Close combat vs Vehicle Squadrons

[bluedestiny]

Hi peeps, hoping someone can clear up this for me and direct me to those rules cause I can't find any.

Question is regarding vehicle squadrons in combat. The picture is an example scenario. If a assault squad (red circles) charged the predator squadron and can only make it to the front one, and for argument sake did 7 penetrating hits, the first pred is destroyed but does the other 4 penetrating hits carry over to the other 2? So meaning it'll destroying another one and one more pen on the last one also even though no model is touching it?

Cause that totally suck...

[GodEmperorOfMankind]

Assaulting a vehicle pg210:

"any hits scored against a vehicle in close combat are resolved[...]using the same procedure as resolving hits inflicted by a shooting attack."

Shooting at squadrons pg211:

"Once you have determined the number of hits, these hits must be resolved, one at a time[...]once the chosen model in the squadron is destroyed[...]selects another model in the squadron that is within line of sight and range"

So once the model in base contact is destroyed you move onto the next model in range. That range is melee, so unless there's another vehicle in base contact that's it.

Also a note on pile in:

Pg210, "whilst vehicles can be assaulted[..]cannot be locked in combat."

Pile in moves Pg184 "models that are piling in must attempt to get as close as possible to one or more of the enemy units locked in this combat."

Any models that charged the vehicle squadron that didn't make it into base contact with a vehicle cannot pile in and cannot make any attacks.

So in your example above, only 4 of those charging models can make an attack (or 5 if you consider that one on the left as in base contact) and once they have destroyed the vehicle they are touching that's it, hits can't roll over onto the next one as they're out of melee range.

Hope that's clear.

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Altis

[bluedestiny]

Thank you for the clear explanation.

[ShadowCore67]

4 hours ago, Altis said:

Any models that charged the vehicle squadron that didn't make it into base contact with a vehicle cannot pile in and cannot make any attacks.

So in your example above, only 4 of those charging models can make an attack (or 5 if you consider that one on the left as in base contact) and once they have destroyed the vehicle they are touching that's it, hits can't roll over onto the next one as they're out of melee range.

Hope that's clear.

 

Why would the second row of models not be able to attack? They're in unit coherency with models from their unit that are in base to base with an enemy model.

[SkimaskMohawk]

The thing about being in range would mean you follow the range rules for melee attacks, which isn't only base to base.

But, the thing about being in range for allocating further pens post-initial model, makes me think that you would then check out the rules for engagement range and allocation. Which would mean in OPs picture only the first tank could die.

[GodEmperorOfMankind]

2 hours ago, ShadowCore67 said:

Why would the second row of models not be able to attack? They're in unit coherency with models from their unit that are in base to base with an enemy 

 Because hits are resolved like a shooting attack and vehicle squadron rules state it moves onto the next model in range, with there being no pile in and close combat weapons having no range, they're not able to attack.

If you ignored that and just used the main assault rules then all of vehicles would also be in squad coherency and wounds would be allocated to the next vehicle so in the above diagram the predators above the original would be at risk after the first was destroyed.

But vehicles don't have wounds so that doesn't make sense, and the assault rules for vehicles state if the vehicle is destroyed there is no sweeping advance, pile ins or consolidations.

It's effectively a shooting attack using only close combat weapons

Edited August 28, 2022 by Altis
Edited to change melee to close combat

[ShadowCore67]

53 minutes ago, Altis said:

 Because hits are resolved like a shooting attack and vehicle squadron rules state it moves onto the next model in range, with there being no pile in and close combat weapons having no range, they're not able to attack.

If you ignored that and just used the main assault rules then all of vehicles would also be in squad coherency and wounds would be allocated to the next vehicle so in the above diagram the predators above the original would be at risk after the first was destroyed.

But vehicles don't have wounds so that doesn't make sense, and the assault rules for vehicles state if the vehicle is destroyed there is no sweeping advance, pile ins or consolidations.

It's effectively a shooting attack using only close combat weapons

I think you're confusing who can attack and where attacks can be allocated. I agree with you that after the first vehicle is destroyed, that any successful glances/pens can no longer be allocated. But since units (for the most part) all attack at the same initiative, that means all the models in the unit get to swing. Some of the attacks might just end up being pointless.

