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.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


How do we allocate wounds for VS?
I agree I was terribly mistaken at first, I now see I was using rules for shooting to fill in the blanks.

However I don't believe a FMC/Flyer may VS after going off the board.
Is there any precedence for something off the board affecting things on the board in this manner?

There is no precedence for entering reserves and doing damage. This is where common sense comes into play.

Just allocate wounds randomly. There's no reason or rule that says they need come from a specific direction.

A model can VS even if it enters Reserve. The VS rule says nominate a unit...that unit takes D3+1 hits...There's no reason (common sense-wise) why the unit shouldn't still take the hits if the Heldrake enters Reserves.

 iron_freak220 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


How do we allocate wounds for VS?
I agree I was terribly mistaken at first, I now see I was using rules for shooting to fill in the blanks.

However I don't believe a FMC/Flyer may VS after going off the board.
Is there any precedence for something off the board affecting things on the board in this manner?

There is no precedence for entering reserves and doing damage. This is where common sense comes into play.

Just allocate wounds randomly. There's no reason or rule that says they need come from a specific direction.

A model can VS even if it enters Reserve. The VS rule says nominate a unit...that unit takes D3+1 hits...There's no reason (common sense-wise) why the unit shouldn't still take the hits if the Heldrake enters Reserves.

You nominate when you finish your move. When you finish your move you are off the board and back in ongoing reserves. So while in ongoing reserves you may Kill models? sounds a bit much.

Allocate randomly? I wish, sounds too good to be true.

Shooting peels closest to furthest, assault peels models in btb than closest. IIRC sweep attack wounds, which are similar are decided by the wounded models player.

The heldrake may be the precident. It is the only model which can both wound in the moving phase and leave the table.

At no point is los required because a vs is a special type of attack which is neither a shooting attack or a melee attack.
If a fmc lands behind terrain that blocks los you are saying it cant vs either? You are reading issues into the rules which aren't there.

FMCs can all wound in the moving phase and leave the table as well.

I'll concede, even if it feels terribly suspect to wound while you're in ongoing reserves.

In the meantime I'll read up a bit more.

Well if you want to get technical since a Heldrake does not swoop it can never vector strike.

There are a few things that work from reserves(such as regen or it will not die)

Now most things cant work when they are off the table as they require an activation or something or another. However Vector Strike simply requires that the model flys over something then the unit takes d3+1 hits. Since it is neither a close combat attack nor a shooting attack it would follow the random allocation rules for who gets hit. This also means that it lacks a direction and thus only cover that you are in would grant a cover save.

 Leth wrote:
Well if you want to get technical since a Heldrake does not swoop it can never vector strike.

There are a few things that work from reserves(such as regen or it will not die)

Now most things cant work when they are off the table as they require an activation or something or another. However Vector Strike simply requires that the model flys over something then the unit takes d3+1 hits. Since it is neither a close combat attack nor a shooting attack it would follow the random allocation rules for who gets hit. This also means that it lacks a direction and thus only cover that you are in would grant a cover save.

They have a special rule which lets them use Vector Strike, Meteoric Descent IIRC

Codex: CSM, page 52.
Meteoric Descent: Heldrakes have the Vector Strike special rule. However as they are a vehcile they can perform a Vector Strike while Zooming instead of whilst Swooping.

thanks for coming out Leth.

So to recap - according to the folks on Dakka, a heldrake can use their Meteoric Descent special ability to make a Vector Strike. BUT because the Heldrake is a vehicle it doesn't have 360deg line of sight, and as such any "hits" the vector strike allocates are immediately discarded as the Heldrake does not have line of sight to the unit it hit.

Again, wow.

Please note that LOS is not a requirement for allocating hits or wounds from a vector strike attack.

BYB, page 43:
Vector Strike...... At the end of the movememnt phase, no minate any one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved over that turn. This unit may even be an enemy flyer. That unit takes D3+1 hits, resolved at the model's unmodified Strentgh and AP3, against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armour. A model that made a vector strike in its movement phase counts as having already fired one weapon in its following shooting phase. However, any additional eapons it fires that turn can choose a differetn target to that of the vector strike.

