An assault ends during the Movement phase...?

[Dan VK]

Combat ends every single time a combat is fought, so the Callidus' attacks are not ending a combat; the combat ended when it was resolved in the Assault phase, but the units are still locked in combat until the Callidus comes around and ruins one unit's day. I do not buy the proposal that 'locked in combat' and 'in combat' are identical because 'locked in combat' contains the words 'in combat'. That is like saying a model may make an 'assault move' in the Movement phase because it contains the word 'move'. 'Combat' and 'close combat' are synonymous, because they are used interchangeably to refer to identical conditions throughout the BRB.

 

We are reading the same material and interpreting it differently. I have support for my argument, which you disagree with, and you have support for your argument, which I disagree with. I am unpersuaded by your support, and find your argument to be faulty, and you obviously are in the same position. I believe this is called an impasse. We unfortunately have begun addressing the presenter of the argument rather than the argument presented, and I am guilty of this as well, for which I apologize, because it is inappropriate. I have nothing more to add, as I have presented my argument, with evidence, and what is demonstrably an unsuccessful explanation, and do not find your rebuttals convincing.

[timmytool]

can you explain to me how a pile-in move can happen as it says it occurs "After the Combat [has] been resolved, ..."(BRB p40).

 

According to your idea that combat only ends once all opponents are dead or fleeing pile in moves could never occur.

 

do take note that "Also, a pile-in move may not be used to contact enemy units that are not currently involved in the assault." uses assault not combat as combat for that assault has ended.

[Jacinda]

Combat ends every single time a combat is fought, so the Callidus' attacks are not ending a combat; the combat ended when it was resolved in the Assault phase, ...

See, I'm not buying this. Can you support this with RAW in the same way that I can show "end of combat" = "no longer locked in combat?"

 

As for combat only ever happening in the assault phase: Death or Glory!

[Jacinda]

can you explain to me how a pile-in move can happen as it says it occurs "After the Combat [has] been resolved, ..."(BRB p40).

Absolutely! Combat has been resolved as in all the rolls made for that phase have been rolled, saved and applied as necessary. Combat continues as it clearly states in the part you snipped.

 

do take note that "Also, a pile-in move may not be used to contact enemy units that are not currently involved in the assault." uses assault not combat as combat for that assault has ended.

No. Combat has been resolved. You are changing words to fit your dogma. As it says in RAW, combat ends when the unit is no longer locked in combat. This can also happen with the pile-in moves you so cleverly brought up. Once combat is resolved, both sides make a pile in move. If this does not allow the units to maintain base to base contact, neither side is locked in combat and may make a consolidation move.

[timmytool]

Combat ends every single time a combat is fought, so the Callidus' attacks are not ending a combat; the combat ended when it was resolved in the Assault phase, ...

See, I'm not buying this. Can you support this with RAW in the same way that I can show "end of combat" = "no longer locked in combat?"

 

As for combat only ever happening in the assault phase: Death or Glory!

 

On the death or glory it is a single close combat attack, never is it said that it is in combat(BRB p 69) it gives the steps to take to resolve the hit and actions to take after that.

 

as for your assertion that "end of combat" = "no longer locked in combat?" were was your RAW statement for this and don't quote the consolidation section as its refferance to "locked in combat" is to stop multi combatants from consolidating out of combat and also is needed stop people consolidating after the space marines "and they shall know no fear" (as the SM are technically falling back even if their rule lets them stay in assault if they fail the sweeping advance roll)

 

note even the SM ATSKNF rule it only mentions combat once in which it calles it a round aka a complete event.

[thade]

Sorry if I came across as judging you directly, Dan; that was not my intention.

 

At the end of the day, this is a very rare thing (even with a Callidus, the chances of her wiping a unit clean and freeing her allies from an assault isn't something we'll see every day...let alone how rarely a template scatters into an assault and kills everything but your guys) and a very small move (a d6) so I would be content to either roll it off or even rule in favor of Dan's stance (i.e. the less advantageous one where my unit(s) do not get a consolidate move).

 

Maybe this is a grey area candidate? (Any mods still watching this fandango?)

[Jacinda]

as for your assertion that "end of combat" = "no longer locked in combat?" were was your RAW statement for this and don't quote the consolidation section as its refferance to "locked in combat" is to stop multi combatants from consolidating out of combat and also is needed stop people consolidating after the space marines "and they shall know no fear" (as the SM are technically falling back even if their rule lets them stay in assault if they fail the sweeping advance roll)

 

note even the SM ATSKNF rule it only mentions combat once in which it calles it a round aka a complete event.