[GodEmperorOfMankind]

2 hours ago, ShadowCore67 said:

I think you're confusing who can attack and where attacks can be allocated. I agree with you that after the first vehicle is destroyed, that any successful glances/pens can no longer be allocated. But since units (for the most part) all attack at the same initiative, that means all the models in the unit get to swing. Some of the attacks might just end up being pointless.

Hey thanks for the feedback, all appreciated. 

Can you walk through how you get to your conclusion with rules citations if possible please? 

I ask to help gain a better understanding of where you're coming from.

In the example you gave for instance, you talk about initiative and attacks. Vehicles don't have an initiative value though? The whole wound allocation doesn't work either, as they don't have wounds. So following the general assault rules for vehicles doesn't really work.

Cheers

 

[Cactus]

I won't do extensive quotes because I'm on my phone.

@Altist, I think @ShadowCore67iis saying you're wrong to say that the models not in base contact with the tank will not be able to attack at all. That might not be your intent but it's how I also read your otherwise excellent answer.

Using the rules for determining who can attack in close combat, and assuming the infantry models in the example are identical to and within 2" of their base to base buddies, the second line of models will be rolling to hit at the same time as the ones in base contact with the tank.

It is accurate to say that nobody can make a pile in move, or allocate any attacks/hits to the second and third tanks.

[GodEmperorOfMankind]

Hey cactus, I appreciate the response.

If you use the close combat rules to determine who can attack in close combat, and that models within unit coherency of a model in base contact with an enemy model count as engaged, then surely that would count the other way, and the other vehicles that are in unit coherency with the vehicle in contact with the infantry squad are also classed as engaged?

If that's the case then why do you say the other vehicles can't be allocated attacks?

49 minutes ago, Cactus said:

I won't do extensive quotes because I'm on my phone.

@Altist, I think @ShadowCore67iis saying you're wrong to say that the models not in base contact with the tank will not be able to attack at all. That might not be your intent but it's how I also read your otherwise excellent answer.

Using the rules for determining who can attack in close combat, and assuming the infantry models in the example are identical to and within 2" of their base to base buddies, the second line of models will be rolling to hit at the same time as the ones in base contact with the tank.

It is accurate to say that nobody can make a pile in move, or allocate any attacks/hits to the second and third tanks.

 

[SkimaskMohawk]

19 hours ago, Altis said:

 If you use the close combat rules to determine who can attack in close combat, and that models within unit  close combat, and that models within unit coherency of a model in base contact with an enemy model count as engaged, then surely that would count the other way, and the other vehicles that are in unit coherency with the vehicle in contact with the infantry squad are also classed as engaged?

Stuff is engaged as long as they're either in base to base, or are within the coherency of someone who is. Once you kill the last model in base to base, the rest of your models are no longer within 2" of anyone in base to base, and are disqualified for allocating wounds.

Obviously, we aren't allocating wounds here, and squadrons lack bespoke melee allocation rules (unlike 1st). But playing connect the dots, we know that singular vehicles in melee resolve hits against the rear armour using the shooting method. We know that shooting at squadrons requires allocating hits on subsequent squadron-mates to be in range of the attack. And we know that vehicle squadrons are treated as normal units with some exceptions, as noted on page 211:

"Most Vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. However, some Vehicles operate together in Squadrons. These are treated like normal units, with a few exceptions and clarifications as follows."

Ergo, determining range for melee attacks against the unit would follow the normal rules for units; removing the sole model in base to base will break engagement range.

[bluedestiny]

It would make sense even thematically that if one vehicle be destroyed the others would back up or do something, with also the not in contact attackers scrambling threw a exploded wreck.

[Xenith]

12 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Ergo, determining range for melee attacks against the unit would follow the normal rules for units; removing the sole model in base to base will break engagement range.

Incorrect - if there are no enemy models in engagement range, any remaining wounds in the wound pool are lost - not hits, whih in the case of a vehicle squadron are worked out sequentially. 

 

12 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

we know that singular vehicles in melee resolve hits against the rear armour using the shooting method.

Not just singular vehicles, but all vehicles, including vehicle squadrons. If your argument is that vehicle squadrons don't follow the same rules for single vehicles in the assault phase (attacks are distributed as per shooting), then vehicles in squadrons would also be hit on the armour facing being attacked, not automatically the rear. 

