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.

Say there are two space marine squads adjacent to each other; I declare the charge on one space marine squad, roll a 12 and I position my models to pile in to to the other space marine squad. Doing this I can now tie up both squads in combat. Does the second squad still get the benefit of the Angels of Death ability (+1 attack), despite not technically being the target of a charge?

No, the second squad wasnt charged, no +1 attack from shock assault.

Shock Assault
‘If this unit makes a charge move, is charged or performs a Heroic
Intervention, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of models in this unit
until the end of the turn.’

Waelfwulf wrote:
Say there are two space marine squads adjacent to each other; I declare the charge on one space marine squad, roll a 12 and I position my models to pile in to to the other space marine squad. Doing this I can now tie up both squads in combat. Does the second squad still get the benefit of the Angels of Death ability (+1 attack), despite not technically being the target of a charge?

No, because the second squad was not charged.

Waelfwulf wrote:
Say there are two space marine squads adjacent to each other; I declare the charge on one space marine squad, roll a 12 and I position my models to pile in to to the other space marine squad. Doing this I can now tie up both squads in combat. Does the second squad still get the benefit of the Angels of Death ability (+1 attack), despite not technically being the target of a charge?

Well, I suppose it's possible, but those two units of Space Marines would have to be pretty close together. Your charge move can't bring you within 1" of any model you're not charging. Your Pile In has to end closer to the nearest enemy model. You'd have to charge away from the unit you're charging with the models after the first one pretty much making you TFG. Remember, you can't fight the other unit, and many Space Marines will now be able to fall back and still shoot you so you're not gaining much.

Only the first model you move has to end it's movement within 1" of any charged unit. All other models of the charging unit can be moved anywhere you like, but must remain in unit coherency.

 p5freak wrote:
Only the first model you move has to end it's movement within 1" of any charged unit. All other models of the charging unit can be moved anywhere you like, but must remain in unit coherency.

I'm pretty sure that's what I just said? Although I added the part from the rules for Pile In Moves... Your Pile In has to end closer to the nearest enemy model - And that its going to be blatantly obvious someone is trying to abuse a rule to duck overwatch - and now Angels of Death.

Breton wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Only the first model you move has to end it's movement within 1" of any charged unit. All other models of the charging unit can be moved anywhere you like, but must remain in unit coherency.

I'm pretty sure that's what I just said? Although I added the part from the rules for Pile In Moves... Your Pile In has to end closer to the nearest enemy model - And that its going to be blatantly obvious someone is trying to abuse a rule to duck overwatch - and now Angels of Death.

That's just good play not TFG stuff. It's one of the few advantages mellee armies have. You charge one unit and use a few models to Tri point a different one so they can't fall back. If a new player doesn't know to do that against me I show them how. It's no more TFG than deploying out of range of someone's guns or behind a Los blocker to deny shooting.

Back on topic. Everyone is correct it would deny shock assault.

Drager wrote:
That's just good play not TFG stuff. It's one of the few advantages mellee armies have. You charge one unit and use a few models to Tri point a different one so they can't fall back. If a new player doesn't know to do that against me I show them how. It's no more TFG than deploying out of range of someone's guns or behind a Los blocker to deny shooting.

Back on topic. Everyone is correct it would deny shock assault.

Oh I'd say it is a TFG move. Charging Unit A with 1 guy and sending 9 guys Away from Unit A and instead directly at Unit B that in "real life" would totally be firing overwatch at the axe murderers running directly at them while pointing and yelling at Unit A 10 feet away but can't because the rules didn't handle this scenario is totally a TFG move. Comparing it to something actually in the spirit of the game like a bunch of guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock or use their gun range advantage to be less likely to get shot was funny though.

Breton wrote:

Drager wrote:
That's just good play not TFG stuff. It's one of the few advantages mellee armies have. You charge one unit and use a few models to Tri point a different one so they can't fall back. If a new player doesn't know to do that against me I show them how. It's no more TFG than deploying out of range of someone's guns or behind a Los blocker to deny shooting.

Back on topic. Everyone is correct it would deny shock assault.

