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.

I disagree. The phrase "fighting in assault" appears to refer to the section "Fighting A Close Combat," which describes how to resolve close combat attacks. The later "Pile-In" section refers to models as consolidating into enemies that "[were] involved in that fight," which implies that "fight" refers to the actual combat step described earlier.

Fishboy - I have proven, beyond all doubt, that their 4+ invulnerable while in assault can be taken against all attacks.

I am glad you are so sure of yourself however I still tend to disagree as apparently others do too. I am sorry if my interpretation of the same rule is different than yours but the rule stating "However, your ARMOR save against shooting attacks still remains 6+" seems to trump. This is written in a more encompasing and less limited "while engaged in assult" for the dodge save. Their ARMOR save is already a 6+ so what would be the point of the second sentence if this was not the case?

Nothing says that they lose their 4+ invulnerable save,

Except the part referencing the shooting attacks. Please reference my above paragraph about the trumping part so as not to flame me for not referencing.

The point of my reply was to point out that I play the army and rarely has this come up. On top of that as a player of the army I would play a scattered shot as a 6+ save but does not count against combat resolution because that is what the rule clearly states. I appoligize if my opinion seems to irritate you, and I am sorry I dont sit at my computer with a dictionary in 7 different languages to try and interpret what someone wrote 5 years ago.

Fetterkey I wanted to go in that direction but my fear was it would open a whole new can of worms.

Fishboy wrote:

Fishboy - I have proven, beyond all doubt, that their 4+ invulnerable while in assault can be taken against all attacks.

I am glad you are so sure of yourself however I still tend to disagree as apparently others do too. I am sorry if my interpretation of the same rule is different than yours but the rule stating "However, your ARMOR save against shooting attacks still remains 6+" seems to trump. This is written in a more encompasing and less limited "while engaged in assult" for the dodge save. Their ARMOR save is already a 6+ so what would be the point of the second sentence if this was not the case?

Nothing says that they lose their 4+ invulnerable save,

Except the part referencing the shooting attacks. Please reference my above paragraph about the trumping part so as not to flame me for not referencing.

The point of my reply was to point out that I play the army and rarely has this come up. On top of that as a player of the army I would play a scattered shot as a 6+ save but does not count against combat resolution because that is what the rule clearly states. I appoligize if my opinion seems to irritate you, and I am sorry I dont sit at my computer with a dictionary in 7 different languages to try and interpret what someone wrote 5 years ago.

Fetterkey I wanted to go in that direction but my fear was it would open a whole new can of worms.

That is simply Incorrect Fishboy, that whole phrase, grants them a 4+ inv save when they are "fighting in assault" whatever we are to take that to mean (as I think Fetterkey may have a point), and then re-iterate that, they still have a 6+ armour save against shooting attacks. It simply does not say that the 4+ inv save cannot be taken against shooting attacks, and to infer that from the sentence is wrong.

I play the army and rarely has this come up too. Because I'm not a ruleslawyer, but provided "fighting in assault" means locked in an assault, then the RAW is abundantly clear. I would also continue to play the scattered shot as a 6+ armour save, because I believe that is clearly the RAI, but there's no reason to mix the two up (which you appear to be doing) and muddy a discussion on how the RAW functions.

I agree with Drunkspleen; if "fighting in assault" means "locked in combat," then RAW indicates that Wyches get a 4+ invulnerable save against shooting while locked in combat. However, by my reading fighting in assault is not the same thing as being locked in combat, so IMO RAW indicates that Wyches don't get their invulnerable save against shooting while locked in combat.

"They recieve a 4+ Invulnerable save whilst fighting in assault. However, their armour save versus shooting attacks is still 6+".

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me. Are they fighting in an assault currently?
If yes, then they have a 4+ invulnerable save.

I would assume it works like this. Suppose the wyches are fighting some catachans. The manticore crew was popping LSD that the commissar gave them, and shoot way off target.

The wyches proceed to activate 'avoid gunfire while in chop mode'. They then get underneath the bearily clothed men. Their slippery sweaty skin making it easy to slide underneath the catachans. When the shell goes off and the load asplodes over them the guys absorb the blast, showering the wyches in man goo but leaving a statistical half those showered unharmed.

Fishboy - see above, I hav e already answered what "However..." is stating - it does not override the previous sentence, and could be there as a reminder that they have not replaced their armour save with an invulnerable save.

Either way they *still* get their 4+ invulnerable while fighting in an assault - it now comes down to whether "fighting in an assault" includes a continuiing combat (which is the only time this would come up, that I can think of) or only includes the actual combat phase.

its worth noting in the edition of 40k Dark eldar came out in that you could shoot at units locked in assault if the models shot at were not in base to base contact with enemy models.

