Assaulting into an assault

[Kronk]

As a Black Templar player, my first love and mission in a game is to get into assault. Early and often. Just like voting.

 

Anyway, I came across this nugget in the FAQ (up in the news/announcement area) and have some questions. I figured this was a better place to ask the question.

 

Errata

Page 41 – Multiple Combats, Attacking.

A third bullet point should be added, as follows:

• Models that at the beginning of the combat

(before any model attacked) were engaged with

more than one enemy unit, but were in base

contact with just one of the enemy units, must

attack that unit.

 

1. From what I read of this, if Unit A (SM) is locked in combat with Unit B (Ork) and C (Ork) from a previous round, then the units in base-to-base with B can only fight B, base to base with C can only fight C, touching both can fight either, and touching neither can join a model within 2" touching either.

 

 

2. Furthermore, if Unit A (SM) is in contact with Unit B (Ork) from a previous assault and Unit C (Ork) joins the assault, then the members of Unit A that were in base to base contact with Unit B must fight Unit B and ignore Unit C. Even if they are also base-to-base with Unit C. Because, as stated, at the begining of the combat before any model attacked, you are determining who is touching whom. However, any model from Unit A not touching Unit C could choose whom to fight, after applying standard rules and requirements (in contact with Unit C, within 2" of a unit in contact with Unit C, and so forth).

 

Am I reading this correctly? Is both 1 and 2 the case?

[Sparhawk]

Not 100% sure about 2 but 1 seems to be on the up and up.

[Ashe Darke]

Number 1 is correct as far as I'm concerned but I've heard various things regarding number 2.

 

 

First thing I was told when 5th Ed came out was that unit A would only be able to attack unit B until the next turn of combat where point 1 would come into play. This is what we play at my local gaming store although I think they may have missed the FAQ.

 

The other thing I have read is that unit A would just follow point 1 even if they were charged by unit C while locked in with unit B.

 

Others have told me that if unit B had a higher initiative than unit A and C and managed to kill a handful of models from unit A, then removing models that were base-to-base contact with unit C would not deny them of the chance of attacking unit A. Very odd people.

 

The final one is what you put just now which seems to follow what the rules say. What I want to know is when they say at the beginning of the combat do they mean the combat for the assault phase or the very start of combat when unit A and B first became locked in.

[Legatus]

2 is incorrect.

 

The "Assault Phase" is divided into three parts: Moving assaulting units, reacting with defenders and resolving the combats.

 

The rule is refering to part three, the combat. At that point all assault moves and reactions are done, and you look at the situation as the models from all involved units are now standing.

 

The purpose of that rule is that it is determined at the beginning of a combat which model can attack which enemy. Over the course of that combat, with the different models with different initiative values making their attacks, the situation will change as more and more models are removed. However, that does not alter what enemy models a model can attack, as that is determined at the beginning of the combat.

 

Example: 5 Marines (including one sergeant with powerfist) fight against 5 Eldar Guardians and 5 Striking Scorpions. The sergeant is in contact with one of the Guardians, but only within 2" of another Marine in contact with a Scorpion. Because of the BtB contact the sergeant has to attack the Guardians, but it is not his turn to attack yet. First the other Marines attack at Initiative 4. They manage to kill a few Guardians, and the Guardian in contact with the Sergeant is removed.

Now it is the Sergeants time to attack, but now he has no base contact, and is within 2" of Marines in BtB with Scorpions and Guardians. Normally, a model that is within 2" of two units (or within contact with two units) can chose which unit to attack. But because it is determined at the beginning of the combat which models can attack which enemy models, and because the sergeant had been in contact with the Guardians (but not the Scorpions) at that time, he now still has to attack the Guardians.

[Seahawk]

Time to bust out the picture again!

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/veritas117/mod/engaged.png

 

Model X is in BTB with a red dude and a blue dude. Somehow, all the blue dudes die before he attacks. Since he was in BTB with blue at the start of the combat, he cannot now switch over to attack the reds when his initiative comes up, even though he's within 2" of a friendly that is in BTB with them. That is the all it means, it's really quite simple with a visual aid.

[Frosty the Pyro]

"The Begining Of Combat" occours after all assault moves have been made. It essentialy says you determine who can hit who at initive 11, and it remains that way untill the next assault phase.

[Koremu]

The word "engaged" can has a specific meaning in the rules. A model is engaged in combat if in B2B *or* within 2" of a model that is in B2B.

 

What the erratta means is that if a model is engaged with both unit B and unit C, but only in base-to-base with unit B, it can only attack unit B. If it were engaged with both but not in B2B with either, it could choose which to assault.

