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.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
40k Noob, the onus is on you to prove that the explosion is a CC attack when it happens in the assault phase. There isn't anything in the rulebook to suggest that it is, although if that's how you want to house-rule it, fine. But while the explosion happens in the assault phase, it is not an attack, but merely an effect which results from the destruction of the vehicle and therefore follows the explosion rules.

Considering the lack of a specific method to allocate these wounds, if you don't plan on allocating closest-to-furthest, then it's best to come to a decision with your opponent on how to do so if you think there'll be a problem.

As for wounding FMCs, RAW it would appear that it does affect them since it is not a shooting attack.

Again there is no such thing as a "CC Attack" the BRB does not define a "CC Attack" anywhere in the book, so no I do not have to prove the explosion is a "CC Attack"

Right, but you have to prove that it is a "Melee Attack" which, of course it is not as the vehicle does not have an Attacks value.

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"with a model attacking" in the context means making CC attacks.

"A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step" P.25

The vehicle is not making attacks at any given Initiative step.

Do not ignore the context.

There is no such thing as a "CC Attack" there are Melee Attacks but no "CC Attacks."

The rules merely says "a model attacking it" it does not specify Melee Attacks.

Is the Vehicle a "model," clearly that is not in question.
Is the vehicle attacking the models in D6 range with its explosion? Since the models in D6 range are suffering a Str 3, AP - hit then I would say yes, they are being attacked by the vehicle's explosion.

The rules do not state what you assert in the underlined.

The vehicle is not a model attacking at that Initiative step. The vehicle does not make attacks.

Do not ignore the context.

The context is clear. Close Combat in the Assault Phase.

Did the unit blow up a vehicle in CC? That is what we are talking about correct?


If the vehicle is not "attacking" the unit then where does the explosion come from if not the vehicle?
If the unit is not being attacked then how can it suffer hit/wounds at all?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Right, but you have to prove that it is a "Melee Attack" which, of course it is not as the vehicle does not have an Attacks value.

No I do not because the rules for allocating wounds doesn't specify from what type of attack..

Again you ignore context.

"To resolve casualty removal allocate each-Wound as follows:
. A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base
contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step." P.25

Is the Vehicle "attacking at that Initiative step"? No as vehicles do not make make attacks.

Note that a vehicle "attacking at that Initiative step" is different than the vehicle "attacking" the unit.

This is because Vehicles do not make attacks at any given initiative step.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Again you ignore context.

"To resolve casualty removal allocate each-Wound as follows:
. A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base
contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step." P.25

Is the Vehicle "attacking at that Initiative step"? No as vehicles do not make make attacks.

Note that a vehicle "attacking at that Initiative step" is different than the vehicle "attacking" the unit.

This is because Vehicles do not make attacks at any given initiative step.

Oh well I have made my case.

If you choose to use the "shooting phase" rules then by all means break the rules.

I am not saying that using the shooting rules is correct. It is not.

There is no allowance to treat the explosion as a shooting or melee attack.

The rules just do not cover it so the best way to handle it is to treat it how the passengers inside treat it.

40k-noob wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
40k Noob, the onus is on you to prove that the explosion is a CC attack when it happens in the assault phase. There isn't anything in the rulebook to suggest that it is, although if that's how you want to house-rule it, fine. But while the explosion happens in the assault phase, it is not an attack, but merely an effect which results from the destruction of the vehicle and therefore follows the explosion rules.

Considering the lack of a specific method to allocate these wounds, if you don't plan on allocating closest-to-furthest, then it's best to come to a decision with your opponent on how to do so if you think there'll be a problem.

As for wounding FMCs, RAW it would appear that it does affect them since it is not a shooting attack.

Again there is no such thing as a "CC Attack" the BRB does not define a "CC Attack" anywhere in the book, so no I do not have to prove the explosion is a "CC Attack"

I noticed, but it is shorthand in this case as you know what I mean.

Per BRB page 15, allocating wounds from shooting (paraphrased)

At times several models may be the same distance from something shooting/inflicting wounds on them and it is unclear which model in the target unit is closest. In such situations randomly determine which model is closest and treat is as such until it is dead or all wounds from the pool have been exhausted.


per page 25 allocating wounds in assault:

"Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the shooting phase."
It then proceeds to give further instructions relevant only to cc attacks causing the wounds. Since the explosion doesn't actually take place at an initiative step in the fight sub-phase, these extra instructions don't have bearing on the situation.

The same method is used in either of the two main ways to inflict wounds. So really if you want straight RAW you have to randomize the closest model and make your saves on it until your in the clear or it dies, then move on to the next random model.


All that being said, in our group we choose to roll model by model for AoE effects like this.

How about other units locked in CC..are they effected by the explosion (both friend and foe if within range)?

 OutlawBandit wrote:
How about other units locked in CC..are they effected by the explosion (both friend and foe if within range)?

Yes, any unit within the range is affected.

When removing wounds from an Exploded Dread in BTB, then the owner of the unit chooses where wounds are allocated, until no models remain to be the closest then it becomes randomised, see Pg. 25 of the rulebook for allocating wounds in the assault phase... As for cover saves, you don't get one, as it isn't a shooting attack, the fluff says that it is flaming debris and since when does anyone get cover for a flamer?... If you argue that someone is out of LOS by being behind something, then we also have to assume the flaming debris was not intentionally fired, and may be coming from any direction...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also models may still take wounds if engaged in combat, see pg. 28... Though they may not deliberately be targeted, models, friend or foe, within range of the explosion will take the hits as normal. Explosions would be included as its not a deliberate targeting... Only the models within the D6 range are hit, even when locked in combat, so hope your men are on the safe side of the explosion when it happens and not taking flaming debris in the ass...

