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.

"Models with this ability may choose to leave close combat. Declare this at the end of the close Combat phase. The unit using the Hit & Run ability must be involved in combat, and will immediately move 3D6" in a straight line in any direction, ignoring units they are locked with." (BBB 74)

"At the conclusion of a round of close combat against a vehicle with no WS characteristic, there are no sweeping advances or Consolidation moves. The vehicle and the infantry are free to simply move away on future turns."

"Models that have assaulted a vehicle with no WS are not classed as Locked, and can therefore be shot at (or through) during the Shooting phase..." (BBB 71)

 

Premise 1: you hit and run after combat ends

Premise 2: charging a vehicle means you're in combat, although not locked

Premise 3: hit and run ignores units you're locked with, and this is a clarification, not a requirement

Conclusion: You do not need to be 'locked' to use hit and run, you simply need to have been in combat. if you are locked, you can hit and run. if you are not locked, you are not disallowed from hit and run. Therefore you can hit and run, after combat with a vehicle.

agreed.

I'd say no, because of the line "The vehicle and the infantry are free to simply move away on future turns"

Hit & Run takes place in the same turn and so while they are free to move away on future turns they aren't specifically allowed to move away in the same turn.

Of course... it's not a very well thought-out arguement...

Sounds good to me.

I'd say no, because of the line "The vehicle and the infantry are free to simply move away on future turns"

You are correct that you cannot "move" away that turn, but "Hit and Run" can be used.

"The vehicle and the infantry are free to simply move away on future turns"

thats part of the normal combat with infantry vs vehicles

hit and run takes place [instead of / in addition to] this, because, well, its a special ability.

It all comes down to what you believe "must be involved in combat" means.

"Involved" is not a game defined term.

"...ignoring units they are locked with." provides a good intent argument that you must be locked to use H&R, but it is only an intent argument. Can you ignore something that is not there? Must you ignore it, or does ignoring not come into play if the situation does not exist?

So, if you can determine what GW had in mind when they wrote "Involved" and if you can definitively say if you can ignore something which does not exist, you will have a definitive answer. Otherwise you can argue this until the cows come home without an answer.

I know this has been hashed out before on old Dakka, anyone remember the outcome? (if any)

Like I said... I hadn't really given it much thought... mostly because it never occurred to me before that there might be an arguement for Hit & Run not being usable against a vehicle, so I thought I'd try to find one.

This leads to another issue of if the unit that can hit and run wipes out the enemy. Can they still do it? There is no close combat left to leave as there is also no unit still locked in place.

First of all, let's not ignore that Hit & Run takes place at the end of the "close combat phase" (which doesn't exist).

So if we're playing a strict RAW interpretation then Hit & Run cannot be used at all.


Besides that, the key is (as others have pointed out) that they must still be "involved" in combat at the end of the Assault phase (we'll assume we're talking about the Assault phase).

The attacking a vehicle rules make no indication that the vehicle and the attacking models are still involved in combat in any way at the end of the phase.

To prove that you'd GET to use H&R, you'd have to prove that they are still involved in combat at the end of the phase, and I don't think that can be done.

what?

so you're saying because the rules are badly worded, and you dont know if the model is still in combat at the end of the phase, you can't prove you're allowed to H&R?

this sounds rather bizarre to me. "Declare [H&R] at the end of the close Combat phase"
this is totally undefined anyway. you have to move to assumptions at this stage as you said.

what difference is there between vehicle combat and infantry combat in terms of "the end of the close combat phase"?

Posted By Spooky on 02/26/2006 9:26 AM

what difference is there between vehicle combat and infantry combat in terms of "the end of the close combat phase"?

 

 

Neither unit is engaged or locked

There is no morale check

There are no "pile in", Sweeping advance or consolidate moves

Either unit is free to move in their next movement phase

Either unit may be shot at by their enemy

Not that I have an opinion on this matter either way, but these ARE the differences between a vehicle combat and a regular combat.

cheers lordhat

do any of those differences apply to the allowance for being able to hit and run? i dont see how they would

Because you don't have a close combat to leave.

Normally, units remain "locked in combat" at the end of the Assault phase, clearly indicating that the two units are still involved in combat at the end of the phase.

The same cannot be said between infantry and a vehicle without a WS; They are not locked in combat anymore at the end of the phase.


So again, in order for your argument to be valid, you need to prove that the two units are still involved in combat at the end of the phase, something I do not think you can unequivocally prove.

I 'm afraid I side with Yak on this one. There is no CC going on with a vehicle once the blows have been struck, so you can't hit and run away from it.

Although this was written for 3rd edition, I believe it is appropriate here. From the 'Close Combat Notes' article on page 47 of the 2002 Chapter Approved compendium:

Vehicles In Close Combat
Units in base contact with an enemy vehicle, apart from one with a Weapon Skill characteristic (like a Dreadnought or War Walker, for example), do not count as being engaged in close combat, and are in all ways treated as if they were not in base-to-base contact with an enemy model as far as the rules are concerned.

Posted By Ghaz on 02/26/2006 6:37 PM
Although this was written for 3rd edition, I believe it is appropriate here. From the 'Close Combat Notes' article on page 47 of the 2002 Chapter Approved compendium:

"Vehicles In Close Combat
Units in base contact with an enemy vehicle, apart from one with a Weapon Skill characteristic (like a Dreadnought or War Walker, for example), do not count as being engaged in close combat, and are in all ways treated as if they were not in base-to-base contact with an enemy model as far as the rules are concerned."

I think that the above emphasized section of the quote is going to be the closest thing in print, even if it is outdated, which relates to being or not being "involved" with a vehicle in CC. Meaning, no H&R.

Even if you do not believe this quote negates "involved", there is no stronger support for the "involvement" truly existing. It is best to err in favor of the option that gives you the least advantage. I suggest you do not H&R a vehicle, you'll find it easier to find repeat opponents.

Agreed... You cannot hit and run a vehicle.

Trying to Hit and Run a vehicle without a WS is stretching the rules too far. (Keep in mind this would allow a potential 12 inch move, 6 inch assault, and an *automatic* 3d6 move in one turn without chance of harm.)

Besides, none of the major tournaments that I know of will let you Hit and Run a vehicle with no WS.

Anyone that you try to argue with to allow you to H&R a vehicle since you think you're still involved with a vehicle can do exactly what Yak said. They can in turn tell you that you must wait to use the ability until the end of the close combat phase. Considering there isn't one....

I actually have to agree with the idea that you can now hit and run after assaulting vehicles, because when you add in the fact that unless the vehicle moves away, it gets attacked again in the next assault phase, it seems to indicate to me that the assaulter is still involved, even if he's not Engaged.

I think what we have here is a case of applying 40K 3 or 40K 4 thinking to 40K 5.

This is a necro post -- original topic was for 4ed...

Concerning the "close combat phase", it would seem that the arguement of having to wait to the end of this (non-existant) phase would have you waiting a very long time to use this rule. I could see something like this coming about, differen editions of rules and all. HOWEVER, this leads me to ask, since I have about 11,000 miles between me and my book right now, "Was there EVER a "close combat phase"?" in the game at all? During the edition this rule was written? I think there was an assault phase at that point in time, but nothing specifically named the "close combat phase". Which would mean that not only is the rule unusable now, but that it was ALWAYS unusable, and that anyone who ever used the rule was cheating, AND that GW was absolutley starkers when they let it get out.

While the logic of the wording may follow from the above, I don't think that that was the case. I think that, DUH, the rule was written to be used. Maybe we could attribute the difference to poor editing (close combat as oppossed to assault) or the fact that GW tends to take a much more casual view, historically, to writing it's rules than most of use take to interpreting them (which has prob. caused more heartache and rules arguements for us than bears thinking).

I think, therefore, that disallowing the use of this rule on the grounds that there is not currently a close combat phase may follow logically however it denies more sense than I am willin to deny seeing as how that perspective would have denied ANYONE from EVER using the rule at all. Unless, or course, there WAS a close combat phase at the time, OR the wording of the rule itself is different from what was put out in this thread. In which case this arguement is shot to gak.


I'd have to agree with blue loki in that there is a lot open to interpretation here. The wording is unclear (from what I have seen in this thread), terms are being used that are not game-defined (I'm stealing that phrase from you blue loki, that's a really good, concise term). It begs for application of "common sense".

Let's look at what the rule does. A unit with this rule can enter combat, fight, and then flee without being followed (IIRC). So they get in there, mix it up in hand to hand for a bit while they have the advantage of the assault (I guess), and then flee a safe distance (they hope). So, they can flee from a squad of blod crazed killers, with the obvious intent of assaulting them again next turn, but they cannot flee from a vehicle that has no WS and therefore cannot HTH back with them? That makes sense how? Now, I don't agree that common sense has much application when you have rules in play. Rules are there to be followed and provide a common framework for gameplay. Common sense doesn't necc. come into that, esp. seeing as how one man's common sense is another man's raving lunacy.

The real problem here is that Kap N' Krunch resurrected a post that has been dead since 2006/02/27 04:56:42 and is regarding an out-of-date edition.

When you look at the rule for H&R, the first sentence says

pg.75 BRB Units with this ability that are locked in combat may choose to leave close combat at the end of the Assault phase.

That combined with the quote below makes it clear that you can not use H&R against a vehicle without a WS.

pg. 63 BRB Combat Results: Combat against vehicles are very different from those among other unit types. For a start, whilst vehicles can be assaulted, they cannot be locked in combat.

My bad, shouldn't have rezzed dis one.

Thanks ConditionOfMan for clearing it up.

If ConditionOfMan is correct in his quotes, I would have to agree that this is pretty cut and dried. I think that the locked in combat part would trump poor wording regarding close combat vs. assault phases.

Down with thread necromancy...

LOL I wondered why I didn't remember posting in this thread.