

Actually, I would have had the attitude of the poster above, I'd make you take the first step and measure the distance careful so I could get my marks for my upcoming turn. There is no rule against declaring a assault against something 5000" away, it would simply fail to assault. There is no rule against declaring an assault while falling back, it would simply fail to assault.

 

Well, unless you use the common interpretation with the exemption for transports with passengers. Then if the falling back unit killed the vehicle and it was within assault range it could assault the passengers. Like how that works when you break the rule sequence?

 

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.

 

<wild cheering> How much clearer can they make it? The only units you can declare an assault on are the ones in play. The most telling question against the common interpretation is "Where is the unit that was shot at?" Poster after poster after poster have stated that a unit not on the board doesn't count.

 

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.

 

Actually, you can always declare as long as it is an enemy unit on the board. As has been so abundantly proven, the unit must be on the board before you can declare an assault.

 

I can think of two situations off the top of my head that immediately disprove this claim that it must be "legal" before you can declare it.

1. Neither player is able to determine by eye if the unit declaring the assault is or is not in assault movement range of the unit to be assaulted. Declare, oops, measured 6.0000001" away, it is illegal, you cannot assault.

2. When it is obvious to both players that the two units involved (declarer and declaree) are within 6" of each other, but there is a difficult terrain test to be rolled for. If the die doesn't roll big enough, then it is illegal and you cannot assault.

 

So, declaring the assault is the first step, then you start finding out if you can actually perform the assault.

 

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

 

Which has been shown multiple times is already off the board so an assault cannot be declared against it. So if you wish to declare an assault, you must declare it at a unit on the board. Then and only then do we get to the point of checking to see if the assault is allowed or disallowed.

 

Cart before horse.

 

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've heard that a few times, but cannot seem to find what is meant. So help me out here. This FAQ? The most current one on the GW website for the BRB?

 

Is it this one?

Q: Can models move off the table? (p11)

A: Not unless a rule or the mission being played clearly specify that they can. All good wargamers know that the edge of the table is the end of the world!

I really, really hope not. I might hurt something during the laughing fit.

 

Getting out of turn sequence here. An assault can be declared by any unit that can assault (most vehicles cannot) against any other opposing unit on the board. Only after it is declared can it be determined if it is legal or not.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Oh please. I guess by that logic Furious "Charge" has no effect on assaults either? Charge and assault are synonyms in this context. That isn't being a rules-lawyer that is being woodenly literal.

 

Well, I don't see how they could do the kiting unless they misunderstand how the Righteous Zeal rule works in 5th. Now it is possible to bring a Dreadnought up into assault range of a Black Templar squad and if they have AACNMTO in effect try to make them assault it.

 

Heh, by using the "no charges in 5th edition 40k" idea then AACNMTO simply give Preferred Enemy without the downside of being forced to assault anything. That is cute. So, are we tossing the dictionary in the trash again?

 

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

 

Actually it is simply reading them for me. The big posts were for two purposes:

1) Pointing out the multiple complications and logical flaws in the common interpretation. Including the fact that the common interpretation with its "exemption" for passengers of vehicles killed by ranged attacks allow for all kinds of exemptions for assaults.

2) As the one proposing the common interpretation was incorrect, I am supposed to lay out my position step by step and if some people cannot grasp it, then I have to break it down some more, because if they don't understand it, they cannot have a relevant opinion about it.

 

I just wish you would have come straight out to the point of this question, as everything before your direct question about ACC feels like a waste of time. I am glad you got your answer.

 

I'm glad he didn't, because if he had, all we would have gotten was knee-jerk and hand-waving about how "everyone knows" instead of people actually stating their position and showing the flaws in their logic.

 

--------------

 

So here we have it, shooter unit is on the board with target units A, B & C.

Shooter unit shoots at target unit A, which dies in the shooting phase. Shooter unit either doesn't fire any Heavy/RF weapons (or is Relentless) and is not falling back.

 

Now assault phase.

1. Pick a unit ---> Shooter unit

2. Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault. ---> The only available units are target units B & C since you obviously cannot declare against target unit A which isn't there. Let's choose B since it is obviously within assault range.

