Counter Assault and Furious Charge

[Pariah Stevo]

If a unit, having both Counter Assault and Furious Charge, is assaulted and pass there leadership test, do they gain just +1 Attack or do they also get +1 Strength and Initiative? I think they just get +1 Attack but it does say they get it 'as if they where charging'. I was just curious as to how most people interpret it.

[franks1313]

I would say you do not get the bonuses associated with furious charge. The couter attack rule says "get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks".

[crazyredpraetorian]

That's right no furious charge if assaulted. So, you just get the +1 for Counter Charge.

[MUMBLES]

Hm, that's interesting, I always interpreted it the other way around. The +1 attack they mention in there is just to illustrate that its "just as if they charged." Any kind of hard ruling on that?

[Lerra]

I can't find anything about this from GW, but the Adepticon FAQ (page 15) has an answer:

Q: If a unit with "Counter-Attack" passes its Ld test, does it count as charging in all respects or just for the Attack bonus?
A: The unit only counts as having assaulted only for the Attack bonus. So, for example, if the unit also had "Furious Charge" it would not benefite from it when counter-attacking [Clarification]

[Dingareth]

Also, the BRB says that they get the +1 attack as if they had charged, not that they count as charging. It is very clear that it is similar to charging, but no an actual charge- thus no Furious Charge.

If it had read, the unit counts as charging, and thus get +1 attack than there would be cause for debate, but right now it's pretty clear.

[BuFFo]

As the others have said, no Furious Charge from Counter Attack.

[MUMBLES]

Anyone know if something like blood claws would then get +2 Attacks for counter-assaulting?

[Monkey]

According to the Adepticon FAQ, blood claws do get their Berserk Charge when counterattacking. It's on page 67 of the INATFAQ.

[StrikerFox]

Anyone know if something like blood claws would then get +2 Attacks for counter-assaulting?

we rule it as a yes as in their beserk rule it says they get +2 instead of the normal +1 for assault bonus. they nasty lil pups!

[Zombie Savant]

I would have to disagree with the above posters, regardless of what an unofficial FAQ says (I realize that this FAQ is held in high-regard, and this not intended as a slight against it).

Until such a time when an official FAQ addresses this issue, I strongly believe that RAW indicates that they would get the Furious Charge bonus.

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

The key phrase here is "exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

The wording for Furious Charge states that: "In a turn in which they assaulted..." the bonus is applied.

If they are gaining the bonus from counter-attack exactly as if they had charged, and a model with furious charge should get the addition to their stats.

[StrikerFox]

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

The key phrase here is "exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

The wording for Furious Charge states that: "In a turn in which they assaulted..." the bonus is applied.



unfortnately, if you didnt count the first half, then yes i would agree with you, but, it says right in the beginning of that sentence as you posted, "..get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks.."
if it was written like "after passing their ld. test, they count as assaulting (ie. +1 charge bonus).." then yeah.. but its not the case..
the only exception is the blood claws rule, which they get +2 to their assault bonus' instead of the normal +1..

[Zombie Savant]

I see where your logic is rooted Strikefox, but I still have to broker some disagreement.

If you look at the wording for counter-attack as two separate clauses then RAW is a little more bizarre. "...all models in the unit get the +1 bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they had charged that turn."

So the models are getting an extra attack, exactly as if they had charged that turn. In this case, I think that RAW would indicate that they get the furious charge bonus on the bonus attack gained from charging, as odd as that sounds, and would get no bonus on the rest. The problem is is that furious charge doesn't have any attack specific wording. It applies a modifier to the model, not it's attacks, which leads me to believe that it would gain the bonus throughout the assault phase just as a normal Furious Charger would.

My thought is ultimately that if at some point the model is considered to be doing something in the manner of having assaulted, then it must get the furious charge bonus? Perhaps I'm mad, but this is how we've been playing it at my store, and really the only case I can think of is a character like Iron Hand Straken granting both of these skills.

I'm definitely going to have to think about this some more, but I'm still confidant that my method is at least semi-correct.

[Dingareth]

So the models are getting an extra attack, exactly as if they had charged that turn. In this case, I think that RAW would indicate that they get the furious charge bonus on the bonus attack gained from charging, as odd as that sounds, and would get no bonus on the rest. The problem is is that furious charge doesn't have any attack specific wording. It applies a modifier to the model, not it's attacks, which leads me to believe that it would gain the bonus throughout the assault phase just as a normal Furious Charger would.

