Combat question

[trefenwyd]

Situation:

 

My squad: Wolf Lord (init 5), Rune Priest (init 4), 1 Grey Hunter with a Powerfist (init 1).

 

His squad: Grey Knight Lord (init 5), 2x Grey Knights (init 4).

 

The knowns: Wolf Lord and Grey Knight Lord fight first at Init 5, then the Rune Priest and Grey Knights at Init 4, then the Grey Hunter at init 1 w/powerfist. All ICs are in contact with everyother IC and the normal squads (i.e., Wolf Lord can hit Grey Knight Lord or the Grey Hunters, and vice versa)

 

The dilemma: In what order are attacks declared? I would have much preferred to attack his Grey Knights with my Wolf Lord, killing them and leaving my Powerfist guy to insta-kill his lord. This only works if he doesn't take out my powerfist with his lord. If he does that, I may re-allocate my Wolf Lord's attacks to his Lord instead of his unit. So . . . my attacks allocation depended on my enemy's attack allocation (and potentially vice versa, which is a never ending cycle of paralyzing logic). It all worked out fine since he just decided to start rolling his attacks vs. my lord, which is what I wanted. However, how should the attack allocation have proceeded? Since I charged, do I have to declare my init 5 attacks before my opponent (can't find a rule for this, just a potential solution) or do we "simultaneously" decide (i.e., write them down on a piece of paper and flip over at the same time? - I play friendly games 99% of the time and this runs contrary to how I'd like to play, but don't see a rule clarifying the situation). And since it's going to decide the outcome of our lord on lord fight, it's fairly important.... Any help?

 

Trefenwyd

[SeattleDV8]

You determine who can fight whom 'at the start of the fight'. Pg 35

You declare how you're splitting your attacks just before rolling to hit. Pg. 41 Attacking second bullet point

[trefenwyd]

Your first point is easily understood - no problems there. In my case, all models can fight all other models.

For your 2nd point, all the rule book states is that same initiative fights "simultaneously", so who rolls the dice (and thus declares attacks) first?

[SeattleDV8]

All models that attack at an Int. number do attack simultaneously, and so on at each Int. step.

It is unstated, the groups I play with tend to have the player whos turn it is declare first, like the pile in move.

[Grey Mage]

Your first point is easily understood - no problems there. In my case, all models can fight all other models.

For your 2nd point, all the rule book states is that same initiative fights "simultaneously", so who rolls the dice (and thus declares attacks) first?

You should both declare your attacks before either rolls. If your extremely competitive, write them down and then reveal the allocation.

 

The order theyre rolled in makes no difference, as they all happen at the exact same time- so if your I4 dies to his I4 it still gets to attack as it was swinging at the same "time" despite however you rolled the dice.

 

Make sense?

[trefenwyd]

Completely understand the order of rolls is irrelevant. Order of declaration of attacks, however, is highly relevant. Writing them down seems to be the "most correct" solution though I'm not sure I want to take the game to that level - just wondering how others were playing it.

[Koremu]

Once you are at a given Initiative, the order in which attacks are declared makes no difference.

[Arnil]

Typically me and my group go that the person whose turn it is goes first for declaring and rolling attacks at equal initiative.

[Seahawk]

You and your opponent reveal the highest initiative model(s). Once done with that, declare (simultaneously, if you feel like; otherwise it's polite to wait until he's done talking :D) where which models are putting their attacks (order never matters as all models at this initiative strike simultaneously). Resolve those attacks, then move down to the next rung of the initiative ladder. Declare where which models are putting their attacks (order never matters as all models at this initiative strike simultaneously) and resolve those attacks. Repeat.

 

Everyone I've met simply follows the above, even the very competitive. Writing it down seems like it would very unnecessarily slow down combat. Everywhere I've gone, people simply allow the side with less attacks at a given Initiative step roll first to get its wimpy attempt at killing out of the way so the big, complex one can then go. If they're close enough, we roll simultaneously and report results to our opponent when they're done rolling.

[trefenwyd]

"Once you are at a given Initiative, the order in which attacks are declared makes no difference."

 

AAARRRGGGH! Does no one read the first post. What I'm trying to say is that the order of attack declaration DOES matter, quite signifcantly sometimes. I think everyone who's even watched just one game of 40K understands that models at same initiative strike simultaneously and that even though player X rolled first and killed 3 marines of player Y, player Y still get to strike back with those marines.

