An assault ends during the Movement phase...?

[timmytool]

I do not think there is a third camp. Consider that, once a unit has charged into or has been charged in the assault phase, they are considered to be "locked in combat" for the Moving and Shooting phase.

 

Once a unit is no longer "locked in combat", I think it's clear that's because combat is over.

 

There is an definition for combat. It's what you are locked in, what prevents you from shooting, being shot at, and moving. Once you are no longer locked, how can it not be over?

 

I'm unclear as to what's unclear here?

 

Point b in my above post

b "locked in combat" and "combat" are different, threw out the BRB the 2 are not used interchangeably (thought in both instances combat/close_combat are used interchangeably)

 

It is the "locked in combat" that provides your described "what prevents you from shooting, being shot at, and moving"("locked in combat" protection and limits BRB p40) not "combat" itself which the consolidation rule is referring to. Their is a clear and distinct difference between the 2 which is successfully kept threw out the rule book.

[thade]

You're stretching. :\

 

If you are "locked in combat", where are you? Why, you're in combat.

 

If you are no longer "locked in combat"...are you in combat?

 

While I don't disagree the terms are (slightly) different, they are clearly related...and their difference holds no bearing here.

 

EDIT: formatting

[NecronGovernour]

I have been swaying from camp to camp (actually, there might be a third camp " "locked in combat" as a status remains until the end of the next assault phase of player whose unit is without opposing models", following the same interpretation of the wording as camp 2...), and it's still definitely grey to me. timmytool's reminder of there being a definition for "locked in combat", while "combat" is not defined explicitly, leads me to believe that these are meant to be separate concepts (although that's very unintuitive), therefore camp 1. But otherwise claiming that "locked in combat" confers no additional information (because models have to be in base 2 base contact to resolve "combat", as well!) seems valid, too.

And although fluff should never be used in a rules argument, I like the idea of the rules representing the "*BOOOM* ..holy....:D?" situation of suddenly having all your enemies falling victim to chunky salsa literally at arm's length :) .

 

EDIT:spelling

 

2.EDIT': And i meant to say "units have to be in base 2 base contact to resolve "combat" "

[thade]

See my post immediately above yours. :D

 

ADDENDUM: The consolidation rule actually accounts for the "surging forward" versus "staggering dumbfounded" due to the "vagaries of fate" at the end of combat. So if combat ended because they threw lots of punches or because one of their holy battle tanks purged their foul foes, well it's either..."HOLY CRAP WE'RE ALIVE? THAT ALMOST KILLED US!" or "The Emperor guides us this day. Forward!"

 

I can see either scenario playing out.

[Brother Valerius]

1 the unit is freed from "locked in combat" but does not consolidate as its not in "combat". In this camp "combat" begins in the assault phase and all combats are "resolved" in order to end the assault phase (locked BRB p35 all resolved to end assault BRB p33)

 

I think this is a far too narrow interpretation of the rules. As Dan VK noted, there is no solid definition of what constitutes "combat", but when rules fail we must fall back on common sense... and common sense tells us that it is ludicrous to say that something is "locked in combat" but that "combat" is not occurring.

[falldown]

The problem is that "Locked in Combat" as a phrase is a status in the game. In real life, if you are no longer locked in combat you can assume combat has ended. In the game, because "Locked in Combat" is a status that confers specific immunities and rules, I still have to disagree with your points. If the unit that was in base to base is subsequently found not to be in base to base during any phase for any reason, they lose the "Locked in Combat" status. Once it the game moves into the Assault Phase, the group is considered to be in combat for combat resolution.

[thade]

However, you seem to be implicitly agreeing with me in other aspects. Let's agree with your definition that "locked in combat" confers certain immunities; i.e. you can't be shot at, you can't move, you can't shoot, etc.

 

A template scatters in to an assault and kills all enemy models, leaving a few surviving marines from one side. You agree they can move (are no longer "immune to it"), they can shoot (again, not "immune"), and can be shot at (no longer "immune"). If they are no longer "immune", it's because they are no longer "Locked in combat."

 

And here we are again.

 

If we are not locked in combat, are we in combat? You seem to suggest yes, yet your assertions deem otherwise.

