Locked in Combat and Wound Allocation

[smokingMirror]

24 minutes ago, dickyelsdon said:

 

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?

 

When combat starts at Initiative 5, the squad cannot do a pile-in or strike back. In the following steps of I5, all models in unit coherency with the B2B model are considered in engagement range. If the squad is in unit coherency, this extends to all models.
The rules state: Wound allocation
First, 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.

Disregarding Angrons IC attack profile for a moment, if there are multiple wound pools, for example non-precision strikes, rend, etc. the targeted player can decide which wound pools to resolve first, so he can choose which wounds to tank on the (if present) Sgt. artificer armor.

If you decided to choose a non precision-strike wound pool and allocate this to the front model, and this model is removed, the other models are still in engagement for that particular initiative step and the other wound pools can be allocated to them. This is because you don't do a recheck on the DWCF after each resolved wound or wound pool. The wound pools in the same initiative all happen at the same time. When initiative step 5 is resolved, we go to step 4, where the targeted player can choose to pile-in or not. If after this choice there are no longer models in B2B contact, the combat ends and combat resolution starts.

[smokingMirror]

48 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

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.

 

No need to get angry. Interesting that you are not responding to my argument and are avoiding the central point here without any references to rules. 

Where in the rules does it say you are allowed to DWCF out of sequence after resolving a single wound within a certain initiative step?
As i have already pointed out in my previous post, the sequence of the phase is that after pile-in, DWCF happens for that single initiative step. Not again after rolling, just like you don't pile-in again after removing a model.


 

  

48 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

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.

Again, clearly not true. Sub paragraph Determining who Can Fight has two major points:
* first, claiming that models with the same initiative value as the current initiative step AND who are engaged must fight,
*second, defining when a model is engaged.
This is the sequential step AFTER pile-in. Deciding which models are in engaged for that initiative step is also necessary according to p.187.

"Allocate Wounds
First, 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."

You seem to only want to check for initiative value and whether they can attack. That is not what it says. You check for initiative value AND you check for the models being engaged. If you only check for engagement range after every wound resolve then Dead Before Striking would not have been in the rulebook. I am not going to repeat the parts on same initative fights because you don't want to read but same initative fighting situations + Dead before Striking already show your claim is incorrect and goes against the rules. Engagement for a specific initative step is determined and only determined at the beginning of each initiative step. if you remove a defending B2B model with the same initative as the initiative step sequence it still gets to attack and its unit coherency models get to attack as well.

Please refer to the rule where it says you can redetermine who is engaged after each wound allocation and model removal.
 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by smokingMirror

[SkimaskMohawk]

21 minutes ago, smokingMirror said:

No need to get angry. Interesting that you are not responding to my argument and are avoiding the central point here without any references to rules. 

Where in the rules does it say you are allowed to DWCF out of sequence after resolving a single wound within a certain initiative step?
As i have already pointed out in my previous post, the sequence of the phase is that after pile-in, DWCF happens for that single initiative step. Not again after rolling, just like you don't pile-in again after removing a model.

 

I used the same language you did lol. And I responded to many of your arguments. Ive literally addressed Determine who can fight so many times already in this thread, but here I go again:

 

Determine who can fight is for attacking models. You find out models that meet the initiative step, you check to see if they (just them) are in engaged, and if they are, they can attack. Thats it. Theres no language to suggest you figure out how many of the targets are engaged, the permanence of engagement range throughout the step, nothing. It is for determining which models can make attacks. The rules for allocating wounds come later, and tell you if, at any point, there's no engaged targets, the wound pool is broken. It doesn't need to refer to DWCF because that is purely for seeing who can make attacks. 

 

29 minutes ago, smokingMirror said:

Again, clearly not true. Sub paragraph Determining who Can Fight has two major points:
* first, claiming that models with the same initiative value as the current initiative step AND who are engaged must fight,
*second, defining when a model is engaged.
This is the sequential step AFTER pile-in. Deciding which models are in engaged for that initiative step is also necessary according to p.187.

 

What? The literal text is for checking models of qualifying initiative and to see if they're engaged. If kharns fighting 20 tacs, DWCF will only examine models at I5 and their supporting dudes for purposes of being engaged. If he has 2 vets with him, only the vets will be checked in the I5 DWCF.