 

Following example now:

 

I have a lord (Init 5, PW, 2+ armor, 4+ invul) and 3 marines, init 4 (one with PF)

He has a lord (Init 5, PW, 2+ armor, 4+ invul) and 3 marines, init 4 (one with PF)

 

Example 1: He declares he will attack my lord with his. He wounds me once. I declare that I will attack his marines. I kill them all. Then my marines attack and my PF marine insta-kills his lord.

Example 2 : He declares he will attack my marines. He kills them all. I decide that I now need to allocate my attacks vs. his lord to force him to take his invul saves instead of his 2+ and hope my lord can survive against his PF attack.

 

Two different decisions I make that are based on which models my opponent decides to attack. Is it fair that I get to choose last? Heck no, which is why I started this thread. Apparently there is no consensus that has previously been wrought on the subject and I've heard the following suggestions:

 

1. Declare in player turn order

2. Declare simultaneously via writing down on paper

3. Side with fewer attacks declares first

 

IMO:

Option #2 is the "most correct" but bogs down the game (granted, you'll only have this situation arise once every other game or so)

Option #1 is the most expiditious and I will probably lobby for this one at our store

Option #3 is typical player fashion - "saving the best for last" - but is the least "correct" way of declaring

 

Anyone have any more input?

[BladeEncarmine]

What I don't understand at all in your example is why you wouldn't kill his squad and tie the combat... but maybe that's just my own personal combat ethos talking. ^_^

 

*EDIT - more thoughts*

 

Now that I think about it some more... I'm even more confused as to your tactical reasoning, trefenwyd. Why would you strike at the opposing captain/chapter master at all when you know his attacks have already gone off when you can kill the squad which has yet to attack and is infinitely squishier to a PW armed model?

 

While I am of the opinion that the order declaring attacks at the same Initiative step is completely superfluous, I'm trying to understand the tactial reasoning behind why you'd make your second decision at all, even under the circumstances you described.

[Grey Mage]

"Once you are at a given Initiative, the order in which attacks are declared makes no difference."

 

AAARRRGGGH! Does no one read the first post. What I'm trying to say is that the order of attack declaration DOES matter, quite signifcantly sometimes. I think everyone who's even watched just one game of 40K understands that models at same initiative strike simultaneously and that even though player X rolled first and killed 3 marines of player Y, player Y still get to strike back with those marines.

 

Following example now:

 

I have a lord (Init 5, PW, 2+ armor, 4+ invul) and 3 marines, init 4 (one with PF)

He has a lord (Init 5, PW, 2+ armor, 4+ invul) and 3 marines, init 4 (one with PF)

 

Example 1: He declares he will attack my lord with his. He wounds me once. I declare that I will attack his marines. I kill them all. Then my marines attack and my PF marine insta-kills his lord.

Example 2 : He declares he will attack my marines. He kills them all. I decide that I now need to allocate my attacks vs. his lord to force him to take his invul saves instead of his 2+ and hope my lord can survive against his PF attack.

....

 

Anyone have any more input?

*blinks* I see.

 

See, and at my gaming groups you dont get to see what the results were before you declare- everything for the initiative step is declared at once. So example 3:

He declares he will attack my marines. I declare that Ill be putting one attack on his Lord and 4 attacks on his marines. He rolls, kills all four of my marines. I roll, getting on wound on his lord and killing three of his marines.

[BladeEncarmine]

*facepalms*

 

After reading Grey Mage's comment, I just realized you're probably a Fantasy player. In 40K, simultaneous Initative attacks are truly simultaneous. Both sides declare where they're swinging before any rolls are made, generally. Unlike Fantasy, where one side's equal initiative is a touch faster because their side won combat the previous round...

[trefenwyd]

I think this part of the game gets glossed over sometimes by folks just happy to be in combat and rolling dice. After all, we just spent the last 4 turns dodging missiles and lascannons and watching 1/2 our squad get blown to bits. Now we're finally close enough to hit someone with our fancy Wolf Claws - I'm gonna start rolling some dice and killing folks (i.e., not waiting for an opponent to declare his attacks before rolling yours). One question though Grey Mage, when you write:

 

He declares he will attack my marines. I declare that Ill be putting one attack on his Lord and 4 attacks on his marines. He rolls, kills all four of my marines. I roll, getting on wound on his lord and killing three of his marines

 

Why did your opponent declare first?

