PDA

View Full Version : Supporting attacks behind large bases



LAV-Kitsune-
04-11-2010, 09:18
We got a little rules disagreement on daemons tactica, but as this issue can affect other armies as well I decided to post it in here.

If Herald on Juggernaut joins Bloodletters, can bloodletters from the third rank attack aswell? Ofcourse same situation can be in WoC, Skaven and Lizardmen for example.

Counter argument was that models in the third rank can attack normally because on page 48 it says that:
- A model can make a supporting attack if it is directly behing a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact.
Thus it would allow models to attack through bigger things in the unit aswell as they are also models.

My rules interpretation was that they cannot attack behind him, as they are on rank 3:
- Model cannot attack since on the diagrams of the page 48 all models are just normal sized characters, not big monsters.
- Under supporting attacks (p.48) it implies that warriors on the second rank deal the supporting attacks and since jugger takes the second rank also, they couldnt attack.
- Under the horde rules it says that warriors can make support attacks from third rank.
- At page 98 under different sized bases between the diagrams it says that "if the character fit into the unit in this manner, work out the units rank (and therefore its rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops" which implies that jugger rider "counts" as 4 rank and file troops.
- At the same page rules just tell that you should use common sense to make everything work, and for me common sense says that you cannot hit through something that is 4 times bigger than you.

Kevlar
04-11-2010, 11:51
Nothing in any diagram or rules explaination allows models to attack past the second rank in normal formation or third rank in horde formation unless they have a weapon that allows them to attack in an extra rank.

Nowhere is it stated that models behind something with a large footprint can make supporting attacks.

KronusDaSneaky
04-11-2010, 11:53
Indeed we did. My honourable opponent in this argument questioned my claim that rank had nothing to do with supporting attacks, just a models position in relation to those fighting in base contact with the enemy. This was sparked when I made the comment that you would not lose the two supporting attacks due to the juggernauts larger base since the rules would give those models directly behind herald the supporting attacks. My rival in this argument then went on to state that being in the 3 rank they couldn’t do so and went from there.


Why did I come up with my reasoning?

My reasoning is based on the clear cut definition of who gets supporting attacks which can be found on page 42 of the rulebook. If you read this section it has one paragraph that precisely defines who gets to make a supporting attack/s. Which reads as follows:

A model can make a supporting attack if it is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact.

To my mind this quite clearly means that whether a model gets a supporting attack is entirely dependant on whether or not it is behind a friendly model that is fighting in base contact with the enemy. It does not have anything to do with rank beyond the fact the models that qualify for a supporting attack are usually but not necessarily in the 2nd rank


The Argument against this

It is largely based on the rules found of pg 98:

"If the character fit into the unit in this manner, work out the units rank (and therefore its rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops"

On this basis my rival in this matter believes this implies the juggernaut count as not simply displacing the model but replacing the models in the 2nd rank for the purpose of working out attacks and supporting attacks. However I believe this interpretation great broadens a rule that has no application, in short that this statement on pg 98 has everything to do with working out ranks and rank bonus and nothing to do with supporting attacks. Breaking down this statement into its component parts it means the followingL

That a character with a larger base is count as filling the space as if its model was made up of rank and file troops for the purpose of working out a units rank and rank bonus only. It does not count as filling the space if its model was made up of rank and file troops for anything else, supporting attacks or otherwise. Quite simply this rule only has application with regard to rank and rank bonuses.

Going back to original rule for what constitutes a supporting attack though you will see that it’s a units position in relation to others fighting in base contact with the enemy and not their rank that matters. Since rank is a not factor any rule that affects how ranks are regarded is similarly not related


Contesting specific elements raised in previous post


Model cannot attack since on the diagrams of the page 48 all models are just normal sized characters, not big monsters.

This unfortunately has no impact on the argument since by not including a larger model in the images that show supporting attacks none of the images relates to the rule being debated. Not one of the images shows how supporting attacks are affected in this scenario either for or against and can not be used to evidence either argument.