Please tell me where it states that the vector strike is a shooting attack? The model completing the vector strike counts as having fired a weapon for the purpose of making shooting attacks in the shooting phase but at no point does the model make a shooting attack in the movement phase. The vector strike is a special ability which is neither a ranged, nor close combat attack. Because it is a special ability which is neither a ranged nor close combat attack it has its own rules.... Rules which I have typed in full above.

Regarding whether a FMC or a Heldrake can use their ability to leave combat airspace (BYB page 49) after making a vector strike attack during their movement phase note that at no point does it say that the abilities are mutually exclusive. The FMC (or Heldrake) has the ability whilst zooming to (a) Make a vector strike attack, and (b) leave combat airspace. As "leaving combat airspace" is specifically explained on the FMC page in the BYB AND (prior to the heldrake) they were the ONLY model type capable of completing both actions it is either complete oversite on GW's part that they didn't add one sentence stating "FMC's can't use vector strike in the same movement phase in which they leave combat airspace" OR it is allowed. Currently the two special abilities are not mutually exclusive & both actions can be taken.

If you argue the opposite please clearly specify which clauses (of either rule) are violated by utilizing both abilities during the same movement phase.

I believe I have clearly explained why the LOS argument used in the first several posts is invalid, I am waiting to read any other justification.

clever handle wrote:
Codex: CSM, page 52.
Meteoric Descent: Heldrakes have the Vector Strike special rule. However as they are a vehcile they can perform a Vector Strike while Zooming instead of whilst Swooping.

thanks for coming out Leth.

So to recap - according to the folks on Dakka, a heldrake can use their Meteoric Descent special ability to make a Vector Strike. BUT because the Heldrake is a vehicle it doesn't have 360deg line of sight, and as such any "hits" the vector strike allocates are immediately discarded as the Heldrake does not have line of sight to the unit it hit.

Again, wow.

Please note that LOS is not a requirement for allocating hits or wounds from a vector strike attack.

BGB, page 43:
Vector Strike...... At the end of the movement phase, nominate any one unengaged enemy unit the model has moved over that turn. This unit may even be an enemy flyer. That unit takes D3+1 hits, resolved at the model's unmodified Strength and AP3, against vehicles, these hits are resolved against the target's side armor. A model that made a vector strike in its movement phase counts as having already fired one weapon in its following shooting phase. However, any additional weapons it fires that turn can choose a different target to that of the vector strike.

Please tell me where it states that the vector strike is a shooting attack? The model completing the vector strike counts as having fired a weapon for the purpose of making shooting attacks in the shooting phase but at no point does the model make a shooting attack in the movement phase. The vector strike is a special ability which is neither a ranged, nor close combat attack. Because it is a special ability which is neither a ranged nor close combat attack it has its own rules.... Rules which I have typed in full above.

Regarding whether a FMC or a Heldrake can use their ability to leave combat airspace (BGB page 49) after making a vector strike attack during their movement phase note that at no point does it say that the abilities are mutually exclusive. The FMC (or Heldrake) has the ability whilst zooming to (a) Make a vector strike attack, and (b) leave combat airspace. As "leaving combat airspace" is specifically explained on the FMC page in the BGB AND (prior to the heldrake) they were the ONLY model type capable of completing both actions it is either complete oversight on GW's part that they didn't add one sentence stating "FMC's can't use vector strike in the same movement phase in which they leave combat airspace" OR it is allowed. Currently the two special abilities are not mutually exclusive & both actions can be taken.

If you argue the opposite please clearly specify which clauses (of either rule) are violated by utilizing both abilities during the same movement phase.

I believe I have clearly explained why the LOS argument used in the first several posts is invalid, I am waiting to read any other justification.

To recap your recap, folks on dakka have seen that the LOS argument was wrong, however if you didn't read the entire thread and just post the same as you did last time ...

By folks on Dakka you are truly saying me as I was the horrible advocate in this argument that was based off the wrong rules for the action.

As for the Vector strike rule, that's just common sense getting in the way of 40k.
Used to things in reserve not being able to effect things on board and all.

