Counter attack rule question

[Ninthplain]

Hello,

When reading the rule in the universal special rules section on counter attack I cannot see any differance with piling in to a normal combat. The says"treat the counter attack move as a pile in", but makes no mention of this counts as a charge. This bring up a couple of questions:

1. How is it differant than just moving everyone to get into combat?
2. Do the counterattacking infantry get an extra attack and if so how many get it?

I asked this question before and have gotten alot of differant answers on other forums and decided to try here. I am a SW player and this will be important very soon.

Thank you in advance.
Ninthplain

[Culven]

The actual move is no different than the normal Defenders React move. The only bonus is that the unit using Counterattack gains bonus attacks "as thought they had charged", but they aren't otherwise considered to have charged.

[DarkLink]

From the BRB: "...when a unit with this rule is assaulted by the enemy it must take a leadership test. If the test is successful all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

So when you get charged, you get +1 attack for that round of combat if you can pass a leadership test. On a side note, you cannot use this rule if you are already locked in combat.

[Rapture]

I am a little hazy on grenade rules, but do defensive grenades stop the extra attack?

[Culven]

I think that issue is still debatable. The Defensive grenade rules state that the "assaulting unit" doesn't gain the bonus attacks. While the unit using Counterattack isn't the assaulting unit, it gains the bonus attacks "as if they too had assaulted that turn".

I think I would lean toward Defensive Grenades not affecting the Counter-Attack unit since it isn't the assaulting unit, it just gains a bonus as if it had done so, without the rules stating that it counts as assaulting/charging. This would also be consistant with the logic of why they wouldn't gain bonuses from Furious charge as well.

[DarkLink]

A counter attacking unit is not assaulting, it only gains the bonuses as if it were. So defensive grenades don't block those attacks.

[Vince]

Defensive Grenades page 36

"Models assaulting against units equipped with defensive grenades gain no assault attack bonus. "

Counter Attack pg 74

"If the test is successful all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

As defensive grenades take away your assault attack bonus no you do not get them if you counter attack as you treat the bonus attack exactly as if you had assaulted that turn.

[sorienor]

But counter-attack does not give you any other charge bonus (such as furious charge) but just the +1A. So, I'm not so sure defensive grenades stop that extra attack.

[DarkLink]

Defensive grenade rules state this: "Models assaulting against units equipped with defensive grenades gain no assault bonus attacks." So defensive grenades don't actually block furious charge, just the bonus attack (or attacks in the case of Blood Claws).

However, counter assaulting units are not assaulting. The defensive grenade rules state "Models assaulting...". Therefore defensive grenades do not block the counter assault rule.

[Vince]

Ill underline the relevent part

If the test is successful all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

Since you treat the bonus attack exactly as if they had assaulted they lose it from defensive grenades. While I can see your confusion if you treat the models as if they where assaulting as the rule states then you dont get the +1 assault bonus attack for counter attack as models assaulting models with defensive grenades do not get this bonus.

[Culven]

You didn't address the wording in the Defensive Grenade rules which states "models assaulting against units equipped with defensive grenades . . .". The models using Counter-attack aren't assaulting, they are only gaining a bonus as though they had. The same logic (i.e. that the Counter-attack models aren't actually considered to be assaulting) also prevents the models from benefiting from Furious Charge.

This leaves us with two options.
1) The models using Counter-attack are assaulting, and are affected by the advantages (Charge bonus and Furious Charge) and disadvantages (Defensive Grenades negate charge bonus) associated with Assaulting.
OR
2) The models using Counter-Attack are not assaulting, and only gain the charge bonus as though they were assaulting.

They cannot be considered assaulting for Defensive Grenades, but at the same time be considered not assaulting so that they do not gain the advantages of Furious Charge.

[Nabterayl]

The same logic (i.e. that the Counter-attack models aren't actually considered to be assaulting) also prevents the models from benefiting from Furious Charge.
Where exactly are you getting this notion that Furious Charge doesn't synergize with Counter-Attack? I haven't combed through the rules but I don't see it under either USR, or the rulebook FAQ.

[Culven]

Where exactly are you getting this notion that Furious Charge doesn't synergize with Counter-Attack? I haven't combed through the rules but I don't see it under either USR, or the rulebook FAQ.
It relies upon the logic that the "as though they had assaulted" part of the Counter-attack rule is just a fluffy explaination of why they gain the attack, but it doesn't state that they are actually to be considered assaulting. They simply gain the extra attack "as though they were assaulting". It is open to interpretation, but without a clear "the conter-attacking models are considered to have asaulted", the implication is that they are not considered to have done so for anything that triggers on their having done so (such as Furious Charge and Defensive Grenades). Due to the lack of clarify, the conservative approach would be that they do not benefit from Furious Charge.