So unfortunately if they were shot at during the enemy shooting phase under such a circumstance they would get only the 6+ save, which is why it says.. "however their save is only 6+ versus shooting"

in the current edition the only way to shoot into assault is a blast template scatter, under such circumstances they would get only the 6+ save. Some random psyker powers that go off in the shooting phase that effect assaults unfortunately mean the same thing.

You can only get your invul save if you shout 'Commence explosion dodging!' when the template lands on the CC. Otherwise the spirit of the 'Oh Shi-' factor is gone. Because really...it's craziness.

blaktoof - no, they MUST use the best save they have possible, which is the 4+ invulnerable. Basic BRB rule of "must use best save".

The tense of "fighting in assault" is a continuiing tense (in an ongoing combat they are still fighing in the assault) and as such have a 4+ invulnerable save.

If the Swarmlord gets a 4+ invul WIN button for merely being in CC I'm pretty sure the Wyches do as well as it is simply the same rule just older wording.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The tense of "fighting in assault" is a continuiing tense (in an ongoing combat they are still fighing in the assault) and as such have a 4+ invulnerable save.

Sorry, but this is not backed up by any rules I can find.

"Fightin in Assault" is not the same as making your close combat attacks. The tense used is covered in the rules for ongoing assaults indicating that "fighting in assault" is a continuiing state while you are Locked.

False.

All of the rules covering things that can occur to models in an assault in phases other than the assault phase that I can find *ref: Page 40* refer to units that are 'locked in combat', rather than 'fighting in assault'.

Also, looking at page 34, under the heading 'fighting a close combat' (which tells you what to do when models are attacking, everything afterwards is under a different heading) there are such gems as "in close combat, both players' models fight. Attacks are made...", "Who can fight?" is another heading. (hmmm, fighting is again different from being locked, because everyone is locked).

Then the heading "fighting a close combat" ends, and rules for what to do afterwards follow under other headings. In those other headings, units and models are referred to as 'locked in combat' and never as 'fighting'.

Seems pretty clear that 'fighting a close combat' occurs in the assault phase only.

Fetterkey wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The tense of "fighting in assault" is a continuiing tense (in an ongoing combat they are still fighing in the assault) and as such have a 4+ invulnerable save.

Sorry, but this is not backed up by any rules I can find.

+1

The language itself backs it up.

Inclusive RAW is unworkable - here the english term "fighitn in assault" definitely covers an ongoing assault.

Fight and Fighting is consistently referred to using the correct tenses and is not given as a proper noun. So you need to find a term that exclusively defines "Fighting in an Assault" as something other than the accepted English definition of such a phrase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The language itself backs it up.

Inclusive RAW is unworkable - here the english term "fighitn in assault" definitely covers an ongoing assault.

Fight and Fighting is consistently referred to using the correct tenses and is not given as a proper noun. So you need to find a term that exclusively defines "Fighting in an Assault" as something other than the accepted English definition of such a phrase.

No.

Refer to my last post for page numbers, (I'd love to see page numbers for where we can find the things you're talking about, though they do not exist)

"Fighting in assault" is when models are making attacks in close combat, and ends once all attacks have been resolved.

"Locked in combat" is what you're thinking of, which is what models are when they are not actively making attacks.


I eagerly await your counter examples and references to the rule book (as I have been for a few posts now)

*sigh* What part of "inclusive RAW does not work" wasnt clear? the English language defines what "fighting in assault" means unless there is another definition withi the rulebook. We know this because there is no Glossary of terms.

The *point* I was making is that "fighting in assault" is NOT a defined term (aka a rule) within the 40k rule set. None of the page number you cite use the phrase "fighting in an Assault" in a defined form- they do, however, consistently refer to assault that continue, seperate assaults occuring simultaneously, etc - whcih is all *consistent* tense usagfe.

NONE of the pages you quote define the term used in the Wych rules, therefore you must fall back to the English definition of such a phrase. Secondly - you kept reffering to "Attacks" in your quotes, which oddly has nothing to do with the phrase in question - it just defines at which point during "fighting" you make your attacks, however someone locked in combat is *still* fighting the assault, it is the definition of the term...

Oh, and lay off the sarcasm, it isnt needed. Assuming it was sarcasm and not you mistakenly thinking the english language is defined within the 40k ruleset?

Armor save is 6+ against shooting attacks. so if the plasma cannon blast lands on them due to scatter say hello to the 6+ armor save. On the bright side, about 3/4 of the time I've had a blast scatter onto the unit they get a 4+ cover save.

*double sigh*

Please make sure you reference rules you quote from the BRB. Page numbers help as well as sections. I believe you chastised a few people for this earlier

In all your sentence diagraming and intense tense definitions you forgot one thing. The guy that wrote this codex rule wrote it about 5 years ago and you are assuming he was an english major.

Asgradina brings up a neat point however. If the squad they are fighting is between them and the shooter of a blast weapon they would get a cover save and if they were in cover they would get a cover hehe.

