Locked in Combat and Wound Allocation

[OnyxUltraKnight]

Hi All,

 

Recent conversation with my gaming group led to us being pretty split over wound allocation during the Fight sub-phase.

 

Firstly, a few excerpts from the Rulebook to aid in the conversation for this:

 

Quote

Page 183: Locked in Combat:
 

“If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model, then it is locked in combat. The unit is considered to be locked in combat as soon as an enemy model is moved into base contact with any model in that unit and remains locked in combat until there are no enemy models remaining in base contact with any model that is part of that unit”

 

Quote

Page 184: Start of Initiative Step Pile-In:

”At the start of each Initiative step, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step that is not in base contact with an enemy model may make a Pile-in Move.”

 

Quote

Page 187: Allocate Wounds:

”If any model in the target unit has already lost one or more Wounds, but has not been removed as a casualty then the Wound must always be allocated to such a model, unless that model also has the Character sub-type….

If all models have an equal number of Wounds remaining then the controlling player may freely select which eligible model is allocated any further wounds”

 

Quote

Page 187: No Models Engaged in Combat:

”If at any point whilst allocating wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is engaged in combat with the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.”

 

 

 

Armed with the above, say we have two units at the beginning of the fight sub-phase. X are attacking at I4, O are defending at I1. Assume all models in one rank are in base contact with the next rank, and no model in either squad has suffered a Wound yet:
 

Quote

 

XXXXX

OOOOO
OOOOO

 

The X’s fight first, dealing 8 Wounds to the O’s. Could I, as the O player, assign the received Wounds to the front rank (and in this scenario, fail all 5 required saves) and then ignore the 3 outstanding Wounds as there are no models Locked in Combat during the remainder of this Initiative step? Resulting in this:
 

Quote

 

XXXXX

 

OOOOO

 

 

And then from this, could the remaining O’s perform a Pile-In Move at I1 to attack the X’s? Or would all 3 outstanding wounds spill onto the 2nd rank of O’s regardless?

 

Thoughts appreciated on the matter as none of us could agree on: Wounds spilling over/Wounds spill over, but can’t Pile-In and fight/Wounds don’t spill over/Wounds don’t spill over and can Pile-In.

[dickyelsdon]

It wouldnt work with your example as the second row would (should) be in coherency range with the front rank, as so wounds would spill onto those models from that steps wound pool.

 

You could make it so the majority of the second rank were not in coherency with the front rank, and so those not in coherency with a model in combat would be considered not in combat and so couldnt be wounded, but im not sure they could then pile in?

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, dickyelsdon said:

It wouldnt work with your example as the second row would (should) be in coherency range with the front rank, as so wounds would spill onto those models from that steps wound pool.

 

You could make it so the majority of the second rank were not in coherency with the front rank, and so those not in coherency with a model in combat would be considered not in combat and so couldnt be wounded, but im not sure they could then pile in?

 

It actually does work the way OP described.  As soon as the base contact models are gone, the second rows aren't in coherency with any model in base contact. This interaction is reinforced by the quoted engagement range rules above; engagement range can be broken at any point. 

 

In practice it's hard to abuse it with same initiative combatants, but higher initiative characters really get hosed as they usually end in base with a single model off the charge.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[Xenith]

Losing the wound pool is correct, however:

 

2 hours ago, OnyxUltraKnight said:

could the remaining O’s perform a Pile-In Move at I1 to attack the X’s? Or would all 3 outstanding wounds spill onto the 2nd rank of O’s regardless?

 

I think this is only allowed if the pile-in move gets at least one model into B2B - under "who can fight", the only models that can fight at a specific initiative step are ones in B2B or are within coherency of a model in B2B.

[OnyxUltraKnight]

4 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

In practice it's hard to abuse it with same initiative combatants, but higher initiative characters really get hosed as they usually end in base with a single model off the charge.

 

May be worth placing higher Initiative characters in the 2nd rank (using the above example) to allow them to fight at Initiative and use those in the front rank, that are within coherency, to maximise hits? Obviously the weakness/strength (depending on your point of view) of this method of wound allocation is special rules such as Precision Strikes.