 

This hang up between whether "locked in combat" and "combat" are different or the same is a lil silly. It's not like Independant Character versus the term "character" because in that case, one term is clearly defined (it has its own chapter). In this case, neither get their own chapter, yet both are exclusively mentioned in the Assault chapter.

 

If you are in combat, you are in an assault, insofar as the rules are concerned. Naturally, you're narratively "in combat" the entire time because bolter rounds are flying over and through you, but for the purposes of RAW combat is mentioned in the Assault chapter: you are in combat if you are in an assault. If you are in combat, you are locked in combat per the assault chapter as well. You are both locked in combat and in combat when you are in an assault - the only time when it is legal to be in BtB with enemy models.

 

Thus, base-to-base with enemy models, in combat, and locked in combat are for all intents and purposes identical for game terms. You cannot have one without the other two. Period.

 

If you are missing one, you are missing all three. Not in BtB with enemy models? You're not in combat. Not in combat? You're not locked in combat. Not locked in combat? Not in combat. Not locked? Not in BtB. Not in BtB? Not locked....

 

If you are not in combat, it must have ended. If it ended, you get a consolidation move. I don't see any way around it.

 

EDITS: Were substantial. Reworded everything for clarity.

[Brother Valerius]

If we are not locked in combat, we are not in combat. If we are not in combat, it must have ended sometime. When did it end? I can't move until it's ended; I can't shoot or be shot at until it's ended. If I can do these things (something we all agree upon) then combat must be ended. If combat has ended, we get a consolidation move.

 

Very succinctly put.

[thade]

Substantial edits to my more recent post; I seem to have caught a bit of Dan VK. <3

[Seahawk]

If you are not in combat, it must have ended. If it ended, you get a consolidation move. I don't see any way around it.

This has been my position the whole time, barring any special rules that say "After this, enemy models may not consolidate."

[falldown]

When a walker leaves combat, does the non-walker unit get a consolidation move? This is an honest question, because I don't use walkers and don't have my brb at work. When the walker leaves combat by chugging out, does the other unit get the d6 consolidation move granted by the end of combat or is it specifically stated that they do not?

 

I only ask because that is a case of being in combat and base to base, but not being locked in combat.

[thade]

When a walker leaves combat, do you get a consolidation move? This is an honest question, because I don't use walkers. When the walker leaves combat by chugging out, do you get the d6 consolidation move granted by the end of combat?

 

When you pop a vehicle, you don't get a consolidation move (per the Vehicles chapter).

 

When you pop a walker, you don't either (I'm pretty sure) as it's not mentioned in the Walker chapter. However, the Walker does get a consolidation move (per his chapter). ...Actually, I'm not sure that infantry doesn't get a consolidate if they pop a walker, but I'm pretty sure they don't.

 

So, with regards to this discussion, if the enemy unit in question is a walker or a Rhino, they don't get a consolidate. If it's infantry, they do.

 

It's actually a good point. The Vehicles chapter specifically says "You don't get to consolidate." This isn't said in the Movement or Shooting chapters. The Vehicles chapter lists exceptions to the base phases that specifically concern vehicles...they do not set precedents for infantry.

[Gentlemanloser]

As far as I remember, Walkers are treated like Infantry for CC, and you do get a consolidation move after ending combat with one.

 

You don't with all other types of vehicles, but then you're never locked in combat with them either.

[thade]

Book in hand.

 

No consolidation moves at the end of combat with a vehicle (an exception to the assault rules).

 

Walkers get consolidation moves provided they can still move (an exception to the vehicles in assault rules).

 

Walkers are vehicles. No where does it say that "Infantry get to consolidate after defeating a walker, even though they don't get to consolidate after defeating other vehicles"...so, no consolidate after popping a walker.

[Something Wycked]

Thade, you've uncovered another point of conflicting RAW :tu: Or at least RAW conflicting RAI.

 

The Consolidate rules say that a unit may make a consolidation move when (effectively) the unit is no longer locked in combat.

 

A unit engaged with a vehicle lacking a WS attribute is never locked with it and do not consolidate; if the combat is with a Walker the unit is locked in combat and should they destroy that Walker they are no longer locked in combat. They should be allowed to consolidate.

