An assault ends during the Movement phase...?

[timmytool]

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?

 

I can see what you are saying but you are using logic not RAW, while RAW needs logic to read they are not mutually exclusive to one another.

[thade]

o_O

 

Your assertion that "the rules do not follow logic" breaks everything. Why even play the game then? haha

 

It also doesn't address what I said at all.

 

Is there ever a case where a model is "in combat" and is not "locked in combat"; is there ever a case where the reverse is true?

 

The answer is No.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Is there ever a case where a model is "in combat" and is not "locked in combat"; is there ever a case where the reverse is true?

 

Ork Boarding plank?

[timmytool]

o_O

 

Your assertion that "the rules do not follow logic" breaks everything. Why even play the game then? haha

 

It also doesn't address what I said at all.

 

Is there ever a case where a model is "in combat" and is not "locked in combat"; is there ever a case where the reverse is true?

 

The answer is No.

 

yes I said it from the start, your "locked in combat" during any shooting/movement phase but their not in "combat" as that starts and ends during the assault phase

 

The rules say quite clearly the assault phase cant end until all "combats" have been resolved(aka ended)BRBp33-34,39-40(pages were the resolution of combat is mentioned or other statements to the ending of combat)

[thade]

Interesting. I think what you are saying is that "in combat" begins and ends during the Assault phase, as if they are "on pause" or some such during Movement and Shooting. Really, they are...their swings aren't resolved until each Assault phase comes to pass. Hmm.

 

So...tell me. Are you comfortable with "combat never ending", because that's where you are headed. :D If that template scatters and kills their foes and they don't get a consolidate move...it's because combat did not end. That doesn't sit well with me.

 

So...when did combat end?

[Seahawk]

Also, since "the end of the combat" is never defined in the rulebook or clearly stated as 'ending', according to "read only the book" practices the combat never ever ends.

[thade]

Which breaks down. If we are to make sense of it, simply saying "it doesn't make sense anyway" or anything else suggesting that "logic will not avail us" actually undoes your own argument as well as ours. I suggest tabling that idea. <3

 

The rules say that, when combat ends, the unit gets a consolidate move. It involves the fewest assumptions to assume that combat ends when there are no longer models in base-to-base with a previously locked unit...which leads to a consolidate move.

[Jacinda]

Is there ever a case where a model is "in combat" and is not "locked in combat"; is there ever a case where the reverse is true?

 

Ork Boarding plank?

But then one is never locked in combat with a vehicle.

[Jacinda]

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?

 

I can see what you are saying but you are using logic not RAW, while RAW needs logic to read they are not mutually exclusive to one another.

srsly?

 

OK, show me where in RAW it states combat only ends in the assualt phase. And no using logic instead of RAW. RAW only.

[Dan VK]

Interesting. I think what you are saying is that "in combat" begins and ends during the Assault phase, as if they are "on pause" or some such during Movement and Shooting. Really, they are...their swings aren't resolved until each Assault phase comes to pass. Hmm.

Appeals to imagination are pointless. :cuss Models do not swing at each other, but they are allowed to fight a combat in the Assault phase using the appropriate characteristics (Attacks seems equivalent to number of swings). Armies do not let the opponent move all of their assets before moving theirs, nor do they stand still, in cover or not, while being shot at. The rules require us to move the models this way, however. We are not playing Calvinball with G.I. Joes. :cuss

 

So...tell me. Are you comfortable with "combat never ending", because that's where you are headed. :cuss If that template scatters and kills their foes and they don't get a consolidate move...it's because combat did not end. That doesn't sit well with me.

 

So...when did combat end?

Combat ends when it is resolved, and the models are no longer locked in combat. Combat does not need to end; being locked in combat needs to end.

 

Which breaks down. If we are to make sense of it, simply saying "it doesn't make sense anyway" or anything else suggesting that "logic will not avail us" actually undoes your own argument as well as ours. I suggest tabling that idea. <3

I agree. When the rules are not written clearly enough to stand on their own without explanation, we are left with logic, at least until GW FAQs it according to tradition, or the pattern of chips in the bowl, et cetera. :lol:

 

The rules say that, when combat ends, the unit gets a consolidate move. It involves the fewest assumptions to assume that combat ends when there are no longer models in base-to-base with a previously locked unit...which leads to a consolidate move.