 

Now, let's go down the list in order:

Is target unit B within assault movement range? Yes it is 1" away.

Is Shooter unit already locked in close combat? No (it was shooting!)

Did Shooter unit run in the Shooting phase? No (it was shooting!)

Has Shooter unit gone to ground? No (it was shooting!)

Did Shooter unit fire heavy/RF weapons in the Shooting phase? Either No or it is Relentless.

Was Shooter unit falling back? No.

 

In addition to the above, a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit is shot at...

 

Now, point on the board at this target unit that I shot at. As maturin points out so well above and so many posters here support, it isn't on the board and doesn't count for the purposes of declaring assaults. Oh wait, where are we in the rules? The Disallowed Assaults subsection of the DECLARE ASSAULTS section of the rules. A-m-a-z-i-n-g! Look here the unit doesn't count, no now it does, no now it doesn't, no now it does. To heck with it, just put the cart before the horse and start disallowing assaults before they are declared.

[SeattleDV8]

What a load of tripe.

Get over yourself Algesan.

 

You're the type that sets at an intersection for a 1/2 hour trying to decide what Stop means.

 

Quit overthinking things.

 

If the the unit you shot at isn't on the board you cannot declare a charge, Because you can only declare an assault againt the unit you shot at.

 

Any thing else (out of range, you shot hvy/rapid fire, locked in CC , etc )you may declare but it is disallowed.

[greatcrusade08]

So algesan your saying that you declare that your going to do something which your not allowed to do, and then by the premise of tht declaration your suddenly allowed to do it..

that very brazen and wont stand in any competative rules queries.

 

The art of assaulting doesnt work like a checklist, if you shoot a unit and kill it then the rules clearly state you cant assault that turn.. if you are forbidden to assault how can you declare an assault?

 

@bigdunc

"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."

According to your reasoning a unit which has fired heavy weapons could still declare a charge, becuase the declaration part comes before the rules for disallowing.. but the above quote you posted clearly shows that the firing of heavy weapons precludes a declaration.. which is the point most people here are arguing.

 

regardless of what order the rules are written in, certain things dissallow assaulting.. if your not allowed to do something you cannot declare your going to do it.

thats the bottom line ;)

 

edit:

apologies missed this bit

....are me conceding that I'm wrong.

 

 

So, yes.... considering I conceded and there isn't any harm in exploring rules... it does feel a little like I'm being kicked while I'm on the ground, MW.

Ill stop kicking now :(

[Leonaides]

algesan- i dont need to point at the unit you shot at, i only need to say that you didn't shoot at unit b or c.

[Legatus]

Let me write what is actually being assumed here from the commentary that followed it:

- 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

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

 

To be precise, you read the rules like a checklist, not wave your hands around claiming that everything applies all at once. This is under the section DECLARE ASSAULTS with a subsection of Disallowed Assaults.

 

Correct, we can short cut them to speed up games (by not declaring assaults with units that won't work), but they still work in order, just like they read if we actually do declare an assault as we are entitled to do according to the rules.

You don't go through a check list after declaring the assault. Mainly because there is no list for you to go through. You do not note all the actions of each unit down to echeck later. A player is already aware of all the restrictions above at the beginning of the Assault Phase. Declaring an assault with a unit that is forbidden to assault would not be a viable action. Like declaring that your devastators are shooting at the vending machine in the corner of the shop. You don't declare it and then check whether the unit is even allowed to perform the action.

 

 

Case in point:

 

So here we have it, shooter unit is on the board with target units A, B & C.

Shooter unit shoots at target unit A, which dies in the shooting phase. Shooter unit either doesn't fire any Heavy/RF weapons (or is Relentless) and is not falling back.

 

Now assault phase.

1. Pick a unit ---> Shooter unit

2. Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault. ---> The only available units are target units B & C since you obviously cannot declare against target unit A which isn't there. Let's choose B since it is obviously within assault range.

 

Now, let's go down the list in order:

Is target unit B within assault movement range? Yes it is 1" away.

Is Shooter unit already locked in close combat? No (it was shooting!)

Did Shooter unit run in the Shooting phase? No (it was shooting!)

