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.

Fragile, I am not completely sure what you are alluding to, but look at it this way, if the unit is not charging do they receive those bonus attacks?

Since the answer is obviously, to me at least, no, then all those bullet points apply to a charging unit.

The 2CCW one is debatable, and IMO shouldn't be there, but it is.

I would be interested to hear why you have taken that point of view?

Cheers

Andrew

You need to reread the rules in question if you are confused. Defensive grenades remove the bonus attack for charging. The bonus attacks on pg 24 includes more than just the bonus attack for charging.

Now I am confused.

What exactly are you saying here?

Defensive grenades remove all bonus attacks from a charging unit. P24 defines bonus attacks as three different things, +1 Charging bonus, +1 Two weapon and Other bonuses.

I say that the defensive grenades remove all 3 sources, are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Cheers

Andrew

"...do not gain Bonus attacks from charging..." -Defensive Grenades rules on page 62.

Nothing there related to "all bonus attacks" or "from a charging unit". You need to read what the rule says. You're adding words that change the meaning of the rule significantly.

Of the sources of additional attacks on page 24 only one is related to charging and depends on it as the source of the additional attack. Those are the only attacks negated by defensive grenades. Not sure what the confusion is or how you could possibly construe defensive grenades to affect any attacks other than those their rules specifically state they do.

Andrew - then you are wrong.

You get bonus attacks, only SOME of those are for charging. 2 close combat weapons is NOT a bonus you get FROM charging, but FROM having 2 CCW.

Firstly Nos I agreed with you earlier, I do think that the +1 for 2 CCW shouldn't have been included in the list, however, GW in their usual track record of poorly written rules, has, wrongly, included the +1 for CCW under the definitions of bonus Attacks.

@helotaxi, please define 'bonus Attacks'? For once GW has actually included the definition in the BrB. Its on P24 and has 3 sections. I've quoted them earlier. Why do you insist that defensive grenades only applies to point 1 and not point 3?

P62 refers to Attacks (plural) P24 point 1 refers to charge Attack (singular)

Rage, a USR, is included, but HoW, an extra attack gained from charging isn't?

Cheers

Andrew

Edited for grammar.

 AndrewC wrote:

@helotaxi, please define 'bonus Attacks'? For once GW has actually included the definition in the BrB. Its on P24 and has 3 sections. I've quoted them earlier. Why do you insist that defensive grenades only applies to point 1 and not point 3?

Defensive grenades only apply to point 1 because the defensive grenade rule removes bonus attacks from charging. It does not remove bonus attacks from the charging unit.

Andrew - again, you are missing the qualifier "from charging"

+1A for 2CCW IS a bonus attack, but it is NOT from charging. Therefore it is not removed. That is entirely clear.

HoW is a bonus attack you get when charging, so should be removed.

Rage is an alteration to the bonus attack for charging, from 1 to 2, so is removed.

Alright let me take a crack at it.

Def. Grenades negate bonus attacks from charging.
[While not the complete rule, the bone of contention is the last part anyways. Also this refers to multiple due to the plural form and since there is no specification, we must assume all bonus attacks from charging.]

What are bonus attacks from charging?

Without the book in front of me, I can think of three. +1 for Charging, +2A for Rage, and yes HoW.

Why HoW? Because it only applies when you charge a unit.

So in order I declare charge-> overwatch yadda yadda-> determine charge distance-> make it into base contact-> bonus attacks? why yes good sir i get these bonuses because i charged. OK add em to the total-> def. grenades sorry you lose your bonus attacks that you got from charging

But honestly folks use common sense. GW has a tough time wording the rules anyways. And if you were being shot at while charging and having grenades thrown at you, wouldn't you lose momentum to make a HoW attack?

But make the best judgement between you and your opponent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

HoW is a bonus attack you get when charging, so should be removed.

I disagree with this for the following reason: HoW isn't on page 24. True, it is an additional (not "bonus") attack received when charging bu the Defensive grenade rule specifies what charge bonus it is referring to: the one described on page 24.

If we apply the Defensive Grenade rule to the HoW rule, for the sake of consistency, we would also have to apply Rage to HoW as well as Swiftclaw Berserk Charge, Carnifex Crushing Claws and every other rule that modifies charge attacks. If you want to give me extra HoW attacks for Rage or Berserk Charge, I'll take them, but there is nothing in the rules to support you doing so. Neither is there anything in the rules to support D. Grenades eliminating the HoW special rule.

Rage is an alteration to the bonus attack for charging , from 1 to 2, so is removed.

