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.

Straken, or any other method power armored Grey Knights can get counter-attack USR.

Any opinions on whether or not PAGK would get a 3rd attack if they were assaulted and passed their leadership test? (1 base, 1 for their true grit and 1 for counter assaulting)

Their true grit states they don't get it when they charge.

USR counter attack states they get +1 exactly as *if* they had charged, implying they aren't actually charging, which, to me begs the question if they get the True Grit bonus??

I'm not too sure.
The specific rule for PAGK trumps Rulebook rules.
But the question is... is the Counter Attack 'as if' really 'is' a charge attack.
If it is the same as that charge attack, then no.

The intent for PAGK was to have them stay at 2 attacks charging for be charged, barring stuff like the one time use +1 Attack item.

Not sure I've seen "counter-attack" ruled both ways by TO's

But the majority have said that "exactly as if" means it follows all the rules of a normal assault.

I would have to say that they do NOT get the attack. "Exactly as if" is pretty clear IMO.

On the other hand a counter-attacking model doesn't get other assault bonuses such as furious charge. It could be argued that the "exactly as if" is referring to the bonus that most models usually get, so true grit would not prevent that bonus attack from happening.

Just playing the Devil's advocate here, as I think it's most intuitively played that they don't get the bonus attack.

Intuitive perhaps, but you are right. The "exactly as if" has nothing to do with assaulting and all to do with the +1A. You get the same result for a different reason - the GKs aren't actually assaulting.

But the GKs only get a bonus attack for two weapons if they aren't assaulting.

So by that reasoning they would get 3 attacks each, one for counter attack, one for true grit (because it's not actually assaulting), and one base.

Yes, as the GK aren't charging/assaulting (merely receiving a +1 A as if they had, due to Counter Attack) the True Grit ought to kick in and give them the +1 A from True Grit. The limit on when the True Grit attack applies is "having charged/assaulted", not "having received +1 A". The GKs have received a +1 A bonus, but they haven't charged/assaulted.

You know, it doesn't sit too well with me. Sounds like having the cake and eating it too.

*shrugs*

And all this might be read in the light of the newest Space Wolves FAQ.

If "exactly as if they had assaulted" is enough to trigger Furious Charge, it's enough to trigger the clause in True Grit which prevents GK from getting the extra attack "exactly as if they had assaulted".

So it comes down to which bonus attack the GK would like to get, the one for assaulting or the one from true grit for not assaulting.

solkan wrote:If "exactly as if they had assaulted" is enough to trigger Furious Charge, it's enough to trigger the clause in True Grit which prevents GK from getting the extra attack "exactly as if they had assaulted"

it isn't.

Going by precedent set in the new SW FAQ, they would benefit from an additional attack from Counterattack (and stat increase from Furious Charge) but not from True Grit.

bhsman wrote:Going by precedent set in the new SW FAQ, they would benefit from an additional attack from Counterattack (and stat increase from Furious Charge) but not from True Grit.

No, it doesn't. Firstly, the SW FAQ is wrong. Secondly, even if it was right (it isn't) it only applies to Space Wolves, no other Army.

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:If "exactly as if they had assaulted" is enough to trigger Furious Charge, it's enough to trigger the clause in True Grit which prevents GK from getting the extra attack "exactly as if they had assaulted"

it isn't.

If it isn't then we are left with no foundation by which to judge whether True Grit applies or not. As far as I can tell that reduces everyone to "Okay, time to roll of to see which rules trigger off of Counter Attack this game...". Because as far as I can tell, from the reasoning in the FAQ the counter-charging unit would have counted as charging enough to trigger defensive grenades if it hadn't been specifically addressed.

Gwar! wrote:No, it doesn't. Firstly, the SW FAQ is wrong.

Sure it is, Gwar, sure it is.

Gwar! wrote:Secondly, even if it was right (it isn't) it only applies to Space Wolves, no other Army.

I would agree with you here, truly, except that:

A) The example given in the FAQ is concerned with only USRs, and the rules it refers to are not even explained in the codex

B) The rules used are not unique to the codex like they are with the IG officers and Eldar Autauchs

Would you argue by the same token that Space Wolves would not benefit from the Lascannon/TL Plasmagun Razorback configuration and its rules in the Space Marine FAQ?

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, it doesn't. Firstly, the SW FAQ is wrong.