Yeah, I don't see LoS being an issue with Vector Striking, however I wish there was a rules clarification on cover and Vector Striking, as they don't say one way or another if you get it or not. Common sense says they fly up and hit you; so only Area Terrain should be considered for cover saves; however this is purely conjecture. I hope you don't get cover based off of where you land, though, as due to a FMC's movement, chances are something is going to be between the FMC and its VC'd target.

Sorry if the tone of my posts comes across as a bit... prickish... but I am a bit of a prick, I'll try to reign it in but I've only been a member here for about a week & frankly SO many of the YMDC posts are just.... silly.... Folks seem to really stretch for loopholes on this forum. I know it isn't any different from any other forum (really) but the one I used to frequent would see this type of post quickly shut down with a rules reference and / or a discussion like the one I posted in my last post. I guess I'm just a bit... frustrated. And that's not to say that the question posed by the OP isn't a good question, just the arguments being used aren't that good.


Anyways.... To your point JDJamesdean, yourself, Markymark & Fragile all advocated the LOS argument. In subsequent posts it seems that that topic was dropped so I will also cease to discuss it, but regarding "leaving combat airspace" can you or anyone provide a counter argument to the one I posted above?

clever handle wrote:
but regarding "leaving combat airspace" can you or anyone provide a counter argument to the one I posted above?

Find permission to nominate while in Reserve.

rigeld2 wrote:

clever handle wrote:
but regarding "leaving combat airspace" can you or anyone provide a counter argument to the one I posted above?

Find permission to nominate while in Reserve.

The Vector Strike gives you permission to nominate. The reserves rule places no such limitation on doing so that I can see. Maybe I missed it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

clever handle wrote:
Sorry if the tone of my posts comes across as a bit... prickish... but I am a bit of a prick, I'll try to reign it in but I've only been a member here for about a week & frankly SO many of the YMDC posts are just.... silly.... Folks seem to really stretch for loopholes on this forum. I know it isn't any different from any other forum (really) but the one I used to frequent would see this type of post quickly shut down with a rules reference and / or a discussion like the one I posted in my last post. I guess I'm just a bit... frustrated. And that's not to say that the question posed by the OP isn't a good question, just the arguments being used aren't that good.


Anyways.... To your point JDJamesdean, yourself, Markymark & Fragile all advocated the LOS argument. In subsequent posts it seems that that topic was dropped so I will also cease to discuss it, but regarding "leaving combat airspace" can you or anyone provide a counter argument to the one I posted above?

One thing to keep in mind for YMDC - many of us are here for just the logic debates. There is some pretty silly stuff, and of course always someone trying to squeeze in another inch however they can, but a lot of us actually pick common sense over RAW in our friendly groups, even if we discuss crazy RAW here.

clever handle wrote:
Sorry if the tone of my posts comes across as a bit... prickish... but I am a bit of a prick, I'll try to reign it in but I've only been a member here for about a week & frankly SO many of the YMDC posts are just.... silly.... Folks seem to really stretch for loopholes on this forum. I know it isn't any different from any other forum (really) but the one I used to frequent would see this type of post quickly shut down with a rules reference and / or a discussion like the one I posted in my last post. I guess I'm just a bit... frustrated. And that's not to say that the question posed by the OP isn't a good question, just the arguments being used aren't that good.


Anyways.... To your point JDJamesdean, yourself, Markymark & Fragile all advocated the LOS argument. In subsequent posts it seems that that topic was dropped so I will also cease to discuss it, but regarding "leaving combat airspace" can you or anyone provide a counter argument to the one I posted above?

All I said was I never thought of LOS, I would class it as a shooting attack. I let my opponent do it so I was hardly looking for loop holes and I would never be so cheap as to look for loopholes let alone expiolt them.

After thinking about it there are other ways that you roll to wound models that you do not need LOS for, i.e in a vehicle explosion, some psyhic powers (although they do state they do not need LOS) and a few more I havent thought of. I do not think it is 100% clear as to what sort of attack it is so could do with a FAQ

IMO, which of course is not RAW, the whole point of the min 18" move for flyers is to give them one restriction compared to their comparable vast benefits. I am not against flyers at all but they are pretty good against armies with no flyers or AA, I left my two SR's at home as I was playing someone I havent played yet in a friendly game and didnt want to subject them to two flyers. I should have asked before hand really but the helldrake is a very good anti MEQ unit and gets a evade save for free without the negative rules.

