Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know my stance and what I've argued/claimed...

Assuming you able to Overwatch the second (or later) unit to charge the unit:

Yes they would get a cover save IF they would have a cover save normally (including shooting through the first unit that charged).

Template weapons would only deal hits to the unit being Overwatched as the template is never placed.

There isn't any hole in the rules.

If there is an attempt to act, such as a model shooting (pg 12), a unit declaring a charge (pg 20), a unit firing Overwatch (pg 21), or or fighting in close combat (pg 23) the unit or model checks for whether it is locked in combat.

The rules state that the unit cannot declare a charge if they are locked. Once the unit has declared the charge and they are eligible to declare the charge, you follow the charge rules. There is no direction given to check for locked in combat while moving models in that unit.

When the unit being charged decides to fire Overwatch (immediately after the charge is declared) the unit that wants to fire Overwatch must check to see if they are locked in combat. If they were charged by another unit previously and are now in base to base as a result of the first charge, the unit cannot fire Overwatch.

Since the rules do state when to check for locked in combat, the statement on page 23 about not being able to move in the subsection titled 'Who can fight' is simply clarifying that once the unit is in combat they can not make the moves as listed.

So:
Unit A declares a charge on unit B. Unit A checks for LIC and charges if they are not (pg 20).
Unit B may choose to fire Overwatch or not (pg 21).
Unit A reaches Unit B, there is no direction to check LIC during the charge or after so no check is necessary.
Unit C declares a charge on Unit B. Unit C checks for LIC and since they are not, they may declare the charge (pg 20).
Unit B chooses to fire Overwatch on Unit C. Unit B check for LIC (pg 21), and since they are LIC with Unit A they may not fire Overwatch at Unit C.
Combat is fought after checking for eligiblity based on LIC (p23).

The rules already state when to check for locked in combat, based on the actions declared or action taken by the unit. There is zero reason to continue this thread with speculation that a single line taken out of context invalidates the rest of the rules.

Good summary, snooggums.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monasou wrote:
Stop trying to rule lawyer out of this. The entire terminology behind people firing overwatch is SUPPOSED to be that you can choose to fire selectively so that you don't waste your overwatch on a group you dont need to shoot. Herp Derp.

Stop trying to twist the rules. The intent is clearly that if you are able to get two units into position to assault ONE unit, you are able to throw the more disposable or more durable unit in first, to draw the fire and act as "cover" for the second. It's a tactical advantage you can gain if you manage to position two units into the right spot and are able and willing to devote two units into assaulting one.

Snapshot wrote:
That's how our group does it too, but I think DRs point is still a valid one.

Its really not. His point is trying to make exception to most every way the game is played because he thinks the first unit should not be able to lock. Your stopping a unit in mid action that it has specific permission to do and trying to apply the results of the action to it. The charge move is what locks you in combat. Claiming that it prevents you from doing so because of the end result has no basis. Its arguing over the same type of thing that First Blood and Purge the Alien wording does.

Secondly, there is no support for Locking occurs at the Fight Sub Phase. None. Show anywhere, where it says locking occurs there. The argument is based around "It can't occur because of the charge move, so therefore it must occur somewhere else, so lets pick a spot."

Fragile wrote:

Secondly, there is no support for Locking occurs at the Fight Sub Phase. None. Show anywhere, where it says locking occurs there. The argument is based around "It can't occur because of the charge move, so therefore it must occur somewhere else, so lets pick a spot."

Actually it's because the definition of LiC is in that section. It does not say that it starts then, it clarifies a rule that always applies, but that's where the text is, so the attempt is to imply that it does not apply until then.

 snooggums wrote:
There isn't any hole in the rules.

If there is an attempt to act, such as a model shooting (pg 12), a unit declaring a charge (pg 20), a unit firing Overwatch (pg 21), or or fighting in close combat (pg 23) the unit or model checks for whether it is locked in combat.

The rules state that the unit cannot declare a charge if they are locked. Once the unit has declared the charge and they are eligible to declare the charge, you follow the charge rules. There is no direction given to check for locked in combat while moving models in that unit.

When the unit being charged decides to fire Overwatch (immediately after the charge is declared) the unit that wants to fire Overwatch must check to see if they are locked in combat. If they were charged by another unit previously and are now in base to base as a result of the first charge, the unit cannot fire Overwatch.

Since the rules do state when to check for locked in combat, the statement on page 23 about not being able to move in the subsection titled 'Who can fight' is simply clarifying that once the unit is in combat they can not make the moves as listed.

So:
Unit A declares a charge on unit B. Unit A checks for LIC and charges if they are not (pg 20).
Unit B may choose to fire Overwatch or not (pg 21).
Unit A reaches Unit B, there is no direction to check LIC during the charge or after so no check is necessary.
Unit C declares a charge on Unit B. Unit C checks for LIC and since they are not, they may declare the charge (pg 20).
Unit B chooses to fire Overwatch on Unit C. Unit B check for LIC (pg 21), and since they are LIC with Unit A they may not fire Overwatch at Unit C.
Combat is fought after checking for eligiblity based on LIC (p23).

The rules already state when to check for locked in combat, based on the actions declared or action taken by the unit. There is zero reason to continue this thread with speculation that a single line taken out of context invalidates the rest of the rules.

I thought the whole point of this was the distinction between "being in base-to-base" and "being locked in combat." Meaning, there is no specification that merely being in base-to-base means that you are locked in combat - the argument was that you're not considered locked in combat until the FIRST time that you check for it AND the answer is YES. So, even if the answer WOULD BE yes at an earlier time, since you haven't asked the question yet the "condition" of being locked in combat wouldn't apply. It would only apply once you ask the question and answer in the affirmative, and then that condition would come into effect.

Or am I not understanding the nature of the dispute?