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 have a question for the rule vets out there and I am hoping that they can give me the straight up facts on an issue I had during a recent RTT I played in.

The rules disagreement happened during my opponent’s assault phase.

The situation:

My Broodlord and what was left of his retinue were sitting in the open, after a massacre overrun.

My opponent had a beat up squad of Marines and an IC in the nearby woods.

Said Marines fired from inside the wood line, resulting in a few casualties on my ‘Stealers, but still enough to be a dangerous force.

My opponent charges his unit out of the woods and into my Broodlord/‘Stealers.

I pick up my dice, intending to rip his Marines a new one with my Initiative 8 and 6 models when my opponent tells me that we will be going simultaneously because he is using frag grenades.

I inform my opponent that my unit is entirely in the open and thus is ineligible to have frag grenades used on them.

He responds that his unit had to ‘charge through cover’ into the assault and thus by the RAW, WAS eligible to use their grenades.

There commenced a bit of a stalemate that my opponent would not back down from.

Although I did not agree, the spectators did not agree, and the store employee who came over to arbitrate did not agree, he just wouldn’t let it go.

I finally let him have his way just to hear a bit of silence.

His secondary claim was that the GTs he has played in rule it that way. Having never been to a GT, I have no basis of comparison, but it seems like a load of horse manure to me.

So my question is…

Did I get screwed in this case, or is that actually the interpretation?

Without my rulebook handy for an actual reference, I'll just say for now that you got screwed. I have never heard of this interpretation before, and I've been to 6 GTs and multiple local tournaments. If the guy is going to insist on a bizzare interpretation like this one, you should ask him to show you in print. Good gaming!

Zoned

You got screwed in your own words. He did not charge through cover per the spirit of the rules because he charged from cover into the open. You were not hiding, and thus frag grenades had no impact on the fight.

My question to you is, what weapons did he fire and then charge in? If he fired a rapid fire weapon, unless they are pistols, he could not even charge in. He simply did not want to lose and he would have.

jesterzdragon wrote:You got screwed in your own words. He did not charge through cover per the spirit of the rules because he charged from cover into the open. You were not hiding, and thus frag grenades had no impact on the fight.

My question to you is, what weapons did he fire and then charge in? If he fired a rapid fire weapon, unless they are pistols, he could not even charge in. He simply did not want to lose and he would have.

In order to use the Grenades, you have to charge into cover. Charging from cover into the open will not let you use them. The BGB states that I believe (don't have it on me at the moment).

The shooting thing caught my eye as well. If they were standard stock and file marines with bolters, then he cheated in the assualt anyways.

jesterzdragon wrote:
My question to you is, what weapons did he fire and then charge in? If he fired a rapid fire weapon, unless they are pistols, he could not even charge in. He simply did not want to lose and he would have.

Thanks for the quick reply.

His Marines were an assault squad and were Pistol/CC equiped as I recall. (I'd have never let him get away with shooting and then assaulting with Rapid Fire Weapons.)

It was just very frustrating. I gave in because of the wish for silence and because if we had argued further, I wouldn't have gotten in my last turn (I went second.) and wouldn't have been able to claim the objectives I needed for victory.

Page 39, the DEFENDERS have to be "in or behind cover" for the frags to work. He was wrong.

Well with his logic, I would have made him take Difficult Terrain for his troops jumping out of cover with jump packs.

Wow you got so screwed
Bring your BBB with you to the RTTs so you can look stuff like this up.....its pretty obvious that he was wrong when everybody disagreed with him.

At that point since he was so insistant i would have called the game for cheating.

Like everyone else said... it was cheating.

The way to look at it is to see if you got cover saves for his shooting.

No?

No frag grenades.

Well with his logic, I would have made him take Difficult Terrain for his troops jumping out of cover with jump packs.

Not a valid tactic.
On a charge, he is presumed to be running through the cover on foot, not jumping with jump packs. If he was jumping out, he wouldn't have needed to roll to get to the unit (I presume he rolled... if not, he cheated on that, too).

Eric

Besides all the terrain nonsense, don't frags merely let you attack at initiative, instead of automatically going last for charging into cover? It seems to me that that is the case, so you should still have gone first, whether he used frags or not.