Oh I'd say it is a TFG move. Charging Unit A with 1 guy and sending 9 guys Away from Unit A and instead directly at Unit B that in "real life" would totally be firing overwatch at the axe murderers running directly at them while pointing and yelling at Unit A 10 feet away but can't because the rules didn't handle this scenario is totally a TFG move. Comparing it to something actually in the spirit of the game like a bunch of guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock or use their gun range advantage to be less likely to get shot was funny though.

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to play a game.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the fluff of a "battle" fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

 DeathReaper wrote:


Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to play a game.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the fluff of a "battle" fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

Sure it does. We all use our own concepts of real world logic to decide how we're going to interpret a rule. Of course this doesn't change the wording "any kind of move". If the rules are the rules, and you want me to interpret that a White Scars Captain on a Motorcycle can cause a jet fighter/attack aircraft several thousand feet in the air to crash just with his bear trap or his bola, then I'm going to be just as literal with "any kind of move" so the only way he's going to ensnare that aircraft is if I move it within 1" of him because he can't use "any kind of move" to move himself within 1" of me.

And we haven't even started on the idea that my Flyer is more than 1" away anyway, because your 1" tall model isn't within 1" of my Flyer on it's scenic flying stand, not a base.

No, the rules are really not "Modern day real world" logical. Things like Psykers, gods, and Tyranids confirm this.

Breton wrote:

Drager wrote:
That's just good play not TFG stuff. It's one of the few advantages mellee armies have. You charge one unit and use a few models to Tri point a different one so they can't fall back. If a new player doesn't know to do that against me I show them how. It's no more TFG than deploying out of range of someone's guns or behind a Los blocker to deny shooting.

Back on topic. Everyone is correct it would deny shock assault.

Oh I'd say it is a TFG move. Charging Unit A with 1 guy and sending 9 guys Away from Unit A and instead directly at Unit B that in "real life" would totally be firing overwatch at the axe murderers running directly at them while pointing and yelling at Unit A 10 feet away but can't because the rules didn't handle this scenario is totally a TFG move. Comparing it to something actually in the spirit of the game like a bunch of guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock or use their gun range advantage to be less likely to get shot was funny though.

Cool. You're exactly the type of player I see as TFG. You aren't the fun police. Playing differently to your head canon isn't being a jerk, it's just playing the game.

Denying people playing mellee armies key tools is TFG behaviour (unless you both agree to the house rule then it's fine). Using those tools isn't. Personally I really enjoy the tactical choices that emerge from options like this, whether m using them or they are used against me.

Drager wrote:
Cool. You're exactly the type of player I see as TFG. You aren't the fun police. Playing differently to your head canon isn't being a jerk, it's just playing the game.

Denying people playing mellee armies key tools is TFG behaviour (unless you both agree to the house rule then it's fine). Using those tools isn't. Personally I really enjoy the tactical choices that emerge from options like this, whether m using them or they are used against me.

Dude... you're denying key tools like Overwatch and Angels of Death to Space Marine armies. Did you just admit you think you're TFG? Did you just call me TFG for suggesting playing differently to YOUR head cannon deserves a visit from the "fun police"?

Breton wrote:

Drager wrote:
Cool. You're exactly the type of player I see as TFG. You aren't the fun police. Playing differently to your head canon isn't being a jerk, it's just playing the game.

Denying people playing mellee armies key tools is TFG behaviour (unless you both agree to the house rule then it's fine). Using those tools isn't. Personally I really enjoy the tactical choices that emerge from options like this, whether m using them or they are used against me.

Dude... you're denying key tools like Overwatch and Angels of Death to Space Marine armies. Did you just admit you think you're TFG? Did you just call me TFG for suggesting playing differently to YOUR head cannon deserves a visit from the "fun police"?

An in game tactic that stops something from occurring is not denying them the tools. It's playing around them. I don't tell SM players they can't overwatch.

And no. In fact I said playing your way is fine if everyone playing likes that houserule. Then it's not TFG. You quoted me saying that.

Trying to stop people playing a particular way by insinuating they are bad people is what makes you TFG. You play however you want with people who are happy to play that way, but don't try to police others by calling them TFG for playing outside your head canon.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to play a game.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the fluff of a "battle" fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

Sure it does. We all use our own concepts of real world logic to decide how we're going to interpret a rule. Of course this doesn't change the wording "any kind of move". If the rules are the rules, and you want me to interpret that a White Scars Captain on a Motorcycle can cause a jet fighter/attack aircraft several thousand feet in the air to crash just with his bear trap or his bola, then I'm going to be just as literal with "any kind of move" so the only way he's going to ensnare that aircraft is if I move it within 1" of him because he can't use "any kind of move" to move himself within 1" of me.