Where is the definition of 'combat' as "models are in base to base contact with enemy models," or "models are locked in combat," coming from? :( 'Engaged' means in base to base contact with an enemy model, or within 2" of a model in base to base contact with an enemy model, which prevents a model from moving, and allows a model to fight in a combat. All uses of 'combat' in the BRB, excluding 'locked in combat' (which is defined, I cannot believe I missed it), refer to the Assault phase, specifically the "resolve combats" step of the Assault phase summary, which consolidation is also under. This is as close to a definition I have found in the BRB. :cuss

 

What about 'destroyed'? To meet all of the conditions present in the consolidation rules, for a unit to consolidate, it must no longer be locked in combat, and the enemy unit must be falling back, or destroyed. The only applicable situations where a unit is destroyed is when falling back (and failing to, sans Fearless), and while determining assault results.

[thade]

Jacinda makes a good (implicit) point. "Combat" in this context is alluded to as if it's a term we all understand but never clearly defined. What does this mean? Perhaps it means that we actually do understand what combat in this context is...it's when models are in each other's faces pounding the crap out of each other with their knuckles. :lol:

[Dan VK]

[sNIP]

[sNIP]

srsly?

 

OK, show me where in RAW it states combat only ends in the assualt phase. And no using logic instead of RAW. RAW only.

“Fight close combat. Engaged models roll to hit and to wound in Initiative order. Their opponents take saving throws as required.” BRB pg33

 

A combat is fought in the Assault phase. A combat ends after close combat has been fought. If the other conditions in the rules are met, then a unit may consolidate. Is there a time a combat may be fought other than during the Assault phase? If not, there is no need to state combat may only end in the Assault phase, because the only situation during which a combat ends is during the Assault phase.

 

Jacinda makes a good (implicit) point. "Combat" in this context is alluded to as if it's a term we all understand but never clearly defined. What does this mean? Perhaps it means that we actually do understand what combat in this context is...it's when models are in each other's faces pounding the crap out of each other with their knuckles. :)

I agree, and close combat attacks happen during the Assault phase. ;)

 

 

[EDIT: Added a quote.]

[thade]

So...when that Callidus lands and wipes out all enemy models in an assault...did combat end? Or did it not?

 

That is seriously my question and one that all opponents of the Consolidate-stance have failed to address. Pro-consolidate Camp has answers to the following questions, where as No-consolidate Camp does not:

 

Does combat end? (Yes, it does.) When does it end? (When that Callidus cut up the bad guys.)

 

If combat didn't end, what does that mean? That the models are still locked until the following Assault phase? In which case, they don't get to move or shoot (which we all previously agreed that they do).

[Jacinda]

What about 'destroyed'? To meet all of the conditions present in the consolidation rules, for a unit to consolidate, it must no longer be locked in combat, and the enemy unit must be falling back, or destroyed. The only applicable situations where a unit is destroyed is when falling back (and failing to, sans Fearless), and while determining assault results.

Define "is."

We are literally getting to that point.

 

To yield kill points, a unit needs to be completely destroyed. Are we then saying it must be from Assault phase or penetration table only?

 

Come now. Redefining words to make up new glossary terms that do not exist in any glossary is not going to prove anything. Model is never defined. Combat is never defined. Destroyed is never defined. Dice is never defined. Even the word Enemy is never defined yet it is used in many rules. Some things have to be assumed. It is assumed that we are using a base 10 number system. It never says we are not using base 13 and the only way to have the question to the answer to life, the universe and everything meaningful is to use base 13. Once we start making issue with every word and treat it as a new, special term in the game we can throw all rules out the window.

[Dan VK]

So...when that Callidus lands and wipes out all enemy models in an assault...did combat end? Or did it not?

 

That is seriously my question and one that all opponents of the Consolidate-stance have failed to address. Pro-consolidate Camp has answers to the following questions, where as No-consolidate Camp does not:

 

Does combat end? (Yes, it does.) When does it end? (When that Callidus cut up the bad guys.)

 

If combat didn't end, what does that mean? That the models are still locked until the following Assault phase? In which case, they don't get to move or shoot (which we all previously agreed that they do).

Combat did not end. Combat ends when a combat has been fought. If combat did not end, it still means that the remaining unit is no longer engaged, so it may not fight a close combat during following Assault phase (without becoming engaged again), and, more importantly, it is no longer locked in combat, which means it may move, shoot, assault, et cetera, as normal during its turn.

[thade]

So what I think you are saying is that combat begins and ends with the passing of each Assault phase? Do I get that right? I can see why you might believe that to be the case.

 

However, I'm still convinced. If a unit is "locked in combat" it's locked somewhere. :) And it's not "locked in combat pending the Assault phase"; it's "locked in combat". Locked in combat means stuck in combat, mired in combat, so tangled up in combat that you can't do anything else. You can't do anything else because you're in combat.

