Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What is your opinion if you have five Pirahnas in the squadron and are all armed with Flechette do they all fire?


Here is the relevant entry

Any Model Attacking the vehcile in close combat will be wounded on a roll of 4+ with cover saves allowed before its attacks are resolved.


Here is the entry for declaring an against a vehicle ;

Launching an assault ; The assault move is conducted just the same as assaulting other enemy units.

this is from Moving Assaulting models

Assaulting units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many models as possible.


This is from Who Can Fight

Models are considered engaged and must fight

Models in base to base contact

Models with in 2 inches of Coherency of at least one model in their unit that is in base to base contact with enemy models.


Assault phase

When engaged in close combat against a squadron enemy models roll to hit and for armour penetration against the squadron as a whole.




Anywy pleas efeel free to support or detest this argument that 5 pirahnas assault who have Flechette Rounds would all fire as long as they are with in two inches of another model in base to base or themselves in base to base with the enemy.

No, vehicles do not follow the assault rules. The way it works is that each model can only attack 1 vehicle, which means each model takes 1 hit, not 5.

They do not follow specific assault rules which are spelled out rather clearly; no consolidation , defenders do not react , etc...


It actually says right there in the rules follow the rules for assaulting, excluding these specific ones. Move closest model in to base then next closest etc.. It never says exclude these rules; that is why i say it works simple because it states very clearly which rules are to be ignored.


Vehicle Squadrons are weiiiiird and have a lot of rule issues. I say it works you cant point to specific rule where it doesnt though.

4ed codex rule meets updated 5ed assault rules.

In 4ed you could only attack and damage a vehicle you were in B2B with (period), so the rule for flechettes was cut and dry. That is no longer the case in 5ed. Now it gets a bit murky since there's a 2" killzone when assaulting vehicle and hits against a single vehicle in a squadron carries over across the squadron.

I think RAW you probably have it right but you won't win many friends. I think a simple 4+ for anyone actually attacking the squadron is better way to do it (and means you could likely get away with just one in the squadron with flechettes).

I am curious mainly to how people think it is ruled in Tournaments; I looked at the adepticon faq and it didnt have anything on it. I usually go by that.


Yeah I mean RAW it fires for everyone which is pretty brutal.

The rulebook (page 64) Specifically says "enemy models roll to hit and for armour penetration against the squadron as a whole".

As such I think a single model attacking a squadron of 3 pirahnas in close combat is attacking all 3 in close combat, and each pirahna's flechette launchers would be eligible to wound the attacker.

As winterman suggested I would also consider it acceptable to play it as they can't stack, but a single flechette anywhere in the squadron would affect ALL models attacking ALL members of the squadron. The not stacking isn't RAW, it's a house rule, but other than that it's following RAW.

edit: Since being in B2B has no effect on whether the model is eligible to be wounded (or in this case, suffer a glancing/penetrating hit) I think it's irrelevant whether the pirahnas are "engaged" or not, if a model directs attacks against the unit it puts all pirahnas at risk of being destroyed by those attacks so all pirahnas have been attacked in close combat, even if not within 2" or in base to base.

I actually did this to somebody during a battle board tourney. I took a 3 pirh unit, and was assaulted by a BIG unit Kommandos led by the commando special character. Needless to say he was heartbroken as the sight of his massive mob being decimated.

You assault the squadron as a whole, and all hits are divided across the entire squadron.

This means that a unit is indeed attacking every model in the vehicle squadron, by RAW. So, every Pirahna will get to use their dischargers against every model that attacks the squadron.

Alerian wrote:You assault the squadron as a whole, and all hits are divided across the entire squadron.

This means that a unit is indeed attacking every model in the vehicle squadron, by RAW. So, every Pirahna will get to use their dischargers against every model that attacks the squadron.

Right, but each model is only hitting one vehicle. Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be cool if the attackers got hit with 3-5 dischargers, but I can't convince myself to that side of the argument. The Vehicle Squadron rules for assaults don't make sense to me as it is, though. For Walkers, sure. Piranha and tanks? Not in the least.