Which is why would agree that it is affected by D. Grenades. HoW does not interact with the rules on page 24 at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

41_WarGaming wrote:
And if you were being shot at while charging and having grenades thrown at you, wouldn't you lose momentum to make a HoW attack?

Only if you, as a MC, lost a lot of weight while charging, or you as a biker or chariot suddenly stopped charging altogether. It actually doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective for D. Grenades to affect HoW either. It's not like your normal infantry model has the HoW special rule.

Except for HoW, which specifies it benefits from no special rules.

But you would argue that it could be negated by what amounts to a basic rule?

 AndrewC wrote:
Firstly Nos I agreed with you earlier, I do think that the +1 for 2 CCW shouldn't have been included in the list, however, GW in their usual track record of poorly written rules, has, wrongly, included the +1 for CCW under the definitions of bonus Attacks.

@helotaxi, please define 'bonus Attacks'? For once GW has actually included the definition in the BrB. Its on P24 and has 3 sections. I've quoted them earlier. Why do you insist that defensive grenades only applies to point 1 and not point 3?

P62 refers to Attacks (plural) P24 point 1 refers to charge Attack (singular)

Rage, a USR, is included, but HoW, an extra attack gained from charging isn't?

Cheers

Andrew

Edited for grammar.

I'm curious: Why do you keep referring to page 24 having 3 sections? It's a part of the fight sub-phase section of the rules, not the charge section. It's referred to in the DG section but that's for the fact that they include the +1 bonus for charging to be included in that fight sub-phase.

"Models charging units equipped with defensive grenades do
not gain bonus Attacks from charging (see page 24)"

" +l Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this
turn get + I Attack this turn. Remember that models in
units that made a disordered charge (see page 27) do not
get this bonus."

I honestly think it's just referring to the +1 Charge Bonus. That is it.

Since that's the only bonus from charging listed on the page referenced in the D. Grenades rule, I'm not sure where any of the confusion is coming from either.

Shaozun wrote:

I'm curious: Why do you keep referring to page 24 having 3 sections? It's a part of the fight sub-phase section of the rules, not the charge section. It's referred to in the DG section but that's for the fact that they include the +1 bonus for charging to be included in that fight sub-phase.

"Models charging units equipped with defensive grenades do
not gain bonus Attacks from charging (see page 24)"

" +l Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this
turn get + I Attack this turn. Remember that models in
units that made a disordered charge (see page 27) do not
get this bonus."

I honestly think it's just referring to the +1 Charge Bonus. That is it.

Because of the way it is written. When you look at P24, it refers to the number of attacks that you receive in CC. It defines them by the use of the colon and the three bullet points (The three sections I keep referring to) It determines that models in CC receive bonus Attacks from 3 sources. The non disputable +1 for charging, the +1 for 2CCWs and then the last bullet point, other bonuses, which refers to special rules and wargear which grants extra Attacks.

Now look at HoW. P37

If a model with this special rule charges and ends its move in base contact with one or more enemy models, it makes one additional Attack...

I just don't see how anyone can argue that HoW isnt a bonus attack gained from charging.

@helotaxi, if, as you argue, that the only attack lost is from charging, why is it written in the plural rather than the singular?

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nos, I don't think that +1for 2CCw should in anyway be removed by the use of defensive grenades, but I am going to be consistent in my argument as to the definition of bonus Attacks, because once I discount one of the bullet points then it undermines my position to argue the last point.

You are right, +1 for 2CCW comes from the use of 2 weapons, not a bonus for charging, but I am going to maintain that it be included, because it is included under the definitions of 'bonus Attacks'.

Cheers

Andrew

Again, your reason for doing so is worng.

You are told to remove bonus attacks FROM CHARGING.

The bonus from 2 CCW IS a bonus attack, however it is NOT FROM CHARGING, so CANNOT be removed.

Your position is wrong.

Nos, I think my additional post may have crossed with yours...

Cheers

Andrew

It is a bonus attack, agreed

It is not a bonus attack from charging, so cannot be removed. Agreed?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is a bonus attack, agreed

It is not a bonus attack from charging, so cannot be removed. Agreed?

Agreed
and
Agreed.

If I refer to it again, it is simply in the context of the definition of 'bonus Attacks' and not that it is removed as an effect of Defensive Grenades.

Cheers

Andrew

Ah ok, not a problem, wires crossed

 AndrewC wrote:

@helotaxi, if, as you argue, that the only attack lost is from charging, why is it written in the plural rather than the singular?

Playing Devil's Advocate, Rage explicitly pluralises the charging bonus, so it might be written in the plural as a reference to the fact it is possible for units to have +2A from charging. Note that this is different to HoW, which grants an attack that is out of profile - that is, the attack does not occur at the model's initiative step, and is not made using the model's weapons.