 

Let's take this from another angle, shifting the focus of theoretical terms (that aren't really terms).

 

You're locked in combat during the Movement phase, and so you can't move. Down comes the Callidus and she kills your enemies. You are now no longer locked in combat. If you're not locked in combat, you can move.

 

What's wrong with what I just said? ;)

[Dan VK]

SNIP

Define "is."

We are literally getting to that point.

I don't like the cut of your jib, either. I have been using the same argument, with the same breakdown, for the entire thread; nothing is "getting" to any point. I am going to continue discussing the arguments presented, rather than commenting on how the arguments are being presented. :)

 

To yield kill points, a unit needs to be completely destroyed. Are we then saying it must be from Assault phase or penetration table only?

Good point. I missed that example, and it invalidates my interpretation of destroyed. :P I prefer it being synonymous with killed/removed as casualties.

 

Come now. Redefining words to make up new glossary terms that do not exist in any glossary is not going to prove anything. Model is never defined. Combat is never defined. Destroyed is never defined. Dice is never defined. Even the word Enemy is never defined yet it is used in many rules. Some things have to be assumed. It is assumed that we are using a base 10 number system. It never says we are not using base 13 and the only way to have the question to the answer to life, the universe and everything meaningful is to use base 13. Once we start making issue with every word and treat it as a new, special term in the game we can throw all rules out the window.

There is no glossary in the BRB, but there are definitions all over the place, usually in the appropriate rules. Since the Assault phase is the only place we are given permission to fight a combat, when else does a combat occur?

 

So what I think you are saying is that combat begins and ends with the passing of each Assault phase? Do I get that right? I can see why you might believe that to be the case.

 

However, I'm still convinced. If a unit is "locked in combat" it's locked somewhere. :) And it's not "locked in combat pending the Assault phase"; it's "locked in combat". Locked in combat means stuck in combat, mired in combat, so tangled up in combat that you can't do anything else. You can't do anything else because you're in combat.

 

Let's take this from another angle, shifting the focus of theoretical terms (that aren't really terms).

 

You're locked in combat during the Movement phase, and so you can't move. Down comes the Callidus and she kills your enemies. You are now no longer locked in combat. If you're not locked in combat, you can move.

 

What's wrong with what I just said? :)

“Fight close combat. Engaged models roll to hit and to wound in Initiative order. Their opponents take saving throws as required.” BRB pg33

 

"Units that have one or more model in base contact with enemies are said to be 'locked in combat'. Within such units, the following models are said to be 'engaged' and must fight:

• Models in base contact with any enemy models.
  
• Models within 2" of at least one model in their unit that is in base contact with any enemy models.
  

All engaged models will fight in this turn's Assault phase with their full number of Attacks and use any special close combat attack they have." BRB pg35

 

They are connected, but not synonymous. To fight a close combat, models must be engaged during the Assault phase. Models that are locked in combat are engaged. Models that are engaged are not always locked in combat (vehicles). Thus, after a close combat has been fought, if models are not locked in combat, the unit may consolidate. A close combat has not been fought at the start of the Movement phase.

 

 

[EDIT: Speelnig.]

[thade]

So be it. I will fight fire with fire. Stand by as I completely decimate this entire "adding complexity" fandango some of us have fallen into.

 

The two rules you cited, Dan, have pointed out a mistake I made: I actually missed a term. The first rule in particular refers to the term close combat, which - while very similar to it - is not synonymous with combat. It's true that you can't fight in close combat unless you are in the assault phase; you can, however, be locked in combat in the other two phases.

 

Also, don't confuse the term engaged with any of this; the only purpose of that term is to determine whether or not a given model can use its attacks in a given assault phase: nothing more.

 

The rule doesn't say "at the end of close combat" (emphasis mine); it says "at the end of combat."

 

You, sir, have been out-shenaniganned.

 

It shouldn't surprise us that stacking assumptions (on what we can identify as terms and what each of these terms means) as it does nothing more than add complexity to it. Occam's Razor is already giving us evil eye, but we needn't even go that far: were it the case that this was intended to be as super-complicated as all of these bungled terms make it, they would have made a point of it. Consider how complicated wound allocation is and the treatment it got in the Shooting chapter. Indeed, that wound allocation diagram is one of the best in the book; very clear and concise, despite the weirdness of the entire idea. They do no such thing here. So, what should we do?

 

We should make as few assumptions as possible. Easy enough: there is one term, and that term is combat.