Hell yeah. If you got yourself a model that has 4 attacks and he hits all attacks, If your squadron is 4 models strong then each vehicle gets thumped once. I see no reason why each vehicle can't use its defensive measures against the attacking model. They are each being threatened.

Take it one step further. You have two attacking models and 4 vehicles, but each attacking model has two attacks. If all four attacks hit then all four vehicles are taking one hit. When dealing with squadrons there is no one model just attacks one vehicle. He essentially attacks a number of vehicles as he has number of attacks.

Jayden63, the problem with that line of reasoning is that the Flechette Discharger fires before any blows are struck.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that since all members of the squadron are threatened (even if only potentially threatened), all Flechette Dischargers fire.

It doesn't matter how many attacks the attacker actually hits with. The point is any and all attacking models potentially threaten a minimum of two vehicles that are in a squadron. As such I see no reason why any and all models of the squadron cannot fight back with weapons designed to do so.

Besides, its what the book says happens. Is it fair? Maybe not, but its just a hold over issue from 4th ed codex to 5th ed rules. Can't blame someone for following the rules, even if the results seem a little unfair.

The simplest solution is just don't assault a pirahna squadron that has flechette launchers.

Hollismason wrote:I am curious mainly to how people think it is ruled in Tournaments; I looked at the adepticon faq and it didnt have anything on it. I usually go by that.


Yeah I mean RAW it fires for everyone which is pretty brutal.

Our ruling on this issue is in the INAT FAQ.

TAU.30D.01, to be exact. If a model attacks a squadron armed with one or more flechette launcher it will suffer a single wound on a '4+' (and yes, this is a clarification). So while it doesn't allow you to stack up hits by taking launchers on all your models, you are allowed to give only one model in the unit the launchers and still get the benefits of it against anyone attacking the squadron.

I imagine that if you could have a squadron of walkers (like killa kans for example) equipped with flechette launchers no one would try to that only one is involved in the combat and that their upgrades would all apply.

So personally I agree with option 1.

Jack

Gotta agree that your engaged w/every member of the squad and so everyone is attacking all of the units. ergo i'd say, just like RAW does, that you can roll on each enemy model as many times as you have pirahnas.

I'd say the most i'd ever give a person is how many attacks each model has is how many times they get hit. Meaning that if a model had 3 attacks on the charge then he would get hit 3 times as that is how many vehicles he could hurt. So orks would still be hosed

Yakface, are your decisions behind your ruling partly motivated by the fact that having all Flechette Dischargers fire would slow down the game?

Having to roll x number of dice against every single member of a given assaulting unit could take quite some time against a 30 strong Ork mob. As you are making a FAQ for a tournament where flow of game and time constraints play a prominent role, has this affected your decision?

My only real complaints about Yak's FAQs are that he disguises obvious rules changes as ((this is a clarification)) Which this seems to clearly be not, granted i agree Yak's method of play/ruling is MUCH more practical and balanced, it is however a rules change not a clarification.

I wouldn't call this a rules change. I think it's more of an interpretation. I think the RAW on this is not clear, and it is easily interpretted either way.

This is where GW fails. The older books don't mesh with the newer rule set.

No, Its a rules change to bring it closer back in line as to how it worked before.

Red_Lives wrote:My only real complaints about Yak's FAQs are that he disguises obvious rules changes as ((this is a clarification)) Which this seems to clearly be not, granted i agree Yak's method of play/ruling is MUCH more practical and balanced, it is however a rules change not a clarification.

I always find this sentiment rather amusing. We actually take the time to write [RAW], [clarification] or [rules change] into our FAQ and somehow this means we're "hiding" behind them. Most other FAQs don't bother explaining why they're making the rulings they're making (the official GW ones and the UKGT house rules, just for starters) and yet their FAQs are rife with rulings that most certainly appear to be full-on rules changes.

More importantly, the way we label the rulings is coherent and consistent:

[RAW] is only used if all members of the council voting on the ruling agree that the ruling given is the *only* valid interpretation of the rules.
[clarification] is used when not all members of the council can agree on what the RAW dictates in a given situation, and we are essentially choosing one of may acceptable interpretations of the RAW.
[rules change] is only used when all of the council members can agree that there is only one valid interpretation of the RAW but we are changing the rules anyway due to another factor (usually because the RAW are absurd in our opinions in that situation or the vast majority of players tend to play against that particular RAW situation).


