Furious charge combined with counter charge

[Wanderingroue]

Do they stack in normal circumstances?

Ie if i have both on a model and get charged would a lowley penal legion trooper become S and I 4 if it passes its LD test?

i recon not but other people are differing. I dont mind either way as it opens more options for me in a few of my lists, but i just dont see it :S

[jason]

No. I've seen this discussed before. Basically, FC works only if you assault. CC works if you've been assaulted.

[Culven]

There was a long thread on Warseer in which Counter-Attack and Assault-triggered abilities were debated. The arguements hinged upon whether the unit using Counter-Attack was considered to be Assaulting.

I am of the opinion that they are not assaulting, they merely gain a bonus attack, like they would if they were assaulting.

[Nabterayl]

Which, in turn, hinges upon how you interpret "get the +1 attack bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted" in the Counter-Attack rule. Some people (who seem to be in the minority) interpret that as saying, in essence, "The unit is treated exactly as if it is assaulting. For instance, you get the +1 bonus attack for assaulting."

Other people interpret that as saying, in essence, "The unit gets +1 bonus attack."

I am of the opinion that they are assaulting (although I don't play any armies who can get this combination, so this is just a courtesy I'd allow my opponents if it ever came up). It really comes down to how you read the "exactly as if they too had assaulted" clause.

[BuFFo]

Do they stack in normal circumstances?

Ie if i have both on a model and get charged would a lowley penal legion trooper become S and I 4 if it passes its LD test?

i recon not but other people are differing. I dont mind either way as it opens more options for me in a few of my lists, but i just dont see it :S

As with all circular arguments in 40k, it all comes down to opinions. My opinion is NO.

Come online, and educate yourself on the two different sides, then get back to your gaming group, and come to an understanding, and get on with the game.

Gamesworkshop Games are not designed to be iron clad rules based games. Never have, never will. Just come up with a compromise/house rule/whatever with your friends, and move on.

[Jwolf]

No, Counterassault is not Assault.

[redrio]

in the counter attack USR it says "exactly as if they too had assaulted" at the end...

Like the thread starter, I don't care either way, but the exact wording leaves it open to argument, just like it would for Ragnar's extra D3 attacks etc. It would probably not be fair to allow it, but quite in spirit of the background as they would technically be charging at the same time rather than waiting til they get contacted and then rushing in

[MVBrandt]

If for no other reason than it would allow my fluffy straken guard build to be just plain silly, I'd say no :)

The wording seems to imply just the attack bonus, but as some have mentioned, "exactly as if charging" can be read to imply that you are acting exactly as if charging, thus opening up the rules debate.

Honestly, thematically a unit that furiously charges ...and is basically counter charging ... would seemingly be doing so furiously then also, since there's no "gameworld" notion of turn, where the sarge of the squad goes "HEY, GUYS, IT'S NOT OUR TURN, THEY'RE ASSAULTING US, TONE IT DOWN A BIT!"

RAW is murky ish, but seems to lean on the side of "just +1 attack."

[DarkLink]

Frankly, I think that the "as if charging" is what is important, and that "exactly really doesn't have any meaning in this case. It seems superfluous to me. Whether or not the "exactly" is there, the rule grants +1 attack "as if" charging, meaning they aren't actually charging, but still get the attack.

Otherwise, why didn't GW use the more simple wording of "if the unit passes a leadership test, they also count as assaulting that turn". In that case, they would get all the benefits.

[redrio]

good point, Darklink, they could have said "also count as charging"... Like I said before, I have no real bias either way, but purely because I've never came up against it or had a unit with both USRs at once in my own army.

I pose the argument used by a guy in my local GW store.... (purely for discussion's sake)

He says "it specifically tells you blood claws DON'T get +2A for counter attacking, yet a few pages awaythere is an almost identical special rule for ragnar's +D3A on the charge, with no mention of him not getting it in counter attack. As they were written at the same time for the same book, the precedent seems to be that the author would point out any limitations on it, and since ragnar has none, he gets his +D3 when counter attacking and gets furious charge too."

Though he makes good points, I genuinely think it would be too unbalancing to allow it, but people will fight for their unit of doom til the cows come home.

[Tyrsday]

I'm 98.973% certain that it reads more along the lines of "The unit gets +1 attack, as if they had assaulted". All that counter-attack does is give the plus one attack from assaulting, but nothing else. I know this is a bit RAW, and I'm generally RAI myself, but it reads "as if" meaning like/similar to an assault, like meaning not. (Futurama reference). It's an apples and oranges debate in more ways then one. Apples and Oranges are both alike in that they are both fruits (read +1 attack), but Oranges lack some of the vitamins that Apples have (i.e. furious charge, etc.) the same as Apples lack some of ones Oranges have (needing a ld. test to implement).

[Sam]

I'm 98.973% certain that it reads more along the lines of "The unit gets +1 attack, as if they had assaulted". All that counter-attack does is give the plus one attack from assaulting, but nothing else. I know this is a bit RAW, and I'm generally RAI myself, but it reads "as if" meaning like/similar to an assault, like meaning not. (Futurama reference). It's an apples and oranges debate in more ways then one. Apples and Oranges are both alike in that they are both fruits (read +1 attack), but Oranges lack some of the vitamins that Apples have (i.e. furious charge, etc.) the same as Apples lack some of ones Oranges have (needing a ld. test to implement).

That is a very specific percentage you gave there, did you do some calculations on that or just make it up?

[DarkLink]

good point, Darklink, they could have said "also count as charging"... Like I said before, I have no real bias either way, but purely because I've never came up against it or had a unit with both USRs at once in my own army.

I pose the argument used by a guy in my local GW store.... (purely for discussion's sake)

He says "it specifically tells you blood claws DON'T get +2A for counter attacking, yet a few pages awaythere is an almost identical special rule for ragnar's +D3A on the charge, with no mention of him not getting it in counter attack. As they were written at the same time for the same book, the precedent seems to be that the author would point out any limitations on it, and since ragnar has none, he gets his +D3 when counter attacking and gets furious charge too."

Though he makes good points, I genuinely think it would be too unbalancing to allow it, but people will fight for their unit of doom til the cows come home.

I would read his example as additional evidence against Furious Charge stacking. Think of it like this:

We have rule X, which is unclear as to whether it means A or B

We have rule Y, which explicitly states that case A is true with regards to combining rule Y and rule X.

Nowhere is there another rule that states that case B is true when combining said rule and rule X.

As a result, we can probably assume that case A is true all the time, as there is evidence that it was true, while there is no evidence that case B is true.



And that's not counting whether or not the rule would even allow it in the first place.

Now, the example above doesn't really answer the question in terms of RAW, and the RAI isn't even clear, as you can argue RAI either way (who'da thunk that?) I think GW just noticed the possibility and included it in the Blood Claw rules, but forgot about it the rest of the time. It's not like they do a good job of catching all of these rule combos normally.

So, ultimately, I don't think the example given has any real bearing on the rules. There isn't enough concrete evidence to get anything solid out of the example. So we have to go back to arguing over what "exactly as if" means, for which I reiterate that exactly as if means that they get the bonus attack, but still aren't actually charging.