Has Shooter unit gone to ground? No (it was shooting!)

Did Shooter unit fire heavy/RF weapons in the Shooting phase? Either No or it is Relentless.

Was Shooter unit falling back? No.

I highlighted the moment where it is determined that the shooter unit can only possibly declare an assault against unit A. From that point on that is set, and there is no "checking the options" or "going through a checklist" later. From the start of the Assault phase it is already determined what the possible actions for the shooter unit are.

 

You don't declare that a devastator unit is firing it's heavy weapons and then check whether the unit had moved last turn. You don't check whether the unit is locked in close combat after having declared that the unit fires at some target. All of the restrictions are in place before you even start declaring which unit is firing at what target. The unit cannot fire this turn, and the player cannot declare that they are firing.

It is the same for close combat. A player is not declaring that aunit that has just ran is now assaulting, and then check whether the unit ran or not. That the unit ran and can therefor not assault had been established in the previous shooting phase.

[Morollan]

What I don't understand is why, if the rules are allegedly written in such minute detail and in accordance with some arcane formatting 'rules' as Algesan claims, they don't simply state "it can only assault the unit it shot at unless that unit has been destroyed, in which case it may choose a different target"

 

Do you not think that if that is what the designers meant then they would just have said so?

[greatcrusade08]

its a permissive rules set, so it must state definatively when rules apply.

as you said becuase it doest state they are allowed to charge another unit, and as we have a further rule disallowing them to charge another unit.. then no amount of wordsmanship will change that

[Grey Mage]

*snip*

Did you have a point in all of that or did you just come into here to be snarky?

[JamesI]

Algesen can't accept there is a difference between the 5 points on who can declare an assault and the later in the book rule on who you can declare an assault on (must declare at who you shot).

 

If a unit you must declare an assault on is not there, then how can you declare an assault?

 

 

What is the point of the rule that states you can assault the unit inside a transport if you shot and killed the transport if any unit can shoot and kill any unit then assault any other unit. That rule has no purpose if Algesen is correct.

[Algesan]

I highlighted the moment where it is determined that the shooter unit can only possibly declare an assault against unit A. From that point on that is set, and there is no "checking the options" or "going through a checklist" later. From the start of the Assault phase it is already determined what the possible actions for the shooter unit are.

 

Fits with the common (mis)interpretation. In fact must be so given the contradictions between the destroyed unit not mattering in declaring assaults and now suddenly it does. And so, nobody gets to go to lunch.

 

Sure thing, I'll bite, show me using the RAW how you are justifying this interpretation. It looks like special pleading to me.

 

I haven't seen anyone say that you couldn't declare an assault that is out of assault movement range from the rules. I'm seen one poster who would make you carefully measure to your detriment if you did so and I've seen another poster mention lectures on "sportsmanship", which is a subjective opinion, no something in the rules. It might be silly, it might be stupid, but you can declare an assault by the rules and measure the range. Why is this shooting thing suddenly so different? Oh, because it allows the lethal question to be asked, "Where is the unit that was shot at?" To which the only answer is "out of play and irrelevant".

 

What I don't understand is why, if the rules are allegedly written in such minute detail and in accordance with some arcane formatting 'rules' as Algesan claims, they don't simply state "it can only assault the unit it shot at unless that unit has been destroyed, in which case it may choose a different target"

 

Do you not think that if that is what the designers meant then they would just have said so?

 

It isn't arcane, it is English. The only way it would be "arcane" is if one thinks that the English language is "arcane" or if they don't want to think about it. As I made a comment elsewhere, formatting is important. There is a big difference between helping your Uncle Jack off his horse and helping your uncle jack off his horse, but according to most of the posters here who claim "black & white", they don't care, they would say that if you help your Uncle Jack off his horse, you are a pervert. After all, the unit "doesn't count" for declaring an assault, but then is suddenly does count for disallowing the assault. So even though it is "Uncle Jack" in all those posts above, to defend the traditional position it is suddenly all about "uncle jack".

 

Why didn't the designers "clearly state it"? I'd say they did by making it a subordinate clause.