And still you have yet to respond with any from of documentation that combat does not end when there is no more combat. This is how combat ends: all opponents are destroyed, falling back or otherwise positioned so that the unit is no longer locked in combat and can not stay in combat. The consolidation rule defines end of combat as it relates to the consolidation move. The rule sentence in Consolidation means everything. It is consolidation we are talking about. It associates "end of combat" to "no longer locked in combat" as a way of determining that combat has ended. What other rule do you want? Although it is never defined differently anywhere else, even if it were the consolidation rule would take precedent because it relates directly to consolidation. Anything else is a tertiary source at best.

 

"At the end of combat ..."

OK, what is 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"

Sweet. What happens at the end of combat?

"they may consolidate."

 

The consolidation rule flat out says what the end of combat is and when to make the consolidation move. There is no ambiguity here.

[thade]

Tim, you can say "you have nothing to support that the two terms are the same" until you are blue in the face...and it will do your arguments no service. The reverse is also true. That's the problem, after all.

 

What is "combat"? We just don't know, apparently. Rule it locally. ;) This still has my vote for grey area.

[Seahawk]

*raises hand* I think I found something interesting to add:

 

"Units already locked in close combat with the enemy may not move during the Movement Phase." (p.11)

 

"Units that are locked in close combat with the foe." (p.15)

 

"This rule cannot be used if, when assaulted, the unit was already locked in combat from a previous turn." (p.74)

 

"Units with this ability that are locked in combat may choose to leave close combat at the end of the Assault Phase...unit breaks from combat...Enemy units that are no longer locked in combat may consolidate...If the last of these ends up no longer in combat, it consolidates instead." (p.75)

 

Now, I've only taken the most important points, and of course this isn't found anywhere near the assault rules, but it seems impeccably clear to me that if you are in close combat, you are locked in combat until the combat ends, either by one side dying or one side fleeing. You are indeed "locked in close combat" in all phases of the turn, not just the assault phase. A combat may be resolved, but the whole close combat isn't ended unless one side is dead or fled.

[dswanick]

ASSAULT PHASE SUMMARY

3 Resolve combats

• Pick a combat.

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

• Determine assault results. Total up wounds inflicted. The side that inflicted the most wounds overall in the combat is the winner.

• loser checks morale. The loser has to pass a Morale check or fall back. If the loser passes the test, go directly to pile-in.

• Sweeping advances, fall backs and consolidations. Units falling back from close combat must test to see if they successfully break off, if they fail they are destroyed. The winners may then consolidate their position.

• Pile-in! If units are still locked in close combat, then any models not engaged are moved towards the enemy to continue the fight next turn.

• Pick another combat and repeat until all combats have been resolved .

DETERMINING ASSAULT RESULTS

Assaults are usually decisive, one side or the other quickly gaining the upper hand and forcing back their foe. Good leadership can keep a side in the fight, but the casualties that each side inflicts are usually the most telling factor. To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved wounds inflicted by each side on their opponents. The side that caused the most is the winner.

...

If both sides suffer the same number of wounds, the combat is drawn and continues next turn.

I think that the summary of the Assault Phase plus the specific rules for determining assault results makes it pretty clear that a combat is the period of time within the Assault Phase were a combat is resolved. That the only time a unit may consolidate is after defeating an enemy unit which successfully breaks off. And that, if for some reason, a unit does not win a combat that the combat does not carry on again until the next Assault Phase.

Further:

CONSOLIDATION

At the end of a 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 any enemy, they may consolidate.

This makes it pretty clear that the only time a combat can end and allow a consolidation is during the assault phase.

 

Put me down in the "no consolidate" camp.

[Brother Valerius]

There are two flaws in your argument, dswanick. First, the quote that you cite (the last one) as making it clear that the only time a combat can end, resulting in consolidation, is during the assault phase... does no such thing. It doesn't even MENTION the assault phase. How can that make it clear? Second, you are (so far as I can tell) inferring the definition of "combat" to mean "only happens during the assault phase" based upon the fact that it is thoroughly mentioned in the assault rules. However, we all know full well that the rules are not written in so bulletproof a fashion to allow such definitions by inference... not even close.

