I'll show you heavy fatherf***ers!
Sorry, keep watching tramadol nights.

Haven't really thought this through yet, but the following occurred to me ...

I have a unit, part of which is in b2b contact with an enemy non ws vehicle in an on-going combat.
I am charged by enemy infantry and that part of the unit that is not in b2b with the vehicle is contacted and the entire unit is now locked and all potentially engaged.

Does the wording of defenders react allow me to remain in contact with the vehicle and not move anybody?

What is a "special close combat attack"?
Does this include grenades???

Would I have to use grenades vs the vehicle because they are "special" even though in so doing, I could not attack the infantry with my full number of "normal" ccw attacks???

You always ask the most interesting questions!

jubilex wrote: Does the wording of defenders react allow me to remain in contact with the vehicle and not move anybody?

I believe it does. The last part of the quote, "...must move any member of these units that is not yet in base contact with a foe towards the enemy."
The only requirement is not being in base contact with a foe. Nothing written there requires it to be a foe in the assaulting unit or to be a foe that you are locked in combat with, so I believe you could keep your models in basee contact with the vehicle if you desired.
Further, since you are never locked in combat with a non ws vehicle, I believe you could move any models that were in base to base with the vehicle into combat with the unit that assauted your unit if you so choose.

jubilex wrote:What is a "special close combat attack"?

Not defined but usually means an attack with a special close combat weapon as defined on page 42.

jubilex wrote:Does this include grenades???

I do not think so, they are not listed on page 42.

jubilex wrote:Would I have to use grenades vs the vehicle because they are "special" even though in so doing, I could not attack the infantry with my full number of "normal" ccw attacks???

No, since you are never required to use grenades against a vehicle in the first place. Though you would normally use then against vehicles due to the greater chance to damage the vehicle, you only get 1 attack with a grenade. You might decide to forgo that for a greater number of regular attacks.
However, you would still have to follow the rules for multiple combats on page 41.
If you had models in base contact with the assaulting unit and the vehicle, they could split their attacks however you wish, but if you had models that were only in base contact with the vehicle, then they would have to attack only the vehicle.
The key is that even though you cannot be locked in combat with the vehicle, any models that were in base contact with it would still be engaged with it as per page 35 and would have to follow the rules for multiple combats.

That's my take on it so far.

jubilex wrote:Does the wording of defenders react allow me to remain in contact with the vehicle and not move anybody?

I hate this one, I hate it if anyone can sit and say I've been inconsistent in my rulings, and I'm V inconsistent with this (not that LH has felt the need to embaress me by highlighting it).
The current FAQ (around p4 right hand side) says

Q: In a multiple combat involving opposing vehicles (except walkers) and non-vehicle units how would a
pile in move work? (p63)
A: Pile in moves must be used to try and make it intobase contact with the non-vehicle units.

jubilex wrote:Would I have to use grenades vs the vehicle because they are "special" even though in so doing, I could not attack the infantry with my full number of "normal" ccw attacks???

If you are allocating attacks against the thing you are in base to base with.Your using the most efficient attack , if you opt to grenade a tank..if you are base to base with infantry you use as many attacks as you can, if you are within radius of blokes in either camp (but not yourself in B2B) you use which ever works for you at the time. (the "no holding back" quotes only relate to not trying to malek ( ) it up by keeping people out of combat..temporarily I can't find the bit about you must use maximum attacks always in CC its not on p37..but anyway grenades are a specific with specific limiters that override general rule on CC.)

timewizard wrote:Nothing written there requires it to be a foe in the assaulting unit or to be a foe that you are locked in combat with, so I believe you could keep your models in basee contact with the vehicle if you desired.

I'm not sure you can choose.
You are forced to move models that are not "yet" in base contact.
You are not forced and, defenders react cannot be used to move models already in base contact, away from say 1 enemy unit and into another.

timewizard wrote:

jubilex wrote:Does this include grenades???

I do not think so, they are not listed on page 42.

P42 accepts that it is not a complete listing.
With grenades, due to the design of the book, they wouldn't be listed there, in any case.

Grenades though, must be viewed in this as close combat weapons.
They don't use strength, but rather hit at a fixed penetration value, for eg.
Furious charge with krak bomb???

timewizard wrote:No, since you are never required to use grenades against a vehicle in the first place.

I had always assumed that to be the case, but am now wondering if you are compelled to use the "special" grenades???
Wouldn't make much sense, but it may be raw.

killmaimburn wrote:

jubilex wrote:Would I have to use grenades vs the vehicle because they are "special" even though in so doing, I could not attack the infantry with my full number of "normal" ccw attacks???

..temporarily I can't find the bit about you must use maximum attacks always in CC its not on p37..but anyway grenades are a specific with specific limiters that override general rule on CC.)

It's in one of the silliest places, p35, who can fight?

Thats the thing, though, if a grenade is a special close combat attack, am I compelled to use it because I can, because I can opt to clout the vehicle, or am I compelled to clout the vehicle because my only "special" attack will only function against the vehicle?

Does, in this case, being forced to fight with my full number of attacks clash with being forced to use a special weapon that restricts how many attacks I make?