You do get cover saves as there's nothing to say you don't.

Pg 18. says models get a cover save no matter what's firing at them but that in reference to AP strength, It also says when determining saves from wounds allocated to obscured models from the firing model, they receive the cover save, so I suppose they would in that respect, however its not actually something firing at them, every other reference to cover saves and who gets them is to do with shots from enemy fire, however one could argue that the explosion is an uncontrolled and unbiased event, its not the tank firing a shot at everyone more a physical reaction to dying...
I'd usually give a cover save, but that's cause I believe everyone has a chance to dodge a flaming wreck (see 'Aliens', exploding Dropship wreck 0 casualties, see also 'Predator', Logs saves Arnie from thermonuclear explosion)... One could argue that units locked in CC wouldn't receive that option...

major_payne wrote:
Pg 18. says models get a cover save no matter what's firing at them but that in reference to AP strength, It also says when determining saves from wounds allocated to obscured models from the firing model, they receive the cover save, so I suppose they would in that respect, however its not actually something firing at them, every other reference to cover saves and who gets them is to do with shots from enemy fire, however one could argue that the explosion is an uncontrolled and unbiased event, its not the tank firing a shot at everyone more a physical reaction to dying...
I'd usually give a cover save, but that's cause I believe everyone has a chance to dodge a flaming wreck (see 'Aliens', exploding Dropship wreck 0 casualties, see also 'Predator', Logs saves Arnie from thermonuclear explosion)... One could argue that units locked in CC wouldn't receive that option...

Units locked in CC may not take cover saves.

Area Terrain confers a cover save. As an explosion isn't a shooting attack some cover options may not be viable

major_payne wrote:
Pg 18. says models get a cover save no matter what's firing at them but that in reference to AP strength, It also says when determining saves from wounds allocated to obscured models from the firing model, they receive the cover save, so I suppose they would in that respect, however its not actually something firing at them, every other reference to cover saves and who gets them is to do with shots from enemy fire, however one could argue that the explosion is an uncontrolled and unbiased event, its not the tank firing a shot at everyone more a physical reaction to dying...
I'd usually give a cover save, but that's cause I believe everyone has a chance to dodge a flaming wreck (see 'Aliens', exploding Dropship wreck 0 casualties, see also 'Predator', Logs saves Arnie from thermonuclear explosion)... One could argue that units locked in CC wouldn't receive that option...

You wouldn't get directional cover saves (ADL) but you would get things like KFF, Spre Cloud, or area terrain saves.

Also, an explosion happens instantly, come to think of it, if a dreadnaught exploded and I was walking past minding my own business, completely occupied by nearby opponents, I'd find it hard to have the prescience to duck for cover... Problem with these things is your better off rolling a 1-3 4-6, as it neither says you can or can't take it... If its a friendly game, I'd be inclined to determine with your opponent who would get one, I'd say that its given an AP- as an attempt to make people rely on their armour rather than a models ability to predict random actions...

major_payne wrote:
Also, an explosion happens instantly, come to think of it, if a dreadnaught exploded and I was walking past minding my own business, completely occupied by nearby opponents, I'd find it hard to have the prescience to duck for cover... Problem with these things is your better off rolling a 1-3 4-6, as it neither says you can or can't take it... If its a friendly game, I'd be inclined to determine with your opponent who would get one, I'd say that its given an AP- as an attempt to make people rely on their armour rather than a models ability to predict random actions...

Cover save rules say you can always take them. Close Combat explicitly denies cover saves.
It's not a roll off, it's the actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's not a roll off, it's the actual rules.

Couldn't have said it better if I tried.

KFF yes, as it stops physical energy, but how from area terrain or spore clouds?... Its unlikely to stop bullets, flaming fuel jets, or ricocheting fragments... More likely to deter accurate firing...

major_payne wrote:
KFF yes, as it stops physical energy, but how from area terrain or spore clouds?... Its unlikely to stop bullets, flaming fuel jets, or ricocheting fragments... More likely to deter accurate firing...

That'd matter if the rules made a distinction. They don't.
Yay for actual rules.

As I said, I always give cover saves, and especially being a nids player it comes in handy more (spec. for 6+ armour saves)...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If they aren't dodging flames and debris, then they'd get the intervening model save for the unlucky guys closest to the boom!...

 Testify wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Testify wrote:
It isn't resolved as a shooting attack or close combat attack.

It's resolved as a S3 AP - attack. No additional rules.

Right so a unit takes let's say, 3 hits, I can allocate them to any model in the unit?

As there are not any hard and fast rules to cover it, it is probably best to play it as the 3 models closest to the explosion.

This. Use your common sense.

Don't tell them that. If people used common sense to resolve rules questions in 40k then this forum would be a boring place.

You guys realize you over-complicate these rules discussions ad absurdum don't you? I'd really hate to see what games with some of you are like.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
You guys realize you over-complicate these rules discussions ad absurdum don't you? I'd really hate to see what games with some of you are like.

You realize that assumptions like what you're making have been disproven many times don't you? Many of the people that argue in here don't play like they argue. That's the reason there's a difference between HIWPI, RAI, and RAW. And why, when you're making a non-RAW argument, you're supposed to say so.

As rigeld2 said, I'm perfectly able to come up with a house rule with my usual opponents but when it comes to tournaments or other venues, I kinda wanna know how it's going to be played. Plenty of people have offered up various suggestions for house rules but no one has found a smoking gun hidden somewhere else in the book that might explain how it all works.