Nightshroud and Stepping Up

[Grish]

Scenario:

Vampire Lord equipped with NightShroud is in a unit of Ghouls is fighting Swordmasters (5x4 say). Most of the sword masters target the ghouls, but the ones that can target the vampire do so. As soon as they do, they lose ASF and their I is now 1. If the vampire targets those sword masters in base contact targetting him, and kills them, do the swordmasters that 'step up' lose the chance to attack since they attack in order of Initiative?

Edit: Diagram is always helpful.

S are swordmasters, G is ghouls, V is vampire lord, 1-6 are swordmasters striking at the vampire Lord.

SSSSS
SSSSS
S456S
S123S
GGVGG
GGGGG
GGGGG
GGGGG

 

[Dan_Lee]

They don't loose their attacks as such, but as they have ASF their time to attack will have already passed, preventing them from making them.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Grish]

So if 1, 2, and 3 were killed, 4, 5, 6 would still be able to attack?

What if the swordmasters that Step Up target the Vampire Lord? Then their I is 1. Perhaps they couldn't target the rank and file, but would still have to target the Lord?

 

[Dan_Lee]

Now that I can see the diagram...

If 123 were killed on the vampires initiative (6 or 7) then 456 still get to fight as they are alive on their initiative of 1.

The issue is what happens to 789? They also step up when 123 die. They would be ASF, but if they choose to also target the vampire then they become initiative 1, so I guess they also get to fight the vampire. If they didn't want to attack the vampire then they remain ASF and so have missed their opportunity to fight.

To look at it another (more abstract) way: you always remove casualties from the back. There are always 6 models in front of the vampire who can strike him (until the unit gets its second rank killed at least) so they always get to attack him.

Again, that's just my interpretation.

 

[Grish]

Or would it be that their ASF means that they can't even target the Vampire Lord, because they no longer have a turn?

Removing casualties from the back has always been a convention. They are not the models that die. If you fight a mixed unit, say of Night Goblins and Squigs, if you kill a squig, you remove a squig, no matter if there's some at the back or not.

 

[Bishop]

That is pretty bizarre indeed.

I say that the stepping up models can not attack.

Because

• 
  a) the attacker may choose which models will attack who (page 48 under dividing attacks)
  b) the attacker may choose which enemy in b2b the supporting attacks hit (page 49 - under supporting attacks)
  c) if a model is killed before it's turn to strike, then it doesn't fight (page 50 - striking order)
  d) models that step up can fight *IF* their initiative step has not passed (page 51 - remove casualties)

So, it is resolved like this:

• 
  1) Swordmaster 1-6 choose to allocate attacks on the Vampire, their In is reduce to I.
  2) The rest of the Swordmaster unit goes ASF
  3) The Vampire attacks and kills 'x' Swordmasters
  4) 6-x Swordmasters may attack the Vampire

 

[Dan_Lee]

I agree that what Bishop is saying is strictly true. My issue is that those models at the back that step up wouldn't have declared who they were attacking at the start of the combat, as at the time they weren't is a position to do so.

So do you either say they can't attack because they never allocated attacks against the vampire (having never had the opportunity), or do you let them declare who they are fighting when they move into position to do so?

I'd personally go with the latter, just to be sporting.

I've a feeling that the rulebook isn't clear enough (though I admit I don't have it with me right now). You can always 4+ it or say the current player gets to pick the order of events (both valid approaches advocated in the rule book).

 

[Count Lasombra]

I agree with Bishop.All attacks must be allocated before any dice are rolled,therefore any model stepping up as a result of casualties will be unable to allocate any attacks since the time to do so has passed.The rules are very clear on this point pg.48 BRB,it is repeated three times for emphisis.

 

[Dan_Lee]

But would you allow someone to say "if these guys get to step up, they would attack the vampire" at the start of the combat?

 

[Grish]

Just seems odd to me; they are faster, therefore they can't attack. No problem if they were super slow...