 

Under the non-traditional interpretation I'm defending, the formatting does make a difference and the "in addition" clause is there to limit the target of what you are assaulting. This prevents a player from trying to pull a 6+" AT shot praying for a golden BB at a vehicle that will shoot a unit to pieces and then charging into close combat to avoid that fire. This prevent a player from shooting at a squishy unit out of assault movement range and then charging a CC unit to tarpit it.

 

Nobody says that the rules say Shooter unit can shoot target unit A and then charge some other unit if target unit A has any models left.

 

Algesen can't accept there is a difference between the 5 points on who can declare an assault and the later in the book rule on who you can declare an assault on (must declare at who you shot).

 

If a unit you must declare an assault on is not there, then how can you declare an assault?

 

 

What is the point of the rule that states you can assault the unit inside a transport if you shot and killed the transport if any unit can shoot and kill any unit then assault any other unit. That rule has no purpose if Algesen is correct.

 

The note on page 67. For those that have actually been trying to follow, notice my prediction about defenders of the common interpretation that this would be trotted out as soon as you question the traditional interpetation.

 

JamesI, it is an explanatory and clarifying note in the Transports section at the end of the part about the effects of vehicle damage results on any passengers in a transport. This can be a tricky section, prone to exploitation because of the ways that transport+passengers are both the same and different . The first sentence reinforces that all fire by a shooting unit is simultaneous so that you cannot use an AT weapon to pop the transport and the small arms to shoot down the occupants.

 

Note: If we wanted to be silly about it and woodenly literal, then we could say it only applies when a lascannon is used AND when bolters are used. After all that is exactly what words say there. However, that would violate the the rules on shooting at the bottom of page 16. Oh, this is also an example of how a "note" is often used in an explanatory and clarifying manner.

 

The second sentence mentions that if the transport is killed by ranged attack, any passengers that have been forcibly disembarked may now be assaulted "..., if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules."

 

Two choices here:

1. Under the interpretation that the unit shot dead and rendered out of play in the shooting phase no longer matters for the assault phase, then this is a simple explanation and clarification. It reinforces that all shooting is simultaneous so the unit that shot and killed the transport cannot use any shooting attacks against the passengers, however, they can still assault the passengers normally since the unit they fired at (the transport) is dead as long as it is within assault movement range, they aren't falling back and they didn't use Heavy/RF weapons (unless Relentless).

 

2. Under the common interpretation that says you can only declare an assault against a unit you shot at, the note on page 67 becomes an exemption for passengers in vehicles. Why? Because, IF a transport is killed by ranged attack, THEN the unit that shot it can assault the passengers, if allowed to by the assault rules. By which assault rules? Obviously the common interpretation that you can only assault the unit you shot at, but it also works if a unit was falling back as long as they killed the transport, they could assault the transport or if they fired Heavy/RF weapons, if they kill the transport, they can assault the passengers. All of these are in the same section of Disallowed Assaults.

So what does that last phrase mean if you can do all that? It means you must be within assault movement range of the passengers. Of course, if any of the Disallowed Assault conditions are triggered, then they all are triggered and you cannot assault passengers because you didn't shoot at them. Straight line reading and logic.

 

Note: You guys can howl for your traditions, but the only defense I've seen is "that is the way we play it, that is the way everyone plays it, that is the way we always play it" and that makes this a house rule, not official rule. If the common interpretation is correct, then all of 2. applies. It is the rat's nest of absurdity and fallacies that refutes the common (mis)interpretation.

 

If you want to get more breakdown, go look up the AAC thread in the Black Templars forum, like another one where "tradition" was the main defense, this common (mis)interpretation is exploitable. Otherwise, I'll trust in what was posted there early on and wait for yet another FAQ to show that I'm correct or not. So far I'm 1-0. Have fun saying that thinking is "overthinking" and snarking that I'm being snarky without addressing the issue.

[JamesI]

Algesen, I'm not howling over traditions.

 

I'm waiting for you to show a single reason that a unit not being on the table means it can be ignored for the rule that you have to assault what you shot. Nothing in the rulebook supports that.

 

Quote me a rule that says you can assault anything you want if the unit you shot is no longer there (not counting the note that allows assaulting units in transports when the transport is shot and killed). Anything?