Sure it is, Gwar, sure it is.

Glad you agree.

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Secondly, even if it was right (it isn't) it only applies to Space Wolves, no other Army.

I would agree with you here, truly, except that:

A) The example given in the FAQ is concerned with only USRs, and the rules it refers to are not even explained in the codex

So? It's the Space Wolves Codex FAQ. Do you use the Imperial Guard FAQ for your Ogre Kingdoms Army?

bhsman wrote:Would you argue by the same token that Space Wolves would not benefit from the Lascannon/TL Plasmagun Razorback configuration and its rules in the Space Marine FAQ?

What in the name of Russ's left testicle are you babbling on about now? The Lascannon/TL Plasmagun Razorback Config is found on page 94 of Codex: Space Wolves.

If you are talking about the "OMFG I AM STOOPID DOES WEAPON DESTOYED BREAK 1 OR 2 WEAPONZ!" question from the SM FAQ, then no, the SW don't use that, namely because it's the SM codex FAQ, and also because the rules are very clear anyway, and the SM codex FAQ has to be written for it's target audience (4 year olds).

Gwar! wrote:So? It's the Space Wolves Codex FAQ. Do you use the Imperial Guard FAQ for your Ogre Kingdoms Army?

If it was relevant? Of course.

Gwar! wrote:

Would you argue by the same token that Space Wolves would not benefit from the Lascannon/TL Plasmagun Razorback configuration and its rules in the Space Marine FAQ?

What in the name of Russ's left testicle are you babbling on about now? The Lascannon/TL Plasmagun Razorback Config is found on page 94 of Codex: Space Wolves.

But does it act the same way as one from the Space Marine codex? As in, the ability to only destroy one gun on the turret as opposed to both of them?

bhsman wrote:But does it act the same way as one from the Space Marine codex? As in, the ability to only destroy one gun on the turret as opposed to both of them?

Errm... that's what the rules say anyway? Or are you suggesting that somehow a single weapon destroyed result breaks 2 completely separate weapons, thus showing you have no knowledge of the rules?

The SM FAQ states that for that specific combination, only a single weapon is destroyed. Since SW have the same combination readily accessible but without being addressed in their own FAQ, logic says it means the same for both.

EDIT: The rules are what GW makes of them, Gwar, including their FAQs

EDIT2: Before this derail goes any further, lets just take this to PMs.

bhsman wrote:The SM FAQ states that for that specific combination, only a single weapon is destroyed. Since SW have the same combination readily accessible but without being addressed in their own FAQ, logic says it means the same for both.

Actually, Logic has nothing to do with it. The rules are clear, but since SM players are, on average, 20 years younger than the rest of the 40k community, they need to add that question.

EDIT: The rules are what GW makes of them, Gwar, including their FAQs

Funny, but GW actually state themselves that the FAQs mean nothing. They also don't bother to write their own FAQs, with half of them done by Yakface and co, and one of them simply stolen.

EDIT2: Before this derail goes any further, lets just take this to PMs.

No thanks, I have standards.

Gwar! wrote:Actually, Logic has nothing to do with it. The rules are clear, but since SM players are, on average, 20 years younger than the rest of the 40k community, they need to add that question.

Great argument there.

Seriously though, Gwar, if a SW player (with Ragnar) and new Nid player with Tervis/Gaunts (or IG with Straken or SM with Khan and Siccarius) play a game together, and both sides agree to use the GW FAQs, you would say that FC and CA USRs interact differently for both players?

Gwar! wrote:Actually, Logic has nothing to do with it. The rules are clear, but since SM players are, on average, 20 years younger than the rest of the 40k community, they need to add that question.

Common sense, then.

Gwar! wrote:Funny, but GW actually state themselves that the FAQs mean nothing.

Yea but realistically that'll get you as far as telling people the train hurtling towards you is only what they are subjectively perceiving. Splat.

Gwar! wrote:No thanks, I have standards.

If that's what you call it, then by all means. I apologize to any mods in advance. =/

Gwar! wrote:

someone wrote:
A) The example given in the FAQ is concerned with only USRs, and the rules it refers to are not even explained in the codex

So? It's the Space Wolves Codex FAQ. Do you use the Imperial Guard FAQ for your Ogre Kingdoms Army?

Can you explain to me how Ragnar Furious Charge and Grey Hunter counterattack differ from USR Furious Charge and USR Counterattack?

