[jy2]

Here's the simple scenario. Ork squad A is locked in cc with Marine squad B. Then Marine squad C joins in the melee and charges Ork A.

Now I've always played it that Ork can attack either Marine B or C depending on who is in b-t-b with whom.

Then this player I played against insisted this wasn't so and pointed this out to me in the BRB (p.41):

"Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit."

Thus, he said Ork A had to attack Marine B that turn. Then next turn it could attack either Marine B or C. Talking with a fellow LO-er on another thread here has put doubts in my mind again.

So how would you intepret multiple combat to work?

 

[crestfallen32]

My thoughts on this are a bit hard to explain...so Picture time?


A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
B1 B2 B3 B4 C1
C2 C3 C4 C5

So with what you said, Squad C just charged into a combat that was already in progress. So, the rule says "Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit" Which to me means that only Numbers 4 and 5 A can attack C, as they are the only ones in contact the beginning of said round.

Not the best picture, but I hope I get my point across...

 

[Red Archer]

I'm glad this issue is being discussed here. I have always believed that models in multiple close combats can attack whomever they are in base-to-base with (or, if not in base-to-base themselves, within 2" of another model from the same squad which is in base-to-base), regardless of whether that unit has just joined the close combat or been there in previous rounds.
Now some time ago here on LO I was told, with overwhelming support, that my view of the matter was wrong, and that you couldn't attack a unit that just joined combat this turn if you were already locked in assault. I couldn't believe it, but there was nobody to support my opinion, therefore I just gave up on it (on LO). My gaming group agreed that we all view the way I did, though, despite the other variant offering a lot more tactical possibilities.

Here is some things to consider:

• IF a unit that was already locked in assault and is charged by a second unit must not attack that newly charged unit on the turn they charge, where can I find the ruling that they may attack this unit in any turn thereafter? The rulebook says if they were in contact with only one unit at the beginning of the assault they may only attack this one unit, so they could never ever attack the second one.
• IF a unit that was already locked in assault and is charged by a second unit could only attack the one unit it was already in contact with, why doesn't the rulebook state this? Please note that is says "models", NOT "unit"!

My interpretation:

• The rulebook says "at the beginning of the combat (before any blows are struck)" (sorry if the wording is not 100% correct, no English rulebook). NOT "at the beginning of the assault phase (before assault moves are made)"! Therefore we are already at level 3 of the assault phase (from the chart on page 33 in the big rulebook), all assaulters have already been moved. There is no possibility that one of the units is not in contact with the defending unit but only with defending models. This ruling thus can not be meant to generally deny a unit allocating its attacks to the newly joined attackers.
• The rulebook speaks about "models". This whole paragraph about attacks in multiple combats on page 41 of the big rulebook is only a description of what specific models may attack - that models who are in contact (meaning in base-to-base or within 2" of another squad model that is base-to-base) with only one enemy unit must allocate their attacks to that one, while models who are in contact (see above) with multiple enemy units may choose which one to strike at.

The picture and example on page 41 of the big rulebook also only focus on how individual models can allocate their attacks, and not on which unit entered combat at what time, etc...

Why is the addition "before any blows are struck" included? Easy: assume that an independent character A and a unit B he had joined charge an enemy unit Z.
A and B charge Z
Only model 1 of unit Z is in base-to-base with A, but models 2, 3, and 4 are within 2" of model 1 at the beginning of the combat before any blows are struck.
Unit A now attacks with the highest initiative and kills model 1. Models 2, 3, and 4 from unit Z are now not in contact with unit A anymore because their squad has no models in base-to-base with unit A. But they were at the beginning of the combat before blows were struck, therefore they are free to -in their initiative phase- direct their attacks at unit A nonetheless.


I am not content at all with my confusing wording. I apologize. And yet: this is a somewhat confusing issue. But I rest assured that this "a unit that charges into an existing combat can't be targeted" is a myth. I don't know who invented it, but it's wrong.

