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 understand that Defensive Grenades -- like Tau Photon Grenades -- eliminate the +1 bonus attack that a charging enemy usually gains when assaulting. I have two questions:

1) Do they negate ALL bonus attacks beyond a +1? For example the +2 bonus to Attacks for the Eldar power Death Mission or the +1 bonus for having two close combat weapons?

2) Do they negate an Initiative 10 Hammer of Wrath or Eldar Mandiblaster?

I was led to believe the HoW hits automatically for all models that finish their charge move in base-to-base contact with an enemy on the charge.

Defensive grenades only remove the charge bonus. Normally this will be a single attack, however certain models (such as those with Rage) might have more.

They also give stealth against shooting attacks from withing a certain range (something no one seems to know).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
They also give stealth against shooting attacks from withing a certain range (something no one seems to know).

that is because the range is so short it hardly ever comes into play.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
They also give stealth against shooting attacks from withing a certain range (something no one seems to know).

that is because the range is so short it hardly ever comes into play.

I've only ever used it against overwatch.

Pyrian wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
They also give stealth against shooting attacks from withing a certain range (something no one seems to know).

that is because the range is so short it hardly ever comes into play.

I've only ever used it against overwatch.

and even then some units do not even benefit because their armor save is better than the 6+ cover...

Reminds me of a question that came up in a game once. Do I still have stealth after all the models within 8" are dead? E.g., there's one model within 8", the rest of the squad is further, and I take two wounds in a single pool. I fail the first save. Can I use stealth against the second save?

Good question.

Everyone I know has been removing casualties after all shots have been resolved, on the grounds that all shooting is simultaneous so casualties would be simultaneous, specifically so ranges could continue to be measured from the original unit's position. I will need to review the book again to try and find out where the rules in question lie, but there has to be something within the shooting sequence to explain where this conception comes from. It could also be from one of the Frequently Asked Questions as well, as a few of them have tweaked the 'allocate wounds and remove casualties' rules in the past. I might need to review the wording of the grenades themselves too, in case they have a timing trigger which would grant the unit the Special Rule prior to shots being resolved.

Well, removing models is sequential, by nature of wound allocation. Nothing says you dont kepe determining how far away the unit is.

Are rules like Furious Charge considered charge bonus? Do you lose everything associated with charging or just the extra attacks.

That's clearly said in the Defensive Grenades rule page 62

IMO the precedent is that weapon ranges for determining who can shoot, which models can be wounded, etc, are all set before any dice are rolled and everything is considered to happen simultaneously even if models are removed before all the dice are resolved. This implies that the range for an attack is set when the distance is first measured and that range is used for the entire process. Since the only time this can come up is if the unit has mixed saves and rolls saves one at a time it doesn't seem like a deliberate intent to have ranges change as models are removed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Well, removing models is sequential, by nature of wound allocation. Nothing says you dont kepe determining how far away the unit is.

Except it isn't always sequential. If you have a unit where every model has the same save then you roll all saves simultaneously before removing any models (and remember that range between units is measured unit to unit, not model to model, so a model 12" away taking a wound is still rolling a save against a shooting attack from less than 8" away if another model in the squad is 6" from the closest enemy model).

Peregrine,

I have recently concluded there is no such thing as simultaneous actions in this game. Even the rules giving us permission to resolve multiple 'rolls' at the same time all have exceptions within them. The core of that fact is page 9, informing us that sometimes exceptions to the normal sequence of events exist and how we resolve two rules that have to go 'simultaneously.' Even within sequence of events we often find where the mentality that each shot is still resolved sequential if it is not possible to determine the order of events. To Hit, for example, states that different weapons have different Special Rules, Strengths and other factors with the final sentence stating to roll them separately to cover situations where we can not tell this order. Even the Fast Roll dice you mention informs us it can be used for units with mixed saves, as long as you have a way to differentiate between the different types of saves. They suggest rolling them in groups equal to the number of models, in line for wounds, which share the same save characteristic. That would make it impossible to evoke Fast Dice to give a cover save to a model which didn't already begin with one.

