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.

@liturgies of blood

Assaulting into cover you always have I1 unless you have some special rules or wargear, eg frag grenades. I don't know what you are getting at here.

If you are exact, then the recieving unit being in cover doesn't matter at all. If my unit is in open ground but the assaulting opponent starts in cover, he has ini 1. If my unit is completely in cover and the assaulting unit is only able to get btb contact with models they can reach without assaulting through difficult terrain (models partally in area terrain with the base edge facing the opponent in open ground), they have normal initiative despite me being in cover.

The RB says, if you (assaulter) made a Difficult or Dangerous Terrain-Test, you have ini 1. So having made the test is mandatory to trigger Ini 1. If I didnt roll, I didnt take the test.

To anticipate that problem I would want the pro-forma-test. It is a matter of caution not a matter of mistrust.

Since you always move closest to closest then it doesn't matter, if the nearest guy is 1" away then an assault happens no matter the roll.

Yes of course. This is why I would calm down the opponent by reassuring him, he will get the assault no matter the result. But the exact shape of the assault can still be dependent on the roll even if the first model is in 1". And this can be important in the course of the following turns.

liturgies of blood wrote: Assaulting into cover you always have I1 unless you have some special rules or wargear, eg frag grenades.

Just for the sake of completeness, there are a couple of important exceptions to that rule, of course. If the unit you're charging is already engaged in combat from a previous round or if they've Gone to Ground, you don't get reduced to I1.

I know when you assault through cover you roll for difficult terrain, if we take that roll as being a 1 we assume the roll happened and then continue as normal.
From there you strike at I1.
Otherwise if you agree as gentlemen that a s10 hit on armour ten autopens you could never roll on the damage chart.
You ask "do I need to do this" at all times as we have all said pro-forma to ensure no mistakes. I spoke in a case where opponents agree.

On the second part I was mitaken in that I forgot about the issues of placement.

No worries; I figured you know, but it's good to make it explicit for any new players reading.

Mannahnin wrote:No worries; I figured you know, but it's good to make it explicit for any new players reading.

Sorry that wasn't at you, I was replying slowly due to watching tv. Sorry if it was snarky.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Why do people ask questions like this? Either it will degenerate into flame bait or people forget the origonal question.


Here's a real simple question to ask before you assume tjat automatically getting to do something is ok: would you mind it if people did this to you.?

People ask questions like this because they may be curious as to how others would handle it. I've gotten a good amount of info from this thread that will change the way I play. Hell, it probably takes less time to just roll the auto-pen than it is to get the opponents permission to skip it.

And no, I wouldn't mind someone doing this to me. I've had it happen and in all cases it went like this : "I auto pen so I'm just going to roll for damage", and I said "sure".

liturgies of blood wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:
The DT-Test is the trigger for the Crushers to have ini 1 against my Marines. And I want them at Ini 1 actually...

Assaulting into cover you always have I1 unless you have some special rules or wargear, eg frag grenades. I don't know what you are getting at here.

Not true. It's not the act of assaulting into cover it's making the DT roll.
There's a difference. Sanctuary, for example, doesn't create cover, but does force DT tests for assaulting.

Yes you are correct, but see above for why that has no effect on the process of the assault for sporting players.
However you end up needing a DT roll at 1" away you could just say "my unit of one model makes it into cc anyway, I charge and you pile in and I strike at I1".

This is not the same case as an auto-pen which can be skipped with no consequences but in the case of an assault the shape of it may be important so you should always roll the DT to see how far you move

rigeld2 wrote:
Not true. It's not the act of assaulting into cover it's making the DT roll.
There's a difference. Sanctuary, for example, doesn't create cover, but does force DT tests for assaulting.

And unless the DT test in question is triggered by a Spore Cloud. Because ...... because ..... because .... GW likes to create little tests to see if we're paying attention?

Otherwise if you agree as gentlemen that a s10 hit on armour ten autopens you could never roll on the damage chart.
You ask "do I need to do this" at all times as we have all said pro-forma to ensure no mistakes. I spoke in a case where opponents agree.

Of course if you agree, all is fine. I was talking about an environment where this may be not the case. To be honest: if I have issues with an autopen not being rolled for, this falls into that category.

My personal style is: If the opponent forgot about the autopen and rolled well, I would accept that as vehicle damage roll instead without doubt, because my opponent made a good roll from which he should profit.
If he forgot about it and rolled badly, I would suggest another roll because he intended to roll for penetration.

But that has something to do with my understanding of a good 40k-game: I want to beat an opponent showing me his best/strongest side.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

Otherwise if you agree as gentlemen that a s10 hit on armour ten autopens you could never roll on the damage chart.
You ask "do I need to do this" at all times as we have all said pro-forma to ensure no mistakes. I spoke in a case where opponents agree.

Of course if you agree, all is fine. I was talking about an environment where this may be not the case. To be honest: if I have issues with an autopen not being rolled for, this falls into that category.

My personal style is: If the opponent forgot about the autopen and rolled well, I would accept that as vehicle damage roll instead without doubt, because my opponent made a good roll from which he should profit.
If he forgot about it and rolled badly, I would suggest a reroll because he intended to roll for penetration.

But that has something to do with my understanding of a good 40k-game: I want to beat an opponent showing me his best/strongest side.

That's my style too, but if somebody asked me to roll properly I would be fine with it (specially in a tournament, as is the case of the OP), and if it did happen I would for sure not run post it on the internets.

Oh it always feels better to beat someone when they put their best foot forward.
If you don't know the person you always ask. Its the same as NEVER touching models without explicit permission of the owner.

but if somebody asked me to roll properly I would be fine with it (specially in a tournament, as is the case of the OP), and if it did happen I would for sure not run post it on the internets.

Me forgetting things is a total different story from an opponent forgetting things. But actually it never happened that I didnt announce a roll. And I always treat it as the one I announced. If I said "penetration" it is a penetration roll even if it was unnecessary. If I announced "damage" (including the statement about why the penetration roll is skipped) I treat it as damage roll.

But of course if the opponent has issues, I would discuss that openly. And he will have to get past the "are you serious? oO" *raised eyebrow*-look...

im sure he was just being a poor sport, because everyone i play with tells me to just roll damage table if i auto-pen (hence the name "auto-pen"), and if i had any AV, i would say the same.

I wouldn't be so sure. This is something I often caution people about particularly when playing in tournaments, especially when away from your local play group, but really applies any time you play someone new:

Do NOT automatically assume that because they play something differently than you do that they are trying to cheat you or are a bad sport. They most likely just play it a bit differently where that guy is from. Give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motives. It'll help you have more fun games and resolve issues more easily and with less tension.