Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

Slingshotting Rules Gaff
Closed Thread
Old 08 Jun 2006, 16:05   #1 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 445
Default Slingshotting Rules Gaff

There's a bit of a debate right now at ATT regarding using a Ninja'O (Vector Thrust suit) using Hit and Run on a tank to get the extra 3d6" movement. Apparently, somebody figures that the rules for infantry apply to vehicles if properly stretched and overrule the rules for vehicles in assaults. Basically, some people figure that you can't Hit and Run a tank, because since the tank has no WS, there is no close combat. Therefore, you can't do a 3d6" fallback move from close combat. This is in spite of rules like pg71, under Results, "At the conclusion of a round of close combat against a vehicle with no WS characteristic..." which clearly state that close combat occurs.

Seems pretty clear to me, but I'm sure Marine-centric forums are marshalling arguments against it, so I imagine for any sort of important game, you'd better check with your opponent so your both on the same page before you lose a Ninja'o when your opponent won't let you jump 3d6" into cover.
daniel.wilson is offline  
Old 08 Jun 2006, 16:15   #2 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 18,087
Default Re: Slingshotting Rules Gaff

Quote:
Originally Posted by daniel.wilson
There's a bit of a debate right now at ATT regarding using a Ninja'O (Vector Thrust suit) using Hit and Run on a tank to get the extra 3d6" movement. Apparently, somebody figures that the rules for infantry apply to vehicles if properly stretched and overrule the rules for vehicles in assaults. Basically, some people figure that you can't Hit and Run a tank, because since the tank has no WS, there is no close combat. Therefore, you can't do a 3d6" fallback move from close combat. This is in spite of rules like pg71, under Results, "At the conclusion of a round of close combat against a vehicle with no WS characteristic..." which clearly state that close combat occurs.

Seems pretty clear to me, but I'm sure Marine-centric forums are marshalling arguments against it, so I imagine for any sort of important game, you'd better check with your opponent so your both on the same page before you lose a Ninja'o when your opponent won't let you jump 3d6" into cover.
I thought this one was pretty clear the other way, but I guess there is room for debate.

On page 71, "Models that have assaulted a vehicle with no WS are not classed as Locked"

and on page 74, "The unit using the Hit & Run ability must be involved ("be involved", not "must have been involved") in a combat ... ignoring the units they are locked with". Since Hit & Run is declared at the end of the assault phase (after all close-combat rounds have been resolved), I do not see how you can use it when fighting a tank by the letter of the rules. This is the same general idea that does not allow units that have destroyed a tank in close combat to make consolidation moves. If all you need to use Hit & Run is to have been involved in a close combat earlier in the phase, you could just as easily claim that it gives you a 3d6 move in addition to normal consolidation. I do not think it can be used unless you are actually locked at the end of the assault phase.
khanaris is offline  
Old 08 Jun 2006, 18:50   #3 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,232
Send a message via MSN to Hadhfang
Default Re: Slingshotting Rules Gaff

yea, and it's really wrong, for severall reasons, you don't charge a tank & get a bonus movement do you realy?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaifrog
Hooray! We've corrupted Hadhfang ;D
Hadhfang is offline  
Old 08 Jun 2006, 18:56   #4 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado Springs Colorado
Posts: 349
Default Re: Slingshotting Rules Gaff

I've seen this come up (and brought it up myself) with regard to the Flechette Dischargers.

My reading, and I don't have the BBB right here, is that "locked" doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you test Ld for win/loss of a combat.

Nothing in the BBB states that you have to be locked in a CC to be forced to test for losing (suffering more unsaved wounds). You test and resolve the results before any mention of being "locked" occurs in the sequence of Assault Phase actions.

When I brought this up in relation to the Flechette Discharger, I asserted that because the FD can cause wounds, and nothing in the BBB states you have to have a WS above 0 to force the opponent of a CC to test, any wounds caused by FDs would matter in deciding who wins and who loses a CC. Thus, a Devilfish equipped with FDs COULD force an infantry unit to fall back. That's according to RAW.

But my point is that "locked" doesn't have anything to do with testing for win/loss.

The rules for the Hit and Run simply state that you use Hit and Run before resolving such a win/loss Ld test.

Thus, RAW would dictate that you can use H&R in combat versus a vehicle.

The main sticking point of this debate centers around something that is NOT in the rulebook:

Does a WS0 vehicle, under any circumstances, cause its opponent to test Ld or Fall Back?

There are only two occasions that I know of where a WS0 vehicle (without the aid of an ally in a CC) can cause CC casualties: One is the Flechette Discharger. The other is some Nurgle vehicle upgrade that functions much the same way as the FD.

In my earlier argument that Flechette Discharger casualties DO count for determining who wins/loses a CC, I proved that being locked is irrelevant to this Ld test. However, that was a RAW argument, and people who have played the game longer than I have asserted that the "tradition" is that a WS0 vehicle never forces a Ld test on an enemy unit (as was the interpretation of the nurgle vehicle upgrade, which has been around a long time).

So it all boils down to that:
Locked doesn't matter.
Does WS0 preclude you from ever "winning" or "losing" a round of CC?

If you can't win or lose a CC, no one should have to test.
If you can, they should, regardless of the fact that in the next turn, either the vehicle or the infantry can just move away.

/edit I forgot my close.
The only way I can see that H&R is not allowed in a CC vs. a WS0 Vehicle is if it is a requirement that one side or the other tests Ld before you can use H&R.

Another question:
if the CC is a "draw" versus infantry, can you still use H&R? (I don't know, no rulebook)
__________________
Proudly banned from both Mech Tau Tactica and Advanced Tau Tactica by Kai'Lore. Kai'Lore has no honor and the fact that my mere presence reminds him of this is more than his cowardly person can bear. He banned me from the new site after less than a day. =)
heliodorus04 is offline  
Old 08 Jun 2006, 19:05   #5 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 445
Default Re: Slingshotting Rules Gaff

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khanaris
On page 71, "Models that have assaulted a vehicle with no WS are not classed as Locked"

and on page 74, "The unit using the Hit & Run ability must be involved ("be involved", not "must have been involved") in a combat ... ignoring the units they are locked with. Since Hit & Run is declared at the end of the assault phase (after all close-combat rounds have been resolved), I do not see how you can use it when fighting a tank by the letter of the rules. This is the same general idea that does not allow units that have destroyed a tank in close combat to make consolidation moves. If all you need to use Hit & Run is to have been involved in a close combat earlier in the phase, you could just as easily claim that it gives you a 3d6 move in addition to normal consolidation. I do not think it can be used unless you are actually locked at the end of the assault phase.
Well, Hit & Run doesn't specify being Locked as a condition of use, only that you "must be involved in a combat." Which a Ninja'O would be, as he's assaulting a vehicle. Should the vehicle survive the assault, one declares that the unit chooses to leave close combat. It's still the Assault Phase, as the next Phase is the opponent's Movement Phase. Fortunately, under Hit & Run it says "Declare this at the end of the Close Combat phase." not after. Hit & Run also states "...ignoring the units they are locked with." This is an assumption, not a prerequisate. It's saying being locked doesn't prevent you from leaving close combat, not that you must be locked to leave close combat. In fact, you aren't locked if assaulting a vehicle with no WS, and can walk away on your next turn.

Regarding Consolidation, pg 71 states that "there are no sweeping advances or Consolidation moves." against a vehicle with no WS. There is no mention of Hit and Run in that sentence and Hit & Run moves are neither a sweeping advance or Consolidation move.

However, that's an interesting point when applied to something like a Imperial Guard unit assaulted by a Ninja'O. Should the IG unit lose the assault, fail morale, and fall back, the Ninja'O gets to consolidate, regardless of the sweeping advance results. If the consolidation move does not allow the Ninja'O to consolidate into an enemy unit, the Ninja'O can't use Hit & Run. If the consolidation move does allow the Ninja'O to consolidate into an enemy unit, he can then use Hit & Run, or stay where he is and lock the enemy unit. Which allows the Ninja'O to move 6"(Movement)+6"(Assault)+3"(Consolidation)+3d6"(Hi t&Run) for 18-33" of movement.

I think the main thing is that you can legally move 6", shoot, assault 6", and then use Hit&Run to move 3d6" at the end of the Assault Phase. Why is this different when assaulting a vehicle, rather than a infantry unit? The differences are that against a vehicle, you aren't locked, which doesn't appear to be a problem by the wording of the rules.

Heliodorus04 said "The rules for the Hit and Run simply state that you use Hit and Run before resolving such a win/loss Ld test."

Actually, the rules state that Hit and Run occurs at the end of the Assault Phase. Which means after everything is resolved. I think it should occur after the Leadership test for morale, during Breaking Off and Consolidation(p36, Assault Phase Summary step 5 of Resolve Combats), but I didn't write the rules.

Heliodorus04 also said "My reading, and I don't have the BBB right here, is that "locked" doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you test Ld for win/loss of a combat.

Nothing in the BBB states that you have to be locked in a CC to be forced to test for losing (suffering more unsaved wounds). You test and resolve the results before any mention of being "locked" occurs in the sequence of Assault Phase actions."

I don't understand how this applies to a Ninja'O assaulting a vehicle.
daniel.wilson is offline  
Old 08 Jun 2006, 20:36   #6 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 18,087
Default Re: Slingshotting Rules Gaff

So the question is really when exactly the Crisis suit ceases to be involved in a close combat. This is not well-defined.

Given what the Retro-Thrusters actually do, I don't have a problem the idea of a Crisis suit jumping after attacking a vehicle. But it still seems like an exploit given the way the rules are worded. I think we are probably at the stage where we need to start firing off the support barrage to the Rulez Boyz.

Since it is impossible for a vehicle to "lose" close-combat, as damage done against it does not mean anything and it does not suffer from overwhelming odds like a walker does, I think the flechette discharger allowing it to "win" a close combat is probably just a strange (and rather strained) exception. That one would also require an official answer before I could agree with its use. Do we have precedent from Imperial Guard Armored Company using sponsons in assault? I do not have those rules at hand.
khanaris is offline  
Old 08 Jun 2006, 20:45   #7 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado Springs Colorado
Posts: 349
Default Re: Slingshotting Rules Gaff

Khanaris, the closest I got to any consensus on Flechette Dischargers was that they don't count toward win/loss in a CC unless there's another model with a WS1+ in the same CC.

The argument was based on "tradition" and the Nurgle vehicle upgrade (I think it's called a warp flame, or something like that). A Nurgle Rhino with that functioned exactly as FDs, and no one ever argued that it could cause the attacking unit to take a Ld test if it did not kill the Rhino...

Another argument was that if you allowed FDs to count as wounds to attacking models, then the attacking models should get the same benefits from any hit results (not just hits) that they would if they were attacking a walker, and also inflict the extra glancing hit if there was an outnumbered situation.

I agree with you that it looks like there's a gap in the rules that lets your Stealth'O use H&R willy nilly. I admit it's pretty cool. I'm not sure whether it's an exploit of something unintended or not. My gut reaction is that since you have to go the full distance rolled in the H&R, and in one direction (I forget if it's a mandatory direction), it's got some built in drawbacks, so I've no problem with it.

It makes me want to start taking VRT on my Shas'O instead of a shield generator...
__________________
Proudly banned from both Mech Tau Tactica and Advanced Tau Tactica by Kai'Lore. Kai'Lore has no honor and the fact that my mere presence reminds him of this is more than his cowardly person can bear. He banned me from the new site after less than a day. =)
heliodorus04 is offline  
Old 08 Jun 2006, 20:56   #8 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 445
Default Re: Slingshotting Rules Gaff

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khanaris
Given what the Retro-Thrusters actually do, I don't have a problem the idea of a Crisis suit jumping after attacking a vehicle. But it still seems like an exploit given the way the rules are worded. I think we are probably at the stage where we need to start firing off the support barrage to the Rulez Boyz.
If you're talking to the Rulz Boyz, word it as a Marine question. Eg "Can Captain Kayvan Shrike assault a Tau Devilfish, then use Hit and Run?" "Oh, of course! Space Marines can do it all!"

Let's manipulate the Marine-centric!
daniel.wilson is offline  
Old 08 Jun 2006, 23:47   #9 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 443
Default Re: Slingshotting Rules Gaff

I'd allow it, but you would NEVER see me try and use it.
Savient is offline  
Old 09 Jun 2006, 05:32   #10 (permalink)
Shas'Vre
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,409
Default Re: Slingshotting Rules Gaff

I certainly wouldn't try it against AC. Eat some HB shells (or worse) from the sponsons and owie.
orion549 is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rules FAQ - Post Rules Questions Here MalVeauX The Inquisition 112 14 Sep 2009 23:55
Dogs of War: Ugly Akmed's Camelry, plus new rules for Cavalry! [House Rules] Wargamer The Warhammer World 5 17 Jul 2008 17:04
Chaos Rules FAQ - Ask Rules Questions Here Kre Mont re Forces of Chaos 295 05 Jun 2008 09:25
Rules and points legal Imperial Guard character special rules! Now more! Commander Songblade Imperial Guard 17 01 Nov 2007 21:42
Saw the new rules today, made a new rules army... Brother-Captain Space Marines 4 07 Nov 2004 17:50