 

BladeEncarmine,

 

I apologize for my example - you are correct in that I would most likely always target the folks who haven't gone yet. I was just trying to illustrate an example quickly. To elaborate a bit more . . . say he kills all of my marines, and we're playing an Annhilation game and he's got 6 marines and a lord with one wound left and it's the last turn of the game and I need to kill his lord for the kill point. I would rather kill 3-4 of his marines with my lord and then kill his lord with my PF guy so I can win combat, sweep the squad and get 2 VPs. If that's not an option b/c my marines are now dead, I might choose to target the lord for the kill point and hope I pass a leadership test at -2. If I do, game ends and I win. I don't really want to spend hours coming up with examples where it might matter, but I guarantee that there are several out there. I still feel it's wrong for me to sit back and wait for my opponent to declare (which will work about 90% of the time because in general people don't feel like the declaration order is important) and I'm trying to come up with a shop standard since GW doesn't address the issue at all.

[BladeEncarmine]

Ah, alright I think I understand.

 

Now, in my gaming group and LGS, we generally declare where all attacks in a given Initative step are going before any rolls are made. Usually what ends up happening, is that since all declarations are made before rolling is ever involved, the whole issue of "who declares first" is completely irrelavent to the flow of the game.

 

Now, in your gaming group, it sounds like you tend to play similar to how Fantasy works (at least for now :P ), where results are seen before the other side can even declare and roll. Now, I'm not sure why your gaming group plays this way, but I'm not really certain that it is the correct interpretation, to be honest.

 

I'm thinking if you're trying to set a real precedent for how combat initiatives work for your LGS, you may want to give the system I (and Grey Mage... and I'm guessing a majority of 40K players) use, which is all declarations are made before any rolls.

 

*EDIT*

 

Oh, and before you ask, generally the person who's turn it is currently "declares first" during each Initative phase in my gaming group, as they are currently in "control".

[Grey Mage]

I think this part of the game gets glossed over sometimes by folks just happy to be in combat and rolling dice. After all, we just spent the last 4 turns dodging missiles and lascannons and watching 1/2 our squad get blown to bits. Now we're finally close enough to hit someone with our fancy Wolf Claws - I'm gonna start rolling some dice and killing folks (i.e., not waiting for an opponent to declare his attacks before rolling yours). One question though Grey Mage, when you write:

 

He declares he will attack my marines. I declare that Ill be putting one attack on his Lord and 4 attacks on his marines. He rolls, kills all four of my marines. I roll, getting on wound on his lord and killing three of his marines

 

Why did your opponent declare first?

 

BladeEncarmine,

 

I apologize for my example - you are correct in that I would most likely always target the folks who haven't gone yet. I was just trying to illustrate an example quickly. To elaborate a bit more . . . say he kills all of my marines, and we're playing an Annhilation game and he's got 6 marines and a lord with one wound left and it's the last turn of the game and I need to kill his lord for the kill point. I would rather kill 3-4 of his marines with my lord and then kill his lord with my PF guy so I can win combat, sweep the squad and get 2 VPs. If that's not an option b/c my marines are now dead, I might choose to target the lord for the kill point and hope I pass a leadership test at -2. If I do, game ends and I win. I don't really want to spend hours coming up with examples where it might matter, but I guarantee that there are several out there. I still feel it's wrong for me to sit back and wait for my opponent to declare (which will work about 90% of the time because in general people don't feel like the declaration order is important) and I'm trying to come up with a shop standard since GW doesn't address the issue at all.

My opponent declared first, usually, because Ill have said something like "after you" or "do you have anything at I5? How did you want to allocate?".

 

Its really just a matter of politeness- if my opponent speaks up first, wether hes offering to let me declare first or doing so himself Ill follow his lead and vice versa. Once weve both declared our courses of action well resolve them in the same order.

 

Its just how Ive been doing it for the last 12 years, how I was taught to be polite by older friends who had gaming experiance. There hasnt ever been, to my knowledge, a cut and dry rule on it.

 

How do I keep it honest, for those times when it actually does make a difference? Simple- I know what I want to do before I ask them what they want to do and I stick to it. I cant gaurantee that theyll always be as honorable, but its something I can do to make the game play right, so I do it.

