First Turn Assault

[Erluin]

I keep hearing ( or reading online) that initiating a close combat is forbidden in the first player's first turn, but not the second player's first turn. Clarification please.

[Huginn]

Brb. Pg 9. Part about game turns and player turns

 

Pg. 38 infiltrators.

 

Basically infiltrate rule states no charge first turn. Not first game turn.

 

Pg. 9 says if rules state turn it counts as player turn not game turn.

 

Pretty cut and dry.

[Axagoras]

Its not against the rules to assault turn 1, but with needing to cross 24 inches turn 1 is near imposable unless they deploy right across from you and you get max charge range.

[Hellios]

Its not against the rules to assault turn 1, but with needing to cross 24 inches turn 1 is near imposable unless they deploy right across from you and you get max charge range.

 

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure 6th edition rules....

 

Don't allow charges on the first player turn (explained above by Huginn) and that they don't allow you to assault from reserves. I believe GWs plan was to stop people being able to engage in combat without the enemy having at least one turn to shoot you. A number of fast armies, and armies with scout or infiltrate can easily (assuming average dice roles) get a first turn charge. Certainly if the enemy isn't hiding on the back edge of the board... In which case... Make them fail their leadership :P

[Axagoras]

Where in the rules does it say you cant assault turn 1? Is just a combo of rules that prevent player 1 from assaulting before the enemy could react, but player 2 can assault player 1.

[Leonaides]

Combination of rules. Deployment must be greater than 24 inches apart, nothing in game can manage a move-charge far enough to reach the opponents in their own deployment zone, and unit rules like scout or infiltrate either remove the option to initiate a charge or similar. If your enemy has scout moved a unit forward and you have first turn you can attempt to charge it with no probs. If you move your own units forward first, your enemy will then be able to charge your troops as usual in his next turn.

[Gentlemanloser]

How about a NDK (or other large unit on an oval base) with PT?

 

Start 24" apart (from the long flat edge of the oval), jump 12", swivel base at centre, charge and roll double 6's.

 

The Range gained from the point of the oval should be enough to make your 24" move long enough to actually engage.

 

Now, swivelling an oval base at the centre is going to raise eyebrows, but how else do you turn it?

[dswanick]

 

Combination of rules. Deployment must be greater than 24 inches apart, nothing in game can manage a move-charge far enough to reach the opponents in their own deployment

Not entirely true. Ignoring Forge World (ie, Lucius Drop Pods), any Cavalry unit led by the armies Warlord with Coordinated Assault have the potential to achieve a turn 1 Assault (12" + 2d6:12" + Coordinated Assault:1" = 25") and that's assuming he doesn't give you the gift of Infiltrating within normal Charge range with his Infiltrating units.

How about a NDK (or other large unit on an oval base) with PT?

Start 24" apart (from the long flat edge of the oval), jump 12", swivel base at centre, charge and roll double 6's.

The Range gained from the point of the oval should be enough to make your 24" move long enough to actually engage.

Now, swivelling an oval base at the centre is going to raise eyebrows, but how else do you turn it?

That would be an illegal move, see the BRB pg.10.

[Gentlemanloser]

Ah! I'd missed they'd actually covered that this edition. :)

 

Thanks!

[Hellios]

Oh I guess technically vehicle gamesmanship might allow it as well. If you have vehicles that are longer than they are wide.

 

Deploy sideways... rotate from a central point (which then probably lets your vehicle stick over the 12" line... Move 6 (deploy 6) and charge 2d6. This works with an assault vehicle... yes? Although I take my hat off to those brave, crazy people that would take this kind of risk.

[Huginn]

I do not see anything in the rules that disallow a first player turn charge outright on non infiltrated or reserved units.

 

You can still charge enemy infiltrators or even scout moved units if they get to close on the first player turn.

 

First player turn charges do happen. I have charged my friends scouts with assault marines when going first after stealing the inti.