Wehrkind wrote:Besides all the terrain nonsense, don't frags merely let you attack at initiative, instead of automatically going last for charging into cover? It seems to me that that is the case, so you should still have gone first, whether he used frags or not.

No, frags allow you to go at the same time as your opponent, regardless of initiative.

In the charge, I lost my Broodlord to his IC's power weapon, even though the Broodlord killed his IC.

Had we not gone simultaneously, my BL would have killed his IC without being killed in return and I would have gotten more points out of the game.

Wehrkind wrote:Besides all the terrain nonsense, don't frags merely let you attack at initiative, instead of automatically going last for charging into cover? It seems to me that that is the case, so you should still have gone first, whether he used frags or not.

No, they make you and the enemy go at the same time. Plasma Grenades (Eldar) make you go at initiative.

Plus you also win cos he's a total dick. Just never play him again - eventually he'll learn his lessons when no one wants to game with him.

I would like to point out that this issue is not as clear cut as everyone makes it out to be (even though I agree with the general sentiment that your models should not have counted as defending cover).

The ruling that your opponent claimed is a very common interpretation of the assault rules. This is because the final paragraph of the Assaulting into cover rules on page 39 of the rulebook reads:

"If before any assaulting models are moved, a direct line from the assaulting model to the enemy models passes through the cover then it is assumed to be enough of an obstruction to count."


This sentence taken alone (out of context) appears to support your opponent's position which is why many people do play this way. However, IMO the reference in that sentence to "the cover" clearly shows that this sentence refers to the rest of the rules in the section rather than being a stand-alone rule on its own.

The problem is, the rules simply state that a model must be "in or behind" cover but they don't specify anywhere what this means. . .so the natural assumption can be that the previous sentence I described is the 'answer' to that question: If the attacking model's line goes through cover then the defender is assumed to be "in cover".


So while I belive the RAI are that your models are supposed to actually be "in or behind cover" to get the bonus, since that definition isn't clarified the basic rule about attackers charging through cover has become the default definition for that term.

Jesterzdragon wrote:
Well with his logic, I would have made him take Difficult Terrain for his troops jumping out of cover with jump packs.

MagickalMemories wrote:
Not a valid tactic.
On a charge, he is presumed to be running through the cover on foot, not jumping with jump packs. If he was jumping out, he wouldn't have needed to roll to get to the unit (I presume he rolled... if not, he cheated on that, too).

Eric

I think that is what I am saying. With "his demented logic", he should have had to make Difficult terrain test as he was assaulting "through/into" cover. His fouled up logic would dictate that he take that test. I know what the rules say, that it is assumed that he walks the final 6" and does not use the jump pack, but I would have pushed that if he pushed that he was in cover. I mean realistically he moved out of cover, shot, then assaulted.

I see no way if you read all the rules in this case that being out in the open would let him use frag grenades. I would have also asked as politely as possible for a ruling by a judge or diced off if no one had the sack to make a ruling.

Unfortunately, in a tournament you do not get to pick your opponents, so not playing the guy again would not be an option.

Crikey Jester, he did make it a choresome game, didn't he?

Oh well, at least now there is one guy you will never play again(hopefully).

Bad eggs can ruin the whole feel of the game sometimes.

Have alot more fun next time, and don't let the turkeys get you down.

Game on dude.

page 39 from BBB:

Models that are charged while in or behind cover normally fight with an initiative value of 10... Sometimes a model will only count as being in cover if assaulted from a specific direction from which the cover has an effect, eg, a Space Marine behind some oil drums is in cover if assaulted over the oil drums. If, before an assaulting model are moved, a direct line from the assaulting model to the enemy model passes through cover then it is assumed to be enough of an obstruction to count.

Look at the picture at the bottom of the page. It shows a Space Marine behind cover being assaulted and has I10. It sounds like an advantage for the assaulting unit but if they do not have frag then the defending unit benefits from I10.

I have always played this way at every tournament since 4th edition was released and I never had a problem except twice. One person I showed the rules and he immediately agreed I was right.