[Arikel]

Step 1: Lords at initiative 5 declare who they are attacking.

 

Step 2: Lords roll their attacks and apply wounds to the models being attacked.

 

Step 3: Models make saves if they can, and possibly die and are removed.

 

You can't change your decision as to what models you are attacking as you both attack at the same time, i.e you can't "hold" your attacks on your wolflord to see if his attacks successfully killed all your marines and change your target to something "better", because you attack at the SAME TIME, you both have to declare what unit you are attacking before anyone rolls dice.

 

Edit: Keep in mind that as you go at the same initiative, I suppose one could go with the idea that you can decide to switch targets up till the point that dice start rolling. Once a die has been rolled you are stuck with the decision you made.

[trefenwyd]

Ok, this is starting to get a bit downright silly . . . so I'll make one last post (yeah right) and call it good.

 

Just to clarify, there are two cases of "sneaky play" (intentional or not):

 

1. You wait until your opponent rolls before deciding whom to allocate your attacks to (this is the worst)

2. You wait until your opponent declares WHO he is attacking before you declare WHO you are attacking. (still giving you an advantage since you know where the opponent is placing his attacks)

 

I very much like the way Grey Mage plays - just decide before your opponent speaks up and be honest about it.

 

Or Blade, the "controlling player's turn" declares first is a great way to codify it. (and to clarify, there is no set way that our store treats the issue - it's never come up. I'm a former Necron player (seen close combat about twice over the past 6 years) who is starting a Wolf army and my foray into the nuances of close combat led me down this peculiar road)

 

It just seems like most people don't understand that there can be a tactical advantage in some situations to "declaring" last (but prior to die rolls for same initiative models). Arikel, not to pick on you, but your Step 1 really needs to be broken down into Step 1a (Player X declares attacks) and Step 1b (Player Y declare attacks). That's the crux of this whole thread . . . without writing stuff down on paper for a "surprise reveal", it's impossible to have a simultaneous declaration. And GW does not clarify in any way, shape, or form.

 

Thanks all for your comments - if anyone wants to keep the discussion going, please feel free; I feel at peace now though.

 

Trefenwyd

[Arnil]

It is kinda the general consensus of my gameing group, and yes we do it the fantasy(for ease of rolling really) way but it wont matter in this case, the assaulting player chooses who to attack and that models hits back at the models attacking him. Kinda like a real fight would be in our opinion. The whole attacking other models thing doesnt make sense.

 

Chaos lord attacks and kills Kor'sarro Khan but Kor'sarro Khan goes and kills three chosen members instead? No he cuts that heretic's head off! Rending power weapons ftw!

 

I always think of my assaults as epic duels anyway each man fighting each other man hand to hand gristley and brutally, swords clashing, men screaming, blood everywhere. Alien vs. predator kinda stuff...lolz!

 

So in Sumation: Assaulting player chooses who to assault first.

Makes to hit, makes to wound, other player makes saves. (this is a speedy affair if we use the same dice the whole way)

The the opponent removes those at lower initiative and begins his section at the same Initiative level.

[Seahawk]

It just seems like most people don't understand that there can be a tactical advantage in some situations to "declaring" last (but prior to die rolls for same initiative models).

There isn't any advantage at all. Despite having played Necrons for a long time, you should be aware that characters slaughter dudes, powerfists slaughter characters, and sometimes characters can kill each other. Once you are aware of what kills what easiest to win a combat, you simply allocate in the logical manner. If there are two characters and attending sets of dudes in combat, of course the wiser course of action for both players is to attack dudes. There's no advantage to waiting as you already know what you're going to do. An exception is if your character has an instant-death ability that will affect the character. But then, again, you already know what you're going to do: smash the character. Even if you lose the combat, they lost a line-sweeping unit.

 

I guess we also go by whoever's turn it is, or speaks up first, allocates their attacks. Usually we both simply ask "How are you doing it?" and then declare our own, as by the time the combat starts we already know what we're going to do, regardless of enemy allocation.

 

Oopsy, turned this into a tactics post. :lol:

 

it's impossible to have a simultaneous declaration

Oh it's quite possible, but then it becomes mashed up in words and hard to understand :).

