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.

This came up for the first time in a game yesterday. In cc with some Orks I'm left with only one model left, he passees his moral check. My turn is next... does he take a Last Man Standing test? We played yes, as we couldn't find anything in the rules that specified you didn't. Is this correct? What happens to the unit that used to be in combat with him? Do they get to consolidate?

Thanks for the help.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

No one I've ever heard of has played the way you did.

Interesting find. After a review of the rules I'm going to go with 'yes' you do check also. If the model is forced to fallback, the sweeping advance rules will kick in as well (they are written only with reference to falling back units, not necessarily losing a combat units).

Relevant other areas:
You don't take morale checks from casualties due to shooting while locked in CC. p.44

Last man standing check does not reference locked or otherwise. Units that fail must fall back. p.49

Sweeping advance rules only reference a unit falling back from CC, no mention of losing combat, assault phase only, etc... p.43

Good research Moz. I would initial have said no, you don't have to check since you are in hand to hand, but apparently that would have been wrong. Interesting.

Stelek: Another useless post... Seriously, you type things and offer nothing constructive to this discussion. See Moz's post for a good example of a post in this forum.

Moz: Thanks! We didn't allow for sweeping advances but it wouldn't have made a difference as the one Dark Eldar Warrior didn't have any impact on the game.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

My group was surprised when we noticed this too. I think a lot of folks just read that reference on p44 and assume it applies to All Alone AKA Last Man Standing as well.

Well done Moz. I had never given it much thought, but it certain appears you are correct.

Stelek, not so much.

What, I say in my entire 40k lifetime no one's ever come up to me and said 'did you take your LMS test in CC' because it breaks so many rules in the 40k system.

How about, when you're bored and looking for something to stir the internet pot with, you try something a little more original than this?

Maybe apply 1% common sense and see why LMS tests aren't taken in CC.

Go on, give it a whirl. Tell everyone how it would work in the game system as it's currently written.

All the vets know damn well why it isn't done. Since you want to troll this out, tell everyone how failing a LMS test in CC works.

Show me the non-existent rules, please.

What's broken Stelek? I'm not following. (Must not have 1% of common sense in me).

The rule looks like:
Alone at start of turn? Initiate last man standing check. Pass check or fall back.
Locked and falling back? Initiate sweeping advance rules. D6 + initiative and compare.

So someone might get a sweeping advance at the start of their opponent's turn. It's certainly not the way I've ever seen it played. But on looking at the rules laid out with just the relevant sections, it seems pretty clear.

So you skip the assault phase, and run an assault phase item at the start of the turn.

Pretty fething funny.

The GW rules specifically allow this where?

GW's rules are NOT permissive.

They are exclusionary.

This has not, and probably will not, ever change.

Until it does, you aren't allowed to run assault items in the movement phase without explicit rules saying you can.

So please, no more nonsense.

In the way that I play, I'm with Stelek.

However, after reading the rules - I have to say that there's nothing in them to prevent a LMS check if the unit is engaged.

But that doesn't mean that Sweeping Advances are triggered. The wording for SA specifically states that the "falling back unit" and the "winning unit" compare init + D6 rolls. There was no combat, so there can be no "winning unit".

So then you now have a unit falling back from a combat - and no rules to govern what the remaining unit does. It certainly can't D6" consolidate - but nothing grants it a 3" consolidate either. I guess the one guy buggers out and leaves them with their chainswords swinging in the wind?

This is one of those RaW cases that I think I'll pass on, because it raises other broken issues. I'll continue to play that LMS checks are not taken whilst engaged.

Stelek wrote:GW's rules are NOT permissive.

They are exclusionary.

::angelic choir sings::
Hallelujah

Hallelujah

Halle - E - Lu - JAH


Finally!
It seems as if it's been forever that I've been waiting for someoen to get it right.
Permissive = WRONG
Exclusionary (I'll accept this GLADLY in place of "Restrictive," though I prefer "Restrictive.") = CORRECT

Thank you, Stelek!

Eric

sigged!

Stelek wrote:So you skip the assault phase, and run an assault phase item at the start of the turn.