 

Besides which, inferring from the rules does not create rules. That just creates your interpretation of the rules. Thus as before, we are back to the issue of "combat is not a term which is well-defined in the rules".

[thade]

These arguments are all pretty well hashed out. As has been said, it hinges upon whether combat is restricted to the Assault phase, or whether it is safe to consider it synonymous with locked in combat. At this point, I can see very solid merit to both sides.

 

EDIT: RETCON

I was tired and I waivered. I don't really see solid merit to both sides. See my continued stance below. <3

[dswanick]

There are two flaws in your argument, dswanick. First, the quote that you cite (the last one) as making it clear that the only time a combat can end, resulting in consolidation, is during the assault phase... does no such thing. It doesn't even MENTION the assault phase.

Why does it have to mention the Assault phase? It's a section in the Assault Phase. It is describing the details of one of the steps listed in the summary of the Assault Phase. See my first quote?

How can that make it clear? Second, you are (so far as I can tell) inferring the definition of "combat" to mean "only happens during the assault phase" based upon the fact that it is thoroughly mentioned in the assault rules. However, we all know full well that the rules are not written in so bulletproof a fashion to allow such definitions by inference... not even close.

And yet, the pro-consolidation crowd is infering things based on a lack of definitions, also. It's the best that can be achieved given the text available.

Besides which, inferring from the rules does not create rules. That just creates your interpretation of the rules. Thus as before, we are back to the issue of "combat is not a term which is well-defined in the rules".

Agreed. The rules are written to be taken as a whole, not parsed and dissected. Read all the things I quoted in one go, as a whole - and maybe you'll understand why I think that the rule is pretty clear that consolidation is the last step in a process which is preceded by one side loosing a combat to another side, failing it's Leadership test, and breaking off from combat. Up until now it seems that every one is trying to parse the text for a defnition of "combat" when I don't think it's really necessary. The whole of the Assault Phase rules makes it clear to me that consolidate is a result of one side breaking from combat.

 

Combat result --> Failed Leadership test --> Initiative test --> winning side gets consolidate.

 

But each side is entrenched, and I'm not interested in winning any hearts or minds - I simply logged my opiniong on this matter.

[Something Wycked]

The whole of the Assault Phase rules makes it clear to me that consolidate is a result of one side breaking from combat.

Your conclusion strangely supports the opposite side's arguments :) If "consolidate is a result of one side breaking from combat," and that particular event happens outside of the Assault Phase, then a consolidation move should immediately follow that event regardless of what phase it happens in. :tu:

[dswanick]

The whole of the Assault Phase rules makes it clear to me that consolidate is a result of one side breaking from combat.

Your conclusion strangely supports the opposite side's arguments :D If "consolidate is a result of one side breaking from combat," and that particular event happens outside of the Assault Phase, then a consolidation move should immediately follow that event regardless of what phase it happens in. :D

Except "breaking from combat" is a clearly definied game mechanic - One side looses more models to casualties, theat side makes a Leadership test and fails, and an Initiative test is made to see if the unit is destroyed or "breaks combat" and falls back 2d6". Does the assassin in question cause these things to happen? Does a mis-aimed blast template? Just finding your models not "locked in combat" isn't enough - there needs to be the "breaking from combat" chain of events to trigger a "consolidate".

[BOBMAKENZIE]

The whole of the Assault Phase rules makes it clear to me that consolidate is a result of one side breaking from combat.

Your conclusion strangely supports the opposite side's arguments ;) If "consolidate is a result of one side breaking from combat," and that particular event happens outside of the Assault Phase, then a consolidation move should immediately follow that event regardless of what phase it happens in. ^_^

Except "breaking from combat" is a clearly definied game mechanic - One side looses more models to casualties, theat side makes a Leadership test and fails, and an Initiative test is made to see if the unit is destroyed or "breaks combat" and falls back 2d6". Does the assassin in question cause these things to happen? Does a mis-aimed blast template? Just finding your models not "locked in combat" isn't enough - there needs to be the "breaking from combat" chain of events to trigger a "consolidate".

 

Do you perhaps mean Determining Assault results, checking morale and sweeping advances? There is no "Breaking from combat" at least last time I checked.

 

I think its also hard to argue that those three are the only way to gain a consolidation when consolidation itself clearly states if there are no enemies about to do those things with you get the consolidation anyway. Isnt the real issue here what defines combat and the ending there of?