RAW and Fluffwise doesnt mix so you shouldnt be using that as part of your arguement Clever

Please review the requirements. You nominate an unengaged unit the flyer has passed over during its movement pass. There is no requirement that the fmc still be on the board or even alive for that matter. Your fmc can still vs if it lands in terrain and kills itself. edit Ok... so after thinking this out the FMC swooping ignores dangerous terrain, ignore this logical tangent..../edit
The requirements for completing a vs are that you nominate one unit you flew over. All other discussion is being added by players.
Rai and fluffwise your fmc smacks into my chaos lord as he flies past. He doesmy fly by, land far away and then use his psykic abilities to bitch slap him.

If LoS isn't a requirement how do you trace if the model gets a cover save or not?, At the end of the day if you are claiming that you get to make cover saves from VS you need to still get it from the LoS to the model declared to have a shot and see if the target is obscured

You'd only get cover saves from non LOS sources (KFF, Jink, etc).

 Lord Yayula wrote:
If LoS isn't a requirement how do you trace if the model gets a cover save or not?, At the end of the day if you are claiming that you get to make cover saves from VS you need to still get it from the LoS to the model declared to have a shot and see if the target is obscured

It isnt shooting, so you dont care about LOS. Meaning, like other effects which dont use LOS and are not shooting, you only get cover save from Area terrain, KFF, etc.

Yes it's dumb like that. It's just a dumbed down version of sweep attack

Lord Yayula / Nosferatu1001, actually are we certain you get a coversave at all?

The rules make no provision & neither does the FAQ / errata. As such we're just RAI'ing that a coversave is even possible because it isn't explicitly stated either way.
Again, this is not a shooting attack and it is not a close combat attack - it is something quite difficult. Now I'm at work & don't have my BYB with me, does the BYB explicitly state that coversaves may be taken against a vehicle explosion?

My RAI is that YES coversaves are allowed and that you would check for possible coversaves from the origin of the attack - being where the model started (OR entered the board in a case where they VS after arriving....) To me that makes sense, if a giant bug is flying towards you and you'res standing behind a waist high wall, you eat dirt behind the wall & hope the monster can't rake its claws down your spine as it travels over you.... this of course is all RAI based on the "fluff" of what is actually happening & not the game mechanic.

clever handle wrote:
Lord Yayula / Nosferatu1001, actually are we certain you get a coversave at all?

The rules make no provision & neither does the FAQ / errata. As such we're just RAI'ing that a coversave is even possible because it isn't explicitly stated either way.
Again, this is not a shooting attack and it is not a close combat attack - it is something quite difficult. Now I'm at work & don't have my BYB with me, does the BYB explicitly state that coversaves may be taken against a vehicle explosion?

My RAI is that YES coversaves are allowed and that you would check for possible coversaves from the origin of the attack - being where the model started (OR entered the board in a case where they VS after arriving....) To me that makes sense, if a giant bug is flying towards you and you'res standing behind a waist high wall, you eat dirt behind the wall & hope the monster can't rake its claws down your spine as it travels over you.... this of course is all RAI based on the "fluff" of what is actually happening & not the game mechanic.

coversaves may be taken unless explicitly disallowed

Clever - find a rule saying you may not take a cover save against Sweep, because i have a rule saying I can take cover saves in general.

If you disagree, take a gander at Mawlocs, Spirit Leech from Doom, etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Clever - find a rule saying you may not take a cover save against Vector Strike, because i have a rule saying I can take cover saves in general.

If you disagree, take a gander at Mawlocs, Spirit Leech from Doom, etc.

think you mean this Nos, as sweep attacks state no cover saves

Again, don't have my BYB with me but since multpile folks are stating that there is a permissible to take a coversave unless explicitly denied I'll accept that (page reference though anyone? Kinda integral to a rules debate)

but where RAW does it state that the cover is granted from? Is it from where the attack was initiated? and if so where is that? As the attack is a result of the movement I would be inclinded to state that the CS is generated by intervening terrain located between the start of the move and the unit targeted, but again this is my RAI as it is not explicitly stated.