[GodEmperorOfMankind]

35 minutes ago, Xenith said:

Incorrect - if there are no enemy models in engagement range, any remaining wounds in the wound pool are lost - not hits, whih in the case of a vehicle squadron are worked out sequentially. 

 

Not just singular vehicles, but all vehicles, including vehicle squadrons. If your argument is that vehicle squadrons don't follow the same rules for single vehicles in the assault phase (attacks are distributed as per shooting), then vehicles in squadrons would also be hit on the armour facing being attacked, not automatically the rear. 

So what are you saying xenith, that melee hits would be carried over?

Talk me through your thought process mate

[Xenith]

Assaulting a vehicle:
"Any hits scored against a vehicle in close combat are resolved....using the same procedure as resolving hits inflicted by a shooting attack"

Shooting at squadrons:
"once you have determined the number of hits, these Hits must be resolved, one at a time, against a model in the squadron...as long as the selected model is within line of sight and range of the firing unit"

A melee weapon has no specific range, just that the weapon can be used in melee, against a unit that it is engaged with. Unengaged models cannot themselves attack, however can be attacked/allocated wounds/hits. 

The engaged/unengaged check happens during consolidation after post-combat pile-ins, after all attacks have been made. Until that point, the second tank in the above image is still in a unit engaged with the opponent, and a valid target, and can be hit with attacks allocated at the same I step as the ones that killed the first tank. 

If the argument is that unengaged models (those not themselves in Base contact, or within coherency of an engaged model), cannot be allocated a wound, then I'll trail my wounded terminator at the back of a unit when charging yours to keep him unengaged, and out of B2B. Wounds must be allocated to a wounded model first, however that model is not within 'range' of the melee weapon, so cannot be wounded. The only model that can receive a wound is out of range, so your attacks do nothing. Which is total nonsense. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

5 hours ago, Xenith said:

Incorrect - if there are no enemy models in engagement range, any remaining wounds in the wound pool are lost - not hits, whih in the case of a vehicle squadron are worked out sequentially. 

 

Not just singular vehicles, but all vehicles, including vehicle squadrons. If your argument is that vehicle squadrons don't follow the same rules for single vehicles in the assault phase (attacks are distributed as per shooting), then vehicles in squadrons would also be hit on the armour facing being attacked, not automatically the rear. 

To the first point, sure, it's wounds instead of hits. It doesn't make a big difference, as wounds are also discarded in the shooting phase against normal toughness value if subsequent models are out of range. The hit pool being done sequentially is analogous to the wound pool being done sequentially for toughness models. 

To the second point, I think you're missing the part where I said "we're connecting the dots"; the first dot being the first instance of rules that we need to apply. We apply that rule and find out we need to consult the shooting at vehicles rules; because it's a squadron, we need to use the shooting at squadron rules for sequencing, and squadrons are also treated as normal units with the specified restrictions.

And ya, unengaged models can't have wounds allocated to them. Just like models out of range of shooting attacks can't have wounds allocated to them. It doesn't matter if you think cycling models out to the back is nonsense; if you're out of the specified ranges, you don't take wounds. It's good tactical play, it's less gamey than character bouncing (which also break the "must be allocated to wounded models first" rule), and it's consistent across both range and melee. Its explicit in the rules.

Edited August 30, 2022 by SkimaskMohawk

[dickyelsdon]

16 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

And ya, unengaged models can't have wounds allocated to them. Just like models out of range of shooting attacks can't have wounds allocated to them. It doesn't matter if you think cycling models out to the back is nonsense; if you're out of the specified ranges, you don't take wounds. It's good tactical play, it's less gamey than character bouncing (which also break the "must be allocated to wounded models first" rule), and it's consistent across both range and melee. Its explicit in the rules.

I had this query with my group (im new to Heresy) and the this was the conclusion.  You can be defensive with units by deploying them deep. So if facing a brutal but small assault squad you could hopefully save a few models by having them spread out in multiple ranks. Of course the charging player can see this and try to position to ensure they can hit all your models by good use of charge and pile in moves.  Its not going to come up often but could help save units (or specific models) from charges by particularly nasty combat characters.