That is why I find the question an interesting one, and I don't have an answer for it, because this particular situation does not sit well with the 'timing debate.'

And to make it even more interesting, and a little more confusion, the rule in question states that it effects all shooting attacks that have targeted the unit. Everything else within the rule is also 'unit level' as I like to call it. It is measuring between units, the whole unit gains the Special Rule once triggered, and the restriction mentioned is even unit wide as well. The whole rule screams the intent was for the measurement to be done once, when the target is announced, and to grant a cover save regardless of how many models are lost after that point. Yet there is the problem that cover saves are calculated on wound allocation, which leads to the possibility of the units 'drifting apart' and the question of 'does this change the Stealth status when it occurs?'

How I would play it is simple:
Measure once and shoot more dakka.

JinxDragon wrote:
I have recently concluded there is no such thing as simultaneous actions in this game. Even the rules giving us permission to resolve multiple 'rolls' at the same time all have exceptions within them. The core of that fact is page 9, informing us that sometimes exceptions to the normal sequence of events exist and how we resolve two rules that have to go 'simultaneously.' Even within sequence of events we often find where the mentality that each shot is still resolved sequential if it is not possible to determine the order of events. To Hit, for example, states that different weapons have different Special Rules, Strengths and other factors with the final sentence stating to roll them separately to cover situations where we can not tell this order. Even the Fast Roll dice you mention informs us it can be used for units with mixed saves, as long as you have a way to differentiate between the different types of saves. They suggest rolling them in groups equal to the number of models, in line for wounds, which share the same save characteristic. That would make it impossible to evoke Fast Dice to give a cover save to a model which didn't already begin with one.

What you're talking about is sequential dice rolling, not sequential resolution. Yes, we have to accept that often even when events are happening simultaneously we, as limited humans, have to roll the dice one at a time. But that doesn't mean that the events actually happen in that sequence. For example, you can resolve the melta gun first against a vehicle, but the rest of the squad can't shoot at the disembarked passengers because their shooting is happening at the same time as the melta shot even if you roll the dice sequentially.

Yet there is the problem that cover saves are calculated on wound allocation, which leads to the possibility of the units 'drifting apart' and the question of 'does this change the Stealth status when it occurs?'

The wound allocation rules really, really do not like this situation. Consider a unit with defensive grenades where five models are in 2+ cover by default, and the other five are in 3+ cover. The maximum save rule caps the save at 2+, but with defensive grenades everyone gets a 2+ save. This works fine if everything is resolved simultaneously and range is only measured once at the start, but the game breaks if you measure for each model. At the start of wound allocation everyone in the unit has the same save, and so you roll all of the save dice at once and then start removing models. But once the closest surviving model is outside 8" the stealth bonus goes away and you have a mixed-save unit which requires you to use a different method for rolling saves. But since you've already rolled all of the saves you can't go back and do it the correct way. How do you proceed? You can't.

Shooting is always sequential, only the rolling to hit is Simultaneous(although may need to be physically performed sequentially)

All of each initiative step is simultaneous.

Peregine,

Actually the Timing Debate is used for all sorts of things, I only limited it to rolling because it is the easiest to explain and seemed the core of this debate. There can be incidences where where two rules might end up applying different effects to the battle, no dice rolls involved, at the very same time. In these situations, page 9 still triggers and informs us in which order we resolve these two rules. Even in this situation no permission exists to ignore aspects of the first rule evoked because it changes the out-come of the second rule, the first rule is resolved to completion and then the second rule begins.

As for your shooting example, very bad one to use because you over-look one very important fact: The unit inside the transport is a separate unit from said transport. There are only a handful of situations where you can be in a position to pop the transport and then get a chance to nominate a second target. Often the chance to shoot the unit inside is gone because you have already nominated where your shots will go in previous step within the sequence.

