Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
Do al close combat attacks ona vehical hit the rear armor ?
Why ... why would a guy with his powerfist standing in a Predators front hit the rear armor ?

*supresses urge to hurt someone and hits the wall*

What makes you think that ?
What makes you think weird things about Avatars ?
No offense mate, but lot's of your post could be answered by a simple look in the BBB.

However, enemy models attacking your vehicles in CC hit the direction where they stand, in CC versus Walkers you hit the front armour, wherever you stand.

Lemartes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
And just to clarify:
The 5e rumor (which is probably where you got this idea) was against vehicles with no defensive weapons. (Pretty much would allow troops to position themselves at the weakest part to make their attacks.)

And also, what Lemartes said. Check p71.
 

·
Executive Nitpicker
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
Why ... why would a guy with his powerfist standing in a Predators front hit the rear armor ?

*supresses urge to hurt someone and hits the wall*

What makes you think that ?
What makes you think weird things about Avatars ?
You seriously need to chill. There is no reason to get this upset with someone for asking a simple question that, when you think about it, isn't all that silly.

Now, take a moment to think of some of the wacky, fucked up rules in 40k and ask yourself, "Does that make any less sense?" Why do you always hit a walker in the front armor, even though it couldn't possibly turn to face everyone all at once? Why would a team of anti-tank commandos, when presented with a juicy, slow-moving target, launch every single attack they have against one point when they could move around and hit a weak spot?

Now, take a moment and look up the actual rule on p71

The rule says that units charging a vehicle without a WS attack the side of the vehicle they were facing at the start of their charge and NOT the side of the vehicle they happen to be facing at the end of their charge.

So your powerfist guy could be facing the front of the tank when the charge is declared, but his charge could take him past the front of the actual vehicle (let's say a couple of guys moved up first and block the front, so he has to move further forward to contact the hull, but still within his charge range). So now, at the end of his charge, he's facing the side of the vehicle.

He winds up, he swings...he hits the FRONT because that's the side that was pointing at him when they decided to rush the vehicle.

How does this poster's innocent question make any less sense than the actual rules currently in place?

Fact of the matter is, in the real, honest to god rules you could end up duplicating the exact same concept (facing one side of a vehicle but hitting against the other) that you found so violently stupid. So before you go berserk on someone, take a moment to put things in perspective and ask yourself if it;s really that dumb of a question.

Seriously, it's a game. Games sometimes have stupid rules.
And chanced are in 5th edition, this guy's notion is going to be the correct one.
Why? Because it's a game, and sometimes games ave stupid rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
well i was thinking a tank blowing up must be its fuel and amunition fuel = flame avatar invulnerable to flame

like someone said i may have mistaken the 5thed rules

and it is close combat

if im attacking a person in close combat im not face to face all the time im dancing around the models arnt static

its only reasonable that a model attacking a tank runs around to the rear to hit it

or someone in cc who strikes frist is so fast that he kills him with a blow to the back of the head

i dont run up to a guy and go punch kick block
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
The Avatar question was a bit silly (but his logic was good on it) but this one is a good question and will eventually fall into the FAQ because I have seen questions and where a vehicle get struck in CC. You have to love anygame where the FAQ ends up longer then the original rulebook.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,636 Posts
Questions are okay.
Even if you think they are dumb...that's what we're here for.
Even if it is simple, even if we think to ourselves "duh, pick up the rulebook".
Our job as a community is to help people learn and play.

Seriously fellas.
The least you can do if you are irritated is either say nothing, or say "Please see Warhammer 40,00 Rulebook, Chapter 4, Page 32 under Universal Special Rules". That's sufficient too.

Cool?

Oh, one side note, logic is great and all...but you'll find in time it's been tossed out the window in favor of a simplified ruleset in order to speed up play...otherwise we'd never get done with a game because we'd have rules lawyers bickering over...waitamminite....that's what we have now...oh nevermind.
;)
 

·
Executive Nitpicker
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
Exactly.