[greatcrusade08]

So far I'm 1-0. Have fun saying that thinking is "overthinking" and snarking that I'm being snarky without addressing the issue.

 

ill bite, since you ignored my last post..

 

page 33 BRB the assault phase.

the summary says you pick a unit and declare which enemy unit it is going to assault..

 

ok, so ill go to the section on declaring assaults to see what limitations/allowances are in place..

under the heading "declare assaults", firstly it describes distance and how its possible to declare a charge on units and then have that charge fail becuase its out of range..

the next point is disallowed assaults, note this comes under the declaring assault section.

 

the issue with charging the unit you shot at is covered under the sub-heading of disallowed assaults under the heading of declare assaults.

since you are disallowed from assaulting you are therefore disallowed from declaring the assault..

 

no assumptions, no guesswork, its all right there in the rulebook.

 

whats the score now?

 

edit: to pre-empt the rebuttle, if your claiming the unit that was destroyed cannot be considered (becuase its out of play) then you would undoubtedly pick a second unit to charge, which again leads you back to the same rule on charging only the unit you shot at and therefore unable to declare a charge

[dswanick]

I fail to see where the debate exists. The rules are crystal clear on this.

ASSAULT PHASE SUMMARY

1 Move assaulting units

• Pick a unit.

• Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault.

• Move the assaulting unit.

• Pick another unit and repeat the above until all assaulting units have moved.

So you choose Unit A, which shot at and destroyed Enemy Unit X during the previous shooting phase.

You declare which unit it is going to assult. To which I respond "Is Unit A declaring an assault against Enemy Unit X which it shot at previously? If your answer is not "Yes" then you may not Assault, per the rules.

DECLARE ASSAULTS

 

DISALLOWED ASSAULTS

Units are not allowed to assault if:

 

• They are already locked in close combat.

• They ran in the Shooting phase(see page 16).

• They have gone to ground(see page24).

• They shot rapid fire weapons or heavy weapons in the Shooting phase (see page 28).

• They are falling back(see page 45).

 

In addition to the above, a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit that it shot at - it cannot assault a different unit to the one it previously shot at. However, see the exception over the page for multiple targets.

But just in case the debat estems from something written in the Assaulting multiple units section :

ASSAULTING MULTIPLE ENEMY UNITS

As you move assaulting models, you may find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting. As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared.

Nope, nothing here either. So where is the debate - R.a.W.?

[Grey Mage]

What I don't understand is why, if the rules are allegedly written in such minute detail and in accordance with some arcane formatting 'rules' as Algesan claims, they don't simply state "it can only assault the unit it shot at unless that unit has been destroyed, in which case it may choose a different target"

 

Do you not think that if that is what the designers meant then they would just have said so?

 

It isn't arcane, it is English. The only way it would be "arcane" is if one thinks that the English language is "arcane" or if they don't want to think about it. As I made a comment elsewhere, formatting is important. There is a big difference between helping your Uncle Jack off his horse and helping your uncle jack off his horse, but according to most of the posters here who claim "black & white", they don't care, they would say that if you help your Uncle Jack off his horse, you are a pervert. After all, the unit "doesn't count" for declaring an assault, but then is suddenly does count for disallowing the assault. So even though it is "Uncle Jack" in all those posts above, to defend the traditional position it is suddenly all about "uncle jack".

 

Why didn't the designers "clearly state it"? I'd say they did by making it a subordinate clause.

 

Under the non-traditional interpretation I'm defending, the formatting does make a difference and the "in addition" clause is there to limit the target of what you are assaulting. This prevents a player from trying to pull a 6+" AT shot praying for a golden BB at a vehicle that will shoot a unit to pieces and then charging into close combat to avoid that fire. This prevent a player from shooting at a squishy unit out of assault movement range and then charging a CC unit to tarpit it.

 

Nobody says that the rules say Shooter unit can shoot target unit A and then charge some other unit if target unit A has any models left.

Yeah, about the english part.

 

"In addition to the above, a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit it shot at- it cannot assault a different unit to the one it previously shot at. However, see the exception over the page for multiple targets."

