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.

The table does not say "Immobilised in its previous turn" It says "Immobilised"

As soon as the thing stops being able to move the forward momentum it is using to cause issues hitting it are gone. Imagine the thing grinds to a screaming halt and now the Carnifex happily walks up to it and has no issue smacking it. Before it was flying past and the carnifex had to try and hit a moving target.

Or just imagine that the rule book says "immobilised" and don't add extra words to it.

Hmmm...well it is somewhat ambiguous. The Vehicles in Assault section specifies how to charge, who can fight, has a separate to-hit table, and specifies combat results - but never mentions Initiative. I see your point.

However, while the Vehicles in Assault section does not mention Initiative, it also never says that you may disregard Initiative either. I would assume that the 'normal' assault rules would apply unless otherwise specified. ie the Vehicles in Assault section specifically mentions that the units do not get locked, as they would normally. So if you were allowed to ignore Initiative, it really should specifically state that. The Vehicles in Assault are a more specific rule than the Assault rules - as such, the Assault rules should be assumed to apply unless otherwise stated.

Ie Yak's pointing out of page 36, where it states that you resolve combats one at a time. That's in the Assault section, not the Vehicles in Assault section - so if that applies, then Initiative should apply as well!

Although, actually, the situation you described would fall under "Multiple Combats", another more specific rule than the general order chart on page 36 - so that you would not actually resolve them one at a time.

I think that RAW supports that the Tyrant must strike first, unless you want to take the leap that the general Assault section rules do not apply to Vehicles unless specifically mentioned. And you can't take the "assaults are resolved one at a time" selectively, without also applying the "Multiple Combats" rule which would negate that in your particular case.

Also, in a real game, this would seem like a rather trashy way to try to gain an advantage. So in the spirit of the acting player taking the least advantage, it behooves one to attack in Initiative order.

By the way, skimmers moving fast is one good reason to take Bio-plasma on an MC. It hits on a 4+ regardless of target. If you're lucky you can immobilize on the double-initiative of Bioplasma, then tear the thing apart with MC attacks.

Just had a reread of all the relevent areas in "the book".

I think I should probably apologise for wasting everyone's time. As Avatar pointed out, my original quote was actually a misquote and this can definitely lead to drawing incorrect conclusions.

Strangelooper, I concur with your analysis of initiative order in this assault. This is what YakFace said originally as well!

If I go back an reread Yak's original response to this question it makes me feel a tad stupid......(not the first time, wont be the last )

Hey Yak, do me a favour and lock this thread soon? It would be as close as I could get to falling on my own sword.....

thanks......

I'm not so sure that we can lock this thread yet. I still am not convinced that a hive tyrant and carnifex that are assaulting the same vehicle follow the 'multiple combatants' rules. Rather, I believe that they are two separate assaults, and so the player whose turn it is may work them out in any order that they wish. So, I think it is perfectly legitimate for the Tyranid player to make the carnifex attacks first, as it is easier to immobilize the vehicle with those attacks than it would be to immobilize it with the hive tyrant. It's an extremely rare example, and I'm sure if I thought about it I could think of other ones (maybe Necrons with disruption fields attacking a skimmer before a C'Tan does?). I think if anyone is clever enough to do the math and determine the advantage, they should have it in this case (plus, I don't feel much sympathy for anyone who lets their vehicle get assaulted by two MCs). - Oaka

Oaka, how do you justify only selecting *part* of the main Assault rules (the part about resolving combats one at a time) and yet ignoring the section on Multiple Assaults (if two units are fighting another unit, they are considered to be in one big combat)?

If you're completely ignoring the main Assault section, and only following the wording of the Vehicles in Assault section of the Vehicles rules, then there is no mention of resolving different combats at different times. Since the rules set is permissive, I'd have to assume that all combat vs vehicles would be simultaneous, in that case.

I would prefer to apply the whole of the normal Assault rules though, as it makes more sense. But applying only one part of that section and not the other, selectively in order to gain an advantage, seems very wrong to me.