The drifting part thing is something I do puzzle over, because from a pure technical stand point it simply causes problems. Rules exist that state a measurement can be taken at any time, for any reason. Rules state that something triggers based on a measurement exist all throughout the book and often. With how these rules work, if something does not meet the required trigger it is impossible to apply the effect of that rule. So now we are in a situation where an opponent can measure the distance, between rolling individual dice none the less, and claim you can not evoke a rule because the trigger is not met... half way through using the damn rule!

While the situation is "broken - very Yes" I still have to disagree with your conclusion as you are over-looking one very important thing still: we know the problem is coming ahead of time. Like the problem encountered within void shields, which also goes away once you add the Timing Debate and this piece of advice, we encountered the very same situation of a special rule vanishing mid-way through use. The advice I can only give in this situation is simple: Given that you have one method which can easily resolve with no conflicts and one that has the potential to break the game, why are you using themethod that breaks the game?

That means it is the refusal to roll each dice individually, when the outcome of each dice roll can change the course of events, that actually creates the 'broken - very Yes' situation and not the rules themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for these grenades themselves:
IGNORE THE ABOVE AS IT DOES NOT MATTER TO DEFENSIVE GRENADES

It should be clear that I do not think Defensive Grenades where intended to vanish midway through use, unlike the void shield, but are instead meant to be granted for the duration of the attack. This conclusion comes from the inclusion of two very interesting terminologies within the body of the rule itself: "All shooting attacks" and "targeting them" with them being the unit as a whole. While it does go on to spell out some of the conditions that must be met for the unit, again the unit as a whole, to gain access to this Special Rule one does have to ponder the possibility that this terminology is giving us instructions to measure only once and at a very precise time within the sequence of events to follow. Stripping the Stealth special rule at any point after this moment would require being able to 're-target' the unit to get around the requirement that all the shooting attacks obey the Stealth rule. That would need another Special Rule to come into play... one I don't see in this scenario so I will end it there.

After all, should we refuse to apply the Special Rule to any model for any reason can honestly say we have granted it against all shooting attacks that targeted the unit?

Edit: never mind, you aren't applying that to the debate here.

As for void shields and their potential problems, I think you have to separate 40k rules into two categories: fortification rules, and everything else in the game. GW has shown a complete inability to make fortification rules that function properly, so the best solution is to special-case all of the problems and not attempt to apply any of those rulings to anything else. IMO any Escalation rules go in the same category, it's obviously a half-finished "book" and so nothing it contains should influence rulings elsewhere in the game.

Peregrine,

I am not even sure how to respond to that statement... of course you have permission to act on that knowledge. The rules even seem to be written for that to be a primary element when it comes to deciding how many individual 'rolls' you make at any given time. Every situation where we are informed that the outcome of each individual roll matters we are forced to resort to individual dice rolls. Even in the most 'simultaneous' sections of the book this is spelled out, that we might be required to take each roll individually. Why else have we been given that choice if it isn't so we can decide what is in the best interest of ourselves and the game?

If you honestly believe the only outcome, if you are even given the permission to chose how to roll the dice and not forced to roll once at a time, is to select the option that breaks the game then I can not continue this debate because you set a veritable that is not possible to argue against... insanity.

Noticed your edit but I am still leaving my reply up because it is a very valid statement. Nothing more needs to be said if your response to my original argument is to discard it with some conclusion that the rules must force us to break the game, so therefore arguments that allow the rules to resolve without conflict can never apply. I also have nothing more to say if you want to discard the argument on the grounds that 'fortification rule are broken too.' Honestly though, I would of thought an argument that allows a fortification rule to work, precisely as written*, would give it more consideration to be applied to near identical situations instead of less. However if you are only going to state out-right that such an argument has no merit then nothing more can be said and I will leave people whom are reading this to decide that for themselves.

*I mean precisely as written, there was a word within that only makes sense in this very context... which I hated, because changing that one word would allow the rule to resolve without conflict and prevented the need for a debate in the first place!