It seems that some are arguing that the "attack" is initiated & cover must be drawn from the FINAL place of the vector striking model but that can't be the case because as I stated previously, the Heldrake can VS & yet has zero LOS beind it & has no special permission otherwise & therefore if the "attack" is initiated at the final position of the VS model the Heldrake can't complete a VS. THIS RAI thus supports my statement above.

Anyone agree / disagree?

Page 18 states that wounds are allocated to the model that's at least 25% obscured from the firer. The firer is important as the heldrake or any FMC is not actually firing anything during the Vector Strike.

They are counts as having fired weapon for purposes of determining how many weapons they can shoot in a round, but there's nothing in that that says that they actually fired anything.

Since there is no firer, there is no cover save.

 kcwm wrote:
Page 18 states that wounds are allocated to the model that's at least 25% obscured from the firer. The firer is important as the heldrake or any FMC is not actually firing anything during the Vector Strike.

They are counts as having fired weapon for purposes of determining how many weapons they can shoot in a round, but there's nothing in that that says that they actually fired anything.

Since there is no firer, there is no cover save.

Pg 26 BGB
"Models do not get cover saves against any wounds suffered from CC attacks"

That as well, but this technically didn't occur in the Assault phase, so one might argue that it's not actually a CC wound. In my opinion, it should be treated as such, but that doesn't make it a CC wound.

Sorry JD, what does that post mean?

The problem is here that I've touched on & KCWM has hit is that the vector strike is neither a close combat attack OR a shooting attack. Therefore the rules for neither apply. (sheesh, I think I've already typed this out haven't I?)

Please somebody who has access to their BYB post the ruling that you are entitled to a coversave unless explicitly mentioned you don't have one. What JDjames has posted is a specific exemption for CC attacks but the counter hasn't been made yet.

I believe KCWM is correct RAW (unless somebody can pull the explicit rules reference I have requested....) but that doesn' t mean I agree with it... I personally think the 6th ed wound allocation rules are 90% great, but still not 100%.... The fact that I (and my gaming group) believe we have a "better" way means exactly jack-all because the rules are the rules....

clever handle wrote:
Again, don't have my BYB with me but since multpile folks are stating that there is a permissible to take a coversave unless explicitly denied I'll accept that (page reference though anyone? Kinda integral to a rules debate)

but where RAW does it state that the cover is granted from? Is it from where the attack was initiated? and if so where is that? As the attack is a result of the movement I would be inclinded to state that the CS is generated by intervening terrain located between the start of the move and the unit targeted, but again this is my RAI as it is not explicitly stated.

It seems that some are arguing that the "attack" is initiated & cover must be drawn from the FINAL place of the vector striking model but that can't be the case because as I stated previously, the Heldrake can VS & yet has zero LOS beind it & has no special permission otherwise & therefore if the "attack" is initiated at the final position of the VS model the Heldrake can't complete a VS. THIS RAI thus supports my statement above.

Anyone agree / disagree?

Again, you don't/can't draw LOS, so you may not take a cover save based on LOS (25% concealment for example). You can however take cover saves that don't require LOS (KFF, Jink, Area Terrain) as nothing in the rule explicitly denies you from taking cover saves.

clever handle wrote:
Sorry JD, what does that post mean?

The problem is here that I've touched on & KCWM has hit is that the vector strike is neither a close combat attack OR a shooting attack. Therefore the rules for neither apply. (sheesh, I think I've already typed this out haven't I?)

Please somebody who has access to their BYB post the ruling that you are entitled to a coversave unless explicitly mentioned you don't have one. What JDjames has posted is a specific exemption for CC attacks but the counter hasn't been made yet.

I believe KCWM is correct RAW (unless somebody can pull the explicit rules reference I have requested....) but that doesn' t mean I agree with it... I personally think the 6th ed wound allocation rules are 90% great, but still not 100%.... The fact that I (and my gaming group) believe we have a "better" way means exactly jack-all because the rules are the rules....

I understand I'm looking for it, Why would that exception exist if you can only claim cover during the shooting phase?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Area terrain:

"Models in area terrain receive a 5+ cover save, reegardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured" pg 91 BGB