10 years ago mate. Technically 7, but really its been 10 years

*triple sigh* and when a term is not defined in the rulebook?

Oh, thats right, you use the English language. Otherwise the phrase means *nothing* and they never receive a 4++ save at any point.

And no, I don't need to assume they are an english "major" (actually, bachellor of the arts in English Language is I believe the equivalent in the UK) I just require them to be using the English language. Which, as I pointed out, they do - Assaults and Fight are consistently used with the correct tenses, and the phrase "fighting in an assault" is never used as a defined phrase within the BRB.

As such you can onluy fall back on English, and *basic* english comphrension tells you that "fighting in an assault" applies in an ongoing combat.

I thought it was released in 1998, 3rd ed release?

nosferatu1001 wrote:I thought it was released in 1998, 3rd ed release?

Yes although it was reprinted in 2001 to incorporate a number of minor changes they made like adding in a vehicle armoury, and giving them more than 3 Special Characters... And they wonder why Dark Eldar didn't sell well the first time around?

So Gwar was wrong and in fact they are 11 / 12 years old now?

Itt was still a better codex than C:CSM 3.0.....*shudders*

nosferatu1001 wrote:So Gwar was wrong and in fact they are 11 / 12 years old now?

Itt was still a better codex than C:CSM 3.0.....*shudders*

maybe he thought at new years we went back to 2008 instead of forward to 2010, if so his numbers were spot on

It's all the rum / gin / moonshine I guess....

nosferatu1001 wrote:And no, I don't need to assume they are an english "major" (actually, bachellor of the arts in English Language is I believe the equivalent in the UK) I just require them to be using the English language. Which, as I pointed out, they do - Assaults and Fight are consistently used with the correct tenses, and the phrase "fighting in an assault" is never used as a defined phrase within the BRB.

As such you can onluy fall back on English, and *basic* english comphrension tells you that "fighting in an assault" applies in an ongoing combat.

To me, "fighting in an assault" implies that they are actually fighting, which occurs during the Assault phase.

Except that is not what the tense (and context) is telling you. the second sentence (however...) indicates that "Fighting" is an ongoing term - otherwise the mention of an armour save against shooting would be irrelevant. Shooting does not continue into the assault phase normally.

I take it you now agree that there is no *rule* stating that "fighting in an assault" = X situation? In addition the Assault phase is when fighting is resolved - do you think they sit down and take a break before its their turn to start again?

And no, I don't need to assume they are an english "major" (actually, bachellor of the arts in English Language is I believe the equivalent in the UK)

Nah the Uk equivalent is known as an Enlish Language GCSE...

Only joshing yes this is correct English Major has no meaning over here.

and giving them more than 3 Special Characters... And they wonder why Dark Eldar didn't sell well the first time around?

Yeah like the tau they have mor ethan 3 special Characters.. Certainly more than none that are any use to the army because they have absolutely no synergy with the shooty-ness of the army... They still sell. Maybe Dark Eldar don't sell because they are a pointless redundant race that should never have existed in the first place and make absolutely no sense of the Eldar and their background. Why do we need dark eldar? Fantasy Battle doesn't have DARK Dark Elves as well as Dark Elves...

The fighting rule is unclear and Nosferatu seems to have it right by RaW. However RaI is clear and I can't see anyone he played against allowing this or any TO...

I just require them to USE the English language.

Since we were talking about propa english I figured I would fix that for you

The copyright in my 2nd ed codex states it is 2001. However I did not start playing until 2003 and the second edition DE Dex came out after I had been playing DE for at least a year so I would guess the 2nd ed came out late 04 or early 05. The second edition basically was a rewrite to add the wych cult and other chapter approved items such as the vehicle upgrades. I dont think it actually added any special charactors.

As an add to all this I did a quick reference on Wiktionary for the word however and it can be applied as "in spite of this;". Of course there are a crapload of other instances but hopefully this can explain why I interpret the rule the way I do.

You mean the second edition of your 3rd ed-era codex? DE didnt have a codex in 2nd

They were the 3rd edition ruleset release codex, big thin g at the time. The second edition was actually mostly cribbed from a big fan effort to actually make DE work, which GW even acknowledged.

I think this is why theyre taking so long with the new codex - they essentially need to release new everything, and know how fanatical DE supporters seem to be - if they get it wrong people will be out for blood

Edit: "in spite of this" still does not alter that it specifies their armour save (and presumably that they have not *lost* this save by gaining an inv), and still does not say they can *only* take this save when taking saves against shooting. This is likely the intent, however without the language being exclusionary (either the part describing the invulnerable or the part reminding you of the armour save would do here) you are *forced* to take the invulnerable save by the BRB rules on multiple saves - to do otherwise is cheating by strict RAW

nosferatu1001 wrote:I take it you now agree that there is no *rule* stating that "fighting in an assault" = X situation?

If this is true, Dodge does nothing.