The rule is pretty clear. The unit gains Stealth for the duration of the shooting attack if the attacker is within 8". The shooting attack includes wound allocation and remove casualties.

Peregrine - you only roll collectively if you dont impact the game. You have a rule (stealth) contingent on distance to the unit - so how can you roll collectively?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peregrine - you only roll collectively if you dont impact the game. You have a rule (stealth) contingent on distance to the unit - so how can you roll collectively?

Because the entire unit has the same save, therefore you roll all of the dice at once and then remove models based on the number of failed saves.

Except they have a differing cover save dependent on distance to the shooting unit, which changes. So you dont roll collectively.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except they have a differing cover save dependent on distance to the shooting unit, which changes. So you dont roll collectively.

Not when you make the decision to roll separately or to roll all at once, which happens before any casualties are removed. The only thing you look at is which save value the models currently have, not whether they could possibly somehow have a different save in the future. What you're doing is the equivalent of arguing that if a unit suffers casualties that result in the closest model being 13" away your tactical squad's bolters will suddenly stop firing two shots and you'll have to ignore the shots you've already rolled.

(Remember that range for a shooting attack is measured to the target unit, not to each model in that unit. So if the closest model is 7" away then the unit's entire shooting attack will be within 8".)

 Peregrine wrote:
Because the entire unit has the same save, therefore you roll all of the dice at once and then remove models based on the number of failed saves.

That is not how I play it:

10 man marine squad, all 3+. 15 Wounds from bolter fire. Sergeant is the 6th closest model to the shooting enemy. How would you roll? And look-out sir!?

you would roll 15 dice, and then remove totals of 1s and 2s? What if that total is 7? your Sergeant is dead.

I would roll: 5 Dice, 3+ save. see how many marines are left. Roll 5 again if you saved all. If 5 Die, you then proceed to roll Look-out sir! one dice at a time until he dies or no marines are left.
That is sequential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
What you're doing is the equivalent of arguing that if a unit suffers casualties that result in the closest model being 13" away your tactical squad's bolters will suddenly stop firing two shots and you'll have to ignore the shots you've already rolled.

This doesn't apply as we're talking about saves.

If 10 Orks are spread from 11" to 26" for you (in a veeeery long straight line). Your marines will fire 2 shots each, indeed. But then you allocate, lets say 16 Wounds. The orks save those wounds until they are out of range, in the same way the Tau would save everything (yes you can then roll once) within 8" and then save, differently.

Pg 15 is clear that wounds are allocated one at a time.

Pg 16 gives you the Fast Dice rules that allow you roll saves in groups of the same save.

In both cases it is irrelevant to the Stealth rule being applied.

 BlackTalos wrote:
10 man marine squad, all 3+. 15 Wounds from bolter fire. Sergeant is the 6th closest model to the shooting enemy. How would you roll? And look-out sir!?

you would roll 15 dice, and then remove totals of 1s and 2s? What if that total is 7? your Sergeant is dead.

You use the rules for mixed saves on page 15 when there is at least 1 character in the wounded unit. See page 1 of the BRB FAQ. The errata entry for page 15 "shooting phase, mixed saves" modifies the rule to cover the posited scenario. There were also 2 errata changes to the look out sir rules on page 16 which might be interesting, although not as relevant.

Speaking of relevant... defensive grenades!

 rtunian wrote:
You use the rules for mixed saves on page 15 when there is at least 1 character in the wounded unit. See page 1 of the BRB FAQ. The errata entry for page 15 "shooting phase, mixed saves" modifies the rule to cover the posited scenario. There were also 2 errata changes to the look out sir rules on page 16 which might be interesting, although not as relevant.

Speaking of relevant... defensive grenades!

Lol i know how it works, this was a rhetorical question for:

Peregrine wrote:Because the entire unit has the same save, therefore you roll all of the dice at once and then remove models based on the number of failed saves.