[Gentlemanloser]

Just going back to page 10, how do you;

 

 

they can be turned on the
spot to face in any direction, without affecting the distance they
are able to cover

 

With an oval base?

 

No matter which method you use to turn on the spot, you will effect the distance they are able to cover.

[Leonaides]

Sorry - was on my phone earlier. Perhaps I should have been more specifically general in my earlier reply. In general, most units in most circumstances can not achieve a first turn charge on the first player turn of a game due to the distance they have to deploy away from the enemy deployment zone. There are some exceptions to the deployment distance, or ways to more after deployment but before the first turn begins (for example Scout/Infiltrate), and some ways to achieve a charge distance further than 24" if you are very lucky (I really wouldnt call backing yourself on a 1/36 chance as a valid tactical choice on the first turn - thats a hail mary move) and some units have a special ability that specifically allows them to circumvent either the normal deployment rules or the Reserves prohibition on charging on the turn you arrive from reserves BUT IN GENERAL the rules of the game are set up to prevent a first turn charge though there is no specific rule saying that you amy not charge on the first turn.

[cielaq]

The only poinst when assaulting in first turn is forbidden are for units deploying using Infiltrate or Scout USR. Of course, if a unit arrives from reserves in first turn (Drop pod assault for instance), it cannot assault too, but it's not because of the first turn.

There are no other rules preventing the first turn assault.

[Dam13n]

Gent - when dealing with a monster with an oval base, one would argue that you don't need to turn said base outside of the occasions in which you are moving the model - it has no facings and a 360' arc of fire.

 

When moving you would have to measure thusly:

 

http://i352.photobucket.com/albums/r358/MatthewDaunt/move_zpsd5085c29.png

 

Running and charging would work the same way.

 

This way the model cannot move more than it's allowed movement.

 

With this is mind, the model should never be "turned to face" the enemy when shooting (in order to claim that extra 1-2" of "movement") as this is unnecessary (360' arc of fire) and could be interpreted as attempting to sneak in those extra inches of movement - ie cheating.

 

As far as the OT is concerned, unless deploying with a special rule that prohibits a charge on the 1st (player) turn, there's nothing to say you can't charge. The odds of doing so are very much against you - you'd need a 12" move and a 12" charge with the target enemy unit exactly 24" away from you (unless they've scouted or infiltrated themselves closer they cannot be any closer than 24" if you're going first)

[Squirrelloid]

err... I really can't agree Dam1en, because which way its oriented affects how far it is from other models.  For example, rotating the oval base makes it farther from things on the periphery.  Also, models cannot fit through spaces smaller than their base, so which direction the base is oriented matters a lot when moving around impassable terrain, other models, and quite possibly difficult terrain (if you wish to avoid making a check).

 

You should be able to freely rotate a model about its center, because that's where the model is located.  To do as you're arguing suggests that the model is actually located at an edge.  But which edge?  What if you aren't unambiguously moving in one direction?  Let's say there's an impossible terrain piece that you want to move beyond and then cut in front of.  You want to end with your oblong base facing in the direction of final movement (that is, the long axis parallel to the forward facing of the impossible terrain feature), but you can't fit through the opening to get past the terrain feature unless you rotate.  If we measure this in two parts, Like we'd virtually have to do, your method would have us lose the difference between the long and short axis lengths twice.

 

Anyway, the rules actually say they may be 'turned on the spot without affecting the distance they may cover'. Turn on the spot has to mean rotate about their center - there is no other way to turn a model on the spot.  If we try to hold one edge position constant we seriously change all the other edge positions, even more so than rotating around the center, and the position of hte model in any real sense changes.  Only by rotating about the center can we even pretend its 'on the spot'.  The clause following without is even more impossible, since the rotation is independent of any movement itself (it could even happen on a separate turn or phase, for example rotating during movement with an implication during assault), and any rotation of a non-circular base will affect the distance the model may cover in almost every direction.