Why would you skip the assault phase?

Last Man Standing happens at the start of the turn. What happened last turn is irrelevant.

If a rule allows you to shoot at the start of the turn, you use the shooting rules, despite it not being the shooting phase. Why? Because the shooting rules are the rules that tell you how to resolve shooting.

Likewise, if a rule causes you to fall back from a close combat, then you use the rules for falling back from a close combat, whether or not it is the close combat phase. Why? Because the rules for falling back from a close combat are the rules that tell you how to fall back from a close combat.

Show me the rules that allow you to shoot at the start of the turn.

Show me the rules that allow you to hit & run from close combat in anything but the assault phase.

Show me how you are not reaching for rules that do not exist simply to argue a point whose basis is entirely incorrect and you know this.

Show me, or stop.

Stelek wrote:Show me the rules that allow you to shoot at the start of the turn.

Auspex under the last Marine codex comes to mind.

But whether or not there currently is such a rule is completely irrelevant. If a rule tells you to shoot at the start of the turn, it will use the shooting rules.

But if you want a less hypothetical example, Fleet allows you to move in the shooting phase. It uses the movement rules, because it is movement. The fact that it doesn't happen in the movement phase doesn't allow to disregard the rules for movement.

Show me the rules that allow you to hit & run from close combat in anything but the assault phase.

Pardon?

What does hit and run have to do with anything?

Show me how you are not reaching for rules that do not exist simply to argue a point whose basis is entirely incorrect and you know this.

It's really not rocket science.

- Last Man Standing says that the model must take a morale check at the start of the turn if he is the last member of the unit left alive.

- If they fail that morale check, they fall back.

- LMS makes no exception for models in close combat, and will therefore apply to models in close combat.

- The rules for Falling Back from Close Combat tell you what to do if you are falling back from a close combat. No distinction is made for falling back in a specific phase. If you are falling back from a close combat, you follow the rules for falling back from a close combat. Just like if you're shooting a rapid fire weapon, you follow the rules for shooting a rapid fire weapon, or if you're moving, you follow the rules for moving.

The phase in which they occur is completely irrelevant... if the rules allow you to perform an action at a different time to when it would usually occur, you perform that action at a time that is different to when it would usually occur.

Stelek, Moz already gave page references to relevant rules. If you're not going to respond to him (the guy who already showed you), you're just blowing wind.

StJohn at least made a real argument, by pointing out the reference to a "winning unit". That does put a little ambiguity into the mix.

Correct, it isn't rocket science--and yet, you still don't get it.

You listed a bunch of crap not supported by the rules, so it isn't exactly a valid argument.

Auspex is not shooting in the movement phase, by the way.

If you don't understand how and why Hit & Run is pertinent, I can see why you think the way you do.

Fleet is a USR special rule. It's clearly outlined and explained. Sort of like...Hit & Run.

Unlike falling back from close combat at the start of your turn, which isn't listed anywhere in the book and has never been in a white dwarf, played in a tournament that way, nor online in any tactica article.

Simply because it's not part of GW's game.

I'm sorry Mannahnin, I don't have relevant rules?

Nowhere in the rules does this supposed loophole exist, how about pages 1-100 in the main rulebook.

Show me what happens using the rulebook that allows a unit to fallback from close combat at the start of the turn and still follow the fallback procedure.

What, I need to quote pages because people somehow forgot the assault system that's been in place for FOUR YEARS? Come on. It's on page 48. SHOW ME HOW IT WORKS OR STOP POSTING!

We're ignoring, for theoryhammers sake, that we all know this is bullsh*t and nobody would let you do this in a tournament game so it's entirely fething pointless anyway.

I guess I should toss this in just to show how stupid this entire thread really is:

Space Marine unit X has 1 man left.
At the start of your turn, you fail your LMS test and since the GW rules don't cover this 'issue' you get to fall back.
Let's say you fall back 7" and are now able to rally.
Since it's still technically start of the turn, do you get to rally automatically?
Don't you also get to move 3" as your 'rally' consolidate?
Can't you also then charge the unit that could not run you down because there was NO close combat?

Who has seen this in a real game? Ever? Even once?

