Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok my main question is does initiative order play a part when assaulting a vehicle, and do the vehicle damage results from a higher initiative model in a unit (Slugga & Choppa Boy) have an effect on the vehicle damage results of a lower initiative model in a unit.. (The PK wielding Nob).

That was a little confusing to phrase for me, and probably to read, so a couple examples:

11 Boyz and their PK Nob assault a Chimera which moved 6" in it's previous movement phase:
- The Boyz manage to get a Destroyed - Wrecked result from multiple Immobolized/Weapon Destroyed results. Now, does the Nob still get his 4 attacks? Or is the vehicle already wrecked and we can't attack a wrecked vehicle, so the assault is over?

- Alternatively, what if the initial 11 Boyz manage to only immobolize the Chimera? The Nob obviously gets his attacks, but do they auto-hit since he's assaulting an immobilized vehicle?

These scenarios have come up a few times in my games now and we have been uncertain on how to play it. In one game to solve this I rolled all my hits for my boyz, then all the hits for my nob, then the damage results at the same time.. However I don't feel this is the right solution.

Thanks!
- Thrill
 

·
The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
All attacks against a non-WS vehicle are made at the same time. All glancing and penetrating hits are rolled for at the same time, with the results being applied at one go. To my knowledge there is no use of different Initiatives when assaulting vehicles except those with a WS.

E.
 

·
LO Zealot
Joined
·
1,568 Posts
All attacks against a non-WS vehicle are made at the same time. All glancing and penetrating hits are rolled for at the same time, with the results being applied at one go. To my knowledge there is no use of different Initiatives when assaulting vehicles except those with a WS.

E.
Er, why do you say that? I haven't seen anything stating this in the rulebook, unless I missed this?

The way I've always seen it played is that you do in fact play it out at initiative. So in your (OP) first example, the Nob wouldn't get to swing as the only valid target has been destroyed. Then in the second example, the nob would automatically hit with his PK since it's immobilized when he swings. Bad news for the chimera!
 

·
The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
I said it because there isn't any mention of Initiative use when smacking non-WS vehicles like there is when assaulting things with a WS, but that was my only reasoning behind my comment. If I'm wrong then happy days since it certainly would make swatting a vehicle with a powerfist/claw/similar that much easier if the thing has been immobilised by previous attacks made by a model or models with higher initiatives. It's just that I can't see that as being the right way of looking at it.

Please prove me wrong because I would love it to be the other way!!

E.
 

·
404: Title not found
Joined
·
2,845 Posts
Actually, I think you're right and you do assault in Initiative order when assaulting non-WS vehicles. There is nothing which says it shouldn't be, and thinking outside the WH40K box, why would there be? In real life (or anything similar, should this situation ever crop up in the future :p), if there's someone who attacks a tank after everyone else, he does just that. He doesn't attack at the same speed if he doesn't attack at the same speed.

If that made any sense :p

~ DiW
 

·
Too Sexy For My Whirlwind
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
I said it because there isn't any mention of Initiative use when smacking non-WS vehicles like there is when assaulting things with a WS, but that was my only reasoning behind my comment. If I'm wrong then happy days since it certainly would make swatting a vehicle with a powerfist/claw/similar that much easier if the thing has been immobilised by previous attacks made by a model or models with higher initiatives. It's just that I can't see that as being the right way of looking at it.

Please prove me wrong because I would love it to be the other way!!
Even though my group has never really questioned this, I actually think you might be wrong(and hence myself and my group as well). The rulebook states that all models attacking in a close combat strike at initiave order, and I can't find a sentence anywhere suggesting that if the opponent does not have a WS its not a close combat, just rules stating that close combat against non-WS units is different from normal close combat. But its still a close combat, as thats the manner in which the attacks are made, and indeed the rules for entering combat are called "Launching//Declaring Assaults" in both the regular and the vehicle section of the rules.

Basically, unless there is a paragraph i've missed somewhere(quite possible) the attacks against non-WS vehicles are made with all the normal rules of close combat attacks(including Initiative order) except for where the rules make a stipulation(such as the To Hit part).
 

·
The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
Well then I will quite happily agree with the consensus of opinion! :)

E.
 

·
UnderWater Ninja-Tiger ..
Joined
·
785 Posts
I think I found the smoking gun for this one.

pg 64; BRB Assault Phase. said:
Damage results have the same effect ... and are allocated against the squadron at each Initiative value, in the same way as a normal combat.
Now I understand this is in the Squadrons section. But I believe its clear from this that attacking any vehicle that damage results are applied in Initiative order. Which is surprising as my group has never done so. Making those P.Fists autohit if the vehicle is Immobile by the time Sarge powers up the pimp hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
Your correct that you strike in initiative order, but incorrect that you will automatically strike with the nob in your example. The rule that applies to that says "If the vehicle was immobilised in previous turn, you will hit automatically".
 

·
LO Zealot
Joined
·
1,568 Posts
Your correct that you strike in initiative order, but incorrect that you will automatically strike with the nob in your example. The rule that applies to that says "If the vehicle was immobilised in previous turn, you will hit automatically".
Check again, sir! The rule states (p63):
"Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised or was stationary in its previous turn" --> Automatic hit

The rule is "hasn't moved" or "is immobilized" - not "hasn't moved or was immoblized".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
hmm...ok i'll give that

I read that as

Attacking a vehcile that is immobilised or stationary in its previous turn. But there is was after or which changes that meaning.
 

·
The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
I have also thrown it to the lions in my local GW store; the general opinion is that

1. Yes, attacks *are* done in Initiative order because that is the way assaults are done regardless of what the target is. There is no difference made between attacking models with WS and non-WS vehicles regarding Initiative since it is not specified anywhere in the BRB that there *is* any difference. Therefore
2. The PowerKlaw guy *would* go after all the Nobs had had their attacks.
3. He *would* be getting an auto-hit because the vehicle was immobilised by models with a higher Initiative before his turn to strike came.
4. The two statements in the "auto-hit" rule are both governed by the words "The vehicle", with two stated situations: the vehicle IS immobilised when it comes to the strike, or else the vehicle WAS stationary in the previous turn. Both allow auto-hits.

It was a question which did have the guys' thinking caps on for a while!

E.
 

·
404: Title not found
Joined
·
2,845 Posts
Attacking a vehcile that is immobilised or stationary in its previous turn. But there is was after or which changes that meaning.
To put it simply, it is supposed to be read 'Attacking a vehicle that is immobilised' OR 'was stationary in its previous turn'.

Also, eigle, I wouldn't trust a GWer :p LO knows more than randome GWers ;)

~ DiW
 

·
The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
Heh heh! Yeah, I know that! I didn't actually mean only the staffers; there are a good few rules champions in there too in the clientele base. :)

E.
 

·
404: Title not found
Joined
·
2,845 Posts
Heh heh! Yeah, I know that! I didn't actually mean only the staffers; there are a good few rules champions in there too in the clientele base. :)

E.
Ah well, as long as it's the clientele and not the staff you're getting it from. Most of the staff are cool, but then you get the ones who say 'Look, a new LOTR model is out!' and hint that you should buy it :p

~ DiW
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top