" (if two units are fighting another unit, they are considered to be in one big combat)? "

wouldn't that mean that both attackers are going to need 6's to hit?

Pg. 71 - "Whilst vehicles can be assaulted by infantry, they cannot be Locked in close combat by them,"

Pg. 71 - "Models that have assaulted a vehicle with no WS are not classed as Locked,"

Pg. 38 - "Once a model is in base-to-base contact, or within 2" of a model from its own unit in base-to-base contact, with an enemy model it is said to be ENGAGED (as in engaged in combat).  The unit that the models belong to is then said to be LOCKED (as in locked in close combat)."

Now because the hive tyrant and carnifex are never considered LOCKED in combat, they are unable to follow any of the normal assault rules after the quote on page 38, which corresponds to LOCKED units.  Vehicles with a WS have the exception that they count as LOCKED, and so follow the assault rules normally (initiative steps, multiple combats, etc.).  Fortunately, the rules written for vehicles without a WS are simple enough to follow without ever having to consort the normal assault rules, in fact the only time it ever directs you to the normal assault rules is for moving charging units.

Now, bear with me here, but the Assault Phase Summary chart is on page 36, and so would correspond to any and all assaults.  Since the first step of RESOLVE COMBATS is Pick a combat, then this could be applied to the hive tyrant or carnifex, which would be separate combats. 

I admit it doesn't appear as clearcut as I had hoped, and I am still open to be convinced otherwise, but the fact that there are separate rules for an assault involving a vehicle with no WS makes me believe that the generic assault rules are therefore, not used (much like how the generic psychic power rules are not used for space marine powers).

And I'm not trying to gain an advantage for myself, those vehicles were on my team when it happened.  I just think it would add a nice intellectual level to the game for Tyranid players to choose which unit went first depending on whether they were fighting a land raider or a rhino (like when you choose to turn your power fists off and the like, it adds that extra gamble).

- Oaka

@Oaka
The rules for assaulting a vehicle state the charge move of a unit assaulting is handle the same as a normal combat. That means the player must declare both the HT and Carni are assaulting the vehicle then move the models into BTB with the vehicle. Page 45 states when a unit is envolved in combat with more than one unit all units are said to be in multiple combat. Combat is then resovled in Initiative order with each attack checking the table on page 71 to determine what is needed to hit the vehicle.

"Now because the hive tyrant and carnifex are never considered LOCKED in combat, they are unable to follow any of the normal assault rules after the quote on page 38, which corresponds to LOCKED units. "

Really? I thought that the Assault rules refered to ENGAGED units...don't have my book on me right now though. I thought that "locked" was only used to determine if the units were permitted to move away and/or be targeted by shooting in later turns.

If the Assault rules *do* restrict themselves to 'locked' units, then you are right, as the Vehicles in Assault section specifically states that units assaulting vehicles without a WS are not locked.

I'm pretty sure that the Assault rules only require a unit to be engaged though - in which case I am right!

Good points and argument though. I just think that you may be incorrect about the Assault rules only applying to LOCKED models.

Alarmingrick:
What that would mean (if I'm correct that the Assault rules apply to Engaged models, and not only Locked models) is that the Tyrant would attack first at Init5, needing 6's to hit. If he does hit, and manages to immobilize the vehicle, then the Fex would automatically hit with all of its attacks - since when I2/I1 roll around, the Fex checks the to-hit table in the Vehicles In Assault section, and finds that the vehicle IS immobilized by that initiative step.

But you can't hold back the Tyrant's attacks until after the Fex goes. You've still got to go in Initiative order in the multiple combat, as nothing in the Vehicles in Assault section specifically lets you ignore the "Multiple Combats" section of the Assault rules, nor the need to strike in Initiative order.

@Strangelooper and Oaka

thank you both for the explanations.

my feeling is that the I is to see which of the 2 MC's would attack first.

but i feel that the attacks would both be happening simultaneously.

in other words the advantage of the vehicle being immobile wouldn't go into effect

until the next assault phase.

@ alarmingrick:

While we are supposed to envision an assault as a swirling melee with attacks being simultaneous, it doesn't work like that in the rules.  I can only give you a counter-example to your suggestion that both monstrous creatures need 6s to hit, even if the first one immobilizes the vehicle.  A Dark Eldar shadowfield, to my knowledge, will not remain up for an entire assault if it is knocked down at a higher initiative level.  In fact, I've seen most opponents of Dark Eldar hope to knock the shield down with some grunt attacks before trying to swing an instant-kill with a powerfist at the end.

As for letting the carnifex go first, I don't think the rules support my claim strongly enough.  I wouldn't believe it is game-changing, but it definitely isn't something I would count on ahead of time as being possible.  My group will keep using it as a house-rule, because we like it, but outside of each other we won't try doing it to someone else.

- Oaka

So if the land raider doesn't move, and the two MCs are not locked, can they attack it during the marine player's turn?
After all, if they have to go by initiative steps in a multiple combat, then shouldn't the vehcile remaining in base contact mean they are still engaged and so can swing on the marines players turn like a normal combat. You may not be locked in that fight, but you are engaged and so should be able to swing.

Hmmm...interesting...

You'd think the Marine player would move their Landraider out of base-to-base...but what if it was immobilized, or if the Marine player wanted to fire all the weapons without pivoting?

It certainly *seems* wrong that the MCs would get another close combat phase in the Marine's turn. But if the only argument against the MCs getting to fight is that "they're not locked" - then the MCs can't even fight in their *own* turn after charging a vehicle, as they never become locked with the vehicle.

Heh. Good catch Midnight! I can't wait to try to use that one

midnight answered his own question. The units are not locked in combat so there is no sustained CC. Models assaulting a vehicle are not engaged in combat. The units are s free to do what they wants on their turn. The special rules for assaulting a vehilce are on page 71.

I was demonstrating that vehicles use their own rules for assaults and no where does a unit that is not locked in combat become part of a multiple unit combat. It can't fight back so it can't create a fight. It's just 2 units smacking it around during the close combat round.

Oaka explained this already. I'm just pointing out that "g. 38 - "Once a model is in base-to-base contact, or within 2" of a model from its own unit in base-to-base contact, with an enemy model it is said to be ENGAGED (as in engaged in combat). The unit that the models belong to is then said to be LOCKED (as in locked in close combat)."

Now if you are engaged, you get to fight, right? So if you want to say they have to use ALL the rules including multiple combats, then you also have to look at the fact that if that Land Raider doesn't move, it is not locked, but it is STILL ENGAGED. Just because it is never locked does not change that it is engaged. It is free to move away. But if it didn't it is still engaged. It is still in base-to-base contact and so subject to being attakced by a unit that can do so during the assault phase since they are engaged in combat. Units that are not locked can be shot at. But they still get to smack it around for sitting there. This brings up an interesting issue as the vehicle is still only hit on a 6. ("moved over 6" in it's previous turn this is the same turn so the previous turn's movement counts) unless it was immobilised by the attacks.

When I first read those rules I always wondered why they didn't explain that better. "What happens if it stays, do they get to smack it? It sure sounds that way."

Here's the fun part. The intent isn't that clear. I could argue it either way and there are still problems with how it would work consistantly.

" I could argue it either way and there are still problems with how it would work consistantly."

does this qualify for the "The Unofficial Dakka FAQ v2.5"?

i could see how it would.

I think my previous arguments make a very good case for INSISTING that the attacks on the vehicle are done in initiative order, especially if 1 unit has a better chance of holing the land raider over another unit.

I dont think this assault locking/not locking the vehicle is a real problem......

The rules state that vehicles cannot be locked. So, how can any other units in base to base be counted as locked to it? It has got to work both ways to be fair?

You are trying to gain an extra round of attacks in the marine players turn?........mmmmm.  I think that this is more than a bit cheeky.

Who's signature states "play the game, not the rules" ?