Utter stupidity to think this is even remotely close to how the game works, and *I* have to defend the obvious?

Awesome. How about anyone give me the GW written rules showing clearly how falling back works if you fall back at the start of your turn.

Note: THIS IS NOT fething FANTASY! IT DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY IN 40K! THIS IS THE SCI FI VERSION OF WARHAMMER!

Stelek wrote:You listed a bunch of crap not supported by the rules, so it isn't exactly a valid argument.

Ah, right. The old 'It's not valid because I say so' argument.

Well done that man.

Want to try posting something that actually supports your view?

Auspex is not shooting in the movement phase, by the way.

It's not shooting in the shooting phase either, which is the actual point.

If you don't understand how and why Hit & Run is pertinent, I can see why you think the way you do.

So explain it. That's how discussions work.

'You're wrong, because I say so' won't work around here.

Unlike falling back from close combat at the start of your turn, which isn't listed anywhere in the book

...except as a result of LMS.

Why do I need to explain it?

Where in GW rules are you allowed to skip over listed steps?

Now who's doing the 'well because I said I can' crap?

LMS + CC don't mix. See 2nd sentence above.

Prove otherwise. I'm not posting to this gakky thread again till someone runs through the rather obvious assault phase portion of the rulebook and explains why.

Moz's half answer is just that, picking the silver lining from the cloud that allowing this causes.

I sure hope alot more people post bullsh*t answers without answering my questions, because your silence to my questions is damning.

Stelek wrote:Show me what happens using the rulebook that allows a unit to fallback from close combat at the start of the turn and still follow the fallback procedure.

How many times do you need to be referred to the same rules?

What, I need to quote pages

Err... yes. In a rules discussion, it's generally a good idea to refer to the rules.

Can't you also then charge the unit that could not run you down because there was NO close combat?

'run you down'...?

Which game are you playing, again?

Sweeping Advance happens as a part of Falling Back from close combat, not specifically as a part of close combat.

Who has seen this in a real game? Ever? Even once?

It's how I've been playing it for years.

Utter stupidity to think this is even remotely close to how the game works, and *I* have to defend the obvious?

Of course you don't have to defend your viewpoint. Unless you go posting in a rules discussion, in which case it's generally considered polite to actually participate rather than just shouting gibberish at people who don't agree with you.

Hmm Stelek, you stated earlier basically put upp or shut up, well they have put upp, now its your turn, claiming his arguments are a bunch of crap is not constructive, it leads nowhere but pie flinging.

Like Mannahnin pointed out its a tough call.

When reading the original question my reflex reaction was no last man standing tests while in CC, this obviously was wrong.

Reading the posts however I came to agree that a single model in CC would have to test for LMS but I am at a loss for wether the engaged unit gets to sweep, consolidate or the like, after all it does state the winning unit attempts to follow but in the case of a LMS model falling back there is no winning unit.

So please if you do have anything argument apart from "I am right" then please explain them in a way that other people not able to mindread can follow.

The situation does not occur often but I bet just because I read this thread its going to happen in every of of my next 5 games

Stelek wrote:Why do I need to explain it?

Where in GW rules are you allowed to skip over listed steps?

Now who's doing the 'well because I said I can' crap?

LMS + CC don't mix. See 2nd sentence above.

Prove otherwise. I'm not posting to this gakky thread again till someone runs through the rather obvious assault phase portion of the rulebook and explains why.

Moz's half answer is just that, picking the silver lining from the cloud that allowing this causes.

I sure hope alot more people post bullsh*t answers without answering my questions, because your silence to my questions is damning.

Are you serious? His silence to YOUR questions?!? I'm stunned. You have yet to provide any textual basis to your arguments where as Moz and others have showed actual pages where the relevant rules can be found and nothing in them says you don't take LMS if you are in CC. The Last Man Standing rules are clear, if you are a single model at the start of a turn, you take a moral check and if you fail you fall back (with an exception given for units that only consist of a single model). Period. The question is what happens to the opponent's unit. If you can show me a rule that says you don't take LMS in CC, I will recant (but you won't cause said rule does not exist).