 

[Blood_Lord]

Maybe an other to support this:

Models that... units at the beginning of combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit.

Note the: at the beginning of COMBAT (not assault phase) and before any model ATTACKED (not charged).

 

[realitycheque]

I have to say I've always played it the same way as Red Archer, despite numerous people reading our copy of the BRB nobody has EVER thought that you'd not be able to hit the newcomers.

 

[RangerRob]

Beginning of combat refers to step 3 of the assault phase, so after attackers and defenders move. See the INATFAQ v3, pg 9 for more details.

 

[jy2]

Now some time ago here on LO I was told, with overwhelming support, that my view of the matter was wrong, and that you couldn't attack a unit that just joined combat this turn if you were already locked in assault. I couldn't believe it, but there was nobody to support my opinion, therefore I just gave up on it (on LO). My gaming group agreed that we all view the way I did, though, despite the other variant offering a lot more tactical possibilities.

Lol. I believe I was "one" of those people. I was thinking to PM you that I may be wrong, but then I couldn't remember if it was actually you that I told. Apologies for my wrong advice.

 

[Red Archer]

Lol. I believe I was "one" of those people. I was thinking to PM you that I may be wrong, but then I couldn't remember if it was actually you that I told. Apologies for my wrong advice.

Don't worry, mate, getting a rule wrong can happen to any of us.
Especially when it is a confusing matter many people seem to get wrong. You weren't alone: only few people had replied in the thread where this discussion came up, but I was eager to get more opinions of people here on LO, because none of posters supported my view; so I wrote a couple of PMs, and the people I asked -it seems- had it wrong too!

And that it was your opinion back then that made me give in bears testimony to the fact that I value your opinion, and this incident doesn't change anything about that.

 

[eiglepulper]

It's amazing just how many "little details" can be overlooked when you think you know what the rules say!

I agree that if unit X is already locked/engaged in CC with single enemy unit A (from the previous assault phase, one assumes) when it is attacked by second enemy unit B, then for that turn unit X can only attack enemy unit A. Unit B is able to fight without fear of retaliatory attacks this turn.

It's the second bulleted paragraph on P.41 which I believe tells us that Unit X can attack both enemy units in subsequent assault phases. Unit B joined the existing combat between units X and A in the previous turn, therefore in any subsequent turns Unit X logically has to start the phase engaged with two enemy units (assuming that all three units are alive still!). So Unit X is permitted to attack both Units A and B in the turn *following* the one in which Unit B assaulted Unit X.

At least that's what I think the rules say! The first bulleted paragraph tells us about what happens re permitted attacks in an already-existing one-on-one combat if a third unit joins in. The second bulleted paragraph tells us what happens with the attacks involved in that same combat which now involves 3 units in the turn(s) following on from the one in which the third unit entered the fray.

E.

 

[Red Archer]

No, I'm really sorry. Because then it would have to say "at the beginning of the assault phase" instead of "at the beginning of the combat", and it would have to say "unit" instead of "models".
Please consult the chart on page 33 of the big rulebook. When it says "beginning of the combat" we are already at stage 3 of the assault phase. At this time the defender unit is already engaged with all participating attacker units (otherwise these attacker units wouldn't be participating in the combat), but not necessarily all defender models are engaged with all attacker units.
This is where the section on multiple combats on page 41 of the big rulebook comes into play: it tells us how each model may allocate its attacks.

 

[Caros]

What I don't understand is why that rules section even exists if it doesn't explicitly say you can't attack a new group entering battle. If they wanted to say "You can attack anyone so long as you are within 2 inches etc" They would have just said that wouldn't they?

It just doesn't seem to make any sense if they're saying that you can only attack units that you've been in contact with since the start of the 'combat' phase, since by the very nature of assault you can only EVER attack units who would fit that criteria (As opposed to a unit outside of assault.)

 

[Red Archer]

What I don't understand is why that rules section even exists if it doesn't explicitly say you can't attack a new group entering battle. If they wanted to say "You can attack anyone so long as you are within 2 inches etc" They would have just said that wouldn't they?

It just doesn't seem to make any sense if they're saying that you can only attack units that you've been in contact with since the start of the 'combat' phase, since by the very nature of assault you can only EVER attack units who would fit that criteria (As opposed to a unit outside of assault.)

The close combat rules say that all models that are engaged (either in base-to-base contact with an enemy model or within 2" of another model from its squad which is in base-to-base contact with an enemy model) fight with the full number of their attacks.
This suffices to explain how close combat works between a single unit on each side, but once we have multiple units on one side of the combat we need extra rules. Rules that explain how attacks can be allocated. This is what the section on page 41 is for. That is the reason it exists.

The staff could have typed "combat" when they meant to say "assault phase". They could have typed "before any model attacked" when they meant to say "before any assault moves are conducted". They could have typed "models" when they meant "unit". They could have included a picture elaborating on an example that does not relate to the rule they intended to write at all while doing a great job to include every facet of the rule depicted in their other example pictures. They could have overlooked those mistakes when they should have corrected them in the errata. It's not impossible! But... let's say very improbable at the least.

 

[cKerensky]

We had this same conversation in the IG forums, and Archer was there too, and the consensus is that you cannot attack the new unit entering the fight. They weren't there at the begging of the assault phase, the rule says they can't be attacked. I don't get the confusion.

It's worded pretty clearly to me.

 

[xerohack]

I agree. I feel it is worded very clearly stating that a new unit assaulting an existing combat cannot be attached back. The unit you are assaulting is too tied up with the previous unit to be able to counter attack the new assaulters. That is how we have played in my area after a lengthy discussion. I agree that they would have not included this part if it meant anything else.

 

[Takeda]

A few things:

1. the "defenders react" paragraph on p.41 says that if a unit that is already engaged, and is then charged, it may react as normal, but it may be against ANY units it is engaged with, not JUST the unit that charged it.

why would you be able to react to a subsequent charge, if you can't allocate hits to them? note that the word "just" in the rule makes the new unit that charged inclusive in the units you can react against.

2. the second bullet point in the attacking section is not referring to the differentiation of models that were already in the combat from a previous turn and models that joined by charging. it is referring to the fact that models are still able to attack even if the models that they were engaged with at the start of combat died by the time their initiative came up, just like in the first paragraph on page 37.

the word COMBAT is to be differentiated with the words ASSAULT PHASE. declaring charges and then attempting them are not parts of COMBAT, but parts of the ASSAULT PHASE. Once this happens, there may be certain units that are then engaged in COMBAT. Then, COMBAT is resolved. And units that were engaged at this point in time, may attack the enemy units that it is engaged with - regardless of whether parts of those enemy units (ie. models that were in the front row) subsequently died, and regardless of who charged that turn, because the COMBAT part is begun to be resolved after the charging part of the ASSAULT PHASE is done.

what some of you are doing is confusing the purpose of the rule (the ability to attack a unit that was engaged at the start of combat, even if casualty removal made the said unit appear no longer engaged during the course of combat) and applying it in another way (blocking the ability to attack a unit that charged and engaged an already engaged unit)

THERE. VERY CLEAR

I have never heard of not being able to attack a unit you are engaged with, whether or not they just charged, neither in in-store games, nor in official HOH tournaments (to be clear, I've participated - and won :soldier: - in them before). The LO forum is the first I've ever heard of this.

 

[RangerRob]

A few things:
what some of you are doing is confusing the purpose of the rule (the ability to attack a unit that was engaged at the start of combat, even if casualty removal made the said unit appear no longer engaged during the course of combat) and applying it in another way (blocking the ability to attack a unit that charged and engaged an already engaged unit)

This is exactly the problem. Also, a well done continued explanation of the rule.