That said, however, new players *should* make an effort to look their questions up in the book and via the boards search function before starting a new thread, and it's not a bad thing to remind/suggest this...if you do it tactfully and politely.
 

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
963 Posts
Sometimes I read through the book trying to re-read or clarify something and I might look 50 times over the actual rule and miss it every single time. Then I post or ask a friend and they point it out to me and make me feel about as dumb as a box of rocks.. sometimes I swear the words move around in that book when the cover is closed. Point being.. sometimes you just need someone else to point it out before you can see it because theres about 30 diffrent places in the book where they could talk about the same thing before you find the one place with the rule that matters.
 

·
Executive Nitpicker
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
LOL, I know exactly how you feel, I've had that happen several times myself.

This is why we should be polite, helpful and tactful if someone asks an obvious questions, because sometimes they're new, and sometimes they're just temporarily blind
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
It's pretty vague sometimes, especially when you have a situation where two "clear" rules come into play and contradict each other.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,544 Posts
I've been playing for not quite nine years now, and I made an interesting discovery just the other day. It definitely happens.

For those of you who might not have known, you can't make a sweeping advance if you've killed all enemy models in base contact. I'd always read the rules as more or less "you can attempt to catch the opponent if he turns his back unless you're in terminator armour." with no reference to being in base contact still.
 

·
Bleh
Joined
·
3,785 Posts
You seriously need to chill. There is no reason to get this upset with someone for asking a simple question that, when you think about it, isn't all that silly.

Now, take a moment to think of some of the wacky, fucked up rules in 40k and ask yourself, "Does that make any less sense?" Why do you always hit a walker in the front armor, even though it couldn't possibly turn to face everyone all at once? Why would a team of anti-tank commandos, when presented with a juicy, slow-moving target, launch every single attack they have against one point when they could move around and hit a weak spot?

Now, take a moment and look up the actual rule on p71

The rule says that units charging a vehicle without a WS attack the side of the vehicle they were facing at the start of their charge and NOT the side of the vehicle they happen to be facing at the end of their charge.

So your powerfist guy could be facing the front of the tank when the charge is declared, but his charge could take him past the front of the actual vehicle (let's say a couple of guys moved up first and block the front, so he has to move further forward to contact the hull, but still within his charge range). So now, at the end of his charge, he's facing the side of the vehicle.

He winds up, he swings...he hits the FRONT because that's the side that was pointing at him when they decided to rush the vehicle.

How does this poster's innocent question make any less sense than the actual rules currently in place?

Fact of the matter is, in the real, honest to god rules you could end up duplicating the exact same concept (facing one side of a vehicle but hitting against the other) that you found so violently stupid. So before you go berserk on someone, take a moment to put things in perspective and ask yourself if it;s really that dumb of a question.

Seriously, it's a game. Games sometimes have stupid rules.
And chanced are in 5th edition, this guy's notion is going to be the correct one.
Why? Because it's a game, and sometimes games ave stupid rules.
So, if i had terminators coming from the front lets say 3" away, they would hit on the front of the vehicle, if i charged 6" to the side?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
So, if i had terminators coming from the front lets say 3" away, they would hit on the front of the vehicle, if i charged 6" to the side?
yeah.. but you can move around the vehicle in other movement shooting/assault phases because technically your not in combat
 

·
Executive Nitpicker
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
So, if i had terminators coming from the front lets say 3" away, they would hit on the front of the vehicle, if i charged 6" to the side?
Yep, the rules clearly state that you attack the armor of the side you were facing when you *started your charge* so yes, you can charge around to the side of the tank and still have to resolve penetration against the front.
 

·
Bleh
Joined
·
3,785 Posts
Yep, the rules clearly state that you attack the armor of the side you were facing when you *started your charge* so yes, you can charge around to the side of the tank and still have to resolve penetration against the front.
Cool, im gonna start deep striking my terminators behind tanks now :grin::grin:
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top