- G

The above poster is the individual in question.

Even now, he still doesn't think he was wrong on this.

I could probably get the entire GW staff in here to say that he was incorrect and he still wouldn't believe it.

Fedral wrote:The above poster is the individual in question.

Even now, he still doesn't think he was wrong on this.

I could probably get the entire GW staff in here to say that he was incorrect and he still wouldn't believe it.

Well, no one in this thread has presented any hard and fast evidence that he is wrong. The closest was Don Mondo showing that the unit has to be "in or behind cover" but there aren't any guidelines of what this means besides the passage that Green Blow Fly presented.


So while I personally believe the passage he quoted is in reference to when a unit is clearly "in" cover but then is charged from a direction where they aren't "in" cover, there is no definition in the rulebook was to when the unit counts as in or behind cover. If they are 1" away from cover are they "in or behind" cover? If they are 2" away from the cover are they "in or behind" cover? The rules just don't say.

Because of that, many many people besides Green Blow Fly follow the guideline on page 39: If the attacking models line crosses any kind of cover then the defender gets the cover bonus.

Bloater, a question for you. Would you play that the genestealers would get a cover save? And if so, do you apply that every time you have models in cover firing at something? the models are behind cover after all.

For what it's worth, this is how I see it.

If when charging his closest model to yours, passed through terrain AND remained in terrain (even a little bit) after moving, despite you being out in the open that 1 model of *his* would still be moving through cover and he should get the benefit of frags.

However, if he moved and his model (not yours) moving closest to closest ended up not being in terrain (or across a obstacle, etc) then he shouldn't get frags.

This is a bit murky, but the key is the first model moved.

Now if someone wants to claim frags, and the game will go from 'great' to [edited] in attitude, I give them the leeway.

After all, GW didn't write the rule clearly.



Stelek -- please don't swear in your posts -- yakface

Phausi wrote:Bloater, a question for you. Would you play that the genestealers would get a cover save? And if so, do you apply that every time you have models in cover firing at something? the models are behind cover after all.

The shooting rules are different, they specify that you don't count terrain pieces the firing models are touching unless the enemy is also touching that terrain piece.

The assault rules have no such stipulation, which is the cause of the problem.

Stelek wrote:For what it's worth, this is how I see it.

If when charging his closest model to yours, passed through terrain AND remained in terrain (even a little bit) after moving, despite you being out in the open that 1 model of *his* would still be moving through cover and he should get the benefit of frags.

However, if he moved and his model (not yours) moving closest to closest ended up not being in terrain (or across a obstacle, etc) then he shouldn't get frags.

This is a bit murky, but the key is the first model moved.

Now if someone wants to claim frags, and the game will go from 'great' to [edited] in attitude, I give them the leeway.

After all, GW didn't write the rule clearly.

Just thought I should point out that the cover bonus is cllearly determined on a model by model basis. So you check with each charging model before you move it and if the straight line goes through the intervening cover then the defending model gets the cover bonus.

From the GW 40K FAQ:

Q. If a unit charges an enemy unit that is partially in
cover (i.e. some of its models are in cover whilst others
aren’t), does it have to make a difficult terrain test, or can
it choose to just engage the models outside the cover?
A. The assault move should be resolved following the
normal rules for moving charging models, against all of
the models in the enemy unit (the chargers cannot
decide to assault only the enemies outside the cover). If
this means that any of the charging models has to enter
difficult terrain to engage an enemy, the entire unit must
take a difficult terrain test before the first charging model
is moved (so the entire unit could fail to reach
altogether!).

Do you really think so? In the main rulebook, you must move the first model that is closest. After that, you are free to move your models in any order you desire. In almost all circumstances, you can 'game' it so you don't have to observe any of the rules except coherency. It's not sporting, but it is allowed.

Now take the above rule, which combined with the above said 'game' you can end your move with ANY of your own guys in cover and call your charge an assault through cover.

As this isn't the intent, should it be allowed? I'm not talking about a disadvantage to the defender here by somehow removing cover, I'm talking about an unfair advantage to the attacker by allowing them to effectively 'stage' an assault through cover.

Would a diagram be useful here?