My thought is ultimately that if at some point the model is considered to be doing something in the manner of having assaulted, then it must get the furious charge bonus? Perhaps I'm mad, but this is how we've been playing it at my store, and really the only case I can think of is a character like Iron Hand Straken granting both of these skills.

What? No, that's not the case at all. Look at Furious Charge:


In a turn in which they assaulted into combat...

And Berserk Charge


They receive a bonus of +2 attacks when they charge...

Now then, if you get charged, and pass your leadership, have you assaulted the enemy or have they assaulted you? Well, if they assaulted you than you certaintly didn't assault into combat did you? You probably didn't since we're talking about Counter Attack, and while that may function "as if" you had charged (as if being key here), you did not charge. Therefore, no Furious Charge and no Berserk Charge, because in order to do either of those things, you must charge. Counter Attack is similar to a charge, but it is not a charge.

[Zombie Savant]

This is getting into pretty ambiguous terrain, I think. The rules have multiple instances of "counting as" or "as ifs" applying as if they are the same.

For instance, a good example would be a Daemonhammer from C: DH. It counts as a thunder hammer "in all respects" and then is granted it's additional rules. In all respects, a Daemonhammer counts as a thunder hammer, barring some additional modifiers.

Walkers move "in exactly the same way" as infantry, for another example. In the eyes of the rules, any way a space marine could move a dreadnought could move too.

This is very reminiscent of the "A ram is a special type of tank shock" fiasco with deffrollas.

I would say that something acting "exactly as if" would count here though. I'll even make a concession, trying to be as much RAW as possible: a model that is successfully counter-attacking is gaining a +1 attack bonus, exactly as if it had assaulted that turn.

Let's say that the way this is written best states that that only that +1 bonus attack is gained exactly as if it had assaulted that turn. In this case, the effects of Furious Charge are considered because they apply "in a turn in which they assaulted into combat..." which models who are counter-attacking count "exactly as if" they are doing, at the very least for their bonus attacks.

I realize this is very convoluted, and I'm not trying to be stubborn, but I've been really plying the rules of RAW lately, and this seems the best way to operate. Keep the arguments coming, because I want to settle this for future encounters. :D

[Dingareth]

I would say that something acting "exactly as if" would count here though. I'll even make a concession, trying to be as much RAW as possible: a model that is successfully counter-attacking is gaining a +1 attack bonus, exactly as if it had assaulted that turn.

Let's say that the way this is written best states that that only that +1 bonus attack is gained exactly as if it had assaulted that turn. In this case, the effects of Furious Charge are considered because they apply "in a turn in which they assaulted into combat..." which models who are counter-attacking count "exactly as if" they are doing, at the very least for their bonus attacks.

You're taking the quote out of context though. The whole sentence says:


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 this turn.

First it states a condition: is the test passed?
Secondly, it states what happens when that test is passed: all models gain the +1 attack assault bonus.
Then, lastly, it explains a familiar rules which this one is likened to: like they had charged.

It explains the source of the +1 attack clearly but goes no further in suggesting that you treat the unit as charging.

[Zombie Savant]

I think I'm ready to concede, as it seems that the vast majority are pretty well decided, and that alone is grounds for accepting a ruling. I can see your logic, and though part of me still wishes to disagree, I will admit defeat.

Thanks very much for the clarification, and I'll be sure to bring this up the next time at the shop!

[StrikerFox]

First it states a condition: is the test passed?
Secondly, it states what happens when that test is passed: all models gain the +1 attack assault bonus.
Then, lastly, it explains a familiar rules which this one is likened to: like they had charged.

It explains the source of the +1 attack clearly but goes no further in suggesting that you treat the unit as charging.

now heres the thing, if you read the whole rule for the blood claws, their beserk charge supercedes (for now atleast) that of the normal rule for assaulting. "they recieve a bonus of +2 attacks when they charge, rather than only +1 attack as is normally the case" so that whole sentence states that instead of the "normal" +1 attack for charging, they get +2, which, in the counter-attack rules says:

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 this turn.
"exactly as if they too had assaulted this turn"
my only reasoning for this, is that its modifying the normal +1 bonus for charging.

now you can get into even more nitty gritty with the wolf pelts where it says, "recieves a +1 attack bonus when they counter-attack".

[vutall]

I'd say the best way to settle this debate is to have one of the BOLS members call GW and ask them, then post the results. Can't really argue with that now can ya?

[RealGenius]

I'd say the best way to settle this debate is to have one of the BOLS members call GW and ask them, then post the results. Can't really argue with that now can ya?
The problem is that three of us would call and we'd get three different answers in reply.