 

[Count Lasombra]

@Dan-Only models in a position to strike may allocate attacks.
@Grish-Your right about it being weird,but look on the bright side,our item actually helps again! I for one am pleased to see VC on the non-buggered end of a rules technicality.
The item was always intended to hinder the quick.It's like in Dune
"The slow blade penetrates the shield" xD

 

[Dan_Lee]

Ok. I'll admit defeat and accept that the stepping-up models don't get to fight.

 

[Capt Rubber Ducky]

Just seems odd to me; they are faster, therefore they can't attack. No problem if they were super slow...

If there slower then the lord but still faster then the lords unit, the lords unit could have a crack at the I1 guys. If there slower then one of our units, then there so slow Nightshroud will have made little difference.

 

[Coyote]

From another thread:

By the way!

How do you handle stepping up rules?
Our vampires aren't so tough, and their loss is critical.

So here's the matchup:

xxxxx
xxxxx
xxvxx

x is a regular trooper, v is a vampire. In cc, he usually begins with I6-7. But models stepping up kill him in the next round. He is B2B with on model fully, and other 2 by the corners of their base. Thats 3+3 supporting attacks from the 2nd rank. (3rd if they have spear)
He easily gets pwned.

But look at this.

xxxxx
xxxxx
vxxxx

Thats just 2 models in the 1st rank, and 2 in the second. 4 altogether.

Am I wrong or Am I right?

Edit: I found a similar thread : https://www.vampirecounts.net/Thread-Nightshroud-and-Stepping-Up

Edit2: Challenging the champion can be a solution. 1 model attacks the vamp, excess wounds go to CR, vampire don't die. At least on turn 1...

@BoneHeart - You're correct that, in theory, keeping a character to one flank of a formation can be a way to limit the number of RNF attack on said character. However, this is a bit of what I would consider to be 'Ard gamesmanship that might be considered unsporting. Also, such placement is entirely countered by the enemy having a wider formation than your unit and/or by them choosing to not perfectly align with your unit, as shown:
_xxxxx
_xxxxx
_vxxxx
SSSSS
SSSSS
SSSSS

This deliberate misalignment is 'Ard and slightly unsporting, but no more so than using character placement to limit attacks.

As to the question about using a Challenge, you are correct. This is one of the primary use of Challenges and is even more important in 8th Ed. than is previous versions.

As to the relevance of this side discussion to the OP, the use of the Nightshroud is one example of where it would not be as advantageous to declare a Challenge. The Nightshroud's effect shown in previous examples is substantially more advantageous when used against the RNF. Although one should certainly accept the Challenge, if offered, since it virtually guarantees the survival of the character.

 

[Dan_Lee]

I'd have to disagree that placing a character on the edge of a unit is unsporting.

There are far more devious things you could do.

And deploying wizards (e.g. vampires) on the edge of units could also be considered common sense, given the number of miscasts that affect all models in base contact or that centre a blast template over the wizard.

 

[Count Lasombra]

Deploying ones general on the corner of a unit can really make a difference to who is in his LD bubble,especially with units in horde formation.This is also true for the BSB.There are also liabilities to being on a corner,such as flank chargers.I don't see anything unsportsmanlike about keeping heroes on the corner....sometimes they're young and they need the money ;).

 

[Coyote]

I don't see anything unsportsmanlike about keeping heroes on the corner....sometimes they're young and they need the money ;).

LOL. Fair enough. That, by the way, is why I framed the argument in terms of my own opinion, not general fact. But your points are entirely valid and well taken. Thanks.

 

[Vorizah Vukotic]

personally I always keep my hero on the corner, not because of tactics or anything but because i have alot of old metal vamps and they typically don't fit well in the centre of a unit due to their poses/capes/weapons etc.. and it is a fairly common problem and the vast majority of opponents i play have the same difficulty so almost all the heros on the table whether wizards or not are placed on the sides of units so i have never viewed it as unsportsmanlike but i can understand how others could.

In 8th I've always played the night shroud effects like bishop described as it seemed to make the most sense, it is a magic cloak after all that slows down the wearers enemy so they can be killed easier