 

Except that they cannot consolidate due to the "never against vehicles" clause. ;)

[thade]

There is no conflict here. Recall the layout of the book. There are chapters for each phase that explain the general rules of the game, then a series of chapters explaining exceptions and special cases. For instance, we know that members of each unit must stay in coherency with their unit per the early part of the BRB; the IC rules are an exception to this.

 

The consolidate move is in the Assault phase chapter; it's a basis rule. This rule is superceded in the vehicles chapter with regard to vehicles being destroyed in combat. It remains superceded for vehicles, which walkers are.

 

Pretty cut and dry, man. <3

[Jacinda]

The only mildly sticky bit is "end of combat"...but don't get stuck on it. ;) The end of combat is not the end of the assault phase. It's the end of the melee, which might end because - for instance - BOTH squads get hit with a scattered Demolisher blast and get nuked off the table. If one side still has survivors and the other does not, consolidate moves abound.

I disagree (surprise! ;) ), and I am going to be rather verbose about it. ;)

Just going by Occam's razor here, but if one side can be stated with one sentence from RAW and the other side needs a verbose listing of counters .... I'll go with the fewest assumptions. Opponent is destroyed, unit is no longer locked in combat, they get a consolidation move. It says it that way in the rule book.

[Dan VK]

The only mildly sticky bit is "end of combat"...but don't get stuck on it. ;) The end of combat is not the end of the assault phase. It's the end of the melee, which might end because - for instance - BOTH squads get hit with a scattered Demolisher blast and get nuked off the table. If one side still has survivors and the other does not, consolidate moves abound.

I disagree (surprise! :lol: ), and I am going to be rather verbose about it. ;)

Just going by Occam's razor here, but if one side can be stated with one sentence from RAW and the other side needs a verbose listing of counters .... I'll go with the fewest assumptions. Opponent is destroyed, unit is no longer locked in combat, they get a consolidation move. It says it that way in the rule book.

Like a few other people in this thread (including Thade <3), I explained each of my points, and, where possible, referenced the rules (with page numbers), in an attempt to convey my argument as completely as possible. It is not like I built a relational model. :rolleyes: Also, the length of an argument has nothing to do with Ockham's razor :geek:, but the following synopsis is from the end of the post you quoted:

 

'Combat/close combat' only occurs in the Assault phase; during the Movement and Shooting phases units are 'locked in combat/close combat'. A non-vehicle unit is only 'destroyed' when assault results are determined, while falling back, or from the deep strike mishap table.

To quote Richard Dawkins, "Heuristics do not an argument break." ^_^ Ockham's razor is, unfortunately, of little help here, because all things are not equal. There is a lack of known entities in the rule in question, mainly 'combat', and 'destroyed', but there are assignable values present in the source document, so definitions from an outside lexicon are assumptive. Besides, using the dictionary definition for 'combat' leaves us with models being "in combat" as soon as they are placed on the table (or sooner), and 'destroyed' would require us to smash our models. :huh:

 

I beg pardon for repeating myself, but I find the available evidence entirely unsatisfactory, as all of it is circumstantial. Unfortunately, it is the total evidence from the BRB I have seen, or have been shown, so it is the basis of my interpretation of the rules. The bottom line is the BRB does not directly state when combat ends, or what destroyed means, or how/why a unit is victorious, so we are left with logic, which GW frequently disregards in favor of tradition, and TMIR. <_<

[timmytool]

The only mildly sticky bit is "end of combat"...but don't get stuck on it. :D The end of combat is not the end of the assault phase. It's the end of the melee, which might end because - for instance - BOTH squads get hit with a scattered Demolisher blast and get nuked off the table. If one side still has survivors and the other does not, consolidate moves abound.

I disagree (surprise! :huh: ), and I am going to be rather verbose about it. B)

Just going by Occam's razor here, but if one side can be stated with one sentence from RAW and the other side needs a verbose listing of counters .... I'll go with the fewest assumptions. Opponent is destroyed, unit is no longer locked in combat, they get a consolidation move. It says it that way in the rule book.

 

no its simple, is it the end of combat?.... no, so no consolidation move

 

we are only proving that its not the end of combat but the above is the simple truth.

[Jacinda]

no its simple, is it the end of combat?.... no, so no consolidation move

If combat has not ended, how can the unit move, shoot, be shot at and all other things that go along with being in combat?

 

They are no longer in base to base with any enemy unit therefore there is no combat.