 

4 hours ago, Xenith said:

I think this is only allowed if the pile-in move gets at least one model into B2B - under "who can fight", the only models that can fight at a specific initiative step are ones in B2B or are within coherency of a model in B2B.

 

Absolutely agreed, if you pile-in and cannot make it B2B, then you miss your opportunity to fight and instead follow End of Combat pile-in instead (unless your opponent has someone at an even lower Initiative step).

 

Thanks all for the help!

[SkimaskMohawk]

42 minutes ago, OnyxUltraKnight said:

May be worth placing higher Initiative characters in the 2nd rank (using the above example) to allow them to fight at Initiative and use those in the front rank, that are within coherency, to maximise hits? Obviously the weakness/strength (depending on your point of view) of this method of wound allocation is special rules such as Precision Strikes

 

You basically have to do this and hope for a wide, compacted, combat front to have as many models in base contact and within coherency as possible, just for your character to be able to kill up to the potential of their attack values.

 

Even primarchs can benefit from that technique, as their allocation is still beholden to engagement range. 

[OnyxUltraKnight]

19 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

You basically have to do this and hope for a wide, compacted, combat front to have as many models in base contact and within coherency as possible, just for your character to be able to kill up to the potential of their attack values.

 

Very good point, but seemingly worth it if it means your character doesn’t have all bar one or two of their attacks wasted? If you eschew blast weapons (such as the Scorpius) your opponent may be more like to group up their models, as they’re not expecting blast markers to be dangled over their heads constantly. Maybe an Arcus instead to make up for the AP2 firepower?

Primarchs, whilst still beholden to B2B and Unit Coherency for Wound pools, do get to choose to whom their Hits are allocated (except for when Deathwing Companions are in the mix, I think) so maybe starting from the back of the enemy unit, working forwards is the solution there? Looking over the rules I don’t see anything that prevents Hit/Wound allocation starting from models that are outside of B2B or Coherency of models in B2B. Just that excess Wounds are lost when the B2B models are killed, as discussed earlier.

[SkimaskMohawk]

11 minutes ago, OnyxUltraKnight said:

 

Primarchs, whilst still beholden to B2B and Unit Coherency for Wound pools, do get to choose to whom their Hits are allocated (except for when Deathwing Companions are in the mix, I think) so maybe starting from the back of the enemy unit, working forwards is the solution there? Looking over the rules I don’t see anything that prevents Hit/Wound allocation starting from models that are outside of B2B or Coherency of models in B2B. Just that excess Wounds are lost when the B2B models are killed, as discussed earlier.

 

The normal wound allocation sequence tells you the player receiving the attack has to pick an engaged model to have wounds allocated to. Primarch just says the controlling player allocates instead of the targetted player, without any "instead of the normal rules for wound allocation" clause. So, imo, the only change from the normal allocation rules is which player does the allocation, and is still beholden to engagement range. 

[OnyxUltraKnight]

59 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Primarch just says the controlling player allocates instead of the targetted player, without any "instead of the normal rules for wound allocation" clause. So, imo, the only change from the normal allocation rules is which player does the allocation, and is still beholden to engagement range. 

 

That’s fair, my group had been playing the Primarch Rule = Precision Shots/Strikes, due to the Primarch player allocating Hits and “These Hits should form a separate Wound Pool” as the final sentence of that bullet.

 

But completely see that whilst the wording looks almost identical, because Primarchs don’t have the “instead of normal rules” (as you point out) like Precision Shots/Strikes do, you would just resolve them all as a separate wound pool at Initiative. Seems weird Primarchs ‘say’ who they’re hitting but, as part of that, the choice of Wounds allocation is handed back to the opposing player - potentially to models that weren’t even the initial target of the Primarchs hits.

 

I still think either player can choose (or be forced to by Precision Strikes as I keep belabouring) to remove from the backs of their squads, if they so wish, however. As “the player whose unit is the target of the attack selects any one model in the unit that is engaged with the enemy unit whose attacks are being resolved”.

 

Sorry if it feels like you’re slamming your head into a wall here, just trying to make sure I can explain the ruling interpretation we’ve come to sufficiently when I play next time!

[SkimaskMohawk]

Well precision strike also has the caveat of the model needing to be engaged in combat. 

 

It doesn't look like there's a way to allocate out of engagement range in melee, at least imo.