 

Of course, since position is actually defined by edges (all measurements check to and from edges), any rotation of a non-circular base changes a models position.  So either the rules prohibit non-circular bases (because its impossible to turn them on the spot, and certainly without affecting the distance they may cover), or we have to accept the rotation which minimizes the change in position, which is a rotation about the center.

 

Edit: I will note that the only specific precedent we have for rotation is vehicles, which rotate about their center.

[Gentlemanloser]

It's unnecessary to turn any infantry model. Yet we can, and are allowed to do so.

(Can't see your pic at work, I'll have a look tonight! )

Unless we're ruling you can never turn an oval base due to cheating. (The turn could also be used, not to gain range for shooting/charging, but also for things like turning out of Rapid Fire Range, etc).

And if you're not turning from the centre of your base, which edge to do use to determine if you're gaining/losing distance? What happens if there are multiple units at each 'edge' facing?

Does page 10 make it impossible for anyone to turn an oval base, ever, as it will *always* effect the distance you are to some other unit, somewhere on the board.

Edit: ninaj'd by squirrel's more in depth response!

[dswanick]

You can rotate your model to face any direction you want.  The rules on pg.10 explicitly prohibit you from gaining a movement advantage by doing so.  If you rotate an oval base so that the short edge is now the apex of the oval along the path of movement (where formerly it was not) you are still prohibited from moving more than your allowed distance, thus the diagram Dam13n provided gives you the only legal way of measuring your resultant move.  Doing otherwise would be affecting the distance the model are able to cover - which is prohibited.  Keep in mind, distances in W40K are not measured from the center-point of a base, but from it's edges.

[Gentlemanloser]

But you could, for example only, have moved 'forward' with the short edge at the front between two bits of terrain, then pivot, keeping the long edge no far forward than your short was.

 

But you have effected the 'distance they are able to cover'.  Maybe now you've totally blocked the route between both bits of terrain.  Or are now closer to unit to your side that is now facing one of your short edges.

 

Even though you didn't move forward any further forward.

[dswanick]

All of which is irrelevant to the Movement rules on pg.10.

[Gentlemanloser]

As long as 'effect the distance they cover' only equates to 'can't move more than 6"/12"'.

 

But you agree you could still move no further than 6"/12", but use the pivot to then reach a unit previous out of charge range.  As long as you don't exceed the 6"/12" movement you measured?

[dswanick]

As long as 'effect the distance they cover' only equates to 'can't move more than 6"/12"'.

 

But you agree you could still move no further than 6"/12", but use the pivot to then reach a unit previous out of charge range.  As long as you don't exceed the 6"/12" movement you measured?

That's a completely separate argument about rules unrelated to the rules being discussed.  Besides, we're not allowed to debate rules in the +OR+. ;)

[Gentlemanloser]

:P

 

Sorry, I should have said;

 

"It's obvious you can cover more distance when you pivot an oval base! That's the way it's intended to work!"

 

But true, in regards to the OP, you can't use an Oval Swivel (I might try to trade mark that!) to gain additional range for a cheeky first turn charge.

[Squirrelloid]

Sorry, I should have said;

"It's obvious you can cover more distance when you pivot an oval base! That's the way it's intended to work!"

But true, in regards to the OP, you can't use an Oval Swivel (I might try to trade mark that!) to gain additional range for a cheeky first turn charge.

I'm not sure if 1st turn is relevant, since i don't know if this could happen then, but the reverse of the situation Damien diagrammed could be used to gain extra distance for a charge so long as the charge wasn't in precisely the same direction as the move. (Ie, if the charge direction was 45 degrees left or right of forward relative to the move, the reverse of the swivel dam1en diagrammed handled how he wants to gains you more distance for the charge than rotating about the center would).

[Leonaides]

But if the intention was to charge, and YOu are concerned enough about the distance that you feel the need to do that, you probably should have been moving directly towards the target...