[Nabterayl]

Due to the lack of clarify, the conservative approach would be that they do not benefit from Furious Charge.
So in other words, you don't think it's cut and dried that Counter-Attack and Furious Charge do not synergize ... all you're saying is that either
Furious Charge applies to Counter-Attack, and defensive grenades apply to Counter-Attack, or
Furious Charge does not apply to Counter-Attack, and defensive grenades do not apply to Counter-Attack.
I'd agree with that much. It's one or the other; Counter-Attack has to treat defensive grenades and Furious Charge the same.

They simply gain the extra attack "as though they were assaulting". It is open to interpretation, but without a clear "the conter-attacking models are considered to have asaulted", the implication is that they are not considered to have done so for anything that triggers on their having done so (such as Furious Charge and Defensive Grenades).
As an argument for why 2 should be the rule instead of 1, I don't find this very persuasive. The actual text of the USR, as you know, is "exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn." "Exactly as if" and "are considered to have" are not semantically different to me.

[DarkLink]

Models with counter attack and furious charge do not benifit from furious charge when counterattacking. Defensive grenades do not apply to counter attack.

"... as if they were assaulting" does not mean they are assaulting. It means they get +1 attack that you could normally only get if you were assaulting. The counter attack rule grants them the +1 attack, despite the fact that they are not assaulting. Because they are not assaulting defensive grenades do not apply, and because counter attack does not state that they gain all assault bonuses (only the +1 attack) they do not get furious charge while counter attacking.

[Culven]

As an argument for why 2 should be the rule instead of 1, I don't find this very persuasive. The actual text of the USR, as you know, is "exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn." "Exactly as if" and "are considered to have" are not semantically different to me.
This is what tends to lead to disagreement on the point. the way that I read it, the "exactly as if they were assaulting" can be read as more of an aside where the writer tries to justify why the unit is gaining the additional attack. Others see that, as you do, and infer that it is granting the "assaulting" status to the unit. i can see both sides, but I am unconvinced that the "Assaulting status" claim is solidly supported by the rule; thus, I follow the more restrictive interpretation.

[Vince]

You dont state the full line. It is "EXACTLY" as if they had assaulted.

[BuFFo]

You dont state the full line. It is "EXACTLY" as if they had assaulted.

Yeah, so you gain the +1 bonus as if you assaulted.

But you still are not Assaulting. You didn't declare an assault as per the assaulting rule. You are declaring a counter attack.

Counter attack =/= declaring an assault.

See the difference perhaps?

[Culven]

You dont state the full line. It is "EXACTLY" as if they had assaulted.
But the rule states that they gain the bonus attack exactly as if they had assaulted. Nothing states that the unit is treated exactly as if it had assaulted. Since the "exactly as if they had assaulted" is directly related to the bonus attack and nothing more, it seems to be a stretch to claim that they should gain any additional assauling or charging based bonuses.

[Vince]

I am responding to Buffo

See in my mind I read treat them exactly as they had assaulted and I assume that means to literally treat them exactly as if they had assaulted. You are saying that instead you treat them exactly as if they had assaulted except you dont treat them as if they had assaulted for defensive grenades. See the hole?

Do people that counterattack get furious assault is a entirely different rule and for that you would have to compare the rules on furious charge, counterattack, and assault and I have no opinion on that at this time.

[jcroxford]

Something to think about.....

If you weren't supposed to benefit from the ramifications of "as if assaulting" why wouldn't the rule just state, "counter attacting units gain +1 attack", pure and simple. If they are going to lay it out as assaulting, it seems as if you would get the good n the bad that go along with it. It just seems to make sense.

[weeble1000]

I like to think that a unit with counter attack is essentially assaulting into an assaulting unit. I realize that the rule is somewhat ambiguous on this point. Given the ambiguity, I would be inclined to take an entirely conservative approach, i.e. models using counter attack get +1 attack, no other assault bonuses, and lose the attack when faced with defensive grenades. That way nobody can complain that you're abusing a rule.

However, I think the rule is intended to represent a unit literally assaulting a unit that has assaulted them. Fluff-wise, it makes sense to me. Instead of bracing for the inevitable crunch of close combat, the unit, spurred on by discipline, bloodlust, an inspiring leader, etc. (leadership test) rushes at the oncoming foe meeting the enemy's momentum with an equal or greater measure of their own.

Because of this, I usually treat the unit as if it is assaulting and therefore apply furious charge, righteous fury, etc.

Now, should defensive grenades apply? Probably not. A strict rule interpretation would suggest that if the unit with counter attack is assaulting, all assaulting rules should apply and the enemy unit should get defensive grenades. In spite of this, it also makes fluff sense to me that an assaulting unit, regardless of equipment, has committed itself to an assault and is in no mind to be using defensive grenades when their target leaps out of trenches and rushes at them.