Under supporting attacks (p.48) it implies that warriors on the second rank deal the supporting attacks and since jugger takes the second rank also, they couldnt attack.

No it doesn’t. The rule as previously stated is very clearly cut that this is not the case and rank is not relavent. The small intro that does make mention of 2 rank but is little more then a fluffy intro and not the actual rule of thumb. Additionally all it evidences is that normally the 2nd rank make the supporting attacks, I don’t contest this, all I contest is that the receive it due to being behind some fighting in base contact with the enemy not due to being in the 2nd rank. If it had been the gw’s intention that only the 2nd rank make supporting attacks they would have just written the rule out like they did for the horde rule and specifically state that it was the rank that was key to whether or not you would get an attack.

Under the horde rules it says that warriors can make support attacks from third rank.

I don’t contest this. The horde rules are specifically linked to rank and thus only people in the third rank would get one. Standard supporting attacks however are not rank linked and thus may originate from any rank

At page 98 under different sized bases between the diagrams it says that "if the character fit into the unit in this manner, work out the units rank (and therefore its rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops" which implies that jugger rider "counts" as 4 rank and file troops.

As already covered I agree a jugger rider counts as 4 rank and file troops for the purposes of rank ( and rank bonuses). However the rule does not extent to affect things other then rank or rank bonuses

At the same page rules just tell that you should use common sense to make everything work, and for me common sense says that you cannot hit through something that is 4 times bigger than you.

That entire section relates to unit layout. The mention of using common sense applies to sensibly doing so. It does not relate to supporting attacks or any other unrelated topics


Summary

In summary we would now appreciate the views of others on the arguments presented. The crux is one of us believes rank is the dominant factor in working out supporting attacks, the other that it is the position of model in relation to another fighting in base contact with the enemy that is all important.

KronusDaSneaky
04-11-2010, 12:19
Nothing in any diagram or rules explaination allows models to attack past the second rank in normal formation or third rank in horde formation unless they have a weapon that allows them to attack in an extra rank.

Nowhere is it stated that models behind something with a large footprint can make supporting attacks.

Not every aspect of every rule has an associated diagram or explanation. Likewise nowhere does it state that models behind something with a large footprint cant attack. The rules about supporting attacks talk about being behind a model but don't state that said model is not counted as its larger then others.

The problem with using evidence of non existence to disprove a very real rule, is that non existence is not in itself sound evidence. Quite simply nothing can not contest contest with something. If you want to post a rule or quote a section of a rule book that might directly through doubt on my theory then please do so. I don't claim to know everything about warhammer and doubt I ever will, I may have missed a pertinent section but from the information we currently have at hand I am not disposed to believe other then I do.

T10
04-11-2010, 12:25
Jeebus.

There is nothing barring models from making supporting attacks past a model with a larger (compatible) footprint. However, the models making supporting attacks must be in a rank that is allowed to make these attacks!

A character with a 2x2 model footprint in a unit in a horde formation allows the two models directly behind him (in rank 3) to make supporting attacks.

The fact that he displaced four models when joining the unit is of no consequence: those models have been moved elsewhere in the unit and may or may not be in a position to fight. They do not make attacks from their original position, i.e. the position(s) now occupied by the character.

-T10

LAV-Kitsune-
04-11-2010, 12:28
Model cannot attack since on the diagrams of the page 48 all models are just normal sized characters, not big monsters.

And

Under supporting attacks (p.48) it implies that warriors on the second rank deal the supporting attacks and since jugger takes the second rank also, they couldnt attack.

No it doesn’t. The rule as previously stated is very clearly cut that this is not the case and rank is not relavent...

I could have expressed more clearly what I meant with this. But this is how I see it. On a bolded text at page 48 it tells that its the second rank that attacks and same rank reference is again mentioned with horde units and also with fighting in extra ranks special rule at page 69. This in my opinion means that support attacks are made by ranks not by individual models who might be behind the big model.

Sure it says also under the bolded text on page 48 that it attacks directly behind the model fighting it, but it says it like this:
"A mode can make a supporting attack it is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact, as shown in the diagram on the right"
Usually the bolded text is the main rule on all parts of the rulebook and for me it seems like GW just forgot to give clear rules for same situation with bigger monsters. It really isnt that rare for GW to do that, but thats why I would point the ruling elsewhere in the book that says something similar. Extra attack rule talks about more ranks being able to attack and also in the oage where it tells how characters fit in unit it uses referense to ranks and normal units.

EDIT: To T10. My claim is that if jugger is in a unit of 15 models and only 3 models are in the second rank, then only those 3 models in the second rank will make support attacks. Kronus claims that models in 3rd rank could also attack even though its not horde formation, because they are behind the model and support attacks are made behind model instead of second ranks in his opinion.

KronusDaSneaky
04-11-2010, 12:40
I believe I have a better appreciation for your point of view now, thanks for you last post Kitsune. I would entirely agree that GW has not been clear cut in this ruling which is why we are having the debate. I understand your inferences and believe you have a strong case but I am not convinced that either could be disapproved from the information given so far. The problem with the linked diagram is as you have rightly pointed out it doesn't show the impact of larger based models, quite simply their impact on supporting attacks is entirely overlooked. Your argument is thus based on inferences while mine to date has been that inferences aside there are no specific rules against it. I look forward to more general feedback but as of the moment I get the feeling that how it will apply will vary from place to place as a result

Regarding your post T10 do you have a specific quote or rule to back up the following:

However, the models making supporting attacks must be in a rank that is allowed to make these attacks!

If so and you can evidence that models need to be in specific ranks to gain a supporting attack this might serve to settle the argument. If not then its just conjecture, informed perhaps but conjecture none the same. This not to say peoples opinions aren't encouraged, they are but at this stage of the debate a bit of evidential support would be appreciated so we can sift the fact from opinion

KronusDaSneaky
04-11-2010, 13:07
To better demonstrate with Kitsune means here's a diagram reflecting the points of view based on 5x3 unit of letters with a Herald on a Juggernaut

B = Bloodletter
H = Herald
x = Enemy


X X X X X

B B H H B
B B H H B
B B B B B

Under kitsune's argument the front rank get attacks as normal (marked A) but only the 2nd rank getting supporting attacks (marked S):


X X X X X
A A H H A
S S H H S
B B B B B

Under my argument the front rank get attacks as normal (marked A) and anyone behind someone fighting the enemy in base combat gets a supporting attack (marked S):


X X X X X
A A H H A
S S H H S
B B S S B

T10
04-11-2010, 13:14
Under my argument the front rank get attacks as normal (marked A) and anyone behind someone fighting the enemy in base combat gets a supporting attack (marked S):


X X X X X
A A H H A
S S H H S
B B S S B

This is wrong. Only models in the second rank get to make supporting attacks. The models marked red are in fact in the third rank and do not make supporting attacks.

-T10

KronusDaSneaky
04-11-2010, 13:38
This is wrong. Only models in the second rank get to make supporting attacks. The models marked red are in fact in the third rank and do not make supporting attacks.

-T10

My response is the same as last time. You throw statements about like their facts. I will happily concede if that's the case but if it is a fact should be able to support it and prove it to be true. Either post some evidence to do prove your case or I am afraid I will have to continue viewing it as what it appears to be, an opinion stated as if it were a fact

Tambarskjelve
04-11-2010, 14:36
My response is the same as last time. You throw statements about like their facts. I will happily concede if that's the case but if it is a fact should be able to support it and prove it to be true. Either post some evidence to do prove your case or I am afraid I will have to continue viewing it as what it appears to be, an opinion stated as if it were a fact

So in a unit with the plague furnace, you would allow three support attacks from the monks in the 6th rank? That can hardly be RAI...

Kevlar
04-11-2010, 14:45
Kronus you are the one who needs to show some support for your interpretaion. The rulebook is full of text and diagrams showing only the second rank of troops getting normal supporting attacks.

If you can find one entry showing normal supporting attacks from models displaced to further ranks then by all means do so.

Until that time i will have to regard your interpretation as invalid.

KronusDaSneaky
04-11-2010, 14:57
I have already countered you assertion that the diagrams show no supporting attacks beyond the 2nd rank, simply put not one of the diagrams involving supporting attacks involves a model with a larger base then the rank and file and thus represents the situation under discussion. As such the provide no material evidence on the matter. All they show is that the second rank of models are getting a supporting attacks which could be either because they are in the second rank or as I have postulated just because they are behind another model fighting in base contact with the enemy. In short the diagrams affirm both points of view and as such don't further the matter. As to your assertion the rulebook is full of statements that only the 2nd rank get supporting attacks, I ask that you simply point to one. So far only unrelated inferences have been drawn by others but if you possess knowledge we do not then please share it.

As I have already establish my argument in fair amount of detail (see my first post) I don't feel the need to repeat it time after time. My argument is well voiced and you have done little to readdress it. The burden on proof is not solely on me, the are two sides to this argument and if one wishes to persist that the others is unfounded it should prove it. I am not persisting that Kitsunes view is necessary wrong merely that the one I support based on the evidence isn't either and given evidence to the fact. If you persist on pointing at the holes in my theory all I ask is your draw are attention to them specifically so we can all see them. I am not entirely certain my argument is the correct one (ie. RAI) but until someone methodically disproves the raw instead of throwing up diagrams that don't interpret the situation clearly or inferences that aren't directly relevent I will continue to contest that my argument is the valid RAW one. My view is that unless I have missed something that has not already mentioned this will not be possible and the matter will remain a contested one till GW sorts it out

Lex
04-11-2010, 15:02
@Kevlar: His interpretation is not "invalid". He is simply following the RAW for supporting attacks. I probably would not play it that way, but it doesn't mean that it is incorrect. I think Tam's example is a good one for showing how the RAW can lead to some crazy situations, but again, it's still RAW.

Edit: As another example, does it mean that if I field a unit of skink cohorts with kroxigors that I have no advantage in deploying in horde formation because the skink rank behind them would be the "4th" rank?

TheRolfgar
04-11-2010, 15:05
Your argument is thus based on inferences while mine to date has been that inferences aside there are no specific rules against it.

There are no specific rules against a lot of things, however you still can't do them. You can only do what the BRB says you CAN do.

You diagram shows you have 3 ranks, getting bonuses for 3 ranks. You can't make a supporting attack form a model in the 3rd rank.

Noserenda
04-11-2010, 15:11
Given that no Diagrams actually deal with the matter at hand Id say Kronus was correct, although in the Bell/Furnace's case its clearly silly :D

KronusDaSneaky
04-11-2010, 15:12
So in a unit with the plague furnace, you would allow three support attacks from the monks in the 6th rank? That can hardly be RAI...

Quite possibly but the RAW would suggest it may be possible

Lex
04-11-2010, 15:12
There are no specific rules against a lot of things, however you still can't do them. You can only do what the BRB says you CAN do.

You diagram shows you have 3 ranks, getting bonuses for 3 ranks. You can't make a supporting attack form a model in the 3rd rank.

Actually, the rule he quoted in his first post does say he can have supporting attacks from models in the 3rd rank since the rule regards the placement of models and not ranks.

TheRolfgar
04-11-2010, 15:18
Actually, the rule he quoted in his first post does say he can have supporting attacks from models in the 3rd rank since the rule regards the placement of models and not ranks.

They are counted as ranks for rules purposes. Otherwise he would not have 3 ranks, he would only have 2. And something with the screaming bell would have 3 ranks even though there are clearly 6.

You need to read the bolded text on p 48 "Warriors in the 2nd rank do not sit idly by..ect.....We refer to these attacks made by these models as supporting attacks."

Your models are in the 3rd rank. They are infantry, they are not in horde formation, they cannot attack.

KronusDaSneaky
04-11-2010, 15:19
My apologies if my argument appears a little unclear in any one post. You need to read from the beginning to get the full thrust of the various arguments and positions

Kevlar
04-11-2010, 15:28
I am at work and do not have my rule book with me but i believe the horde formation section states specifically that normal supporting attacks are only made by models in the second rank.

KronusDaSneaky
04-11-2010, 15:34
The bolded statement on pg 48 is indeed interesting and provides a hint to the background behind the rule but it does not clarify who gets supporting attacks. This quite clearly define in the passage below. It strengthens the RAI case posed by Kitsune but the RAW seems no less clear cut by it

However I think Kevlar might just have something on the horde front. I just re-read the section and think I spotted the ruling in favor of it not extending beyond the second rank namely

Warriors in a horde can make supporting attacks from the third rank, not just from the second.

The last bit in bold is the relevent element both I and Kitsune have both overlooked (possibly because its only 5 words tacked to the end of a sentence) since it suggests that without a horde, supporting attacks would be limited to extending to the second rank. Though not precisely as definite as I might like it, GW could have easily made it more clear I believe this is what they call scoring a home goal. I am now happy this has been settled and I withdraw my claim that anyone beyond the 2nd rank can get supporting attacks and conceded the point

DaemonReign
04-11-2010, 16:51
hm..

I just read through this entire thread.

I would love for "two extra" Bloodletters to be able to make supporting attacks behind a herald on Jugger. That's simply what we're talking about here.

I think, however, that we in this case should pay a little more respect to the very much stated rules about bases with larger footprints joining units - they replace the models for the sake of rank-bonus.

No reason why they wouldn't replace these models for the sake of attacks as well, as far as I am concerned. And I am pretty darn sure that everyone in my gaming group would interpret this the same way.

Focusing squarely on "models behind a model in base contact" sort of reminds me of the "lowest casting value" argument where people started arguing that you can dispel the 25+ Purple Sun at 15+ simply because the spell might have been cast at 15+ (it's just that it wasn't!!).

Again, being a pretty much designated DoC player, and seeing it as how Herald on Nugger has already taken a hit with the loss of LookOutSir, nobody would be happier than me if "two extra" Letters were able to attack behind this model - it's just that the arguments for it arn't nearly as convincing as the arguments against it.

mishari26
04-11-2010, 17:35
this argument is what I call "too much time on one's hands"... :/

does it make sense? no

does it matter? not much

is it cheesy? yes

is it RAW? yes

final verdict? who cares really ;P

theorox
04-11-2010, 17:36
This is wrong. Only models in the second rank get to make supporting attacks. The models marked red are in fact in the third rank and do not make supporting attacks.

-T10

T10 is right, the OP is wrong. You are making it up dude.

Theo

T10
04-11-2010, 20:24
Either post some evidence to do prove your case or I am afraid I will have to continue viewing it as what it appears to be, an opinion stated as if it were a fact

You will notice that the standard rules for supporting attacks clearly assume that each all models in the unit have the same base footprint (e.g. all 20 by 20 cm). I say clearly because, well, it is clear: A whole section is dedicated to the exceptional situation of units with models with different base footprints.

Under this premise the model standing directly behind a "friendly model that it is itself fighting an enemy in base contact" will be in the second rank.

Furthermore, the rules for the horde formation allows only models in the second and third ranks may make supporting attacks, rather than allowing models "directly behind a model that is directly behind a model that..." You get the idea.

I'm certain this should satisfy your need for proof.

-T10

Synnister
18-01-2011, 16:39
The bolded statement on pg 48 is indeed interesting and provides a hint to the background behind the rule but it does not clarify who gets supporting attacks. This quite clearly define in the passage below. It strengthens the RAI case posed by Kitsune but the RAW seems no less clear cut by it

However I think Kevlar might just have something on the horde front. I just re-read the section and think I spotted the ruling in favor of it not extending beyond the second rank namely

Warriors in a horde can make supporting attacks from the third rank, not just from the second.

The last bit in bold is the relevent element both I and Kitsune have both overlooked (possibly because its only 5 words tacked to the end of a sentence) since it suggests that without a horde, supporting attacks would be limited to extending to the second rank. Though not precisely as definite as I might like it, GW could have easily made it more clear I believe this is what they call scoring a home goal. I am now happy this has been settled and I withdraw my claim that anyone beyond the 2nd rank can get supporting attacks and conceded the point

The bolded section on pg 48 is a rule and it is written therefore it is RAW that you have to be in the 2nd rank to make a normal supporting attack. There are 2 conditionals for making a normal supporting attack: 1) Be in the 2nd rank and 2) be behind a model in B2B contact with the enemy.

The bolded section is part of the rule and not fluff or extraneous information it is as much a part of the rule as the non-bolded section is. If you'd like to argue the validity of this statement, thumb through the rulebook and identify the number of rules that are only stated in the bolded section of the rule. You'll find quickly that you cannot disregard the bolded section no matter how fluffy it may sound.

With that understanding this rule inquiry is rather simple to understand. Hope this helps you understand the rulebook better.

Algovil
18-01-2011, 18:38
The bolded section on pg 48 is a rule and it is written therefore it is RAW that you have to be in the 2nd rank to make a normal supporting attack. There are 2 conditionals for making a normal supporting attack: 1) Be in the 2nd rank and 2) be behind a model in B2B contact with the enemy.

The bolded section is part of the rule and not fluff or extraneous information it is as much a part of the rule as the non-bolded section is. If you'd like to argue the validity of this statement, thumb through the rulebook and identify the number of rules that are only stated in the bolded section of the rule. You'll find quickly that you cannot disregard the bolded section no matter how fluffy it may sound.

With that understanding this rule inquiry is rather simple to understand. Hope this helps you understand the rulebook better.

I have to agree with this post. The bolded text in the BRB clearly says that a model in the second rank can strike. The rest of the section then clarifies under which conditions this applies, with pictures and extra information regarding hordes for example. By taking the rule regarding hordes for proof that models in 3rd rank can attack you arguing for this are making an assumption which has no support in the rules.

If you like to use RAW in a match to be able to attack you then must accept that you opponent can counter this with RAW him/her-self, stating that the rules says that warriors in second rank do not sit idle but muster forward to strike blows of them own. Since your unit is no horde, that rule with supporting from third ranks do not apply.

But.. the rules clearly says that a unit directly behind a unit which can attack, can make supporting attacks. Like many have written models with bigger footprint takes up the ranks, and this IMO meens that since they take up second rank, there are no RnF to make the supporting attacks. The Bell/Furnace also hints why otherwise would be ridiculous. Anyway, I feel I am repeating what many others have written, but I am glad I was made aware of this ruleinconsistency. I would clearly play it that they can not make supporting attacks, and since the rules not clearly says they can (I am refering to the part saying 2nd rank, and the part saying: "as shown in the first diagram on the right"), I do not think anyone can call this RAW.

At the same time I like to say that RAW is often just a joke IMO. Of course we must discuss situations like this, to get better written rules and FAQs...But... Personally I would never play anyone who takes RAW to the extreme like this, maybe I am wrong in the regard that this may be FAQed in that favor, who knows, but trying to force it now is really pushing it IMHO.

Jormi_Boced
18-01-2011, 21:37
I have thought about doing a horde of Skinks with kroxigor in it, but I wasn't 100% sure if it would work.

Haravikk
18-01-2011, 22:34
The easiest way of thinking about it for me is that a creature with a larger base essentially is the ranks that it occupies. So if a 40mm x 40mm is added to a unit of 20mm x 20mm then it displaces four models.
In essence, that one model is now supplying the characteristics for two front rank models, and two second rank models. Anything behind it is in the third rank as normal.

A rank after all has nothing to do with the unique models in the unit, and everything to do with the average type that comprises the unit. If the unit is 20mm x 20mm infantry, then a rank is a line of 20mm x 20mm bases, and so can never be more than 20mm deep.