 

But he honestly, the rules for engagement range only really hamper the enjoyment of melee combat. It doesn't work smoothly, and you need to contort the placement of units to have it work decently. Any changes to allocation and engagement are for the better. Hopefully lol.

[Valkyrion]

I know this isn't too helpful in the Official Rules section, but my group has houseruled it that all models in a unit are in engagement range all the time.

Our reasoning is that 1) it's a melee, not a dance off, and 2) we don't need to overthink model removal and wound allocation.

 

We haven't noticed anything too gamebreakingly wrong with doing so yet, though I admit our sample size is small and we aren't overly competitive players. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

4 hours ago, Valkyrion said:

I know this isn't too helpful in the Official Rules section, but my group has houseruled it that all models in a unit are in engagement range all the time.

Our reasoning is that 1) it's a melee, not a dance off, and 2) we don't need to overthink model removal and wound allocation.

 

We haven't noticed anything too gamebreakingly wrong with doing so yet, though I admit our sample size is small and we aren't overly competitive players. 

That's a tough house rule. If you have a conga-line where 1 third of your unit is 12" or more away from combat.

 

I feel like this is an important query. Screening units or compressed corridors where you cannot advance more than 2 ranks of models or you/your opponent have sudden strike (x) OR when you assault into terrain without grenades. This can cause some confusion when the first 2 rows are obliterated I.e. palaying against Custodes where they are majority I5 and AP2/instant death, or Solar Axillary where you are I3 or worse.

 

I think that if you want to stay in combat, you would want to start by pulling units from the back for the first wound pool, then from the front if you want to protect certain weapons or if you are fearless/stubborn and want to keep a unit tied up for a turn.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Dont-Be-Haten
Fixed bad word usage, clarification added.

[dickyelsdon]

On 2/24/2023 at 1:13 PM, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

It actually does work the way OP described.  As soon as the base contact models are gone, the second rows aren't in coherency with any model in base contact. This interaction is reinforced by the quoted engagement range rules above; engagement range can be broken at any point. 

 

In practice it's hard to abuse it with same initiative combatants, but higher initiative characters really get hosed as they usually end in base with a single model off the charge.

 

 

you see this is where i get confused.  Because the 'determine who can fight' step is done before the wound pool (for that initiative step) and then the allocate wounds step. So your saying you re-determine if a model is in combat for every wound from the wound pool you allocate?

 

An example:   Attacker X, defenders D deployed as such. defenders are at max coherency such that D3 is only in coherency with D2.

 

X-D1-D2-D3.

 

At initiative step 4 you determine who can fight (X, D1 and D2). D3 is never in the fight.

They fight, wound pool created.

Assume X deals 2 wounds to D, the first is rolled for D1 and fails save. D1 is removed.

I thought you would now apply the second wound to D2, as they were eligable to fight at the start of the initiative step.

But you are saying X can never kill D2 if D1 dies, even within the same initiative step?

 

EDIT; I guess initiative step doesnt even matter to X, they can only ever kill D1?

Edited March 2, 2023 by dickyelsdon

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, dickyelsdon said:

 

you see this is where i get confused.  Because the 'determine who can fight' step is done before the wound pool (for that initiative step) and then the allocate wounds step. So your saying you re-determine if a model is in combat for every wound from the wound pool you allocate?

 

An example:   Attacker X, defenders D deployed as such. defenders are at max coherency such that D3 is only in coherency with D2.

 

X-D1-D2-D3.

 

At initiative step 4 you determine who can fight (X, D1 and D2). D3 is never in the fight.

They fight, wound pool created.

Assume X deals 2 wounds to D, the first is rolled for D1 and fails save. D1 is removed.

I thought you would now apply the second wound to D2, as they were eligable to fight at the start of the initiative step.

But you are saying X can never kill D2 if D1 dies, even within the same initiative step?

 

EDIT; I guess initiative step doesnt even matter to X, they can only ever kill D1?

 

Confusion relating to the who can fight step is really common; people read it and think it locks in all the models that are engaged, mainly because people just assume tac vs tac or something like that. 