 

EDIT: And if the model were in B2B with BOTH, then they could choose either because the errata you quote only applies to situations where you are engaged with two units but only in B2B with one.

 

The rule is designed to make it possible for Horde armies to target flood small units and tie up critical models with cheap units.

[ShinyRhino]

Around here, folks are using that bullet point to enforce the idea that if Unit A is engaged with Unit B, and Unit C charges into the existing combat aganst Unit A, Unit A may not attack Unit C at all, and must direct all its attacks at Unit B. It drives me nutty, and I've given up arguing it.

[Gaz1858]

Ive came up against the same ruling in my local gaming club. Cant argue with the guys as they are all top tourney players but i didnt think it was right!

[Koremu]

Around here, folks are using that bullet point to enforce the idea that if Unit A is engaged with Unit B, and Unit C charges into the existing combat aganst Unit A, Unit A may not attack Unit C at all, and must direct all its attacks at Unit B. It drives me nutty, and I've given up arguing it.

Well they are wrong. It doesn't enforce combat selection when there are two equally valid (base-to-base) targets, it merely prevents you from ignoring the Combat lock that's tarpitting your Power Fist.

[Ntin]

I played in a tournament last weekend and two players told me it worked as case 2 in the original post.

[ShinyRhino]

Yeah, I dunno where these dudes get this from. I know the INAT FAQ isn't "official", but it's often used as a source:

 

RB.41C.01 – Q: The rules on page 41 seem to indicate that a unit fighting in an existing close combat that is charged by another enemy unit cannot direct their attacks at this new threat. Is this correct?

A: No. The “beginning of the combat” is after all assault moves are completed, therefore a model in base contact with multiple enemy units can always choose to attack an enemy unit that has just charged it [RAW].

[Reglor]

One way of looking at is that if you define "at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked)" as before assault moves are made, no one could attack on the turn they charged because the wern't base to base at the beginning of combat. If you define it as after assault moves are made, both sides can swing at each other. It works both ways.

[Seahawk]

Around here, folks are using that bullet point to enforce the idea that if Unit A is engaged with Unit B, and Unit C charges into the existing combat aganst Unit A, Unit A may not attack Unit C at all, and must direct all its attacks at Unit B.

They are fail. Read my post with the picture of circles to be able to bring them a concise and correct argument in the favor of the actual rules.

[Freakiq]

Time to bust out the picture again!

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/veritas117/mod/engaged.png

 

Model X is in BTB with a red dude and a blue dude. Somehow, all the blue dudes die before he attacks. Since he was in BTB with blue at the start of the combat, he cannot now switch over to attack the reds when his initiative comes up, even though he's within 2" of a friendly that is in BTB with them. That is the all it means, it's really quite simple with a visual aid.

 

I interpret it differently.

 

Let's say the Blue in base contact with X dies, now X is still forced to attack the remaining blue he can reach.

 

If both blue die however there is nothing preventing him from attacking Red seeing as his original target doesn't exist.

 

Suggesting he doesn't get to attack seems to me to be reading too far into it.

[JamesI]

Time to bust out the picture again!

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/veritas117/mod/engaged.png

 

Model X is in BTB with a red dude and a blue dude. Somehow, all the blue dudes die before he attacks. Since he was in BTB with blue at the start of the combat, he cannot now switch over to attack the reds when his initiative comes up, even though he's within 2" of a friendly that is in BTB with them. That is the all it means, it's really quite simple with a visual aid.

 

I interpret it differently.

 

Let's say the Blue in base contact with X dies, now X is still forced to attack the remaining blue he can reach.

 

If both blue die however there is nothing preventing him from attacking Red seeing as his original target doesn't exist.

 

Suggesting he doesn't get to attack seems to me to be reading too far into it.

Unfortunetly, it is exactly what it means.

[Freakiq]

Time to bust out the picture again!

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/veritas117/mod/engaged.png

 

Model X is in BTB with a red dude and a blue dude. Somehow, all the blue dudes die before he attacks. Since he was in BTB with blue at the start of the combat, he cannot now switch over to attack the reds when his initiative comes up, even though he's within 2" of a friendly that is in BTB with them. That is the all it means, it's really quite simple with a visual aid.

 

I interpret it differently.

 

Let's say the Blue in base contact with X dies, now X is still forced to attack the remaining blue he can reach.

 

If both blue die however there is nothing preventing him from attacking Red seeing as his original target doesn't exist.

 

Suggesting he doesn't get to attack seems to me to be reading too far into it.

Unfortunetly, it is exactly what it means.