 

This is pretty straight forward- you can only assault the unit you shot at if you shot at anything. Only is rather blunt, and restrictive.

 

But it does mention an exception, so lets check that out shall we?

 

"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

 

Ok, so as long as we assault what we shot at, and follow the rules for moving assaulting models, we can assault additional targets. The moving assaulting models section states that we have to move the closest model into base to base with our declared target, or it fails. In addition all our models must be in coherency, we must move each model into base to base contact with a model that doesnt have a model in BTB if possible, if theres no in reach we must try to be in base to base with atleast some model in an opposing unit, and if its not possible we must atleast remain in coherency.

 

None of wich gives us leave to declare a target other than the one we shot at.

 

The second sentence mentions that if the transport is killed by ranged attack, any passengers that have been forcibly disembarked may now be assaulted "..., if it is allowed to assault according to the assault rules."

 

Two choices here:

The transport section does have a specific change to the assault rules, like many vehicle rules are specific changes to the normal rules. Im glad we can agree on that.

 

1. Under the interpretation that the unit shot dead and rendered out of play in the shooting phase no longer matters for the assault phase, then this is a simple explanation and clarification. It reinforces that all shooting is simultaneous so the unit that shot and killed the transport cannot use any shooting attacks against the passengers, however, they can still assault the passengers normally since the unit they fired at (the transport) is dead as long as it is within assault movement range, they aren't falling back and they didn't use Heavy/RF weapons (unless Relentless).

Its not that the unit doesnt matter, its that its unavailable to be a target- dead is more than 6" from anywhere. Its gone from the game, no longer in the simulation. If it wasnt for the exception noted above we wouldnt be able to assault the unit that had been in the transport.

 

2. Under the common interpretation that says you can only declare an assault against a unit you shot at, the note on page 67 becomes an exemption for passengers in vehicles. Why? Because, IF a transport is killed by ranged attack, THEN the unit that shot it can assault the passengers, if allowed to by the assault rules. By which assault rules? Obviously the common interpretation that you can only assault the unit you shot at, but it also works if a unit was falling back as long as they killed the transport, they could assault the transport or if they fired Heavy/RF weapons, if they kill the transport, they can assault the passengers. All of these are in the same section of Disallowed Assaults.

So what does that last phrase mean if you can do all that? It means you must be within assault movement range of the passengers. Of course, if any of the Disallowed Assault conditions are triggered, then they all are triggered and you cannot assault passengers because you didn't shoot at them. Straight line reading and logic.

 

No- because, as noted in the quote above, you have to obey the normal rules for assaulting something. This includes the rule that states a falling back unit cannot assault... theres no loophole here.

 

Note: You guys can howl for your traditions, but the only defense I've seen is "that is the way we play it, that is the way everyone plays it, that is the way we always play it" and that makes this a house rule, not official rule. If the common interpretation is correct, then all of 2. applies. It is the rat's nest of absurdity and fallacies that refutes the common (mis)interpretation.

 

If you want to get more breakdown, go look up the AAC thread in the Black Templars forum, like another one where "tradition" was the main defense, this common (mis)interpretation is exploitable. Otherwise, I'll trust in what was posted there early on and wait for yet another FAQ to show that I'm correct or not. So far I'm 1-0. Have fun saying that thinking is "overthinking" and snarking that I'm being snarky without addressing the issue.

What traditions are you talking about?

 

So far Ill Ive seen is you putting for the same rules as anyone else and telling people theyre wrong and ranting about how theyre to stuck to traditions and previous editions- wich is snarky. Its not constructive in and of itself and its about the only thing Im seeing you put forth.

 

The evidence youve brought up doesnt change the idea that a unit with AAC that destroys a unit via shooting cannot assault, with the exception of a transported unit whos transport it destroyed, just like every other unit in the game. If this scattered evidence somehow adds up to a larger whole Im going to have to ask you to make the statement here, and then explain it, because so far you havent made a coherent argument.

[Legatus]

Fits with the common (mis)interpretation. In fact must be so given the contradictions between the destroyed unit not mattering in declaring assaults and now suddenly it does.