And we haven't even started on the idea that my Flyer is more than 1" away anyway, because your 1" tall model isn't within 1" of my Flyer on it's scenic flying stand, not a base.

No, the rules are really not "Modern day real world" logical. Things like Psykers, gods, and Tyranids confirm this.

The rules of a modern day real world logical game don't conform to modern day real world logic. Tyranids and mental magic proves this. Which is why we have to use our hive mind telekinesis to mentally roll the dice we're not allowed to touch? That little piece of plastic isn't a real tyranid. It's a modern day real world logical model. We make logical real world assumptions in the rules all the time. Bob isn't going to shoot his brother Joe while Joe is wrestling for his life with Sam from the other army. We assume the physics of the world they're fighting on don't warp gravity and light to turn the lascannon beam 180 degrees back to the person who shot it - or if it does, they have enough training to manipulate those physics in their favor. We assume when things get broken, they have to get fixed before they work again. We assume when Sam does kill Joe, Joe is going to stay dead unless a medical professional helps him or he becomes a zombie. How many more of these real world logical assumptions do you want me to make?

Breton wrote:


The rules of a modern day real world logical game don't conform to modern day real world logic. Tyranids and mental magic proves this. Which is why we have to use our hive mind telekinesis to mentally roll the dice we're not allowed to touch? That little piece of plastic isn't a real tyranid. It's a modern day real world logical model. We make logical real world assumptions in the rules all the time. Bob isn't going to shoot his brother Joe while Joe is wrestling for his life with Sam from the other army. We assume the physics of the world they're fighting on don't warp gravity and light to turn the lascannon beam 180 degrees back to the person who shot it - or if it does, they have enough training to manipulate those physics in their favor. We assume when things get broken, they have to get fixed before they work again. We assume when Sam does kill Joe, Joe is going to stay dead unless a medical professional helps him or he becomes a zombie. How many more of these real world logical assumptions do you want me to make?

You are way off base with this.

Bottom line is that the rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system. an abstract system used to play a game by those rules.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW

Breton wrote:

Oh I'd say it is a TFG move. Charging Unit A with 1 guy and sending 9 guys Away from Unit A and instead directly at Unit B that in "real life" would totally be firing overwatch at the axe murderers running directly at them while pointing and yelling at Unit A 10 feet away but can't because the rules didn't handle this scenario is totally a TFG move.

 DeathReaper wrote:



What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW

Breton wrote:
Comparing it to something actually in the spirit of the game like a bunch of guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock or use their gun range advantage to be less likely to get shot was funny though.

(Emphasis mine).

This part. you brought "real life" into it, don't. "guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock" has nothing to do with the 40k RAW

And you're bringing RAW into it. Lots of things that make you TFG are perfectly legal. Its what makes you TF Guy not TF Felon. I never said it wasn't legal, I said it wasn't in the spirit of the game. It annihilates Suspension of Disbelief and takes a fairly good poke at fair play.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:



What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW

Breton wrote:
Comparing it to something actually in the spirit of the game like a bunch of guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock or use their gun range advantage to be less likely to get shot was funny though.

(Emphasis mine).

This part. you brought "real life" into it, don't. "guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock" has nothing to do with the 40k RAW

And you're bringing RAW into it. Lots of things that make you TFG are perfectly legal. Its what makes you TF Guy not TF Felon. I never said it wasn't legal, I said it wasn't in the spirit of the game. It annihilates Suspension of Disbelief and takes a fairly good poke at fair play.

Well we are discussing the rules so it is not I that brought RAW into it.

As for "Suspension of Disbelief"

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:
3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:



What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW

Breton wrote:
Comparing it to something actually in the spirit of the game like a bunch of guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock or use their gun range advantage to be less likely to get shot was funny though.

(Emphasis mine).

