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.

Suppose a Blood Angels Chaplain leading a squad of Blood Angels Marines charges a vehicle with no weapon skill. Do the Marines get to reroll missed hits and add +1S when they charge? I assume the answer is yes to both since Litanies of Hate and Furious Charge are both granted as benefits when charging.

That's the way we play it. Always move your ork trukks away from the DC! ...or just disembark and charge them.

Ok the big word you miss is "In Close Combat". You get the bonus for being in Close Combat and not just CHARGING. So vehicles with no WS are not in Close Combat and no bonus is given.

Well, sadly I can't argue this as vehemently as i'd like to on account of me not havin the written word in front of me.

Cap- I believe the rulebook says you're "never locked in combat with a vehicle without WS". If you're never in close combat then how can you ever hit em ?
Id say based on that- all bonusses still apply.

Page 38 of the Rule Book.

Fighting a Close Combat
In Close Combat, both players' models fight. Vehicles with NO WS do not fight. So there is no close combat there. There is a combat but not a close combat.

Page 71 of the Rule Book.

Infantry Assaulting Vehicles
Vehicles with NO WS can not be locked in close combat by the unit that assaults them.

This is more than enough to show that No WS means no close combat.

Page 71 of the Rule Book.

Infantry Assaulting Vehicles
Vehicles with NO WS can not be locked in close combat by the unit that assaults them.

This is more than enough to show that No WS means no close combat.

That would only be true if you equate 'Locked in close combat' with being 'in close combat'. That's not a valid leap to make.

After all, on the same page (p71), it also says 'At the conclusion of a round of close combat against a vehicle with no WS characteristic,...'. That, to me, says that you can be in close combat with a vehicle that has no WS characteristic.

Although this was written for third edition, I feel it has bearing on this issue. 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 don't think the rules have changed so radically as to invalidate the above statement.

Posted By CaptAnderton on 03/01/2006 6:06 PM
Page 38 of the Rule Book.

Fighting a Close Combat
In Close Combat, both players' models fight. Vehicles with NO WS do not fight. So there is no close combat there. There is a combat but not a close combat.

Page 71 of the Rule Book.

Infantry Assaulting Vehicles
Vehicles with NO WS can not be locked in close combat by the unit that assaults them.

This is more than enough to show that No WS means no close combat.

Let's look at your post, shall we?  First, your "quote" is on page 38 is actually just "In close combat, both players' models fight".  You're trying to pass the rest of that as a quote, when it is only your blatherings.

Now, about that quote on page 71.  Being Locked into close combat means that you cannot leave it.  It doesn't mean that there is no close combat.  If you'll keep reading, you'll see in the "Results" section that it says "At the conclusion of a round of close combat against a vehicle with no WS characteristic...". 

Oh!  Look at that!  It says that it's close combat right there in black and white.

Have you even read the entire rulebook?  Or do you just pick out random parts?

From all I've read of his posts, the latter.

With his signature reading as it does, I'm still unconvinced that he's not trying to be funny, somehow.

Iorek - Nice find. It's the only place that I see close combat and vehicles with no weapon skills. It's not only myself that has never seen that part. If people would have seen it this post wouldn't be on here. Really thank you for clearing up a heated debate in my location and I have to swallow some pride.

Again thank you for pointing that out.

Pages 38 and 39 of the rulebook also state a model can be ENGAGED in close combat but not LOCKED.

Get over it!

Ok, I know its been discussed before, but can the mods make

 an "IGNORE ANDERTON "  function/button???

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :S :S

Ok, even I've argued with Anderton, but come on. Usually if one person has a question, then someone (or 5 or 6) has the same one, or doesn't understand it either. So when he says he's wrong, you still go after him? Wow......makes one think.

Actually Iorek, that is a REALLY good find. It also opens the door for the legality of "Hit and Run" against vehicles with no WS, an often debated topic especially for SOBs like me .

Asmodai-

after 389 worthless posts,(at an  average of 5 A DAY) Anderton FINALLY owns up to

being wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Check it out ..... 389  posts of rules misrepresentations,  a holier than thou

attitude ( check out his sig, for God's sake)  and outright rudeness whenever

 anyone questions his" interpretations" (w/ no accompanying pg. #'s)

(Check out his replies in the skimmer vs. ordnance thread!)

Now,  when he and Mauleed go at it,   I do find it  amusing  ...........

 

EDIT: OK< after seeing Russ's reply about bygones be bygones, I will

try to give the "good" Capt. a break, but Lord it is hard!!!!!

We have been having the 'Hit and Run" question also. This clears it up. As a note I don't see it as a close combat but by RAW it is.

Posted By blue loki on 03/02/2006 7:52 AM
Actually Iorek, that is a REALLY good find. It also opens the door for the legality of "Hit and Run" against vehicles with no WS, an often debated topic especially for SOBs like me .

 

This "find" changes nothing about Hit & Run because at the end of the Assault phase the models and the vehicle are no longer "involved" in combat, as they clearly do not stay locked in combat beyond the "Engage/Attack/Resolve damage" actions.

 

 

 

Gotcha.

H&R states that you must still be involved at the end of the "Close Combat phase".

P71 states "at the conclusion of a round of Close Combat against a vehicle".

 

So, the round ends before the phase ends, and since nothing normally associated with CC is happening at the end of the phase, the units are no longer involved.

Its still a bit hazy in my mind, and I'd allow H&R against my vehicles, but I won't try it myself as yet.

Well, with hit and run, doesn't the enemy unit get to "consolidate"... a vehicle without a WS wouldn't be able to do that would it?

 

To me that is meaning that there is no 'combat resolution'. The only resolution that you can have is if the vehicle is destroyed or not...

No hit and run against a vehicle without a WS.

Posted By raughey on 03/02/2006 8:00 AM

 

EDIT: OK< after seeing Russ's reply about bygones be bygones, I will

try to give the "good" Capt. a break, but Lord it is hard!!!!!

 

Why are you complainin to me about it? I know how hard it is, and I can do nothing for it.

 

And no, ther is no consolidation after CC with a vehicle w/o a weapon skill, nor is there a sweeping advance, or fall back.

Do you have a history of violence?