Not saying that is my opinion, just that it could be a rationale for pluralisation in the rule.

An interesting thought indeed. But why word a basic rule to take account of an advanced rule? Shouldn't it be written the other way round?

And while HoW grants an attack out of profile/initiative, it is still a bonus attack granted to the model is it not?

Cheers

Andrew

Mythal wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

@helotaxi, if, as you argue, that the only attack lost is from charging, why is it written in the plural rather than the singular?

Playing Devil's Advocate, Rage explicitly pluralises the charging bonus, so it might be written in the plural as a reference to the fact it is possible for units to have +2A from charging. Note that this is different to HoW, which grants an attack that is out of profile - that is, the attack does not occur at the model's initiative step, and is not made using the model's weapons.

Not saying that is my opinion, just that it could be a rationale for pluralisation in the rule.

Or, more likely because the sentence in question begins with the word "Models" and models (plural) gain attacks (plural) from charging.

So I just got the Space Wolf Codex to make my Guard a bit more interesting and have to ask... do defensive grenades affect Berserk Charge the same way as Rage?

Just glancing through this post, and just wanted to have my say on the + 1 for 2 close combat weapons debate.

When playing warhammer, its very much a game bsaed on war and a very distant reality (take out the orks, nids, tau and so on). But if we look at a real life battle, say between an assault squad on a tactical squad with defensive grenades, can you explain to me how the tact squads defensive grenades would prevent them from holding on to both of their close comabt weapons? therefore making them forfeit there + 1 for 2 close combat weapons? because if you take them off for the initial charge, then clearly you should take them off for the entire assault? Its not as if they are going to drop 1 of their weapons through the initial charge. Baring in mind they will lose their attack bonus for charging because they are stopping and taking cover, thus keeping themselves alive for the close combat that ensues

This is just my opinion, I am not taking sides and even my opinion is debatable, but I am just trying to see the realistic side of things. If a unit charges another unit that is throwing grenades at them, unless they are completely suicidle, I highly doubt they would keep up there charge without ducking for cover in the process, whilst keeping hold of there 2 close combat weapons but negating the + 1 for charge, as they are ducking for cover, aswell as there rage. I hope I am making sense here?

With regards to the HoW, again I feel this would still stand, because the creatures, bikes, or jump packs that are doing this, we are assuming they either don't give a s**t that grenades are being thrown at them, I.E monstrous creatures, or they are merely too quick to hit them, I.E bikes, or jump pack squads.

I would be interested to see what you guys think.

 mikeyboy69x wrote:
Just glancing through this post, and just wanted to have my say on the + 1 for 2 close combat weapons debate.

I don't believe losing the +1 A for having 2 Close Combat Weapons to Defensive Grenades is really being discussed anymore.

When playing warhammer, its very much a game bsaed on war and a very distant reality (take out the orks, nids, tau and so on). But if we look at a real life battle.....

And then I stopped reading. The "reality" of Warhammer 40K is defined by the rules presented to us, not by the real-world physics of planet Earth anno 2013.
Appeals to common sense and real-world physics is actually less than helpful in rules discussions, and usually just muddies the waters, at best, or poisons the well, at worst.

This is just my opinion, I am not taking sides and even my opinion is debatable, but I am just trying to see the realistic side of things.....

This is where I stopped reading that paragraph. See above.

With regards to the HoW, again I feel this would still stand, because the creatures, bikes, or jump packs that are doing this, we are assuming they either don't give a s**t that grenades are being thrown at them, I.E monstrous creatures, or they are merely too quick to hit them, I.E bikes, or jump pack squads.

Sigh. I would say that HOW is an additional attack gained upon and dependent on performing an assault (as you don't receive it when being assaulted).
This could also be stated as; "HOW is a bonus attack from charging", and as such is lost when charging a unit with Defensive Grenades.
That argument, while reflecting my personal opinion as well, at least references the rules and not appeals to anything else.

I would be interested to see what you guys think.

There you go.

Thank you for your input Steel

Again D. grenades specify, much more than usual for GW, exactly what they effect: bonus attacks from charging as described on p. 24. Because of the specificity you cannot justify extrapolating to cover additional attacks covered elsewhere even if they do only occur when charging.

It amazes me how some people here want to apply the narrowest reading possible on vague language in the rules but when the rules are actually very specific want to use the broad brush approach and read it as covering things well outside the the very specific application of the rule as written.

Why not just call GW and ask a rules troll?

Gomericus wrote:
Why not just call GW and ask a rules troll?

Because the reply is not documentable in an official and publicly accessable manner, such as an officially published FAQ.

SJ