But there are also many cases in which defensive grenades represent a range of abilities that have little to do with grenades. Considering this, it’s both easier and much fairer to assume that defensive grenades count when a unit is using counter attack and you are arguing that they get assault bonuses in addition to the +1 attack.

In friendly games, I like to assume that counter attack means the unit gets all assault bonuses and is considered to have assaulted the enemy unit.

In a tournament, I'd go with an irrationally conservative approach unless my opponent and I agreed otherwise.

[Culven]

See in my mind I read treat them exactly as they had assaulted and I assume that means to literally treat them exactly as if they had assaulted. You are saying that instead you treat them exactly as if they had assaulted except you dont treat them as if they had assaulted for defensive grenades. See the hole?
The way that the rule is written, I think it is more accurate to treat the Counter-Attack unit as though it isn't assaulting, except for the charge bonus which is specifically mentioned. While I can see the logic in just treating the unit as though it were assaulting, I think that the rules are not clear enough and do not explicitly state as such. If the writers had written, "The Counter-Attack unit is treated as assaulting", then there would be no question. However, the writer only mentions the bonus attack that a unit would gain from assaulting.

[Churlton]

I may have lost the flow of this thread, but............

Defenders with the counter attack rule get +1 to their attack profile (when assaulted, test etc.)

Defensive grenades take effect when that unit is assaulted; so a unit that is assualting cannot use defensive grenades (only assault grenades ..frag etc) in an attacking role.

So is it not a moot point that the attacking unit has them .. as they cannot use them (defensive grenades) in that phase!

Why worry about the precedent in this case; the defenders do get their chance (and bonus) at counterattack.

[Culven]

Defensive grenades take effect when that unit is assaulted; so a unit that is assualting cannot use defensive grenades (only assault grenades ..frag etc) in an attacking role.
So is it not a moot point that the attacking unit has them .. as they cannot use them (defensive grenades) in that phase!
Why do you believe this? There is nothing in the rules that states a unit may only use Assault Grenades or Defensive Grenades when assaulting or defending, respectively. Defensive grenades affect a unit that is assaulting, so it is important to assertain whether a unit using Counter-Attack should be considered as assaulting.

[Churlton]

Why do you believe this? There is nothing in the rules that states a unit may only use Assault Grenades or Defensive Grenades when assaulting or defending, respectively. Defensive grenades affect a unit that is assaulting, so it is important to assertain whether a unit using Counter-Attack should be considered as assaulting.

Edit: Sorry Culven, p36 does not state that defensive grenades affect the unit that it is assaulting; it is (first para) ..grenades used in assault. Then a description of effects and actions (generalised) of assault and defensive grenades. You are right to determine (assertain) if the counter-attacker is assaulting ... therefore I have tried to present a case for your consideration.
But the counterattack unit are not assaulting; they gain a bonus as if they had assaulted.
The initiation of an action in the first instance can be construed as the definer for the role of parties. "Party 1 initiated and assault on Party 2; Party 2 has reacted to the assault in a defensive action."

If whilst engaged in a subsequent round (locked) the unit with defensive gear are compounded with a further unit assaulting, then they may utilise their defensive bonus (grenades) and negate the assaualt bonus.
edit: I'm wrong: p36 "however, if the defefing unit ....." The don't get this option.
In this instance we can consider the counterattack skill as a defensive bonus, and therefore .. action. Instead of negatingthe opponents action, it counteracts it with a bonus of its own.

:) Still, I understand your statement ... where is it carved in stone? .... it probably (or most likely) is not nailed down in this instance. I will look.
Edit: p74: first paragragh; it is still a defensive action. One can also point out that in law a perportionate (sp?) pre-emptive strike when "honestly" (to be confered to the satisfaction of the court) perceived to be significantly threatened or previous evidence of likely escalation to threaten with physical action against yourself ot someone else. It is still a state of self-defence.

Please accept my interpretation and how I react to this event. I would allow their counterattack without question.

The game is still a hell of a lot of RAI. Far too variable for perfect RAW.But still it fun:confused:

[StrikerFox]

@buffo
lol, i remember this arguement.. and i agree with you here for this..

@vince
i really think that what that last sentence in the rules for counter-attack, was an example. if you wanna go RAW, then i would still say that its "exactly as if". BUT, my main question would be, ARE you assaulting? i see no possible way a counter-attack bonus would get stopped by defensive grenades.

as for where this thread is heading, i really think that counter-attack itself is in reaction to being assaulted.. just like how "defenders react" in assault. all it is, is just adding on the ld test, and if passed, you get an extra attack.. thats it. i know they put the "exactly as if" but really, if an assaulting unit is ASSAULTING... do you think they would have time to take OUT their defensive grenades and use them at the same time?..

otherwise i would say bloodclaws get their +2 bonus, and everyone else gets their furious charge.. and and... BUTTONS!... but they dont.