[Seahawk]

Does the assassin in question cause these things to happen? Does a mis-aimed blast template? Just finding your models not "locked in combat" isn't enough - there needs to be the "breaking from combat" chain of events to trigger a "consolidate".

Double no: it's clearly written that units in combat don't take morale tests from shooting, and it's also clear that you can consolidate when one unit is destroyed, both units can't get back into BTB, or one units leaves the combat through a special rule, not just when it runs away.

[dswanick]

Does the assassin in question cause these things to happen? Does a mis-aimed blast template? Just finding your models not "locked in combat" isn't enough - there needs to be the "breaking from combat" chain of events to trigger a "consolidate".

Double no: it's clearly written that units in combat don't take morale tests from shooting, and it's also clear that you can consolidate when one unit is destroyed, both units can't get back into BTB, or one units leaves the combat through a special rule, not just when it runs away.

Well, here's the thing - you gave two additional examples:

1. "both units can't get back into BTB" - true, however this is in the section on Pile-In! on Pg.40. And it, too, has a specific chain of events which leads, specifically, to consolidate.

2. "one unit leaves combat through a special rule" - which unit using which special rule? Does it, too, describe a specific chain of events which leads to consolidate?

Your first example reinforces my point - unless the rule causing the units to no longer be "in combat" has a specific chain of events which leads to consolidate then you're assuming too much to conclude that finding yourself outside of BTB is reason enough to get extra move. The second example doesn't tell us anything unless we look at specific unit special rules and FAQs to see if it dose allow a consolidate.

[thade]

Combat being mentioned only in the Assault Chapter doesn't intrinsically restrict it to the Assault chapter or phase. There are other examples of things mentioned in each chapter that hold sway over phases other than where they're mentioned.

[dswanick]

True, but none of them (to my knowledge) say something like "this counts as winning a close combat" (which would include the possibility of Consolidation) or "this results in a Consolidation, see page 40/see The Assault Phase/etc..". Unlike (as an example) to wound rolls and armor saves in close combat which do direct you to the relevant part of the shooting phase where these concepts are discussed.

[Seahawk]

I already gave my examples here. I figured they'd be the best/only examples, so what's your opinion on 'em?

[thade]

I'm still with Seahawk; per his examples, if a unit is locked in close combat in a phase (regardless as to whether it's the Assault phase or not) and then subsequently becomes no longer locked in close combat (because of a scattered template or something) it gets a consolidate move as the entire reason it's no longer locked is that its enemies were destroyed.

 

This is so mind-blowingly simple to me. How is it satisfactory any other way, when non-Consolidation involves so many more qualifications? Consolidation outside of the Assault phase involves a less complex argument. Seems to me the proper way.

[dswanick]

I already gave my examples here. I figured they'd be the best/only examples, so what's your opinion on 'em?

I'm not sure how they relate to my point. None of them say "you can consolidate whenever". None of them give you permission to consolidate after shooting attacks are resolved. So if you need specific permission to consolidate - these aren't it.

I'm still with Seahawk; per his examples, if a unit is locked in close combat in a phase (regardless as to whether it's the Assault phase or not) and then subsequently becomes no longer locked in close combat (because of a scattered template or something) it gets a consolidate move as the entire reason it's no longer locked is that its enemies were destroyed.

 

This is so mind-blowingly simple to me. How is it satisfactory any other way, when non-Consolidation involves so many more qualifications? Consolidation outside of the Assault phase involves a less complex argument. Seems to me the proper way.

What's even more mind-blowingly simple is that the step #3 Resolve Combat tells you that you may Consolidate after a Sweeping Advance, Fall Back, or failed Pile-In! and unless you are given permission to Consolidate at other times you can't. Super-simple.

[Seahawk]

Why do you keep neglecting the fact that you can consolidate when a unit's opponents are all destroyed, not just if they fell back? Otherwise you're saying that, if you wipe out an enemy in close combat, you cannot consolidate.

[thade]

@dswanick

• The list you provide is not necessarily exhaustive. (We've been over this.)
  
• Combat is not clearly differentiated from locked in combat or base-to-base contact. (We've been over this.)
  
• The Consolidate rule (previously cited) states that you get to consolidate when you were previously locked in combat and your enemies have been destroyed. A scattered template and a Callidus can both make this happen. (We've been over this.)
  
• Adding conjecture and complexity does the counter-point no service. (We've also been over this.)
  

Still sold. Surprised you're not, honestly.

 

EDIT: Clarification. Formatting. Punctuation.