 

In reality, DWCF only counts the models who can fight, which is used throughout the book as a synonym for attacking (like rolling the hit&wound dice). The best example is if you have an IC fighting tacs; you go through the initiative steps until you hit 5, you do your I5 pile in, and then you look at DWCF. It tells you the following:

 

Quote

Any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.

    A model is engaged in combat if either:

    • That model is in base contact with an enemy model.

    • That model is in unit coherency with another model from its own unit which is in base contact with an enemy model.

 

This sequence would only apply to the IC. It is the only model with an initiative equal to the step, and is therefore the only model you would look to see if they're engaged. This step wouldn't capture any models at different initiative values, or say anything about engagement being perpetual throughout the initiative step. 

 

Your example of X-D1-D2-D3 would get muddled a bit by I4 pile in, but if we say X was I5 then ya, with defender smart allocating then X will always be capped at killing D1. And even if engagement range was locked to initiative step, X can never kill more than D2, and which can feel extremely frustrating for high attack independent characters with a similarly high initiative.

 

[dickyelsdon]

Ok thanks. I get pile in moves change things, but good to know how it works out.  

[General Zodd]

Right, just so I’m getting this straight in my head, if a lone model (let’s say an Eversor, seeing as they have to be alone), charges into a unit contacting one model, they inflict four wounds, the first can be allocated to the person in base contact, killing them, the rest of the wounds are then discarded? If the defending unit has a Vexilla there’s no way the combat monster assassin can win that combat. That sounds like a terrible system!

 

And what happens after? Can the rest of the defending unit pile in at a lower initiative step and fight anyway, or does the combat end once nobody is in base contact?

[SkimaskMohawk]

3 hours ago, General Zodd said:

Right, just so I’m getting this straight in my head, if a lone model (let’s say an Eversor, seeing as they have to be alone), charges into a unit contacting one model, they inflict four wounds, the first can be allocated to the person in base contact, killing them, the rest of the wounds are then discarded? If the defending unit has a Vexilla there’s no way the combat monster assassin can win that combat. That sounds like a terrible system!

 

And what happens after? Can the rest of the defending unit pile in at a lower initiative step and fight anyway, or does the combat end once nobody is in base contact?

 

The lower initiative stuff would then pile in, yes. 

 

It is a terrible system. In theory it makes sense, because you can only hit someone with a sword that's close enough. In practice, it can lead to some really feel bad moments  and a high level of gaminess. Even if it locked engagement range, you can still end up with cases where an IC is capped at killing two models. 5th was previously looked at as having the mose gamey system, but I think 2nd takes it.

 

[dickyelsdon]

9 hours ago, General Zodd said:

Right, just so I’m getting this straight in my head, if a lone model (let’s say an Eversor, seeing as they have to be alone), charges into a unit contacting one model, they inflict four wounds, the first can be allocated to the person in base contact, killing them, the rest of the wounds are then discarded? If the defending unit has a Vexilla there’s no way the combat monster assassin can win that combat. That sounds like a terrible system!

 

And what happens after? Can the rest of the defending unit pile in at a lower initiative step and fight anyway, or does the combat end once nobody is in base contact?

 

Yeah seems potentially restrictive, given how much opportunity there is for stuff to shoot in this game its a bit rough to be so restrictive on combats.

 

Thats how id come to my (incorrect) assumption that you determined who on both sides was 'in combat' at a given moment to represent the sort of spill casualties youd get if an Eversor got into an enemy unit and put out its attacks first, gutting the first few contacts and ending up (follow up move) in the heart of the enemy unit).

[smokingMirror]

On 3/5/2023 at 11:28 AM, General Zodd said:

Right, just so I’m getting this straight in my head, if a lone model (let’s say an Eversor, seeing as they have to be alone), charges into a unit contacting one model, they inflict four wounds, the first can be allocated to the person in base contact, killing them, the rest of the wounds are then discarded? If the defending unit has a Vexilla there’s no way the combat monster assassin can win that combat. That sounds like a terrible system!

 

And what happens after? Can the rest of the defending unit pile in at a lower initiative step and fight anyway, or does the combat end once nobody is in base contact?