This part. you brought "real life" into it, don't. "guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock" has nothing to do with the 40k RAW

And you're bringing RAW into it. Lots of things that make you TFG are perfectly legal. Its what makes you TF Guy not TF Felon. I never said it wasn't legal, I said it wasn't in the spirit of the game. It annihilates Suspension of Disbelief and takes a fairly good poke at fair play.

Like I said before you've got this backward. Being rude and policing people is TFG. Playing fairly by the rules with like minded people isn't. Theres only one person in this thread who's trying to tell other people how to have fun. If you houserule your game to make assault armies worse like this and everyone is cool with it then have fun. Don't try to impose it on other people by impugning their character for playing differently to you. That's TFG behaviour.

 DeathReaper wrote:


As for "Suspension of Disbelief"

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:
3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

So when you brought up the "modern day real life" absence of Tyranids and Psykers you were breaking the rules?!?! Shame on you. My examples were of game scenarios imagined through the lens of that Suspension of Disbelief you're ignoring to defend abusing this rule. There are a lot of rules as written we use our own modern day real life logic to ignore or modify. There are webpages dedicated just to listing and mocking these rules. At least one person on here loves to list a few, I think in their signature - for example assault weapons that can't shoot if you advance. I've never said it was illegal, I said it was unsportsmanlike. You've continued to try and prove it's legal - despite no objection - to defend the practice. There are at least three different Rules standards. As Written, As Applied, and As Intended. My YMDC has always been about Applied/Intended and potential fallout from as Written, while you have been trying to land Written as a defense for applying it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:
]Like I said before you've got this backward. Being rude and policing people is TFG. Playing fairly by the rules with like minded people isn't. Theres only one person in this thread who's trying to tell other people how to have fun. If you houserule your game to make assault armies worse like this and everyone is cool with it then have fun. Don't try to impose it on other people by impugning their character for playing differently to you. That's TFG behaviour.

Have I ever told you not to do it? Or did I tell you I was going to judge you for doing it? Just like I'm judging you for complaining someone else was "rude" and might try and take away your "necessary tool" for a melee army or however you phrased abusing a rule to take away a far more necessary tool like shooting for a shooting army? Just like I'm judging you for throwing around "impugning people's character" for my saying certain behavior could be/is TFG behavior, while you're directly calling people TFG - ironically because they would play it differently from you. Just like I'm judging you for trying to claim abusing a poorly written rule is "fair play". We're not talking accidental/sneaky close combat where lines break, units rout, and consolidate into another unit so fast they wouldn't have time to react. We're talking about deliberately charging one unit to get around a "necessary tool" like Overwatch for the shooting armies on a technicality, not any real tactics or strategy.

Breton wrote:

Have I ever told you not to do it? Or did I tell you I was going to judge you for doing it? Just like I'm judging you for complaining someone else was "rude" and might try and take away your "necessary tool" for a melee army or however you phrased abusing a rule to take away a far more necessary tool like shooting for a shooting army? Just like I'm judging you for throwing around "impugning people's character" for my saying certain behavior could be/is TFG behavior, while you're directly calling people TFG - ironically because they would play it differently from you. Just like I'm judging you for trying to claim abusing a poorly written rule is "fair play". We're not talking accidental/sneaky close combat where lines break, units rout, and consolidate into another unit so fast they wouldn't have time to react. We're talking about deliberately charging one unit to get around a "necessary tool" like Overwatch for the shooting armies on a technicality, not any real tactics or strategy.

You are strawmanning me again. I'm saying your behaviour in this thread is out of order. Not your playstyle. I'm not saying you're TFG for playing it differently, playing it differently is fine. You're judging me for something that I do with other people who are happy to play that way, then claiming that it's a character flaw on my part. I'm judging you for youre behaviour towards me and others here. Do you want people to stop behaving in a TFG way? If not then no you've never suggested I should pay differently. If yes, then you have. I pride myself on fair play and sportsmanlike conduct.

I'm saying you're TFG for using shaming tactics and for saying a playstyle is some how related to TFG behaviour. I am trying to show that you should behave differently. Not play differently, but be more fair and sportsmanlike in your conduct.

Can I ask is charging through a wall (so no overwatch) TFG? How about charging a vehicle in first? Charging from behind a vehicle you placed?