[timmytool]

no its simple, is it the end of combat?.... no, so no consolidation move

If combat has not ended, how can the unit move, shoot, be shot at and all other things that go along with being in combat?

 

They are no longer in base to base with any enemy unit therefore there is no combat.

 

"combat" is not what protects them they are protected because they qualify for a attribute that grants that protection.

 

being base to base with an enemy unit is not called "combat" it does however confer a attribute to both/all units in contact.

 

in the end it does not matter what the attribute is called(other then it is not "combat") only its effect.

 

 

BTW have we all read BRB p35 it gives a definition of what "combat" is (or as close to it as GW will give us).

 

it defines "locked in combat", "engaged" it also makes specific reference to combat including its end.

 

without typing it verbatim here, after defining "locked in combat" then "engaged" it list the steps in the assault phase. If you used the definition for "combat" to be greater then the assault phase the first sentence of the last paragraph would mean unengaged models could never become engaged.

 

whilst I only pointed to one sentence on that page, the general theme throwout it is that "combat" is confined within the assault phase while 'locked in combat'(the attribute that stops you from moving and shooting) does not.

[thade]

I beg pardon for repeating myself, but I find the available evidence entirely unsatisfactory...

I couldn't agree with this particular sentiment more, but we have what we have to work with; need to do our best to find common ground.

 

Not to toot my own horn, but I really feel I tied this up and nobody is pointing out where I might be wrong (which is what I'm looking for). :huh:

 

If a template scatters in and wipes out all of the models previously locking your unit in, they can move; everybody seems to agree that's the case. However, were they still "in combat" then they couldn't move. They aren't still in combat though; they're all alone, free to move, shoot, even assault again.

 

If they aren't in combat anymore, combat must have ended. When did it end? At whatever time it ended, they get to consolidate, per the Assault phase rule. (That seems clearer every time I say it.)

 

EDIT: @mr. tool et al...consider what I said earlier: that the terms in combat, locked in combat, and base-to-base are virtually interchangeable through much of the ruleset; i.e. you can't be in base-to-base if you're not in combat; you must have some models in base-to-base to be locked in combat; you are locked in combat if you're in base-to-base; if you're in base-to-base you are in combat; etc.; etc....

[timmytool]

I beg pardon for repeating myself, but I find the available evidence entirely unsatisfactory...

I couldn't agree with this particular sentiment more, but we have what we have to work with; need to do our best to find common ground.

 

Not to toot my own horn, but I really feel I tied this up and nobody is pointing out where I might be wrong (which is what I'm looking for). :(

 

If a template scatters in and wipes out all of the models previously locking your unit in, they can move; everybody seems to agree that's the case. However, were they still "in combat" then they couldn't move. They aren't still in combat though; they're all alone, free to move, shoot, even assault again.

 

If they aren't in combat anymore, combat must have ended. When did it end? At whatever time it ended, they get to consolidate, per the Assault phase rule. (That seems clearer every time I say it.)

 

see this is were you are going sideways, being able to move and shoot is not a affect of "combat" it is a affect of the attribute "locked in combat" BRB p35 for the definition and BRB p40 for the listed affect this attribute has on models.

 

for all intent and purpose "locked in combat" can be replaced with the word "phelddagrif" and it still works, without it being confused with "combat".

[thade]

If you are in "combat" you are "locked in combat".

 

When you are "locked in combat" you are in "combat".

 

These are the same. How are they not?

[Jacinda]

There is no confusion. Combat, in combat and locked in combat are all the same thing along with base to base contact. Combat ends when no enemy is in base to base contact. No one in base contact? Combat has ended. Easy. No combat? Then there is no way to be locked in combat. No longer locked in combat? That is because there is no combat to be locked in to. No combat means it has ended. Anything else is intentional obfuscation of the exact meaning of the words.

 

Are you locked in phelddagrif? Then phelddagrif is occurring. No longer locked in phelddagrif means there is no phelddagrif so phelddagrif has ended. Easy as pie. Trying to redefine phelddagrif to fibbleghast half the time and phelddagrif the other half is where confusion comes in.

 

Combat ends when there is no longer any combat. It really is that simple. Combat ends when all enemies in base to base have been destroyed. I honestly don't see how it can be any other way.

(editedd to fx copoius tyops :( )