Since the right answer has not yet been given here and this issue has popped up multiple times on discussions (first one I remember is Facebook, see below)

I am going to point out these important points that have been missed:

 

1. the determination who can fight starts at the beginning of the initiative step (n), nowhere in the rulebook it says if you are allowed to do a full re-check on who can fight after each solved wound. This is not specified and it is certainly sequence-breaking and conflicting with RAW. What is specified is that this happens at the start of each initiative step. So doing it after each wound applied is not allowed since it is not written and its interpretation conflicts with RAW ex. Dead before Striking p.188. This goes as well for how people interpret 'At any time' p. 187 in that way.

 

2. Wounds within 1 certain pool in 1 initiative step are applied as if happening at the same time. you don't get to "tactically" choose your wound allocation to make your attacker spill over wounds and then attack with the same models WITHIN the same initiative step. This might not be the case in the example of OP, but even if the initiative steps are the same it does not make a difference because it only determines who can fight after/before/simultanuously. You still only do the determination Who Can Fight at the beginning of each initiative step.

 

3. IF you are allowed to do a recheck for Determine Who Can Fight multiple times within a single initiative step and wounds are lost you are no longer in combat. This means in these cases there will always be an end of combat consolidation which means any pile-ins are forced, locking you back in combat again.
 

4. The box on pg 187 Models Not Engaged in Combat simply states wound are lost in the instance all models are dead or otherwise not being able to be allocated wounds to WITHIN the initiative step. The other interpretation ('At any time' means recheck after each wound) conflicts as said with the rules of the sequence of melee combat. The "at any point" refers to the point at which all the engaged models (the ones that were determined to be engaged at the start of the Initiative step) are dead. The set of engaged models doesn't change as models are removed and nowhere is stated this is the case.

 

This discussion arises from misinterpreting the sequence of the game. It leads to a very cheeseable vulnerability which basically changes how the whole game is played. This might not be super clear directly by OP's example, but it does show with the Eversor or the Facebook example below (leviathan vs ranked termies). There is a clear right here so no, the wounds are fortunately not lost. 

 

Reference to the previous discussion:

https://m.facebook.com/groups/2092361454270013/permalink/2301106603395496/

Edited March 6, 2023 by smokingMirror

[SkimaskMohawk]

3 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

Since the right answer has not yet been given here and this issue has popped up multiple times on discussions (first one I remember is Facebook, see below)

I am going to point out these important points that have been missed

 

Imagine leading with this intro. 

 

3 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

the determination who can fight starts at the beginning of the initiative step (n), nowhere in the rulebook it says if you are allowed to do a full re-check on who can fight after each solved wound. This is not specified and it is certainly sequence-breaking and conflicting with RAW. What is specified is that this happens at the start of each initiative step. So doing it after each wound applied is not allowed since it is not written and its interpretation conflicts with RAW. This goes as well for how people interpret pg. 187 in that way.

 

Very clearly, determine who can fight is only for models attacking at that initiative step. This conflation forms basically every counter argument. 

 

 

3 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

2. Wounds within 1 certain pool in 1 initiative step are applied as if happening at the same time. you don't get to "tactically" choose your wound allocation to make your attacker spill over wounds and then attack with the same models WITHIN the same initiative step. This might not be the case in the example of OP, but even if the initiative steps are the same it does not make a difference because it only determines who can fight after/before/simultanuously. You still only do the determination Who Can Fight at the beginning of each initiative step.

 

This is made up. Nothing says all wounds in a pool happen simultaneously; the rules say you choose a model for a wound and then roll to save it, and then repeat. 

 

3 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

3. IF you are allowed to do a recheck for Determine Who Can Fight multiple times within a single initiative step and wounds are lost you are no longer in combat. This means in these cases there will always be an end of combat consolidation which means any pile-ins are forced, locking you back in combat again.

 

Yes? No one has claimed you can disengage from combat with this, simply because end of combat pile-in happens.

 

3 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

4. The box on pg 187 Models Not Engaged in Combat simply states wound are lost in the instance all models are dead or otherwise not being able to be allocated wounds to WITHIN the initiative step. The other interpretation ('At any time' means recheck after each wound) conflicts as said with the rules of the sequence of melee combat. The "at any point" refers to the point at which all the engaged models (the ones that were determined to be engaged at the start of the Initiative step) are dead. The set of engaged models doesn't change as models are removed and nowhere is stated this is the case.

