Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

A few rules queries

 Post subject: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 172
I've come across a few odd rules I'm after people's opinions on:

1. A formation cannot give supporting fire if it 'marched in its last action'. Nothing states that this is reset at the beginning of the next turn (and end of turn rallying is not an 'action')- so do people mark formations that marched in their last action, or is this rule generally ignored over multiple turns?

If a unit which marched in its last action is drawn into the combat by a counter-charge, however, then I would assume it fully takes part in the combat as usual (regardless of the turn on which it marched).

Additionally, crossfire cannot be claimed if to a 'marching formation'- with no definition of when a unit ceases to be a 'marching unit'. I would assume this is intended to be the same as for supporting fire.

I've never followed these rules as written above- does anyone else?


2. If a formation loses an assault while mounted, can the mounted troops be removed as 'hack down' casualties before their transport is destroyed?


3. Units can dismount as part of a counter charge. Counter charge moves must be made directly towards the nearest enemy unit. Does this mean that a disembarking unit must disembark as close to the enemy as possible, including being placed into base contact where possible?

(I've looked up the FAQ and not found answers)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:59 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8440
Location: Worcester, MA
1.2.6:

Quote:
Units from formations that are either Broken or Marched this turn cannot lend support


1.11

Quote:
You may not use units that are in broken or marching formations to claim the crossfire bonus.


If you're getting that language from the printed book it is out of date. There was errata that likely addressed it (which is incorporated into the TP links above).

2) Hack downs are closest units first, given that a transport is always going to be closer than a transported stand. Also, see the FAQs here.

3) A dismount isn't a counter-charge, it's its own thing. I'd say no to that one, as they're being "placed".

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15 | Raven Guard 2018-04-23


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5443
Location: London, UK
Agreed Dave.

1. Normally a formation that marches cannot give support or provide cross-fire 'aid' (the exception being Dark Eldar which have a special rule that specifically allows this).
However if the formation is assaulted after marching they can counter-charge and fight as normal.

Finally this 'state' is reset each turn, so the formation can now provide support and aid cross-fire at the start of the following turn without activating or doing anything else.

2. Hackdowns are taken from the units nearest the enemy (unless the unit is fearless), so a transport vehicle and then its contents would be lost before moving on to the next unit (vehicle or infantry).

3. As Dave says, infantry can dismount around the vehicle at the player's discretion.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2379
Location: UK
There's potentially a worthy question around the order when it comes to the allocation of hackdown hits on transports, i.e. whether you can allocate to the units inside separately. Consider that for shooting you would allocate all hits to the transports, roll transports' saves as appropriate THEN roll saves on transported units.

For hackdown no saves are allowed though, so once you allocate a hit to a transport it is lost along with its contents. At least I think that's how we play it, it's been a long day!

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Posts: 485
Location: Hobart, Australia
That's not what the faq says though Kyrt :tut

Quote:
What happens to transported units when the unit transporting them is destroyed by the extra hits from the result of an assault?
They make their normal armour save or a 6+ cover save.


But like you I'm still not 100% clear on this:
If a unit being transported is lost due to the transport being lost to combat resolution then does it count towards the number of hits assigned?

Example:
An imperial guard unit is in a chimera when the formation loses combat by two.
One hit is assigned to the chimera which is destroyed. The guard unit gets a 6+ cover save which it fails. Does that count as two hackdown hits or just one?

It doesn't specifically say in the faq as far as I could see.

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2379
Location: UK
ah yeah.

if it fails it save it wouldnt count as one of the hackdowns, but if it makes the save the question is does it get the second hackdown hit allocated to it?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 172
Quote:
If you're getting that language from the printed book it is out of date. There was errata that likely addressed it (which is incorporated into the TP links above).

Thanks Dave. I was reading from the printed rulebook, and that simple change of phrasing makes things a lot simpler. The quote regarding crossfire is unchanged from the printed book, and could potentially be argued, but I think the intention is clear enough (and supported by the supporting fire rewording).

Quote:
if it fails it save it wouldnt count as one of the hackdowns, but if it makes the save the question is does it get the second hackdown hit allocated to it?

I would assume a unit that disembarked safely from a hacked-down transport could not be allocated other hack-down hits, as you'd have to allocate all hits and then make saves (so you wouldn't know it survived until after all hits were allocated).

Can embarked units 'soak up' hack down hits though, despite not being on the board?
It's fair enough that the transport must be hit first, being closer than the guys inside it, but the guys inside it are still technically closer than the next closest transport is likely to be (assuming the transports aren't all in base-to-base contact with enemies, or similar).
To put this into a scenario:
A Guard formation of 6 Chimeras and 12 Guardsmen (all mounted) suffers 3 hack-down hits. Do I:
A) Allocate one to the closest Chimera, then one to each of the Guardsmen squads mounted in that Chimera, before making saves (no saves allowed for any of them).
B) Allocate one hit to each of the three closest Chimeras, then the 6 Guardsmen units inside all have to make their 6+ saves?

If hack-down hits cant be allocated to transported units, what happens in the case of a Fearless transport carrying non-fearless units suffering hack-down hits? Are the hits fully ignored?

I would assume that a non-fearless War Engine would be allocated hack-down hits up to its remaining DC before the hits flowed onto the next closest model. That would mean that something like an Orkeosaurus could absorb up to 6 hits- at which point hits start being allocated to any transported models, and finally any surviving transported models would get to make a save for having been in a destroyed transport, as usual. Is that right?

There could be a further complication if shields were involved (I haven't seen anything saying shields can't absorb the hits), but I'm not aware of any non-fearless unit with shields.

Quote:
3) A dismount isn't a counter-charge, it's its own thing. I'd say no to that one, as they're being "placed".

That's good to know, thanks. Either way of playing could be tactically interesting, but my Guard and Eldar prefer this ruling ;D .


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:46 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8440
Location: Worcester, MA
Geep wrote:
To put this into a scenario:
A Guard formation of 6 Chimeras and 12 Guardsmen (all mounted) suffers 3 hack-down hits. Do I:
A) Allocate one to the closest Chimera, then one to each of the Guardsmen squads mounted in that Chimera, before making saves (no saves allowed for any of them).
B) Allocate one hit to each of the three closest Chimeras, then the 6 Guardsmen units inside all have to make their 6+ saves?


I would let you play it like A) but I believe the official ruling is B). I can't remember this situation ever popping up though as it's rare over here to keep your infantry buttoned up in transports.

Quote:
If hack-down hits cant be allocated to transported units, what happens in the case of a Fearless transport carrying non-fearless units suffering hack-down hits? Are the hits fully ignored?


If nothing's close (read: on board) I would then allocate to non-fearless transported units.

Quote:
I would assume that a non-fearless War Engine would be allocated hack-down hits up to its remaining DC before the hits flowed onto the next closest model. That would mean that something like an Orkeosaurus could absorb up to 6 hits- at which point hits start being allocated to any transported models, and finally any surviving transported models would get to make a save for having been in a destroyed transport, as usual. Is that right?


Allocate to the Orkeosaurus, then anything else on board, then transported units, then everything that had it's transported destroyed has to make a save (these don't cause blast markers).

Quote:
There could be a further complication if shields were involved (I haven't seen anything saying shields can't absorb the hits), but I'm not aware of any non-fearless unit with shields.


The lack of a non-fearless unit with Void Shields is likely why we haven't seen a FAQ for it. But no, shields wouldn't stop a hack down hit.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15 | Raven Guard 2018-04-23


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:43 pm
Posts: 1071
Location: Devon, UK
As far as I'm aware, it's impossible to allocate hackdown hits to transported units.

From 1.12.7, 'Remove these additional casualties as you would hits inflicted in the assault phase (i.e., units in base contact first, then those closest to the enemy, etc.).'

From 1.12.5, allocating hits in assaults, 'Each player allocates the hits and make saving throws in the same manner as they would when allocating hits from shooting.'.

So just like you would when shooting, you'd have to allocate the three hits to three Chimeras, then make saves for the transported infantry.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader - we buy and sell used GW.
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:49 pm
Posts: 485
Location: Hobart, Australia
Nice work IJW, that makes sense.
So Dave was right in the official ruling is B in geep's chimera example above.

Therefore could you assume that the 6 hits are applied to the orkoesaurus and the transported infantry are immune to hackdowns?

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 172
I figure there are times when infantry want to end a turn in their transport (for a longer assault next turn, for example), and if that formation is then assaulted it could occur that the troops can't disembark (I seem to remember something about being unable to disembark if 2 enemy units per DC are in base contact, though can't find that now- I may be confusing rule systems). That could make my questions here more relevant.