It was the unit this unit shot at. That has to be the unit this unit is declaring an assault against. If it cannot do so (because the unit it shot at is wiped out), then there will be no assault from this unit this turn. There is no contradiction between "a removed unit mattering for one thing but not mattering for another". A unit can only declare an assault against the unit it fired at during the previous shooting phase. That's that.

 

 

Sure thing, I'll bite, show me using the RAW how you are justifying this interpretation. It looks like special pleading to me.

Obviously, my interpretation is based on the assumption that a player can only declare actions his units are actually capable of performing. I truly wonder why you would think that you can just declare that one of your units is going to perform an illegal action, and that this declaration would have any relevance to the gameplay.

 

If you have a unit that is not able to assault, then you cannot declare that this unit is going to assault. That is a pretty basic concept of interpreting the rules. You cannot declare that your drop pod is performing a tank shock. You cannot declare that your wrecked rhino is shooting a battle cannon at an enemy unit. You cannot declare that your Monolith is using it's over charged engines to move an additional D6". And you cannot declare that your unit that just rapid fired/ran/is locked in a combat already is assaulting an enemy unit. With furious charge, berserker charge and hunting lances.

 

 

I haven't seen anyone say that you couldn't declare an assault that is out of assault movement range from the rules.

Because a unit can attempt to assault a unit that is out of range. But if the unit is out of range, no assault will happen. The unit was generally able to make an assault, but you are not to check whether the intended target can be reached or not.

[Jehoel]

Here is the simplest way I can explain this.

 

Blood Angels unit 1 fires at enemy unit A, killing them off.

 

Blood Angels player wants to declare assault against enemy unit B.

 

1: Has Blood Angels unit 1 fired this turn? Yes

2: Was enemy unit B the target of Blood Angels unit 1's firing? No

3: Assault not allowed.

 

This is the way that this has been ruled at every game that I have been near, even at official GW events in Chicago and Detroit.

[Algesan]

Yeah, about the english part.

 

"In addition to the above, a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit it shot at- it cannot assault a different unit to the one it previously shot at. However, see the exception over the page for multiple targets."

 

This is pretty straight forward- you can only assault the unit you shot at if you shot at anything. Only is rather blunt, and restrictive.

 

Okay great master of the English language, I'll let you lay it out for everyone. We have five bullet points and an "In addition" clause. Why is it written that way and what does it mean? Just how does it make a unit not exist for assault purposes and then exist for assault purposes.

 

If you get past that, I'll respond and let you clear up some of these other little misunderstandings I seem to have.

 

You've got a whole bunch of buddies here, so why don't you collaborate and see what you get on explaining the English language to me and why that section was written like it was. Hint: appeals to GW's idiocy in rules writing don't count unless you can prove that the section is senseless.

 

Otherwise, I'll assume that you think Uncle Jack = uncle jack in the example I gave.

 

So far Ill Ive seen is you putting for the same rules as anyone else and telling people theyre wrong and ranting about how theyre to stuck to traditions and previous editions- wich is snarky. Its not constructive in and of itself and its about the only thing Im seeing you put forth.

 

The evidence youve brought up doesnt change the idea that a unit with AAC that destroys a unit via shooting cannot assault, with the exception of a transported unit whos transport it destroyed, just like every other unit in the game. If this scattered evidence somehow adds up to a larger whole Im going to have to ask you to make the statement here, and then explain it, because so far you havent made a coherent argument.

 

If you want to get more breakdown, go look up the AAC thread in the Black Templars forum, like another one where "tradition" was the main defense, this common (mis)interpretation is exploitable. Otherwise, I'll trust in what was posted there early on and wait for yet another FAQ to show that I'm correct or not. So far I'm 1-0. Have fun saying that thinking is "overthinking" and snarking that I'm being snarky without addressing the issue.

 

Miss that bit in my post? I think so. Or possibly you are snarkily accusing me of snarking as a put down. We'll see.

[Grey Mage]

Yeah, about the english part.

 

"In addition to the above, a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit it shot at- it cannot assault a different unit to the one it previously shot at. However, see the exception over the page for multiple targets."

 

This is pretty straight forward- you can only assault the unit you shot at if you shot at anything. Only is rather blunt, and restrictive.