[timmytool]

So be it. I will fight fire with fire. Stand by as I completely decimate this entire "adding complexity" fandango some of us have fallen into.

 

The two rules you cited, Dan, have pointed out a mistake I made: I actually missed a term. The first rule in particular refers to the term close combat, which - while very similar to it - is not synonymous with combat. It's true that you can't fight in close combat unless you are in the assault phase; you can, however, be locked in combat in the other two phases.

 

Also, don't confuse the term engaged with any of this; the only purpose of that term is to determine whether or not a given model can use its attacks in a given assault phase: nothing more.

 

The rule doesn't say "at the end of close combat" (emphasis mine); it says "at the end of combat."

 

You, sir, have been out-shenaniganned.

 

It shouldn't surprise us that stacking assumptions (on what we can identify as terms and what each of these terms means) as it does nothing more than add complexity to it. Occam's Razor is already giving us evil eye, but we needn't even go that far: were it the case that this was intended to be as super-complicated as all of these bungled terms make it, they would have made a point of it. Consider how complicated wound allocation is and the treatment it got in the Shooting chapter. Indeed, that wound allocation diagram is one of the best in the book; very clear and concise, despite the weirdness of the entire idea. They do no such thing here. So, what should we do?

 

We should make as few assumptions as possible. Easy enough: there is one term, and that term is combat.

 

 

I love it how you declare victory threw Occam's Razor because you make a statement and fail to find the need to back up your assumptions

 

you/camp2:

quote first sentence of consolidation rules. see I win

 

me/camp1:

consolidation requires it to be the end of "combat" to work its not the end of "combat".

 

backup of assumptions to above statement.

 

RAW says contrary to your believe their is no consolidation in this scenario.

 

we both have simple 1 assumption arguments, camp 1 has just chosen to backup that the assumption used you have not.

[thade]

Not that it's important...but...last I checked, I was camp one. You know..the OP and all.

 

Nothing you have said backs up any of your assertions, other than implicit assumptions about what each term is and how they are defined; that is the point of my previous post and you have failed to address it. Let me spell it out as best I understand it.

 

Can-consoldate Camp: assumes that "combat" is a loose term, synonymous with the other "terms" presented.

 

Can't-consolidate Camp: assumes that "combat", "locked in combat", "close combat", and "base-to-base" are all separate terms that need to be differentiated between.

 

The point I'm trying to make and I fear you (and others) are missing is just this: one of these approaches is far less complex than the other and - very likely - the least complex of the two options is the proper way to play. Why? Because - were it meant to be complicated - it would be better explained (as the wound allocation rules are). Because it's not given that kind of treatment, assuming it's complicated is a pointless exercise and a waste of time.

 

Keep it simple. There's no need to do otherwise.

 

In the meantime, you can go back and read my posts (they're short, like yours) and refresh yourself on how I've been backing up the claims you're disputing (by waving your hands around). Take your time, I'll still be here.

[Jacinda]

I don't like the cut of your jib, either. <_< I have been using the same argument, with the same breakdown, for the entire thread; nothing is "getting" to any point. I am going to continue discussing the arguments presented, rather than commenting on how the arguments are being presented. :P

Combat is not combat unless it is combat but not combat?

 

Since the Assault phase is the only place we are given permission to fight a combat, when else does a combat occur?

Combat is initiated in the assault phase, true. It ends when there is no more combat.

[thade]

Since the Assault phase is the only place we are given permission to fight a combat, when else does a combat occur?

Combat is initiated in the assault phase, true. It ends when there is no more combat.

I addressed this much earlier in the thread, so I can see it being potentially missed. It shouldn't be weird that combat can end outside of the assault phase or that the consolidation rule holds bearing outside of the assault phase. There are other aspects of each phase that have impact on other phases. One example being that "locked in combat" prevents you from acting in the other phases altogether.

[Jacinda]

me/camp1:

consolidation requires it to be the end of "combat" to work its not the end of "combat".

If you are not in combat, then combat has ended. You can not end combat without ending combat.

 

"At the end of combat, if a unit's opponents are all either destroyed or falling back, so that the victorious unit is no longer locked in combat with an enemy, they may consolidate."

RAW pg 40. Pretty much defines end of combat right there. No longer locked in combat.

 

No longer locked in combat, opponents are destroyed (when the assassin is placed) so the unit makes a consolidation move. It does not get any more straight-forward than that.

[thade]

That's what I've been tryin to tell them. <3

[Jacinda]

That's what I've been tryin to tell them. <3

I'm waiting for the rebuttal asking what constitutes a "victorious unit" now. :)