[Arikel]

I understand trefen, but again as you attack at the same initiative, you can change your mind about what you are attacking up to the point dice hit the table. Note that both players have to declare who they are hitting before dice start rolling. If you are really that concerned about it, then the secret reveal is obviously the only way to do it where you will feel comfortable.

 

In case i wasn't clear in my first post, that means say you speak first and say I'm attacking the men. Your friend then says okay i'll attack your lord. Before you roll dice you then get a chance to change your mind as you attack at the same initiative. This discussion continues until you are both satisfied with who is attacking who, and then dice roll.

[Hellios]

There isn't any advantage at all.

 

No what I think he is saying is and lets take the wolf lord versus the Grey Knight Hero situation as an example...

 

I the WL want to kill the GKH...

 

The GKH declares he will attack my squad (I the WL think ah if I attack him he will probably win combat so I'll attack his squad now)

The WL declares he will attack the GKH squad...

 

-Combat ends up a draw-

 

In the other scenario the WL delcares first...

 

I the WL will attack the GKH...

GKH (either changes his mind or always intends to attack the squad) declares he is attacking the squad...

WL causes 1 unsaved wound... GKH kills 3 marines

 

-Grey Knight wins-

 

They both declare to attack each other... draw again...

 

Now if I have a fearless unit in terminator armour I might no be worried about taking 1 or 2 saves for losing combat... On the other hand if I'm a fearless mob of orks or I might risk running away losing combat could be a big issue for me... well ok if you only lose by 2... 2 dead orks isn't much but lets say you lose by 10 (thats a woopin).

 

Now I might really want to kill that character because with him out of the way I'll break the combat in the next turn against the weaker units although I'll lose this one I don't have to worry about needing to take 1 or 2 2+ saves as Deathwing is fearless... so I can focus on killing the lord and not worry about causing more casualties than they do. However when I might run or take a huge amount of wounds for losing combat (rare but could happen) this actually makes a difference... I might want to kill the lord but know I need to kill the men... however if I already know his lord will attack my lord I might well be able to kill his lord without worrying about combat resolution... The advantage is small but could make a difference... in most cases it will not change anything but where it does it means a lot.

[Seahawk]

I suppose to those that already know the capabilities of the combatants involved and the likelihood of winning a combat with it, there is no advantage, but for those that aren't quite sure it might be? I dunno...I still don't see it. I get into a close combat already knowing what I'm going to hit, with what, to make the most dead possible and the greatest assurance of victory with minimal return wounds. It never matters what my opponent allocates to as it won't affect my plan.

[Leonaides]

If you've got into a combat and dont already know what you need to do to win - you shouldnt be in combat! If my opponent wants to try and squishy my troops -he's welcome to have a go. I'll sure be trying to squishy his... This really does seem like splitting hairs for the sake of it to me.

[Frosty the Pyro]

the case presented is that if his openets IC attacs unit A, he will attack unit C, but if the oponent attacks unit B, then the smartest choice would be for him to attack unit D instead of A. Its like rock paper siscors, despite the fact that the signs are made simultanously, your choice would be impacted if you knew what the enemy was going to do before hand. The op never had any qustion about attacks being simultanous, he was wondering about declareation being simultanios

 

The rulebook just says same initivie is simultanous, which I would assume includes declaration, in most cases this isnt going to be a big deal but in ones like the above the best solution would be as GM said to write it down, if no paper is handy, then I would suggest rolling off, winner declaring last (assuming only 1 unit per player at the initive step, if multiple units I would sugest using the battletech system).

 

 

edit

For those still confused as to the situation in the op, its pretty simple the space wolf move to get the most kills owuld be the lord to attack the enemy unit and let his fist instant kill the enemy IC (who lacks an Inv save, and thus has a high chance to take at least one wound from 2 fist attacks). However his fist man is alone, not ablative wounds, er squadmates, so if the enemy IC kills the fist, then the wolfs IC attacks would be best used to attack the enemy IC as it is the more dangerous oponent. So IF the fist survives it will (likely) instant death the enemy IC, and as such any other attacks against that IC would be wasted, knowing if the enemy is planing to attack the fist however goes a long way to knowing IF the fist is likely to survive. Esentialy if the enemy GKH declares attacks against either wolf IC and not the fist, then the Wolf Lord can attack the PAGK, killing them so they can't attack the fist ensuring that the fist lives to punch the GKH's face, resulting in a massacre, and only taking back whatever wounds the GKH puts out.