It is obvious as counter attack triggers Furious Charge then true grit must apply in the same way. It is the rules whether Gwar likes it or not. His hilarious claim that the FaQs can be wrong just sort of sums up how he has confused RaW with the rules...

FlingitNow wrote:It is obvious as counter attack triggers Furious Charge then true grit must apply in the same way. It is the rules whether Gwar likes it or not. His hilarious claim that the FaQs can be wrong just sort of sums up how he has confused RaW with the rules...

Should we quote the GW website that says that their FAQs are "studio house rules" that deal with "gray areas?"

I know that 90% of players play by the FAQs, but when a ruling is so damned wrong...

FC+CA was not a "gray area," although I admit that the rules do have some significant ones.

The only reason why many people choose to follow the FAQs 100% is because they lack the reading skills to interpret the words in the book.

How can a ruling be wrong when it's given by the people who write the actual rules, though?

bhsman wrote:How can a ruling be wrong when it's given by the people who write the actual rules, though?

That's a very good question. It leads me to believe that the codex writers (and those who write the FAQs) often do not do so with a full knowledge of the rules from the rulebook. It makes me think that GW has nothing approaching a cohesive vision when it comes to rules and game development.

The fact of the matter is that the rulebook is very clear in that the only bonus that counter attack gives is +1 attack.

The SW FAQ says differently, despite many of the other rulings being quite strict RAW, even to the point of making some upgrades rather pointless, and while I would agree with Gwar that this should apply only to the SW FAQ if at all, I can also see how that's not how it's going to be played commonly.

Should we quote the GW website that says that their FAQs are "studio house rules" that deal with "gray areas?"

Should I quote TMIR... So all the rules are essentially house rules...

FC+CA was not a "gray area," although I admit that the rules do have some significant ones.

It quite clearly is a grey area. The reason being if you apply RaW it says you can't FC as part of a counter attack when this isn't the case. Hence illustrating how RaW is just as much an unreliable tool for working out the rules as guessing at RaI...

The only reason why many people choose to follow the FAQs 100% is because they lack the reading skills to interpret the words in the book.

The only reason some people follow RaW so blindly is because they lack the ability to apply commonsense and understand TMIR...

The fact of the matter is that the rulebook is very clear in that the only bonus that counter attack gives is +1 attack.

Obviously the rulebook isn't clear as this is not the case in the rules as has been clarified in the FAQ...

It makes me think that GW has nothing approaching a cohesive vision when it comes to rules and game development.

This I must admit I have to agree on. It is also coupled with a poor rules writing ability meaning rules actually say things they are not intended to say (i.e. that counter attack only gives the +1 attack bonus), however they cover this with TMIR meaning people are supposed to use common sense.

The SW FAQ says differently, despite many of the other rulings being quite strict RAW, even to the point of making some upgrades rather pointless, and while I would agree with Gwar that this should apply only to the SW FAQ if at all

Why can't you understand that sometimes RaW is right sometimes it is wrong. The ruling should apply to what it says it should apply to i.e. the furious charge and counter attack USR... You can use this judgement to then apply it again here as it defines how you use the CA USR and how it interacts with other initiating assault special rules and rules.

Well... if you think that reading the rules is not a valid way of playing, then I don't suppose we can have much of a discussion.

Why are you assuming that by following the FAQs we aren't reading the rules? They go hand in hand.

Well... if you think that reading the rules is not a valid way of playing, then I don't suppose we can have much of a discussion.

Where did I say this? All I pointed out is that RaW is not the rules and that it is an unreliable way of determining them. While it is more consistent that guessing at RaI the rules still require commonsense. Strict RaW isn't even a game as I can just put a dice down with the 6 on the side and roll on the table with my hand so the 6 is on the top under RaW there is nothing against this type of dice roll...

Likewise under RaW Vehicles have no ability to use invulnerable saves even though some do (granted in Apocolypse) but it is not too much of a stretch to work out they use them against penetrating and glancing hits rather than against wounds... Likewise we can assume SW Scouts have the Scouts Special rules rather than some special Scout rule that is yet to be defined. Or that Prince Yriel's spear uses the rules printed for a Singing Spear on page 27 rather than those on page 18 (i.e. none) as his entry says...

Your inability to understand the difference between RaW and the rules is what is causing you to not be able to understand the FaQs.