If the transported units are completely immune to the extra hits then there's quite a few scenarios where it may be best to keep them on board. For example, if a Fearless Gorgon and it's infantry were locked in an assault they were likely to lose it may be better to keep the infantry behind the armour, to reduce total casualties suffered.

Along those lines- for Feral Ork Junkatrucks and Dark Eldar Raiders- where the transported unit 'may shoot'. Does this include being able to contribute their FF values while mounted? If so, then remaining on a Barge of Pleasure during an assault could easily be a big benefit. Stormlords (in the Cadian Shock Troop list) specifically allows 4 transported units to contribute to firefight.
I would assume in these cases that anything that is able to deal out hits in an assault (even if only the Stormlord above fits that category) then the unit must also be able to receive hits- regardless of physical presence on the board. If not, adding a Commissar to the Stormlord looks like a very good idea.

Quote:
The lack of a non-fearless unit with Void Shields is likely why we haven't seen a FAQ for it. But no, shields wouldn't stop a hack down hit.

I've done some more list reading, and discovered that the Dark Eldar Barge of Pleasure and Slavebringer both have shields without being fearless.
If hits are allocated just as for regular shooting and combat, as IJW points out, then I don't see why shields can't take hits?
This adds two extra problems though- the Dark Eldar shields do not work in close combat, so are you allowed to allocate hits to shields unless the model is in base contact with an enemy? (though the models are skimmers, so could force FF anyway)
Would you allocate hits up to the DC as normal, then move on to allocating hits to other units, then have the shields absorb those hits? (ie. The same way as hit allocation usually is to a shielded War Engine unit)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:36 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: South Yorkshire
Geep wrote:
I've come across a few odd rules I'm after people's opinions on:

1. A formation cannot give supporting fire if it 'marched in its last action'. Nothing states that this is reset at the beginning of the next turn (and end of turn rallying is not an 'action')- so do people mark formations that marched in their last action, or is this rule generally ignored over multiple turns?


The rule is actually
Quote:
1.12.6 Supporting Fire Both sides may call upon support unless the defender has been wiped out or the attack stalled as described above. Calling on support allows units from other formations to attack with their firefight value if they are within 15cm and have a line of fire to an enemy unit directly involved in the assault. In this case ‘directly involved’ means belonging to the attacking or position to attack. This rule represents units from both sides that are not directly involved in the assault lending supporting fire when they see their friends coming under attack. Units from formations that are either Broken or Marched this turn cannot lend support.

So no rule is being ignored.


Quote:
If a unit which marched in its last action is drawn into the combat by a counter-charge, however, then I would assume it fully takes part in the combat as usual (regardless of the turn on which it marched).

Additionally, crossfire cannot be claimed if to a 'marching formation'- with no definition of when a unit ceases to be a 'marching unit'. I would assume this is intended to be the same as for supporting fire.

I've never followed these rules as written above- does anyone else?

FAQ answer
Quote:
1.11 Crossfire
Q: In the ‘crossfire’ rules, it was not clear whether or not both of the formations that were causing the crossfire had to actively shoot at the enemy formation in the crossfire. If this is the case, what if the first formation wipes the enemy out? Is the second formation ‘pre-obligated’ to shoot at it? A: The second formation is not pre-obligated to shoot (i.e., it just needs to be a ‘threat’).

If a formation marched that turn it is not a threat as it cannot shoot at the target, if it has not marched that turn it is a threat as it can shoot at the target .

Quote:
2. If a formation loses an assault while mounted, can the mounted troops be removed as 'hack down' casualties before their transport is destroyed?

This has come up before .
I cannot find any FAQ online nor find my printed versions.
IIRC The way to do it is place "1 hackdown kill" on all remaing transports and any other viable units, then make armour or"6+ transport cover" saves on units trapped in transports that are hacked down . Then place any remaining hackdown kills on any survivors.
Will keep searching to try and find confirmation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2379
Location: UK
If it isn't possible to allocate hackdown hits to transported units - and TBH this interpretation is probably the most compatible with the RAW - it could cause some funky effects. Commissars in chimeras to protect the supreme commander from death in resolution for example. I think if it has ever come up I've probably just allocated any remaining hackdowns to units that survived their transports being destroyed without thinking about it. i.e. the process Dave outlined.

On shields, another interesting question. It's the same as hits from blast markers on broken troops. I'm honestly not sure what I'd do.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5443
Location: London, UK
Ok, I have been working through the past history and racking my one brain cell on the question about Hackdowns and transport.

First off, the Hackdown hits described in 1.12.7 represent confusion, units disintegrating etc. Consequently they cannot be stopped by shields etc.

Dptdexys has picked out the relevant FAQ regarding the contents of a transport that becomes a casualty through the Hackdown process; the contents need to take an armour save, or 6+ if it has none.
The question of Fearless units in a transport destroyed by the Hackdown process was raised here, and yes the Fearless unit could die through the destruction of the transport.

Finally, 1.12.7 states that casualties are removed in the same way as hits are applied ie. front to back. I suggest that the key difference is that we are removing casualties not applying 'hits', so:
  • The player should remove the nearest transport and then to remove it's contents as casualties before passing on to the next nearest unit. The key difference is that we also need to check whether any Fearless contents die to the destruction of the transport (they obviously do not die to the Hackdown process).
  • It is arguable that a non-fearless WE should be removed as a single casualty, rather than applying it's DC in terms of 'hits', though I believe most people would remove the number of DC casualties before moving onto the next unit. I think this needs to be clarified as a FAQ, as it is also a rarity.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: A few rules queries
PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:09 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 172
Though I agree that shields probably shouldn't prevent hackdown hits, the current wording of the rules strongly indicates that shields should be useful

I think it's important to quote the relevant parts of 1.12.7 in its full context:
Quote:
In addition, the losing formation suffers a number of extra hits equal to the difference between the two sides’ result scores. There are no saves for these hits, which represent units being hacked down as they turn and run, or disintegrating into a panic-driven rout as they flee. Remove these additional casualties as you would hits inflicted in the assault phase (i.e., units in base contact first, then those closest to the enemy, etc.).


So:
-Hackdowns are applied as hits with no save
-The reference to units suffering these hits as casualties later on is a bit premature, but understandable, as at the time of the core rules being written none of the trouble units I've found here existed. I think reading this as 'Apply these hits as you would hits inflicted in the assault phase (i.e., units in base contact first, then those closest to the enemy, etc.)' is what is intended.

From this:
-As others have pointed out, all hits would be allocated to what is on the board- namely the transports. These units would then make their saves (which are none), causing their transported troops to come out (and forcing saves on them). As all hits of the one kind must be allocated before making saves, and hits can't be allocated to the transported troops not present on the board, these transported troops are immune to the direct effects of the hackdown, even if the hackdown hits would cause overkill of the transports (some transports would die twice, to no purpose). This is the same as hit allocation during the combat and shooting phases.

-A War Engine would take as many hits as required to destroy, not die to a single hackdown hit (crit rolls would be made as normal). This may be a bit of a rarity, but could be vital- I originally started along this whole line of thought when considering how to take down Orkeosaurus, which Feral Orks can spam (as happened in a recent Australian tournament).

-A Fearless transport would perfectly shield any troops inside from hackdown, in the same way an armoured vehicle perfectly shields any transported infantry from AP fire- it simply can't take the hit. How this then works for things like the Cadian Stormlord (where transported troops can actively FF) is a confusing matter for that particular list. It could be a serious matter for other lists, depending on how 'transported units may shoot' is interpreted (does this allow FF?).

-Shields are still an issue. Being hits, there is no obvious reason why shields shouldn't absorb the hackdown hits in the same way as any other hits (though things like Eldar Holofields, which give a save, are useless).
--This then raises the usual issue of hit distribution, shields and DC. In a formation with two Barges of Pleasure, for example, by the current rules as written you'd distribute 3 hits to the first Barge then 3 hits to the next Barge before returning to allocate more hits to the first Barge. As they have 2 shields each (and assuming these are still up) each barge would therefore only lose 1DC from 6 hackdown hits (plus all shields down). That's obviously a very different outcome to if shields didn't prevent hackdown.
--Hackdown hits are distributed 'as hits in the assault phase', but not specified as FF or CC hits. This can be relevant to purposes of ignoring shields, as most shields don't work for CC but do for FF.

@Dptdexys-
My initial question came from reading the printed rulebook- I am now reading the online rulebook, which does fix this problem.
As to the matter of 'threat' definition, ability to shoot is not a good guide here- the unit to which the line is drawn doesn't have to be armed with any ranged weapons, not even small arms. Fortunately the issue is made mostly clear in the online rulebook.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net