Edit: Oh, it isn't clear since the normal rules for moving allow you to move your models ANY way you want to, after the first one. P37, Para3, Sent1.

Stelek wrote:

Do you really think so? In the main rulebook, you must move the first model that is closest. After that, you are free to move your models in any order you desire. In almost all circumstances, you can 'game' it so you don't have to observe any of the rules except coherency. It's not sporting, but it is allowed.

Now take the above rule, which combined with the above said 'game' you can end your move with ANY of your own guys in cover and call your charge an assault through cover.

As this isn't the intent, should it be allowed? I'm not talking about a disadvantage to the defender here by somehow removing cover, I'm talking about an unfair advantage to the attacker by allowing them to effectively 'stage' an assault through cover.

Would a diagram be useful here?

Edit: Oh, it isn't clear since the normal rules for moving allow you to move your models ANY way you want to, after the first one. P37, Para3, Sent1.

You're confusing two different concepts here (and we're subsequently getting side-tracked off the main point).


First: If any models from the attacking unit have to move through difficult terrain then the entire attacking unit has to roll for difficult terrain and apply its results (that's what the FAQ answer you posted is in relation to).


Second: When it comes to models in the defending unit getting the bonus for defending cover, that is determined on a model by model basis. Read the rules for defending cover on page 39, you'll notice that every rule is written pertaining to models in the defending unit.

So if a particular model is defending cover against a particular charging model then the cover bonus comes into play. Any models in the defending unit that aren't actually defending cover don't get the cover bonus.



And BTW, I'm not trying to say that people should be charging through cover on purpose to use their frag grenades, I was just pointing out that the answer isn't a simple one like the first people in this thread claimed without any evidence.


I have my own personal house rules for when a model counts as "behind" an intervening piece of terrain against a charging model (basically, if the attacking model can fully fit its base between the intervening terrain and the model they are charging then the 'defender' does not get the cover bonus).

Even with the apparent discrepencies noted i still see trying to use frags on a unit that is clearly in the open simple to negate thier higher CC intiative through bending of the rules as something of a cheapshot. its on par with metagaming something to the effect of "im going to throw frag grenades at you to negate the advantage you have of hiding in/behind the cover you are nowhere near"

It doesn't make alot of sense

If you keep playing that way you end up not having anybody to play against because for all intents and purposes it does apear to be cheating. you pool of opponants will see it and will react accordingly.

If your at a tournament you have the final say of the ruling of the judge/organizer. thats one of the reasons they are there.

page 39 BGB top of second column under "Cover":

Note that cover advantage applies only to models in cover that are being charged.

And the sentence used to "justify" the actions of the beardy player MUST be taken in context with the rest of the paragraph it is contained in.

"Sometimes a model will only count as being in cover if assaulted from a specific direction from which the cover has effect, e.g. a SM behind some oil drums is in cover if assaulted over the drums, but not if assaulted from the rear. If, before any assaulting models are moved, a direct line from the assaulting model to the enemy models passes through the cover then it is assumed to be enough of an obstruction to count. THIS EXPEDIENT IS USED TO ENSURE ATTACKERS CAN'T 'RUN AROUND' COVER TO NEGATE THE EFFECTS"

The entire focus on the above paragrapgh is aimed at detailing how cover is used to provide a bonus to the defender, not an unweildly, shaky defense to the attacker.
Bottom line, I would not play such a nit picking cheat a second time.

I never have a problem getting in a game, except for making time in my busy schedule to play.


@ Fedral - Pls PM a copy of the army list you used for that tournament. Thanks.

- G

Seen as how I've heard some of GBF's comments, I would never play against you except in a real life boxing match. Nobody likes a rule nazi or lawyer, which is which you are and did in a tournement. If I was running that tourne I would have disqualified you for your blatent intent on trying to make the rules work for you. If the judges/organizers called it, why would you not give it up till you got it your way? I CAN'T STOP MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS I have to say.

Plus, I really dislike GBF...

SPEEDRACER, PLEASE KNOCK OFF THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. THIS IS YOUR SECOND WARNING IN A SINGLE THREAD. -The Mgmt.