[Zombie Savant]

Yeah, if any sort of official answer could be gleaned it would be gleaned in three different ways from three different people. I mean, if we could ask 5th Edition guy, I'm sure he could explain it, but until that day it looks like we're stuck with consensus.

This issue is, by my reckoning, as ambiguous as the defrolla problem for sure.

[Jwolf]

Counter Attack doesn't activate Furious Charge, it just gives the +1 attack. The rule is only ambiguous to some because we've come so far in the degradation of the English language and, paticularly, actual understanding of sentence structure.

"exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn" explains how the unit gets the +1 assault bonus to their attacks. It does not stand alone, and has no meaning except explaining the +1 assault bonus to their attacks.

That one might actually need an FAQ to address this issue is an indictment of our collective lack of rigor in gathering meaning from complex sentences, and nothing more.

[Lerra]

FAQs are useful even when a rule is fairly clear but it could be misinterpreted (or argued). It's obnoxious to have to argue a point like this in a middle of a tournament with timed rounds. I've seen d-bags argue an issue like this over and over just to run the clock.

Every tournament in my area uses the Adepticon FAQ (it was even used for round 1 'ard Boyz), so around here, it's basically an official source. Do other regions not use the Adepticon FAQ as often?

[BuFFo]

Do other regions not use the Adepticon FAQ as often?

I think my local game store is going to adopt the BoLsCon FAQ. I am trying to push my friend who works there to adopt it. He'll listen to me. Even if I have to hit him with a sack o' nobs.

It makes the most sense out of any 'big' tourney FAQ I have ever seen.

[Dingareth]

Counter Attack doesn't activate Furious Charge, it just gives the +1 attack. The rule is only ambiguous to some because we've come so far in the degradation of the English language and, paticularly, actual understanding of sentence structure.

Thanks Jwolf, that is what I was trying, laboriously, to explain.

[StrikerFox]

Counter Attack doesn't activate Furious Charge, it just gives the +1 attack. The rule is only ambiguous to some because we've come so far in the degradation of the English language and, paticularly, actual understanding of sentence structure.

"exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn" explains how the unit gets the +1 assault bonus to their attacks. It does not stand alone, and has no meaning except explaining the +1 assault bonus to their attacks.

That one might actually need an FAQ to address this issue is an indictment of our collective lack of rigor in gathering meaning from complex sentences, and nothing more.

im in agreement with you there jwolf.. but what about blood claws beserk charge? thats something i really would like to know (for now until it gets removed)

[Starion]

BC's do get the +2, as the attack bonus 'over-rides' the normal +1 attack bonus.
Further, any model with a Wolf Pelt will automatically get an extra +1, on top of any Counter Assault bonus. That's actually quite clear cut (C:SW, p15 "...a model with a Wolf Pelt receives a +1 attack bonus when they counter-attack" )

So, to take Ragnar Blackmane as an example:
Basic profile gives him 4 attacks. Armed with bp/fb, that's 5 attacks normally.
On a charge: 7 attacks.
On being charged: 6 attacks, with a further 2 (8 total) if he passes Ld.
And TWO of those are subject to a reroll, as BOTH weapons are MC'd.

[Dingareth]

BC's do get the +2, as the attack bonus 'over-rides' the normal +1 attack bonus.

False. C:SW says that they gain an extra +2 attacks when they charge. Counter Attack is not a charge, it is simply similar. If it made an exception for Counter Attack as well as charging then you would be right.

However, you are correct about Wolf Pelts.

[nojinx]

I would have to disagree with the above posters, regardless of what an unofficial FAQ says (I realize that this FAQ is held in high-regard, and this not intended as a slight against it).

Until such a time when an official FAQ addresses this issue, I strongly believe that RAW indicates that they would get the Furious Charge bonus.

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

The key phrase here is "exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn."

The wording for Furious Charge states that: "In a turn in which they assaulted..." the bonus is applied.

If they are gaining the bonus from counter-attack exactly as if they had charged, and a model with furious charge should get the addition to their stats.

The language is clear, using the standard form of simile to describe the comparison but keep it separate and not equate the two. This is gramatically clear by the use of the idiomatic phrase "as if", ("as" being an adverb modifying the verb "get") denoting the similarity. This presents the attached clause as an example of the dynamic in conjunction with the primary clause. This is not to be mistaken as stating they are the same.

Obviously, there are many ways to write the statement should the designers have intended counter-assault to be the same as a charging assault.

EDIT: Jwolf put it well. Many of the rules ambiguities derive from errors in use of the language and not anything inherent to the text.