Otherwise I will treat this as more of "Stelek posts about something he knows nothing about." I think that list of posts is up to around 1,800 now.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Stelek wrote:
Space Marine unit X has 1 man left.
At the start of your turn, you fail your LMS test and since the GW rules don't cover this 'issue' you get to fall back.
Let's say you fall back 7" and are now able to rally.
Since it's still technically start of the turn, do you get to rally automatically?
Don't you also get to move 3" as your 'rally' consolidate?
Can't you also then charge the unit that could not run you down because there was NO close combat?

Stelek, most of your appeal to reason argument there relies on LMS not happening at all, ever. How is that situation any different than a Space marine not in combat that falls back from last man standing and isn't within 6" of any enemy. All of my rulebooks are pdfed at work so it'll be a few on this one, but most people argue that you don't ATSKNF autorally on the turn that you fail your LMS check. Even if you did, marines don't get a 3" consolidate + regular movement.

If I get your argument correctly, you're saying that sweeping advance is an exclusive step of assault. So we can't use the rules of that section during another phase, even if they are applicable to a possible situation. With assault rules removed, there are then no other rules for handling LMS while locked in combat, so it can't happen.

This situation has a lot of the trappings of tank shock into close combat, which I'm super against by RAW (because tank shock by RAW doesn't even work, so don't try to bend what's already broken), and I wouldn't expect it to gain much traction since we're all kind of surprised at the situation. I've never seen it played this way, but I also see people move their tanks during tankshock - and the rulebook never tells you to do that either (unless your range is short).

We'll all be playing 5th soon enough. YMDC is largely about knowing what is out there and how to handle it if you run into it.

Say Space Marine Captain joins Assault Squad. Assault Squad is shot up a bit and charged. The assault squad was wiped out completely, leaving the captain still there. Since he's still a part of the unit at the start of the next SM players turn, he takes a LMS roll?

Lormax-Say Space Marine Captain joins Assault Squad. Assault Squad is shot up a bit and charged. The assault squad was wiped out completely, leaving the captain still there. Since he's still a part of the unit at the start of the next SM players turn, he takes a LMS roll?

I was waiting for that one..... No he is established to have been reverted back to IC status as soon as said squad is dead. Also under the 'Independant Characters ' section in relevant codex.
Eg SM 4th Ed pg 21.

Also, I found the rules ambiguous(?) when lined up with each other.

Seems to be the sort of un-researched loophole I have not come across in a while.....

Hmmm, three Ravenors in H2H with 10 man assault squad....

Stelek-Why do I need to explain it?

Where in GW rules are you allowed to skip over listed steps?

Sir, page references add a lot of weight to your proclamation of knowledge.

Awwwww.....
C'mon mate, Auspex has already been established as being 'outside' the shooting phase.

Sorry Akira...I read the rule, that refers to command squads, not other types of squads. There's another YMDC discussion about this issue going on right now

akira5665 wrote:

Lormax-Say Space Marine Captain joins Assault Squad. Assault Squad is shot up a bit and charged. The assault squad was wiped out completely, leaving the captain still there. Since he's still a part of the unit at the start of the next SM players turn, he takes a LMS roll?

I was waiting for that one..... No he is established to have been reverted back to IC status as soon as said squad is dead. Also under the 'Independant Characters ' section in relevant codex.
Eg SM 4th Ed pg 21.

Actually no, by the rules on joining and leaving units on page 50 in the main book he can only join or leave a unit in his movement phase.

On page 21 in the SM codex it states that a SM IC joins and leaves a unit as described in the main rules. All it states in the rules beyond that is that if the rest of the unit he is attached to or leading is destroyed he may operate independently, this does not allow exeptions from the joining and leaving units rules in the main book.

He is however a unit that started as a single model and is thus exempt form last man standing tests... well actually it is a bit odd when considering attached characters that count as a single HQ choise but once a movement phase has passed and they can become IC I would say that is resolved.

Yes, but the LMS check happens at the start of the turn, before the movement phase. The IC hasn't had a chance to leave the unit yet.

Easy answer top of p.51. Characters never need to take LMS tests.