So back on point to this particular question: I disagree with you that the RAW give a clear mandate. There is a clear disconnect between the way the flechette discharger rules were written and how the squadron rules for CC are now handled. Is it a valid interpretation to assume that every vehicle inflicts a separate wound on every model attacking the squadron? Of course it is. But it certainly isn't clear-cut. There are several valid other interpretations that a reasonable person could come up with, one of them being what we went with.

Thank you for your input, Yakface.
Can I trouble you to address the issue I brought?

Thanks on advance.

Steelmage99 wrote:Thank you for your input, Yakface.
Can I trouble you to address the issue I brought?

Thanks on advance.

You mean this one:

Yakface, are your decisions behind your ruling partly motivated by the fact that having all Flechette Dischargers fire would slow down the game?

Having to roll x number of dice against every single member of a given assaulting unit could take quite some time against a 30 strong Ork mob. As you are making a FAQ for a tournament where flow of game and time constraints play a prominent role, has this affected your decision?

If so, the answer is no, not really (although please keep in mind I'm only speaking for myself and not the rest of the people who voted on the ruling; they could theoretically have something like that in mind affecting their judgement).


Last year's INAT FAQ (the 1.0 version, based on 4th edition rules) was much more about that kind of concept because things like the Wargear book and the USRs in the 4th edition rulebook that overrode the same codex versions indicated that GW seemed to be pushing for consistency above the RAW of older codexes.

With 5th edition they reversed this ideal (saying that the legacy wording in the codices is king) and so this year's version (2.0) took a much more 'RAW' approach towards rulings when it comes to contradictions between legacy codex rules text.


With that said, when it comes to a situation where not all the council members can agree that the RAW has only one interpretation, then we are making a 'clarification' based on one of several possible interpretations of the rules.

Ease of play can most certainly be a deciding factor for some council members when voting on which interpretation to go with in these kinds of situations but I would say that, by far, the most important factor in deciding tends to be how most people naturally play a rule.

If most players automatically read a rule and decide to play it 'X' way then it really behooves any tournament FAQ when addressing a situation that has multiple possible interpretations to choose the one that the majority of people naturally select themselves. In that way, people who read the FAQ before their games know how the situation will be played and those who don't read the FAQ ahead of time (and we don't expect everyone to have the time to digest such a huge document) will hopefully not be bothered as chances are they are already playing the situation the same way the FAQ rules it.


So how do we determine how 'most people' play it?


1) We are all seasoned gamers who play in national tournaments. That means we encounter many players from across the country and we get a good sampling of how random people we encounter at tournaments tend to play an issue.

2) We are all gamers ourselves. If we look at a rule that has a variety of interpretations and the majority of the council members agree that's what the rule 'says' to them, then that's a pretty solid indicator too.

3) Forum polls can also be useful tools to see if the vast majority plays a situation one way or another.


Obviously this isn't a perfect science, but it is the goal that we tend to strive for when attempting to choose one interpretation from many. Obviously it is nearly impossible to run a forum poll on every single ruling in the FAQ, but when issues get brought up by this it can be a good sounding board to see if perhaps we are ruling against the way the vast majority plays (as it maybe appears from the poll that we have). The wording on this particular poll is a bit confusing, so perhaps when I get a chance I'll repost it a bit more clearly to try to get a better gauge.


Did that answer your question?

Yes, but did your decision change from 4th to 5th edition because of hte changes to combat with squads?


I dunno I mean it seems RAW that it would work.

Yes. Thank you, Yakface.

Also most people seem to agree by a fairly large margin that it does activate all of them

KaloranSLC wrote:
Right, but each model is only hitting one vehicle.

But they aren't.

A single power fist with a bunch of attacks can destory or damage the whole squadron.

I agree with Yakface. The rule is definatly a grey area at best.

Your best bet is to ask your opponent beforehand if and if he doesn't agree with your interpretation roll off for it. If you plan to go to a tournament just call the TO to get their ruling.

I am actually curious as to under 4th edition rules when the codex was written would they all activate.