 

Literally making up the initiative step clause. And again, not what determine who can fight means.

 

That thread you linked to was literally filled with people who couldnt understand what determine who can fight means.

Edited March 5, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[smokingMirror]

11 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

Imagine leading with this intro. 

 

 

Very clearly, determine who can fight is only for models attacking at that initiative step. This conflation forms basically every counter argument. 

 

 

 

This is made up. Nothing says all wounds in a pool happen simultaneously; the rules say you choose a model for a wound and then roll to save it, and then repeat. 

 

 

Yes? No one has claimed you can disengage from combat with this, simply because end of combat pile-in happens.

 

 

Literally making up the initiative step clause. And again, not what determine who can fight means.

 

That thread you linked to was literally filled with people who couldnt understand what determine who can fight means.

 

lol I am going to ignore your attitude while addressing your arguments. Sorry if I offended you. If you are not willing to discuss the rules or what has been adressed already in the link I referenced, shoving it off as 'don't know what they are talking about' I am not going to respond to you anymore.

 

You are clearly the one making things up here. Please refer to the rules where it states you are allowed to do a Determination Who Can Fight outside the clearly written sequence of combat. 

To adress your specific points:
- Nothing says all wounds in a pool happen simultaneously.
This is obviously the case because each woundpool in melee combat is resolved in each initiative step. Both the attacking side and defending side rolls on initiative 4= these are resolved as if happening simultaneously. Initiative 1 weapon? This woundpool is different and therefore is not applied at the same time. Again, nowhere in the rulebook it says you may recheck Who Can Fight after each resolved wound within a woundpool/initative step. It is not logical and not written anywhere and makes a big difference in how you play the game, RAI or gamey.

 

In practice it's hard to abuse it with same initiative combatants

Your interpretation actually makes it very, very easy to abuse because now tac squads I4 charging tac squads I4 will  always deny the attackers second or first woundpool and the defending unit attacking at all if all defending models in base contact are killed before, thus causing a denial while the RAW clearly state the attacks Happen at the same time. So there would never be a reason for a defender to not rank their units in spearheads because since the attacker generally does not allocate wounds you just pick the first model. Gotcha. The illogical consequence of same initiative fights prove this interpretation is incorrect.

 

 

-Literally making up the initiative step clause.
Nope. Read page 184. Sequence of fighting phase is as follows:
* Choose a combat
* Fight a combat:
* initiative steps high to low (Initiative: If both sides have models with the same Initiative, their attacks
are made simultaneously)
    *Initiative step (n): Pile-in, or not
    *Determine Who Can Fight (base contact + unit coherency FOR THAT STEP)
    *Roll to Hit
    *Roll to Wound
    *Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties
    * Fight next Initiative Step (repeat from Pile-in, or not)

You are fantasizing a new Determine Who Can Fight check within the Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties phase within a single initiative.
There is no text in the rulebook that says you can to this, unless you interpret the box No Models Engaged in Combat in a way that conflicts with the RAW.
No Models Engaged in Combat only states that when all models within the initiative step are dead, any left over wounds are lost. It does not change the sequence of the fighting phase or gives you another opportunity to Determine Who Can Fight. Period.

Edited March 6, 2023 by smokingMirror

[Gorgoff]

4 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

 

 

You are clearly the one making things up here. Please refer to the rules where it states you are allowed to do a Determination Who Can Fight outside the clearly written sequence of combat. 
 

You determine which model is engaged in every initiative step separately. 

Page 184 says so. 

So if 4 Models of the enemy are engaged with your 3 models only 7 models in total can die no matter how many wounds you or your opponent causes. And that's a problem.

Obviously not a big deal if two units smash into each other with almost all models, but a huuuge deal if you charge a unit with one strong character because they will most like only ever engage a couple of enemys (depending on how the unit is positioned etc. pp. Of course)

So if you charge a unit with Angron and cause 10 woubds and are only in base contact with one enemy which has only two other guys in 2" you can only kill these three guys and the rest of your woubds are lost. 

And since Angy has higher I than most models your opponent can pile in after that and attack back. 

That is the big problem.

In addition this problem can hit units in situations where only one of your models reach the enemy even if they are in the same I step, because he doesn't have to pile in. So it could happen that the über killer unit only kills two guys and that's it. 

Obviously this doesn't happen all the time and is a situstional problem but a problem nonetheless. 

 

4 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

 

To adress your specific points:
- Nothing says all wounds in a pool happen simultaneously.
This is obviously the case because each woundpool in melee combat is resolved in each initiative step. Both the attacking side and defending side rolls on initiative 4 these are resolved as if happening simultaneously.

 

You misunderstood Skimask.

He was talking about rolling one save after the next and you talk about models attacking obviously at the same time. So yes, if 4 Models in total are engaged in I4 all of them get to attack and so on but they can hurt only each other.

4 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

Initiative 1 weapon? This woundpool is different is not applied at the same time. Again, no where in the rulebook it says you recheck Who Can Fight after each resolved wound within a woundpool/initative step.

 

Page 184.

You determine who is engaged in each initiative step separately.

"Any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current I step[..]

A model is engaged if it is in base contact [...] The model is in coherency[...]"

 

 

4 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

It is not logical 

 

Oh yes. And situational very problematic.

 

I wanted to add two things.

 

We talk about GWs very vaguely and bad written rules so instead of getting mad at each other please remember who is the real villain here. ;)

 

And B facebook discussions are never worth even looking.

Facebook is full of people who have no clue of the rules and the way threads work there makes it tedious to work through anyway. 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Gorgoff

[smokingMirror]

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

You determine which model is engaged in every initiative step separately. 

 

Page 184.

You determine who is engaged in each initiative step separately.

"Any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current I step[..]

A model is engaged if it is in base contact [...] The model is in coherency[...]"

 

 

 

I think we get to the heart of the matter here. Seperately is definitely not written in the rules. This is how you interpret this subparagraph, and this interpretation conflicts with the whole sequence of the Fighting phase by each initiative steps. There is no reason to assume why you do this separately. It is not there. It is an interpretation that goes against the sequence of battle, especially during same initiative fights. 

Let's take the example of one tac squads charging the other with both fighting at the same initiative 4. Just like shooting reactions do not deny models getting to shoot because they got wounded on the first rolls (**because the shooting happens at the same time** RAI before and RAW after the FAQ) the fighting within one specified initiative step happens at the same time as well. The defender positioning the unit in a defensive spearhead formation does not allow the defender for allocating to the front model in order to do a recheck on the DWCF, and thus ending the combat. This is also implied by the subparagraph Dead before Striking p. 188. Nowhere in the rules it says you can determine who can fight after each removed model. The rules however state in each initative step sequence, you start with an (optional) pile-in and then you do DWCF, before you roll. Just like you don't pile-in after one or two wound rolls, you don't DWCF out of sequence.

 
Page 184 Fight Sub-phase shows the sequential order of the phase like I wrote down in my previous message. The rulebook explains the steps of each phase sequentially, which means the order of resolving the phases in the rulebook matter. You have to agree with me on this as this goes for the shooting phase as well. The whole idea of initative steps is to make some attacks happen at the same time, and some don't. The recheck after each model goes against this whole sequence. Contrary to what has been argued before, this does not only apply to IC, but this is a general rule.

Also assuming people from FB categorically don't know the rules is absolutely nonsense. This issue has also already been adressed in the HH Age of Darkness Discord group.

 

But for real man, you guys really play like this?

Edited March 6, 2023 by smokingMirror

[dickyelsdon]

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

...

 

So if you charge a unit with Angron and cause 10 woubds and are only in base contact with one enemy which has only two other guys in 2" you can only kill these three guys and the rest of your woubds are lost. 

And since Angy has higher I than most models your opponent can pile in after that and attack back. 

 

 

 

So Gorgoff you are saying Angron can kill the defender in base contact AND the two who are in coherency with the model in base contact, regardless of the order the wounds are applied?

 

 as Skimask is saying here (in response to my confusing) that attacker X (lets say Angron) could only kill the defender in base contact, if the defending player removed that model first.

On 3/2/2023 at 5:48 PM, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

Your example of X-D1-D2-D3 would get muddled a bit by I4 pile in, but if we say X was I5 then ya, with defender smart allocating then X will always be capped at killing D1. And even if engagement range was locked to initiative step, X can never kill more than D2, and which can feel extremely frustrating for high attack independent characters with a similarly high initiative.

 

 

[SkimaskMohawk]

6 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

To adress your specific points:
- Nothing says all wounds in a pool happen simultaneously.
This is obviously the case because each woundpool in melee combat is resolved in each initiative step. Both the attacking side and defending side rolls on initiative 4= these are resolved as if happening simultaneously. Initiative 1 weapon? This woundpool is different and therefore is not applied at the same time. Again, nowhere in the rulebook it says you may recheck Who Can Fight after each resolved wound within a woundpool/initative step. It is not logical and not written anywhere and makes a big difference in how you play the game, RAI or gamey.

 

So as i said....there's no rule that says wounds in a pool happen simultaneously, and many that tell you to resolve and account for them individually. Nothing supports that interpretation that's actually written down. 

 

6 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

In practice it's hard to abuse it with same initiative combatants

Your interpretation actually makes it very, very easy to abuse because now tac squads I4 charging tac squads I4 will  always deny the attackers second or first woundpool and the defending unit attacking at all if all defending models in base contact are killed before, thus causing a denial while the RAW clearly state the attacks Happen at the same time. So there would never be a reason for a defender to not rank their units in spearheads because since the attacker generally does not allocate wounds you just pick the first model. Gotcha. The illogical consequence of same initiative fights prove this interpretation is incorrect.

 

In practice people don't pre-rank and stagger their models; they barely space properly for blasts. So when a bunch of I4 Marines charge another bunch of I4 Marines, and both sides pile in, you end up with a whole lot of models in base contact. And all of those need to die before wound pools get discarded. 

 

There is no RAW about simultaneous wounds. 

 

I'm not sure where illogical outcomes negate the mechanics of rules. It's illogical to shoot barrage from under a ruin floor, or have a unit of suzerains all jump in the way of melee attacks to leave the previous guy wounded but not dead, but those are just parts of the game.

 

6 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

Literally making up the initiative step clause.
Nope. Read page 184. Sequence of fighting phase is as follows:
* Choose a combat
* Fight a combat:
* initiative steps high to low (Initiative: If both sides have models with the same Initiative, their attacks
are made simultaneously)
    *Initiative step (n): Pile-in, or not
    *Determine Who Can Fight (base contact + unit coherency FOR THAT STEP)
    *Roll to Hit
    *Roll to Wound
    *Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties
    * Fight next Initiative Step (repeat from Pile-in, or not)

 

Lol what?

 

You referenced the No models engaged box and claimed it revolved around engagement range or dead models in the initiative step. It doesn't state that, at all; that clause is made up. 

 

But to support that, you're pointing to text that says "If both sides have models with the same Initiative, their attacks are made simultaneously". This has nothing to do with wound allocation or determining engagement range; it's permission for when models get to attack. It's only saying that if both sides have the same initiative they get to roll at the same time, not all wound pools happen at the same time in an initiative step.

 

You have to contort the sentence so far lol. First, ignore that it's a clause to be applied when initiatives match. Second ignore that it only says attacks. Third, insert wound allocation. 

 

6 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

You are fantasizing a new Determine Who Can Fight check within the Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties phase within a single initiative.
There is no text in the rulebook that says you can to this, unless you interpret the box No Models Engaged in Combat in a way that conflicts with the RAW.
No Models Engaged in Combat only states that when all models within the initiative step are dead, any left over wounds are lost. It does not change the sequence of the fighting phase or gives you another opportunity to Determine Who Can Fight. Period.

 

Ah yes, I'm the one fantasizing. The person who actually understands what RAW means lol. A hint for the future; it stands for "rules as written" and means you read them as they are written. Not as you've rewritten and mentally changed the writing of.

 

@dickyelsdon primarchs get to choose where they allocate (instead of defender) so they should never lose wound pools from breaking engagement range.

 

Edit: holy cow it gets better. Claiming versimilitude with shooting reactions for "simultaneous", but the rules just always told you it happened before casualties lol.

 

And to point out again, the entirety of the argument is built on the foundation of "who can fight" locking engagement. When we know it only examines the engagement ranges of the attacking model to allow them to...attack.

Edited March 6, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk