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.

So if someone Rams one's squadron it has always been my understanding that the sentence on page 69 "Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted" was direct enough that it could not be interpreted in more than one way.

But at least one person believes that this hit can be allocated out onto a different member of the squadron in the same fashion as shooting.

Thoughts people?

I wouldn't say it can be allocated out but i'm not sure

I would suppose that you could allocate away, though I think the RAW is unclear unless I've missed something.

The only reason I say this is because the Whirlwind of Gore and Eye of Wrath special abilities inflict hits on specific models, but as they do not inflict wounds on those models, they do not bypass the normal would allocation rules.

Thus I would say that, technically, those hits could be allocated to any vehicle in the squadron.

On the other hand, the glancing/penetrating hit allocation rules for squadrons is only under the "Shooting Phase" portion of the squadron rules, and thus you could say that the rules simply do not cover whether you can allocate Ramming hits or not (since that happens in the movement phase).

Xca|iber wrote:
the rules simply do not cover whether you can allocate Ramming hits or not (since that happens in the movement phase).

This.

The rules don't specify which to do. One says the vehicle, one says to allocate like you would in a unit. The squadron rule only applies to shooting...what about assaults? If the defender only allocates during shooting, then when you assault a squadron, if you only get into base contact with 1 vehicle and cause 5 penetrates....do you still only cause them to one vehicle? Or is the whole squadron affected?

I think treating a squadron as a squadron all the time causes less issues.

I personally don't think the RAW could be much clearer than on page 69 where it says "if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows.
Each vehicle suffers a hit...." Page 69. I don't understand how this could be interpreted as a hit that can be allocated. After all if the two vehicles involved in the collision don't each suffer a hit you haven't followed the instructions... It would also lead to one not being able to ram through a squadron as if one was allowed to allocate this hit 'out' then the vehicle that was rammed will never be removed "If the vehicle that is rammed is not removed, the rammer halts."...

Dashofpepper wrote:
The rules don't specify which to do. One says the vehicle, one says to allocate like you would in a unit. The squadron rule only applies to shooting...what about assaults? If the defender only allocates during shooting, then when you assault a squadron, if you only get into base contact with 1 vehicle and cause 5 penetrates....do you still only cause them to one vehicle? Or is the whole squadron affected?

I think treating a squadron as a squadron all the time causes less issues.

How to deal with assaulting a squadron is explained ,in detail, on page 64




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xca|iber wrote:Except that Whirlwind of Gore and Eye of Wrath hit specific models, and yet RAW, those hits do not bypass the normal method of wound allocation.

Obviously, your example makes sense from a logical perspective, but I don't believe that the RAW technically backs up your argument.

EDIT: I probably would play that you can't allocate, but it's never come up with my group so I'm not sure what they think. I'm just arguing pure RAW atm.

What I am saying is one is specifically told to perform a set of actions involving a set of two vehicles.
If one does allocate the wound out one can no longer follow the rules for ramming to completion - thus RAW it is impossible to allocate the hit away from the rammed vehicle as it make's it impossible to finish the action one has started.

In case people have not, re-read the Ramming section on page 69. How does one perform the actions in the last paragraph? How does one have the vehicle involved avoid having a hit when we are told told specifically 'each vehicle' suffers a hit and to roll for AP against their enemy vehicle?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I keep blowing this post up and can't seem to reply just "Automatically Appended Next Post:" -oh well :(

Except that Whirlwind of Gore and Eye of Wrath hit specific models, and yet RAW, those hits do not bypass the normal method of wound allocation.

Obviously, your example makes sense from a logical perspective, but I don't believe that the RAW technically backs up your argument.

EDIT: I probably would play that you can't allocate, but it's never come up with my group so I'm not sure what they think. I'm just arguing pure RAW atm.

Pure RaW is this.








That about sums it up. The rules simply do not deal with this situation, probably because back when it was written squadrons were so rare it probably never came up in testing.

Gwar should be along shortly (cues Gwar)...

But it tells you to resolve the hit on each vehicle.

And the squadron rule tells you to resolve the hits on each vehicle as the defender allocates them.

And...enter Gwar?

Gwar! wrote:Pure RaW is this.
That about sums it up. The rules simply do not deal with this situation, probably because back when it was written squadrons were so rare it probably never came up in testing.

Except there are words printed on the page and they say:
"Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against the armour facing where the other vehicle has impacted (so the rammer always uses its front armour).... Both players roll for armour penetration against their enemy vehicle and any result is immediately applied."

Now following the rules there is no option to allocate that I can see. I would love anyone justify this 'option' with the rules. As at the moment people are just saying 'it doesn't work, it doesn't work - blah blah.' - So an actual explation of peoples reasoning - not the knee jerk responses the have been doled out.

The squadron rules say the same thing for determining what vehicle facing to use when shooting at a squadron-- i.e., the hit is done against the facing of the nearest vehicle, but the "wounds" are allocated out.

The RAW isn't as clear as you're trying to make it out to be.

I think the hit SHOULD be resolved against the rammed vehicle-- but I also think the RAW allows for allocation. It reminds me of a vehicle explosion affecting an infantry units-- while models in the blast radius are what take the wounds, you still are allowed to allocate around when it comes time for actually assigning wounds/saves.

ChrisCP's argument appears to continue to be that the rules for allocating hits only applies to the shooting phase and assault phase, since that's what they're defined for, and thus doesn't apply to the movement phase.

But, rummaging around for some rules interaction to cause problems, I can come up with this:

Blood Angel dreadnought harpoons one of the tanks in a squadron and drags the vehicle across the table. The moving vehicle tank shocks a unit, and the controlling player chooses to perform death or glory. The DoG'ing model gets a penetrating hit, just so there's a rules controversy. So, it's a tank shock performed in the shooting phase, by one vehicle of a squadron.

Yep the arguments based on the fact that the rules tell one to complete a set of actions concerning two specific models - models that are repeatedly referenced.
Thus if one could and did allocate a wound out one would not be able to complete the ram action.

A similar situation would be attaching ICs to Zagstruk. One must deepstrike the squad in but the IC can not so one can't attach an IC in pratice because this would intentionally be breaking a rule.



@Solkan: What are the rules issues you see in your example? I see a forced legal move, which resulted in a DoG. DoG is resolved as normal, if the vehicle was obscured and the DoG was with a PP take your cover save. If one failed DoG remove the model one passed continue until max range is reached. If this left the vehicle out of coherence move into coherence asap.

@ChrisCP: Would you also argue that Eye of Wrath and Whirlwind of Gore bypass wound allocation?

I fully understand your position, and I'd probably agree with the way you seem to play it, but I don't think the rules are quite as clear as you say they are.

I suppose as long as you're consistent (with regard to the above question) then it's okay, assuming your opponent understands as well.

ChrisCP wrote:Yep the arguments based on the fact that the rules tell one to complete a set of actions concerning two specific models - models that are repeatedly referenced.
Thus if one could and did allocate a wound out one would not be able to complete the ram action.

Not so- I ram, resolve the hit on the specified armor facing, and roll for penetration-- that's what the rules call for.

The squadron rules say that damage results are allocated-- so you can resolve the ram as you specify and then allocate the 'wound' without breaking any rules.

Like I said, I think the intention is for the ramming vehicle and the rammed vehicle to be the sole participants-- but that's definitely a house rule.

Xca|iber wrote:@ChrisCP: Would you also argue that Eye of Wrath and Whirlwind of Gore bypass wound allocation?

I fully understand your position, and I'd probably agree with the way you seem to play it, but I don't think the rules are quite as clear as you say they are.

I suppose as long as you're consistent (with regard to the above question) then it's okay, assuming your opponent understands as well.

& kartofelkopf's points.

With Whirlwind it causes hits in CC replacing the normal attacks. no where do we recive instructions for completing these hit against a vehicle.
It doesn't continue and tells us how to resolve that specidfic hit it's in CC, we have seperate instructions on how to do this type of stuff in CC with vehicle squadrons.

With the Ram - we are told hits happen, they don't happen from CC nor from a shooting attack. But that's not the key point.
It's that after we are told a specific model is hit - the one my vehicle made HtH contact with. After a break to explain the strenght of the hit we are told "Both players roll for armour penetration against their enemy vehicle"
Now if you are rolling to penetrate my vehicle and I'm rolling to penetrate your vehicle... what would it matter that you've allocated this hit away? I need to roll for AP against the enemy vehicle more explictily _the vehicle with which I made HtH contact_.

"if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows."
"Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit"
"is calculated as follows for each vehicle"
"against their enemy vehicle and any result is immediately applied."
"If the vehicle that is rammed is not removed,"
And just in case
"or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again!)"

If one allocates the hit out one is no longer following the quite detailed instructions on "if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows."....

"against their enemy vehicle and any result is immediately applied."

So, just like in shooting and HtH, you roll penetration against the vehicle, and apply the result.

How do you apply damage results to a squadron?

The only place we're told how to do that is in the squadron rules, which specifically allow for allocation.

Slight correction - you allocate *penetrating or glancing hits" and NOT the damage results.

Think of pen/glance hits as wounding hits when attacking infgantry - with infantry you allocate wounding hits, with vehicle squadrons you allocate glancing / penetrating hits. Once you have allocated you THEN roll for damage, akin to taking saves on non-vehicles.

...

Yes, yes-- I understand the rules. Substitute... I dunno, "penetration result"?... for "damage result."

Either way, application of the Pen/Glance hits are the way you apply the result-- and squadron rules allow for those to be assigned out to any vehicle in the squadron.

ChrisCP wrote:Yep the arguments based on the fact that the rules tell one to complete a set of actions concerning two specific models - models that are repeatedly referenced.
Thus if one could and did allocate a wound out one would not be able to complete the ram action.

A similar situation would be attaching ICs to Zagstruk. One must deepstrike the squad in but the IC can not so one can't attach an IC in pratice because this would intentionally be breaking a rule.



@Solkan: What are the rules issues you see in your example? I see a forced legal move, which resulted in a DoG. DoG is resolved as normal, if the vehicle was obscured and the DoG was with a PP take your cover save. If one failed DoG remove the model one passed continue until max range is reached. If this left the vehicle out of coherence move into coherence asap.

I was only bringing it up because it would be a tank shock during the shooting phase, and thus, since it's the shooting phase the hit allocation mechanism would apply, allowing a melta gun guy's penetrating hit to be taken by one of the other squadron members and killing the melta gun guy because he failed to stop the tank shocking model.

But the unresolved issue would be if the tank shocked unit used a power fist during the shooting phase DoG attack...

That's all covered under the inital DoG text. The attack from a PF is defined as a CC attack that automatically hits - and follow the process from there. Page 69 first entry.

ChrisCP wrote:That's all covered under the inital DoG text. The attack from a PF is defined as a CC attack that automatically hits - and follow the process from there. Page 69 first entry.

You missed the part where it's a meltagun, and thus a shooting attack, and thus a shooting attack made against a member of the vehicle squadron. I didn't say anything about power fists, or close combat attacks.

Of course, my only regret is that there's no way yet to cause a tank shock in the assault phase, so we could be arguing about shooting attacks during the assault phase.

? Hehe - you trying to confuse me here

solkan wrote:
But the unresolved issue would be if the tank shocked unit used a power fist during the shooting phase DoG attack...

Was what I was tackling then sorry.

The only difference for the Melta is that one could take a CS if one had KFF or poped SL and been grappled or even if one just clipped the egde of a model from around a corner, from the firers perspective on would be obscured and recive the save. One still can't allocate the hit out for the reason I've pointed out – one would be unable to follow the rule to completion, thus game would go boom and we know We Don’t Do Things That Make Game Go Boom. Only thing that make tanks go boooom

So, since it doesn't specify that you can allocate out, despite being able to in any other situation where a vehicle in a squadron takes damage, do you also think that if the first vehicle in the squadron is destroyed that a second one could be contacted?

The rules for ramming never specify that you move the rest of the squadron out of the way- it just says if the vehicle explodes, the ramming unit continues its move.

If not one, why not the other? Just trying to find out what level of consistency you're shooting for here.

Pretty much sticking to my line of reasoning from the TS-walker thread.
That one can only ever hit one element of a unit with a tank-shock/ramm as the rest are quite sanely moving out of the way - as per the rules as written.

Edit: Sigh, on my weekend now. Back Monday for proper detail

Well damn, gwar missed out on this one. could have used a bit of summation too to get to the end arguments.

Still, good points, good points all round. This is a tank shock question at least 110% better than the usual fare.

What about if you ram a squadron of Tau Piranhas.

The first one explodes and its drones survive to disembark. They now form a new unit.

As you can't move through a different unit which you did not shock/ram, your movement is stopped by the drones.

Yes or no?

You continue your movement and count as tank-shocking (or ramming!) any additional units you contact.

The only time you stop short of another enemy unit is if you declare a tank shock and encounter a vehicle-- you can't declare a tank shock and ram a vehicle, but you can declare a ram and end up tank shocking additional units.