 

Okay great master of the English language, I'll let you lay it out for everyone. We have five bullet points and an "In addition" clause. Why is it written that way and what does it mean? Just how does it make a unit not exist for assault purposes and then exist for assault purposes.

 

If you get past that, I'll respond and let you clear up some of these other little misunderstandings I seem to have.

Sure, in literature there are three reasons that one will post an addendum to a list in the manner that GW has done so:

* You want to emphasize the point- placing the clause by itself increases its importance.

* The clause references another area but is pertinent to the list for one reason or another and its mention is for the sake of completeness or expediancy.

* The idea needs to be expanded on, and is usually followed by an explanation.

In addition, sometimes authors like to format bullets into a more paragraph friendly format by ending them in sentences even if its not the most grammatically correct way to format their rules. It happens, and in fact it should be noted that the vast majority of human writing has no real regard for the rules of the language used except for the basic structure and how it influences peoples thoughts.

 

 

You've got a whole bunch of buddies here, so why don't you collaborate and see what you get on explaining the English language to me and why that section was written like it was. Hint: appeals to GW's idiocy in rules writing don't count unless you can prove that the section is senseless.

 

Otherwise, I'll assume that you think Uncle Jack = uncle jack in the example I gave.

No one is 'collaborating' here. There just happens to be a large number of people who disagree with the points your making... probly because you started into this thread by pointing out how they were all wrong, and doing so rudely.

 

So far Ill Ive seen is you putting for the same rules as anyone else and telling people theyre wrong and ranting about how theyre to stuck to traditions and previous editions- wich is snarky. Its not constructive in and of itself and its about the only thing Im seeing you put forth.

 

The evidence youve brought up doesnt change the idea that a unit with AAC that destroys a unit via shooting cannot assault, with the exception of a transported unit whos transport it destroyed, just like every other unit in the game. If this scattered evidence somehow adds up to a larger whole Im going to have to ask you to make the statement here, and then explain it, because so far you havent made a coherent argument.

 

If you want to get more breakdown, go look up the AAC thread in the Black Templars forum, like another one where "tradition" was the main defense, this common (mis)interpretation is exploitable. Otherwise, I'll trust in what was posted there early on and wait for yet another FAQ to show that I'm correct or not. So far I'm 1-0. Have fun saying that thinking is "overthinking" and snarking that I'm being snarky without addressing the issue.

 

Miss that bit in my post? I think so. Or possibly you are snarkily accusing me of snarking as a put down. We'll see.

No, I didnt. I was informing you that if you want to continue posting about this you need to bring your argument here. I dont care if you copy and paste, quote yourself, or rewrite it for posterity, but if you want people to take anything you said there seriously it needs to be brought up here. If you wont do that, and continue in such an abrasive manner as you have, Ill have to assume all your doing is trolling.

[BlkTom]

To be frank, I fail to see what your goal is here besides a vain attempt to get extra movement that you are clearly not allowed via the rules. These rules actually seem pretty clear to me... there is no great revelation. If you can not follow the rules or just simply refuse to follow the rules, that is your choice and the choice of the people who choose to play with you. Making convaluted and, to be honest, pointless arguements doesn't change what the rule is. I am kinda suprise this thread is even being allowed to continue, as I fail to see any constructive points being made to support your 'cause'.

[Morollan]

I fail to see where the debate exists. The rules are crystal clear on this.

ASSAULT PHASE SUMMARY

1 Move assaulting units

• Pick a unit.

• Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault.

• Move the assaulting unit.

• Pick another unit and repeat the above until all assaulting units have moved.

So you choose Unit A, which shot at and destroyed Enemy Unit X during the previous shooting phase.

You declare which unit it is going to assult. To which I respond "Is Unit A declaring an assault against Enemy Unit X which it shot at previously? If your answer is not "Yes" then you may not Assault, per the rules.

 

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for him to answer this point it I were you. I've been following this for weeks but he's been unable to provide any response to the rules clear statement "it may not assault a different unit to the one it shot at" other than "appeals to GW's idiocy in rules writing" which, apparently, us normal folk aren't eligible to use. :rolleyes: