Rage & Immobilised vehicles

[wyvirn]

So you stay where you are because in your movement phase you are not engaged but as per vehicle rules the 1" doesn't apply, and in your close combat phase you count as engaged so can't charge.

I don't understand what you're getting at here, you're never locked in combat solely with a WS-less vehicle, and you can't move within 1" of an enemy model, regardless of whether it's a vehicle.

[Tethylis]

To avoid this, couldnt you just run, as the nids instinctive behavior says they can run, so you could run and end up one inch away from the tank since the run is movement, and you have to end 1 inch away at closest, then charge again in your assault phase.

That would not work because rage requires that run moves are made towards the closest visible enemy, which would be the tank they are in BtB with.

[Egaeus]

No, because the Rage rules require you to run towards the nearest enemy...since you are already in BtB you would have to run away to re-assault, which isn't allowed.

This is one of those issues where it's a "perfect storm" of multiple rules interactions...Assault, Vehicles and Rage.

A curiousity...could one move their models along or around a vehicle as long as they maintained contact with it? I can see where models could be moved if they weren't in BtB with the vehicle (they may count as engaged but they aren't locked)? I could see doing this if a unit wanted to get to a facing where they were less exposed to enemy fire (or would it matter that they are then moving away from other enemy units?

Edit: Two ninja's as I was positing....which is probably why it's a good idea to quote what you're responding to even if you think you'll have the next post.

@wyvirn: The rules imply that you can be within 1" of a vehicle after an initial assault as there is no requirement that either unit must move away, so it's an exception to the rules...what I find interesting is that even if you do remain in contact it says you may attack, so it does not appear that you are required to attack, even if you are in BtB.

[Culven]

I'll state it another way. You can charge again if you can do it in a normal ongoing combat.

There are some important differences in the presented situation and a "normal ongoing combat". First, the unit isn't locked in close combat, which is the criteria that would prevent them from charging. Nothing mentions "engaged" or "in base contact" preventing charges, only "locked". Second, against the Tank, there is no combat resolution, so no Pile In moves. Charging would be the only way for the rest of the unit to move into combat.

Hmm...would not the 1" rule kick in during the unit's next Movement Phase, since they aren't locked in combat with the vehicle, and thus even with Rage the unit would be required to move at least 1" away from the vehicle? And it's also strange that the 1" rule does not apply to the vehicle either, especially since it can't assault.

There is no requirement that models not locked in combat be moved to re-establish the 1" clear. The rules only prevent a model from ending its move, not its Movement Phase, within 1". So, the Rage rule would seem to force the Unit to move toward the vehicle. Those in base contact or within 1" would then not since the only directions available for movement would be away from the Tank. Those not within 1" would move to 1" from the Vehicle. Then during thwe Assault Phase, the Unit would need to assault it. At least that is how I interprete the rules.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

I think that the rulebook implies that while you are not locked in combat for the movement and shooting phases, you are concidered to be in combat in the assault phases. That is the only way I seeit working, on that you may break off in the movement phase, you can get shot or shoot the vehicle in the shooting phases, and you can continiew to hit the vehicle in the assault phases.

[DoctorTom]

I don't understand what you're getting at here, you're never locked in combat solely with a WS-less vehicle, and you can't move within 1" of an enemy model, regardless of whether it's a vehicle.

The models had been in assault with the vehicle during their previous turn. They just haven't moved away from the vehicle.

[wyvirn]

You are locked in combat throughout the turn, specifically you cannot move in close combat (P11), and you cannot shoot if locked in combat (p15).
And you are not allowed to move within 1" of the enemy at any time during the movement or shooting phases (p11). Otherwise you could walk right through a conga line, and that is impossible as shown by the falling back picture. That's the reason unit coherency is 2", I think.

edit: Lantzkev, hormis are S3, so can't even glance a vehicle without FC

[lantzkev]

When you run out of weapon destroyed results you destroy the vehicle correct? meaning this ain't a hopeless fight if he's able to glance at all.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

I think that the rulebook implies...

You're clutching at straws. Page 33 states that models aren't allowed to assault if they're locked. Page 63 says that units assaulting a vehicle without a WS are not locked (and BTW in context that particular sentence is implied to count towards shooting and assault phases). The part of the successive turns paragraph which deals with ongoing combat is specific that it applies in the turn of the vehicle being assaulted (which, BTW, implies that to attack it again in your own turn you charge again, although honestly I wouldn't be strict about it, but it's hardly enough to prevent the charge from applying in your own turn anyway).

Nothing in the rulebook prevents you from charging the vehicle again, and your arguments to the contrary are things you've inferred from the rules that both state and frankly even imply the opposite of what you're claiming.

That is the only way I seeit working, on that you may break off in the movement phase, you can get shot or shoot the vehicle in the shooting phases, and you can continiew to hit the vehicle in the assault phases.

Really? Because I think that things like "all models that would count as engaged in a normal assault" can easily be taken as permission to strike despite not being locked. So I see no reason to add a currently non-existent "locked" term to that phase, especially based on, well, making stuff up to fit a vision of the rules that contradicts the direct statements of the rulebook.

[Hawkkf]

Here is a thought that may or may not be correct. When it comes back to your turn, rage states you must move towards the closest target. Now if I am correct, unless you are locked in combat, then in your movement phase you must end your move at least 1" away from enemy models. If that is correct, then a unit suffering rage would move 1" away from the tank as it is the closest legal move it can make towards the tank (even though it is moving away). Then in the assault phase they would have to assault again.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

I know I am clutching at straws. The rulebook doesn't say what happens in your turn. Units without rage would move away and recharge anyway. There is no reason why not to, except if you are worried of an explodes result and don't want a charge bonus when you have furious charge so wan't to simply wreck it by immobilised/weapon destroyd piling up.

But till now there are two reasons the rules creator should have thought of when writing the rule. As the rule is, it doesn't say. On your opponents turn you are concidered to be in a ongoing combat on the vehicles assault phase. When you are in an ongoing combat you are concidered locked. So on your opponents assault phase, and only on that phase, you are concidered locked.
Clutching at straws, and because the book says successive turns, I say that on your assault phase you are also considered locked. Else you cann't stay there and hit the vehicle. And if you are in BtB with an immobilised vehicle and a infantry model you wouldn't be able to decide to hit the vehicle because you wouldn't be in combat with it. But GAP is you can. So since in the assault phase you can attack what you are in combat with, I say, let there be locked in combat for the vehicles on all further assault phases.

It makes no difference for rage anyway. The gaunts can't move away because of rage. The locked part only lets them attack, which doesn't do anything to the vehicle.

[Aliarzathanil]

We've always played it so that in the marine player's turn, the vehicle gets attacked (obviously, with strength three it's in no danger) during the marine turn. In the following turn, the rest of the raging nids are not locked so count as charging since unlocked units can charge by moving into base contact in the assault phase. Because a successful charge occurs when a unit has sufficient assault movement to bring it into contact and a unit already in based contact couldn't really fail a charge.

[Gingerwerewolf]

So

According to P63 You stay in Base to Base but do not count as being locked in combat (Thus a good thing if you have counter attack for example)

However if not every Gaunt is in base to base with the tank can you then, in your turn, move them in the assault phase into base to base with the tank and count as charging? And if some count as charging, then surely they all do?

[wyvirn]

But till now there are two reasons the rules creator should have thought of when writing the rule. As the rule is, it doesn't say. On your opponents turn you are concidered to be in a ongoing combat on the vehicles assault phase. When you are in an ongoing combat you are concidered locked. So on your opponents assault phase, and only on that phase, you are concidered locked.
Clutching at straws, and because the book says successive turns, I say that on your assault phase you are also considered locked. Else you cann't stay there and hit the vehicle. And if you are in BtB with an immobilised vehicle and a infantry model you wouldn't be able to decide to hit the vehicle because you wouldn't be in combat with it. But GAP is you can. So since in the assault phase you can attack what you are in combat with, I say, let there be locked in combat for the vehicles on all further assault phases.

Please reread the rules of assaulting vehicles again, because just about everything you said here is wrong.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

Like?

I read both rules for vehicles and rules for regular ongoing combats. And I am trying to make sence. Would you be kind enough to help?

[Culven]

Would you be kind enough to help?

I will try to explain the flaws in your arguement.

On your opponents turn you are concidered to be in a ongoing combat on the vehicles assault phase.

The rules do not state that they are considered to be in an ongoing assault. The rules state that the Unit may attack the Vehicle, just like in an ongoing combat. This is similar to the argement that some used to try to gain Furious Charge when charged because Counter Attack said that the Unit gained the bonus attack as if they were charging. The FAQs regarding that issue set a precedent that "just like" or "as if" were not equal to actually performing the referenced action. Thus, being able to attack as though the Unit is in an ongoing combat doesn't mean that it is an ongoing assault with the typical restrictions.

When you are in an ongoing combat you are concidered locked.

This is true because the rules state that Units in combat, excluding combat against Vehicles without a Weapon Skill, are Locked. There is no such rule regarding tanks and such, thus they are not Locked.

Clutching at straws, and because the book says successive turns, I say that on your assault phase you are also considered locked.

This is your interpretation, but nothing in the rules supports it. Without anything stating that they are Locked, they are not. In fact, the rules show that they are not by virtue of the facts that the Tank or Unit could freely move away, either could be shot, and, most importantly, the rules on page 63 specifcially state, "Enemy models that are in base contact with a vehicle are not locked in combat . . ."

Else you cann't stay there and hit the vehicle.

Yes you can, because the rules say you can. The rules specifically state that models in base contact may attack, even though they are not Locked. So, the general rules requiring Units to be Locked to make attacks are overwritten by this specific rule regarding Vehicles.

And if you are in BtB with an immobilised vehicle and a infantry model you wouldn't be able to decide to hit the vehicle because you wouldn't be in combat with it. But GAP is you can.

Actually, RaW is that you can. The rules allow models in base contact with the Vehicle to attack it. Again, this is a specific rule that overwrites the general rule. So, it is possible for a Unit to be Locked with another Unit and those models in base contact with the Immobile Vehicle could still attack it.

So since in the assault phase you can attack what you are in combat with, I say, let there be locked in combat for the vehicles on all further assault phases.

As I have already pointed out, the rules specifically state they are not Locked, but they can attack. This is different from the general assaut rules, but the general assault rules are intended to cover combat between infantry-like Units. The Vehicle in Assault rules then follow on to modify those general rules where Vehicles are concerned.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

That is why I said I was indeed clutching at straws.
Remember, the rulebook says nothing about when your turn comes again. The rulebook says you are not locked and there is one exception of being able to hit the vehicle on the following turn despite not actually being locked in combat. The rulebook says that being in BtB is enough to be able to hit it, you don't have to have charged it that round, or be in an ongoing combat because you can't.
All this makes sense, till you get to a wierd situation where now you must get a ruling from what is written. Because they don't explicitly say what happens in this situation, we must gather the existing rules and maybe make some disisions on what the rules mean. That was what I made. The rulebook makes an exception of being locked in combat for the assault on vehicles. I said that maybe it ment the exception to be happening in the movement and assault phases (because it says that your models and enemy models act as though you are not locked) but not in the assault phase (because it says that your models act as if you where locked). I know it is not RAW. There is no RAW for rage against immobilised vehicles.

Furthermore the only RAW existing is that if you are in BtB in the assault phase you may attack as if you where in an ongoing combat so you may not make a 0" charge because you can't do that in an ongoing combat. You may also opt to do nothing, since you arn't engaged.

[DoctorTom]

Here is a thought that may or may not be correct. When it comes back to your turn, rage states you must move towards the closest target. Now if I am correct, unless you are locked in combat, then in your movement phase you must end your move at least 1" away from enemy models. If that is correct, then a unit suffering rage would move 1" away from the tank as it is the closest legal move it can make towards the tank (even though it is moving away). Then in the assault phase they would have to assault again.

It doesn't work. The rules state that you're not locked but you are still in base to base contact with the vehicle during the enemy's shooting and assault phase, and that you are free to move away during your move. It does not say that you are required to move away during your move. So, with no requirement to move away (only a feel free to move away) the rage rule would override your trying to move away.

[lantzkev]

how does the you may not end your movement phase less than a inch away from a model rule jive? or is there something I'm not considering here that's applicable?

[TheGreatDalmuti]

The book says you may not move within 1", not end your movement phase. The models aren't moving (you do not even elect them to try to move in the movement phase since they can't). So they aren't moving within 1", they allready are within 1".