 

And you back up that with?

 

The rules tell you to attack a target that isn't there hence the rule can't be followed and is ignored.

 

Also it isn't unfortunate, this could be useful if it is as you say.

[Frosty the Pyro]

As per the assault section of the BRB the order is

Declare assaults

Move Assaulting Units

Defenders React

Fighting a Close Combat

Determine Assault Results

Check Moral

Sweeping Advance

Pile in

Consolidation

 

 

Now looking at this sequence, when do you think "the begining of combat" occours. HINT: it's after defenders react.

 

 

 

And you back up that with?

 

The rules tell you to attack a target that isn't there hence the rule can't be followed and is ignored.

 

Also it isn't unfortunate, this could be useful if it is as you say.

 

because the green with the x on it is not engaged with red, only with blue, if blue dies he does not magicly become engaged with red. Only models that are engaged may attack.

[JamesI]

Time to bust out the picture again!

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/veritas117/mod/engaged.png

 

Model X is in BTB with a red dude and a blue dude. Somehow, all the blue dudes die before he attacks. Since he was in BTB with blue at the start of the combat, he cannot now switch over to attack the reds when his initiative comes up, even though he's within 2" of a friendly that is in BTB with them. That is the all it means, it's really quite simple with a visual aid.

 

I interpret it differently.

 

Let's say the Blue in base contact with X dies, now X is still forced to attack the remaining blue he can reach.

 

If both blue die however there is nothing preventing him from attacking Red seeing as his original target doesn't exist.

 

Suggesting he doesn't get to attack seems to me to be reading too far into it.

Unfortunetly, it is exactly what it means.

 

And you back up that with?

 

The rules tell you to attack a target that isn't there hence the rule can't be followed and is ignored.

 

Also it isn't unfortunate, this could be useful if it is as you say.

I back it up with this, 40k main rule book FAQ, first entry under Errata.

Page 41 – Multiple Combats, Attacking.

A third bullet point should be added, as follows:

• Models that at the beginning of the combat

(before any model attacked) were engaged with

more than one enemy unit, but were in base

contact with just one of the enemy units, must

attack that unit.

If the unit they must attack is no longer there, they don't get to attack.

[Freakiq]

If the unit they must attack is no longer there, they don't get to attack.

 

Where can I find that rule?

 

 

because the green with the x on it is not engaged with red, only with blue, if blue dies he does not magicly become engaged with red. Only models that are engaged may attack.

 

The errata even states that you are engaged with both units, it then goes on to state that you may only attack one of them.

 

Seeing as that unit doesn't exist you are still engaged with the other.

 

See emphasis:

 

Errata

Page 41 – Multiple Combats, Attacking.

A third bullet point should be added, as follows:

• Models that at the beginning of the combat

(before any model attacked) were engaged with

more than one enemy unit, but were in base

contact with just one of the enemy units, must

attack that unit.

[JamesI]

If the unit they must attack is no longer there, they don't get to attack.

 

Where can I find that rule?

Show me how someone can attack when the target they must attack is already dead? If they could then turn to fight someone else, the FAQ would say "but were in base

contact with just one of the enemy units, must attack that unit if any are still alive."

[Freakiq]

If the unit they must attack is no longer there, they don't get to attack.

 

Where can I find that rule?

Show me how someone can attack when the target they must attack is already dead? If they could then turn to fight someone else, the FAQ would say "but were in base

contact with just one of the enemy units, must attack that unit if any are still alive."

 

If a rule tells you to do something impossible you wouldn't ignore that rule?

 

 

EDIT: Bah, I'm too tired to be having a rules debate, damn insomnia is driving me crazy.

 

Anyway I'm most likely wrong about this.

 

Sorry for wasting your time. :D

[Seahawk]

Freakiq, what I showed is an example of the new FAQ third bullet. Model X is engaged in BTB with the blues and within 2" of the reds. According to the new bullet, he must attack the blues no matter what. It's just an expanded version of the first bullet in the BRB.

[Freakiq]

Yeah, I thought it worked like Ork Tankbustas who must shoot at the nearest tank.

 

If there is no tank nearby you ignore the rule and can shoot against what they want.

[ShinyRhino]

Around here, folks are using that bullet point to enforce the idea that if Unit A is engaged with Unit B, and Unit C charges into the existing combat aganst Unit A, Unit A may not attack Unit C at all, and must direct all its attacks at Unit B.

They are fail. Read my post with the picture of circles to be able to bring them a concise and correct argument in the favor of the actual rules.

 

Yeah, I did that, and it was summarily dismissed.