 

Sure, the rules give you the method for determining engagement range, but according to what's actually written down in the rules, everything says DWCF applies only to the models attacking, and nothing about transitioning engagement range across the entire initiative step. When you get to the point of wound allocation, you examine engagement range every time you pull casualties, because you are told to allocate wounds and pull casualties one at a time, and that for any reason, breaking engagement range stops the pool. 

 

After the whole "simultaneous" bit and reinterpretation of what RAW actually says it's clear that there's no point answering.

[smokingMirror]

Edit: If you are going to respond with laughing emoji's on a serious post I'm done discussing you, mr. 7k posts but no games. Enjoy your no-friends no-games

 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by smokingMirror
Rude behavior

[smokingMirror]

To OP: How do you determine who can attack? 2 requirements according to p. 184 initiative and... engagement

 

I understand the distinction between the two elements of the subparagraph but the distiction is irrelevant because you only get to decide at the beginning of each initiative step, otherwise the game does not make any sense at same initiative fights. Determination who is engaged is the step after pile-in.
It is one subparagraph not two titled DWCF, and it is not a seperate white box outside the sequence of the rulebook. The phases are explained sequentially because the order of the fight phase matter.

 

Lets look at this example:

• Tact squad charges a tac squad defending in spearhead formation. Same initiative 4.
• The spearhead squad does not decide to pile-in. Only 1 B2B contact. Both squads are in unit coherency.
• Determined, all units are in engagement and must attack. Because the attacks are all happening in the same initiative phase, it is simultanously. 
• You roll your dice to hit and to wound. You roll several wounds in multiple wound pools.
• The targeted player decides to allocate the first woundpool to the spearheads front model. The armor save fails/irrelevant. The front model is dead.
• According to the claimed interpretation, you then recheck engagement range, which is the requirement to be able to attack. Remember: models need to have I4 AND be engaged which is regularly checked in your interpretation. How are you in unit coherency with a model who is dead? You are not.
• Result: The targeted unit can no longer attack because there is no engagement. You disregard same initiative and the rules written, among them Dead Before Striking. Gamey rules achieved. 

 

It is not that one needs to prove where it says engagement extends per initiative step, it is part of the structuring of the fight phase in initiative steps.

As said before No Models Engaged in Combat does not allow redetermining engagement. Read the exact wording. It simply states when there is no engagement = remaining wounds are lost. It does not say when to check for this, and it certainly not after each resolved wound/casualty.The other interpretation breaks the game when resolving same initiative fights and is clearly against RAI.

 

"DWCF will only examine models at I5 and their supporting dudes for purposes of being engaged"

 

So this is assuming lets say L4-1 models are unable to being allocated wounds against in I5 because their engagement is never determined. Def. not true. See p.187 Allocate Wounds. You need to check this for all your models whether they have the right initiative and if they are in engagement. Otherwise you don't know which dice to roll. 

 

because you are told to allocate wounds and pull casualties one at a time, and that for any reason, breaking engagement range stops the pool. 

This is a misinterpretation of the white box No Models Engaged in Combat and leads to conflict with the general rules.

That text does not allow you to determine after each wound who is engaged in combat, which is literally described under DWCF. This paragraph is sequentially described as a step within each initiative step.

 

The other interpretation breaks the rules at same initiative fight, also see Dead before Striking and Allocate Wounds. 

Also I can't honestly imagine anyone playing like this.
It can be assumed only B2B models ever die because why would you pile-in if your side doesn't get the charge +1?

 

EDIT:

@SkimaskMohawk Seemingly you have lost the discussion since you are immaturely responding with a laughing emoji on a rules discussion.

What a sad person are you and not worth wasting my time. I'll pass on you from now on. Seemingly not the first to say that so that says enough about you. I'm open for respectful discussion not for you being a total ####.

Edited March 6, 2023 by smokingMirror

[Gorgoff]

9 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

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. 

 

I was talking about separated Initiative steps not separate models.

9 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

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.

 

You said that earlier before and this isn't true.

The combat only ends if after the "End of the battle pile in" nobody is in B2B contact anymore. Not during the different Initiative steps.

Maybe you meant aomething else but I wanted to point that out to be on the safe side here.

9 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

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.

 

 

I never said that. You determine who can fight in each Initiative step but not ofter each wound. 

 

9 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

Also assuming people from FB categorically don't know the rules is absolutely nonsense.

 

I didn't say that either. 

But there are enough to make it a comolete waste of time to discuss... well, anything on facebook. You could talk about potatoes and still feel like you wasting your life so no thank you I am not interested in facebook discussions. 

9 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

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?

We play it RAW.

Meaning we check each Initiative step which models are engaged and have this Initiative. Determine how many attacks they have, roll to hit, roll to wound, creating one or more wound pools.

Resolving one wound pool at a time, wound after wound, save after save. And if at some moment there are no more engaged models left all temaining wounds are lost. 

Pretty easy but problematic. 

8 hours ago, dickyelsdon said:

 

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 far as I understand you correctly, yes. Angron can only kill models which are engaged with him in the initiative step in which Angeon does his attacks. So if that are 3 models he can only kill three. The primarch sub type doesn't say that he can allocate wounds to models which are not engaged with him. The rules only say that the player who plays angron can allocate the wounds instead of the targets player.

8 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

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. 

 

 

It only tells us that everyone who is engaged at the same initiative can attack. But the wounds are resolved one by one. 

 

8 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

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. 

 

Precisely. In most circumstances the rules work just fine 

8 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

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.

 

The rules are so vague and unlogical that I try not to think about what is intended anymore. 

8 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

 

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

 

Again I wouldn't say so. If Angron is in base contact with one enemy and only two sre in coherency with this model he can kill exactly three models.

Nothing in the rules for Primarchs change that you still can only apoly wounds ro models who are engaged at the start of the initiative step.

7 hours ago, smokingMirror said:

When combat starts at Initiative 5, the squad cannot do a pile-in or strike back. In the following steps of I5, all models in unit coherency with the B2B model are considered in engagement range. If the squad is in unit coherency, this extends to all models.
 

... which are in coherency with the model(s) in B2B with the enemy. Not to the whole unit. That's an important distinction. Page 185 gives us an example how that works.

Only those in unit coherency with the model(s) in B2B count as engaged.

And if all these are dead the remaining wound pool(s) are lost 

[dickyelsdon]

Thanks for the detailed response Gorgoff. 

 

So trying to summarise;

Post pile-in, for any initiative step, an attacking models wound pool applies to all enemy models in base contact AND any in coherency with models in base contact. Any remaining wounds in the pool are exhausted once those models are removed.

 

Skimask i still understand your approach, and I play people who use the same application of the rule, but gut feel i think its not they way it was intended.  Ive sent a question on it to FAQ so hopefully they include it in the next release.

 

There is a lot of other discussion around specific scenarios and pile-in which i think are coincidental to the core question from the OP, does the wound pool extend to models not in base contact.

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by dickyelsdon

[General Zodd]

On 3/7/2023 at 8:05 AM, dickyelsdon said:

There is a lot of other discussion around specific scenarios and pile-in which i think are coincidental to the core question from the OP, does the wound pool extend to models not in base contact.

 

The wound pool definitely *can* extend to models not in base contact, the question is, if wounds are allocated to those in base contact *first*, what happens to any excess wounds after that? The main issue arises from the box-out “No Models Engaged in Combat”, which is barely explained (what does “if at any point” mean when all things happen simultaneously at a given initiative step?!) and has massive repercussions for the rest of the process.

 

To further muddy the water, and my apologies for doing so, but I’m trying to get this clear in my own head as well, on page 187, the owning player “Selects any one model in the unit that is engaged with the enemy unit whose attacks are being resolved”. This sentence badly needs a sub clause somewhere. Do they mean you can allocate wounds to any models in the engaged unit, or to models in that unit who are themselves engaged? There’s a big difference and can be read either way! Additionally, if you have multiple wound models and one of them has taken a wound it says you have to allocate wounds to them first. So how you interpret the previous sentence I raised is really important if the wounded model is lurking at the back of the unit out of engagement range. Any thoughts (beyond the fact GW need to employ more technical writers/editors!) on that last point welcome!

Edited March 8, 2023 by General Zodd

[dickyelsdon]

1 hour ago, General Zodd said:

... the question is, if wounds are allocated to those in base contact *first*, what happens to any excess wounds after that? The main issue arises from the box-out “No Models Engaged in Combat”, which is barely explained (what does “if at any point” mean when all things happen simultaneously at a given initiative step?!) and has massive repercussions for the rest of the process.

 

Exactly, this is the crux of the issue i think. 

Some are working through the rules step by step, as GW does in other systems where they number steps.

Others are working through the rules as they are mentioned, so as you point out that would lead you to check Engaged after you remove each model.

 

 

Quote

To further muddy the water, and my apologies for doing so, but I’m trying to get this clear in my own head as well, on page 187, the owning player “Selects any one model in the unit that is engaged with the enemy unit whose attacks are being resolved”. This sentence badly needs a sub clause somewhere. Do they mean you can allocate wounds to any models in the engaged unit, or to models in that unit who are themselves engaged? There’s a big difference and can be read either way! Additionally, if you have multiple wound models and one of them has taken a wound it says you have to allocate wounds to them first. So how you interpret the previous sentence I raised is really important if the wounded model is lurking at the back of the unit out of engagement range. Any thoughts (beyond the fact GW need to employ more technical writers/editors!) on that last point welcome!

 

Yep its just slack writing/checking.  Ive seen it played where wounded model is just ignored if not in base contact (for those doing that) and ive seen it played where the wounded model is sleceted as target even if at the back, following RAW, neither are wrong, both are wrong 

[Gorgoff]

11 hours ago, General Zodd said:

The wound pool definitely *can* extend to models not in base contact, the question is, if wounds are allocated to those in base contact *first*

 

No.

Page 187

 

Who is engaged?

Page 184

For further details please read my longer post directly above yours 

 

 

11 hours ago, General Zodd said:

 

, what happens to any excess wounds after that? The main issue arises from the box-out “No Models Engaged in Combat”, which is barely explained (what does “if at any point” mean when all things happen simultaneously at a given initiative step?!)

 

Like I already said it doesn't happen simultaneously. 

You apply one wound after the other. The momeTheno model is engaged (see above) anymore the rest of the wound pool(s) which had been produced in this Initiative Step are discarded. 

11 hours ago, General Zodd said:

To further muddy the water, and my apologies for doing so, but I’m trying to get this clear in my own head as well, on page 187, the owning player “Selects any one model in the unit that is engaged with the enemy unit whose attacks are being resolved”. This sentence badly needs a sub clause somewhere.

 

11 hours ago, General Zodd said:

Do they mean you can allocate wounds to any models in the engaged unit,

 

 

11 hours ago, General Zodd said:

or to models in that unit who are themselves engaged? There’s a big difference and can be read either way!

No, absolutely not. 

 

11 hours ago, General Zodd said:

Additionally, if you have multiple wound models and one of them has taken a wound it says you have to allocate wounds to them first. So how you interpret the previous sentence I raised is really important if the wounded model is lurking at the back of the unit out of engagement range.

 

Are those in the back engaged?

Probably not.

 

11 hours ago, General Zodd said:

 

Any thoughts (beyond the fact GW need to employ more technical writers/editors!) on that last point welcome!

Please and thank you.  

 

 

9 hours ago, dickyelsdon said:

 

Exactly, this is the crux of the issue i think. 

Some are working through the rules step by step, as GW does in other systems where they number steps.

Others are working through the rules as they are mentioned, so as you point out that would lead you to check Engaged after you remove each model.

 

Nowhere in the rues it is said that you check after each casualty. 

You check ar the start if each initiative step which models are engaged.

Everyone who is engaged must fight.

 

9 hours ago, dickyelsdon said:

 

 

Yep its just slack writing/checking.  Ive seen it played where wounded model is just ignored if not in base contact

 

Which is against the rules. If engaged, they must fight and if already wounded they must be choosen for wound allocation first. 

 

9 hours ago, dickyelsdon said:

 

(for those doing that) and ive seen it played where the wounded model is sleceted as target even if at the back, following RAW, neither are wrong, both are wrong 

And one last time...

Who must be choosen for wound allocation?

And who is engaged?

 

These three screenshots are key. 

You may role more than one wound at a time to speed things up but you have to look how many models are engaged first to know how many models can die of the wound pool(s) in the given initiative step at hand. 

 

Before someone pulls out his guns. I don't want to mock you I don't want to offend. I just wanted to put emphasis on the rules at hand.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Gorgoff

[dickyelsdon]

13 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Quote

  23 hours ago, dickyelsdon said:  

(for those doing that) and ive seen it played where the wounded model is sleceted as target even if at the back, following RAW, neither are wrong, both are wrong 

 

And one last time...

Who must be choosen for wound allocation?

And who is engaged?

 

 

 

The point i was responding to was a multi wound model unit being attacked, where a model with an already applied wound was not engaged. Rules say next wound must be applied to that model, but how do you do that if they are not in engagement range.  None of those quotes answer that quesiton.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

@dickyelsdon we've had this come up. Because we conga-line a lot in our meta. I've used a challenge to slingshot a sergeant/character from the back of the conga-line to the front by my opponent being forced to accept a challenge. We have played it that units with wounds outside of engagement range stay a live until they errata it.

 

Often times my Deliverers multi-meltas are held in the back of the unit, and have taken precision damage and left on one wound. Having a mixture of I4 & I1 units, I always want my I4 guys either behind an I 1, or to the sides of them to gain the benefit of 3" pile ins.

[smokingMirror]

2 hours ago, dickyelsdon said:

 

The point i was responding to was a multi wound model unit being attacked, where a model with an already applied wound was not engaged. Rules say next wound must be applied to that model, but how do you do that if they are not in engagement range.  None of those quotes answer that quesiton.

Engagement is determined per model, not per unit. So this cannot be read in two ways.
If the model is not in engagement for that particular initiative step, (mind you, being in engagement is different from being able to fight because initiative value) the wound cannot be allocated to this model. The rules nowhere state the next wound needs to be applied to a model that already has a wound, it needs to be engaged and therefore be in unit coherency.

If a specific (previously wounded) model is not engaged at the beginning of the initiative step to be resolved, it cannot be attacked.

If you check for engagement after each solved wound (which is incorrect) it is impossible to resolve same initiative fights correctly according to the rules. See for example Dead Before Striking. Also the core of the matter is this way of playing is implied by an incorrect reading of the No Models Engaged in Combat box. Thats why SkimaskMohawk's interpretation is wrong, because he can't resolve same initiative steps because of misreading on how the sequential order the Fight Phase is resolved.
 

Edited March 9, 2023 by smokingMirror

[SkimaskMohawk]

You can't accept/declare a challenge if you're not in engagement range at the start of the fight sub phase. 

 

If you're at the back of the conga line you're staying at the back.

[Cactus]

@GorgoffII think the flaw in your argument, if there is one, is that DWCF determines who can attack at that initiative step. It does not explicitly determine at that time who can be wounded by attacks in that initiative step.

 

The use of the term "engaged" in allocating wounds implicitly sends us back to DWCF to explain under what circumstances a model is engaged. However I think there is room in this sloppily drafted text to find an implied check for engaged/not-engaged when allocating each wound.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Cactus
clarity

[Gorgoff]

1 hour ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

You can't accept/declare a challenge if you're not in engagement range at the start of the fight sub phase. 

 

If you're at the back of the conga line you're staying at the back.

Exactly.

 

And if you are not engaged you can't fight and wounds can't be allocated to those models. 

 

I know what you mean @Cactus but DWCF talks about this Initiative Step.

And the attacks are made simultaneously. You just don't apply them simultaneously. So start of I4 for example 4 dudes are engaged. For this Initiative Step it won't change not matter what. It doesn't say anywhere that you have to re-establish being engaged after each casualty. You do it at the start of each I step.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Gorgoff

[smokingMirror]

1 hour ago, Cactus said:

@GorgoffII think the flaw in your argument, if there is one, is that DWCF determines who can attack at that initiative step. It does not explicitly determine at that time who can be wounded by attacks in that initiative step.

 

The use of the term "engaged" in allocating wounds implicitly sends us back to DWCF to explain under what circumstances a model is engaged. However I think there is room in this sloppily drafted text to find an implied check for engaged/not-engaged when allocating each wound.

I get this way of reasoning because indeed there are two things happening under the paragraph DWCF. There are three main arguments here supporting the engagement-per-initative-step.

1. The way the rulebook explains the Fight Phase is sequential. This excludes obviously explanatory paragraphs with a specific theme, but it excludes the white boxes with overal rules and places those texts outside the sequential narrative of the rulebook.

2. In order to determine which models are able to fight, you need to check for both initiative value ànd for engagement. If you do not do the engagement check in this phase for the models that are locked into combat you don't know which dice to roll in the first place. This strongly implies the engagement range and initiative values have been determined at that stage.

3. Same initative fights are impossible to resolve correctly if DWCF including engagement determination is not seen as a part of the sequence within a certain initiative step within the fight phase. The No Models Engaged in Combat text does in no way tell you when you check for engagement. This is just one interpretation which will conflict in same initiative situations. How the text is mostly interpreted is that overflow wounds are lost when the engaged models are dead. This means no wounds can be allocated to models outside engagement, for example models out of unit coherency which may pile in at their first upcoming initiative step.

As an argument I am disregarding the huge consequences for gameplay for a moment. The main confusion IMO comes from the wording of at any time which in a certain interpretation conflicts with the sequential organisation of the fight phase per initiative step. I would not agree to a game where same initiative fights give opportunity for either side to block the defender from fighting back because of continual engagement checks, it is simply not in the rules.

Edited March 9, 2023 by smokingMirror

[Dont-Be-Haten]

4 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Exactly.

 

A champion's Never Back Down must issue a challenge, came into play. My sergeant was 12" away. The rule does not say you that you can't accept challenges that you simply can't issue one. Ergo...slingshot.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Obviously issuing challenges doesn't restrict accepting; the rule for accepting challenges is what does it.

 

Quote

Accepting a Challenge

    If your opponent has issued a Challenge, you can now accept it – nominate any Character in one of your units locked in the combat to accept the Challenge. Characters that cannot fight or make Melee Attacks, including those that are not engaged with an enemy model, cannot accept Challenges.

 

Ergo....no sling shot

[SkimaskMohawk]

I was going through the 4th edition rules for another reason (mixed armour wound allocation) and I found out that limiting to engagement range was mechanic in this edition. Not a surprise really, as 2nd has a good amount of 4thisms. But here's the difference, at the second sentence of the second paragraph:

 

(Man I miss the thought of the day)

 

We can see a very, very explicit initiative step lock-in here. We also see a very explicit clause in the Determine Who Can Fight analogue section that says you can be attacked back when you're engaged.

 

 

I think the intent of 2nds rules was to obviously mirror this, but they lost some key parts in translation to their modern style of writing. Just like they lost the limit on stacking psychic powers when they revised that part. Or how they lost the limit of Jump/jet pack units going into transports when they made it all individual wargear. Beat to pencil in the missing clauses.

[Gorgoff]

13 minutes ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

I was going through the 4th edition rules for another reason (mixed armour wound allocation) and I found out that limiting to engagement range was mechanic in this edition. Not a surprise really, as 2nd has a good amount of 4thisms. But here's the difference, at the second sentence of the second paragraph:

 

(Man I miss the thought of the day)

 

We can see a very, very explicit initiative step lock-in here. We also see a very explicit clause in the Determine Who Can Fight analogue section that says you can be attacked back when you're engaged.

 

 

I think the intent of 2nds rules was to obviously mirror this, but they lost some key parts in translation to their modern style of writing. Just like they lost the limit on stacking psychic powers when they revised that part. Or how they lost the limit of Jump/jet pack units going into transports when they made it all individual wargear. Beat to pencil in the missing clauses.

That is shockingly true.

They seem to have taken the third editions rules and firget half of it while writing. 

[smokingMirror]

On 3/31/2023 at 5:02 PM, SkimaskMohawk said:

I was going through the 4th edition rules for another reason (mixed armour wound allocation) and I found out that limiting to engagement range was mechanic in this edition. Not a surprise really, as 2nd has a good amount of 4thisms. But here's the difference, at the second sentence of the second paragraph:

 

If you have to fall back to 4th edition 40k to argue HH 2.0 interpretation you are out of arguments. lol