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.

I was called over to a rules debate among two players last night. I ruled that the Terminator unit assaulting the Land Raider actually couldn't assault, though in the end the two players sorted it between themselves one way or another. This is the situation.

Terminators go to assault rear of a Land Raider. They are not in base contact (so base of the Terminator isn't touching the hull) though the Terminators head is against the back sloping armour of the Land Raider. The sloping back armour of the Land Raider physically stopped the Terminator coming into base contact.

The rules say on assaulting vehicles that it is the same as normal assaults and engaged models can fight. Assault rules say only models in base to base contact or within 2" of a model in base to base contact can fight.

As the Terminator cannot physically get into base to base contact, can it still assault? It's head can touch the hull, but the base cannot reach the hull because of the Land Raider's angled armour. I said no, the Terminator cannot assault because it is not in base to base contact.

What is right here? Thanks.

Vehicles don't have bases, so it makes this a lot more difficult.

Consider it the same way you would someone assaulting a squad of genestealers from the front. Can you actually place your models in base contact with a standardly constructed Genestealer without turning them? Nope. Sorry, you can't assault my Genestealers.

I'd rule that if you have the charge range to do it, then you can make the assault. Otherwise, this sets a very bad president. I could see someone putting a 1" high bumper around a vehicle, calling it a rough terrain modification, and saying the vehicle can't be assaulted.

That is a fair point about bases, I would say in this case replace the word 'base' with 'hull'.

I agree with what you said, the Terminators base could not be placed in contact, so no assaulty.

I seem to remember something about being able to contact the hull - at least with respect to skimmers on large oval bases and things like Trygons... can't remember where I saw that. It might have been limited to just the skimmers on LOB.

mercer wrote:That is a fair point about bases, I would say in this case replace the word 'base' with 'hull'.

I agree with what you said, the Terminators base could not be placed in contact, so no assaulty.

I don't agree with this. You're touching the hull, so you can assault. Since there is no base, hull counts. Are you touching some part of the hull? Good enough.

mercer wrote:That is a fair point about bases, I would say in this case replace the word 'base' with 'hull'.

And you do exactly that according to the rules - page 56, Vehicles and measuring distances


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

mercer wrote:That is a fair point about bases, I would say in this case replace the word 'base' with 'hull'.

I agree with what you said, the Terminators base could not be placed in contact, so no assaulty.

I don't agree with this. You're touching the hull, so you can assault. Since there is no base, hull counts. Are you touching some part of the hull? Good enough.

The issue is that the base is not touching. I remember there being an exception so something on a hill or really tall model (Trygon) assaulting a Vendetta (for example) but can't remember where I read it.

rigeld2 wrote:

mercer wrote:That is a fair point about bases, I would say in this case replace the word 'base' with 'hull'.

And you do exactly that according to the rules - page 56, Vehicles and measuring distances

Oh snap! I knew it was in here somewhere. Great find, rigeld2!

So there you go, hull is base for assault, so they swing.

The base isn't in hull contact thoug. The ruling for skimmers is you can assault the skimmers base. The Land Raider isn't a skimmer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah, yes, I see p56.

mercer wrote:The base isn't in hull contact thoug. The ruling for skimmers is you can assault the skimmers base. The Land Raider isn't a skimmer.

Or the hull for skimmers.

Ah, yes, I see p56.

I don't think the base needs to be in hull contact. Otherwise LR, Leman Russ, Rhinos, Chimera, would all be unassaultable from the front and back since they have protruding bits and undercut tracks.

I checked p56. It basically says you haven't got a base so use the hull. So, in assault is says you have to be in base contact, in this case hull contact. The Terminator was 2" away from the hull.

Those examples you mentioned, some of them on some faces couldn't be assaulted, Leman Russ should be fine and Rhino.

There are a few ways around this sort of thing.
You "know" you can get from a to b, so invoke a variant of wobbly model syndrome.

It's a similar situation to a wall/tree or somesuch in area terrain, between the assaulter and its target.

Most things are abstractions to some degree or other.

mercer wrote:I checked p56. It basically says you haven't got a base so use the hull. So, in assault is says you have to be in base contact, in this case hull contact. The Terminator was 2" away from the hull.

Those examples you mentioned, some of them on some faces couldn't be assaulted, Leman Russ should be fine and Rhino.

I understand this viewpoint, but then you get into being able to model for advantage by placing your models as far back as possible on the bases to try and get "under" the undercut... it just seems weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fuusa wrote:There are a few ways around this sort of thing.
You "know" you can get from a to b, so invoke a variant of wobbly model syndrome.

It's a similar situation to a wall/tree or somesuch in area terrain, between the assaulter and its target.

Most things are abstractions to some degree or other.

Unless you *can't* make that extra distance. Then it matters.

mercer wrote:Those examples you mentioned, some of them on some faces couldn't be assaulted, Leman Russ should be fine and Rhino.

No, they all have undercut front/backs.