To put it another way, if I had a model with 10 attacks, but I am armed with a special weapon that can only make 1 attack, am I not compelled to make just the 1 super dooper attack, regardless of me being better off making 10 normal attacks?

jubilex wrote:

killmaimburn wrote:

jubilex wrote:Would I have to use grenades vs the vehicle because they are "special" even though in so doing, I could not attack the infantry with my full number of "normal" ccw attacks???

..temporarily I can't find the bit about you must use maximum attacks always in CC its not on p37..but anyway grenades are a specific with specific limiters that override general rule on CC.)

It's in one of the silliest places, p35, who can fight?

Thats the thing, though, if a grenade is a special close combat attack, am I compelled to use it because I can, because I can opt to clout the vehicle, or am I compelled to clout the vehicle because my only "special" attack will only function against the vehicle?

Does, in this case, being forced to fight with my full number of attacks clash with being forced to use a special weapon that restricts how many attacks I make?

To put it another way, if I had a model with 10 attacks, but I am armed with a special weapon that can only make 1 attack, am I not compelled to make just the 1 super dooper attack, regardless of me being better off making 10 normal attacks?

Just had another read through of page 42.
It starts innocently enough with the fluff, "...seasoned warriors often bear a deadly array of combat knives and frag grenades..." so grenades are referred to generally on the page of close combat weapons.
Then further down under 'Special Close Combat Weapons' we have, "These include more complex and powerful weapons that enhance the wielder's combat skills and confer bounses..." and since all the grenades confer bonuses against vehicles (defensive and assault 4 + D6, krak 6 +D6 melta 8 +2D6) I would reckon that they would be considered special close cmbat weapons.
As such, if you had a model equipped with them, they would be forced to use them against vehicles in close combat.

Is he causing trouble again?

This will cause the "equipped" side of the Calgar debate some problems, wont it???

He took this to warseer, though under a bit of a disguise.
The debate there went along the lines of no its not a special attack and grenades aren't even close combat weapons.

Have a look at p69, death or glory, 1st para.

ruffian4 wrote:Have a look at p69, death or glory, 1st para.

Quite an interesting can of worms we are opening here!

Would you be referring to, "The attack can be either a shot from a weapon carried by the model, or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."?

If that makes grenades close combat weapons, then your standard marine armed with a pistol, boltgun and krak and frag grenades, has 2 or more close combat weapons and so would get 2 attacks in close combat, 3 on the charge!

"or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."
That says that you can make a single close combat attack, not that a grenade is a close combat weapon.

Has it nearly got to the stage wherein all rules questions can be answered by some obscure "It doesn't matter lets wait for 6th ed" statement that kills all conversation for 13 months. (too soon? )
=D

mattjgilbert wrote:"or a single close combat attack using any weapon carried, including grenades."
That says that you can make a single close combat attack, not that a grenade is a close combat weapon.

So you can make a close combat attack, and to do so you use a close combat weapon, and that would include a grenade, but a grenade is not a close combat weapon?

Actually, I agree with this. Page 63 says grenades have armour penetration valuse against vehicles, but gives no strength value for use againt troops.

I can make a close combat attack without a close combat weapon. I could only have a pistol for example. That is not classed as a close combat weapon. It can be combined with a close combat weapon to give +1 attack but it in itself is not one: a basic marine has no close combat weapon but can still make close combat attacks.

You can make an attack with a weapon in close combat which is not classified as a close combat weapon.

IRL, I could hit you with my shoe. The shoe was the weapon. No one would ever list shoes down in a list of close combat weapons I don't think

mattjgilbert wrote: I could only have a pistol for example. That is not classed as a close combat weapon.

Um, sorry Matt, main rules page 42 under normal close combat weapons, "Remember that, in close combat, pistols count as normal close combat weapons..."

mattjgilbert wrote:It can be combined with a close combat weapon to give +1 attack but it in itself is not one: a basic marine has no close combat weapon but can still make close combat attacks.

A basic marine has a pistol but no other close combat weapon listed in its wargear. If a combat blade was listed then I would argue that he should get a bonus attack.

mattjgilbert wrote:You can make an attack with a weapon in close combat which is not classified as a close combat weapon.[/quote/]Of course like rifle butts, bayonets, etc.

mattjgilbert wrote:IRL, I could hit you with my shoe. The shoe was the weapon. No one would ever list shoes down in a list of close combat weapons I don't think

IRL, a shoe would not be considered a weapon, in my state the law has a very specific list of weapons. It would however be classified a "dangerous instrument" and striking someone with it would still be an aggravating factor in raising the level of the crime in an assault. (Completely off topic, I know! ) But I do get your point!

Then the rules are (again) contradictory. On page 37 we are told that "...models with two single-handed weapons (typically a close combat weapon and/or a pistol in each hand)"

That means a pistol is NOT defined as being a close combat weapon or they would have said something like:

"...models with two single-handed close combat weapons (including pistols) in each hand..."


Actually it's even worse because it's only typical that you have a close combat weapon. The only stipulation is a single-handed weapon

But we get their point

mattjgilbert wrote: The only stipulation is a single-handed weapon

The shoe, of course, is single footed.

Does this help the debate?