Drager wrote:

Breton wrote:

Have I ever told you not to do it?

You are strawmanning me again.

You know what a Strawman is, and still tried to claim I was telling you how to play? And no, I'm not using a straw man, I'm placing your arguments side by side - the one where you accuse me of something, and then excuse yourself for doing it. Judging you for abusing Pile In is denying you a vital tool. Actually abusing Pile In to remove Overwatch is... "fair play".

As for your question, it depends on the wall. A ruined wall, a fortification wall with a door, etc? Can it be shot/seen through probably with a cover save? Have you pre-agreed on something about the door i.e. it costs X inches to open, and charge through?

I'm saying you're TFG for using shaming tactics and for saying a playstyle is some how related to TFG behaviour. I am trying to show that you should behave differently. Not play differently, but be more fair and sportsmanlike in your conduct.

This is by far the most entertaining thing you've said. You're playing with a rules technicality, I pointed out I didn't find it very sportsmanlike, and you've spent the past what, hour and a half trying to project all the points I made about it back on me? You could have said people see things differently and moved on, instead you've spent however long it was devoted to ad hominem, and hysterically (as in laugh out loud funny, not crazy) trying to browbeat anyone who disagrees with you on how it SHOULD be played into agreeing with you while accusing them of policing how you play.

Breton wrote:

Drager wrote:

Breton wrote:

Have I ever told you not to do it?

You are strawmanning me again.

You know what a Strawman is, and still tried to claim I was telling you how to play? And no, I'm not using a straw man, I'm placing your arguments side by side - the one where you accuse me of something, and then excuse yourself for doing it. Judging you for abusing Pile In is denying you a vital tool. Actually abusing Pile In to remove Overwatch is... "fair play".

As for your question, it depends on the wall. A ruined wall, a fortification wall with a door, etc? Can it be shot/seen through probably with a cover save? Have you pre-agreed on something about the door i.e. it costs X inches to open, and charge through?

I'm saying you're TFG for using shaming tactics and for saying a playstyle is some how related to TFG behaviour. I am trying to show that you should behave differently. Not play differently, but be more fair and sportsmanlike in your conduct.

This is by far the most entertaining thing you've said. You're playing with a rules technicality, I pointed out I didn't find it very sportsmanlike, and you've spent the past what, hour and a half trying to project all the points I made about it back on me? You could have said people see things differently and moved on, instead you've spent however long it was devoted to ad hominem, and hysterically (as in laugh out loud funny, not crazy) trying to browbeat anyone who disagrees with you on how it SHOULD be played into agreeing with you while accusing them of policing how you play.

I've not told anyone how they should play. I've said playing however you want is fine provided your playmates agree in, I think, every post. And I mean it. Playing the way you describe would not be TFG to be 100% clear, as long as everyone is cool with it. I'd even play that way provided I knew in advance so I could change my list to not use that strategy.

And with regards to the wall it's a solid wall, part of a ruin piece of terrain. It cannot be seen through.

This discussion is irrelevant for this forum, the following thread fits https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/764141.page#10159835, revive it or create a new one or do it in DMs. About 3/4 of the people polled in that thread said that they try to win using the rules available even in casual.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:



What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW

Breton wrote:
Comparing it to something actually in the spirit of the game like a bunch of guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock or use their gun range advantage to be less likely to get shot was funny though.

(Emphasis mine).

This part. you brought "real life" into it, don't. "guys who would in "real life" hide behind the giant rock" has nothing to do with the 40k RAW

And you're bringing RAW into it. Lots of things that make you TFG are perfectly legal. Its what makes you TF Guy not TF Felon. I never said it wasn't legal, I said it wasn't in the spirit of the game. It annihilates Suspension of Disbelief and takes a fairly good poke at fair play.

I believe that the game developers have been shown to be using the tactic in battle reports in White Dwarf. Are you saying that the game developers aren't playing in the spirit of the game and aren't engaging in fair play?

How is usgin advanced techniques for melee armies remotely a TFG move? Thats like saying tri-pointing makes you a TFG. Furthermore, whats the difference between this and consolidating into an uncharged unit after wiping the one you charged? would you consider that a dick move?

As for the topic of this thread, its a perfectly legal move and wouldnt trigger the Angels of death +1 attack.