In fact, I haven't found a single wheeled/tracked vehicle that isn't undercut in the front and back.

I see your point, Prete. In that case only way to assault a vehicle is on the side so you can get the tracks etc.

Brilliant. With that ruling you have made unassaultable genestealers (from the front) and gaunts (leaping pose), as well as a host of other ones.

THe leaked playtest / fake actually nice handles this situation.

mercer wrote:I see your point, Pretre. In that case only way to assault a vehicle is on the side so you can get the tracks etc.

Which is clearly not the intention of the rule. Since the rule says to replace base contact with hull contact, that can be interpreted to mean that you don't need the base to contact the hull but for the hull to be contacted by something. Effectively, where it says 'base contact' in the assault rules, just replace it with 'hull contact'.

Otherwise, I can just line my vehicles up to you with the the sides touching and <2" between them on the sides and you cannot assault them. Which is pretty silly.

that is total popycock that the protusion of the model prevent assaulting because the base isn't technically touching the hull but the models body is. If anyone tried that on me I would be calling the TO over and declaring shenannigans. They clearly have made it to the vehicle, therefore they assaulted it. just like assaulting raiders whose hulls are clearly off the ground and don't pull the you have to assault the base thing because models don't have to disembark from it's base.

You assault skimmers bases though, bagtagger.

mercer wrote:You assault skimmers bases though, bagtagger.

Not according to P71.

You assault either the hull, the base or both on a skimmer.

I would see it as a box and iif the base is beneath the hull then i would say you can assault it. In my mind you would have to pretty WAAC not to allow it. Think about it if the battle was real. Your not going to think even though my head is against the vehicle and my massive hammer can easily hit it my non existing base is not touching it. Or my feet arent tocing the part where the hull hots the ground.

Technically the hull is what sits on the chassis and when assaulting you are only in contact with tracks so you cannot assault. But it does define hull as main vehicle. It sould just say the perimeters of the base and the vehicle.

I think, going on RaW you would have a very hard job assaulting a tank. When ever I've played against people and had my tanks assaulted (and I play a lot of mech!) this has never entered into my head. I think in the interest of fair play, then the models should assault and be able to whack the Land Raider, only a WAAC or douchey player would try this rule bending trick.

The only skimmers that must be assaulted at the base are the ones mounted on valkerie/storm raven bases.

pretre wrote:

mercer wrote:You assault skimmers bases though, bagtagger.

Not according to P71.

You assault either the hull, the base or both on a skimmer.

So you still assault the base then

redkeyboard wrote:I would see it as a box and iif the base is beneath the hull then i would say you can assault it. In my mind you would have to pretty WAAC not to allow it. Think about it if the battle was real. Your not going to think even though my head is against the vehicle and my massive hammer can easily hit it my non existing base is not touching it. Or my feet arent tocing the part where the hull hots the ground.

Technically the hull is what sits on the chassis and when assaulting you are only in contact with tracks so you cannot assault. But it does define hull as main vehicle. It sould just say the perimeters of the base and the vehicle.

A lot wrong here, redkeyboard. Just because we're discussing rules, doesn't mean you throw out the WAAC. Second, don't try to bring reality arguments into rules, as we are talking about a game with space elves, armored super soldiers and pewpew lasers. Third, the tracks are hull as all of the model except for the pieces that are specifically excluded in the rules on P56 are hull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mercer wrote:

pretre wrote:

mercer wrote:You assault skimmers bases though, bagtagger.

Not according to P71.

You assault either the hull, the base or both on a skimmer.

So you still assault the base then

Or the hull or both.

bagtagger wrote:The only skimmers that must be assaulted at the base are the ones mounted on valkerie/storm raven bases.

Unless it's immobilised and can be removed from the stand

bagtagger wrote:The only skimmers that must be assaulted at the base are the ones mounted on valkerie/storm raven bases.

That's not actually true. The FAQ only specified that you use the base for embarking, disembarking, terrain, being surrounded and being over models. It never said you can't treat it as a normal skimmer and assault the base, hull or both.

[quote=pretre
A lot wrong here, redkeyboard. Just because we're discussing rules, doesn't mean you throw out the WAAC. Second, don't try to bring reality arguments into rules, as we are talking about a game with space elves, armored super soldiers and pewpew lasers. Third, the tracks are hull as all of the model except for the pieces that are specifically excluded in the rules on P56 are hull.

so you guys are saying that I should model my rhinos with terrain gear that sticks out from the hull on all sides making my vehicle unassaultable?

bagtagger wrote:so you guys are saying that I should model my rhinos with terrain gear that sticks out from the hull on all sides making my vehicle unassaultable?

No, in fact no one is saying that.

You need to separate a RAW discussion from what people actually play as. We are asking a question about how the rules work. We are not advocating a course of action on anyone's behalf. (Although one might argue the opposite, that most of us are saying playing by strict RAW in this case is a bad idea.)