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.

Here's a strange question, and its something that me and my local group ALMOST ran into.


Team 1 Assaults Team 2.

Combat is resolved, then, on team 2's turn, combat continues.

On Team 3's turn, they assault the same combat team 2 and 1 are in, specifically Team 1.

In the BRB, it gives scenario rules for shooting into enemy units, now in assault, what exactly would happen?

Would Team 3 get their assault on the player they're attacking, while team 1 Hits team 2 with no retaliation? Or would another more complex round of assault occur based upon Initiative, just this time between 3 teams?

The three-player rules don't specify any change to the close combat rules, so you would fight the combat as normal, in Initiative order.

It will be a little more complicated than usual if all 3 sides have models in the combat with the same initiative, but otherwise it's not really any different to a regular 2-sided melee.

In my group, we just disallow 3-way or more assaults. It just gets too complex.

As far as i know you would just go in initiative order, taking account of who the models are either in base contact or within 2" of to determine what you would need to hit/wound, but all models must attack if they can, so if you have models who can only attack one group they have to. Although what i want to know is how morale tests would work.

Yeah, it's pretty straight forward even if it hurts your head. Just don't play orks vs orks vs orks, if three complex squads attack with 30+ models then you will be sitting on that one assault phase for 3 hours.

iamthecougar wrote: Although what i want to know is how morale tests would work.

As per the standard Morale rules for losing a combat, if the unit suffers more wounds than it inflicts, it takes a morale test and falls back if it fails.

insaniak wrote:

iamthecougar wrote: Although what i want to know is how morale tests would work.

As per the standard Morale rules for losing a combat, if the unit suffers more wounds than it inflicts, it takes a morale test and falls back if it fails.

What i meant was something along the lines of, if against team one you take 2 wounds and deal 7, and then against team 2 you take 3 wounds and deal 0 how would that work, you took more wounds than you dealt to team 2, but you still dealt more wounds total than you took.

For that round of combat, your side took 5 wounds and dealt 7.

Since you dealt more wounds than you received, no Morale test is needed.

There is no requirement to work out the number of wounds on a 'per opponent' basis. You just count up wounds dealt and wounds received.

Yeah, it's not any more complicated than an assault involving 3 units in a 1 on 1 game. I think you're just making it harder than it is. choose which models are attacking which unit that they are in range of, then go down the initiative line.

Wait... so you could end up with no one actually "loosing combat"? Like it ends up with team 1 took and did 7 wounds, team 2 took and did 4 wounds, and team 3 took and did 6 wounds, no one actually has to take a test even if they lost the exchange between individual squads?

After checking the wording in the assault section for determining the Assault Results, no, someone will still lose unless everyone inflicts the same number of wounds.

The side that inflicts the most wounds is the winner, and the losing side must take a morale test. So it's not only keyed to inflicting more wounds than you took... that's just how it would work out normally, since there are normally only two sides in the combat.

In this case, there is still a winner (the side that inflicted the most wounds), and since there is no intermediary state of being, the others must both be losers. So take a Morale test.

Yeah, that works for me... i don't know why i care tho i doubt this will ever come up in one of my games...

Thanks. I know its rather confusing. We're running a Campaign now between Chaos, Orks and Nids (etc), Tau, and Imperium + Eldar.

Our bigger scenario games are almost 3 or 4 way fights.

iamthecougar wrote:Wait... so you could end up with no one actually "loosing combat"? Like it ends up with team 1 took and did 7 wounds, team 2 took and did 4 wounds, and team 3 took and did 6 wounds, no one actually has to take a test even if they lost the exchange between individual squads?

Just a question.... but how would a combat work out that out of all the models fighting, a total of 17 wounds were inflicted but only 6 actually taken.

I think your basic problem here is with basic math. In this type of combat, its mathematically impossible for each team to deal more wounds then they receive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.44 BGB: "Units that lose a close combat (ie, they suffer more wounds than they inflict) must pass a Morale check"

p.41 also applies: "When determining assault results in a multiple combat, total up the number of wounds inflicted by each side to see which side is the winner."

Since it refers to a singular winner, that seems to imply that there can only be one winner. Total up the wounds each side inflicted, regardless of target, and pick your winner. Everyone else loses.

I could be missing something here, but in the 3-player scenario in the BGB (p.273) it says, "Assaults may not be launched against ongoing combats involving both other armies, so three way close combat is impossible." So, in regards to the OP's question, I think that settles that issue.

Now what isn't covered seems to be a situation in which someone multiassaults, engaging one unengaged unit of either of the opponents' armies. This would, of course, be an extremely rare occurrence, but if it did happen, see above (and probably below) posts for more in-depth discussion.

I personally feel that the particular scenario in the BGB is far too swingy, as having everyone else take two turns before you can go again is excessive, especially for assault-based armies.

EDIT:
I just read above post. @Dracos: As for it being mathematically impossible...uh, well, it's mathematically impossible to do that in any combat, including between just two people. I don't think cougar, or anyone for that matter, would make a statement that silly, so I don't believe that's what he was asking. He was showing how even if a unit won an assault against one squad in a three-way combat, its opponent still might not count as having lost the assault. This is how, using basic math, I created a scenario in which, in a three way combat, no side actually wins *and* there are numbers differences between squads, showing explicitly the issue cougar raised (and, using his 17-wound example, just for kicks):

Squad A does 7 wounds, 4 to squad B and 3 to squad C.
Squad B does 6 wounds, 5 to squad A, and 1 to squad C.
Squad C does 4 wounds, 2 to squad B, and 2 to squad A.

Squad A: 7 wounds inflicted, 7 wounds taken.
Squad B: 6 wounds inflicted, 6 wounds taken.
Squad C: 4 wounds inflicted, 4 wounds taken.

As you can see, Squad C has a +1 result vs soley squad B, and Squad B has a +1 result against squad A. Likewise, Squad A has a +1 result against C. Even though they won their unit-to-unit combats, no one lost overall (in terms of input/output), which is what cougar was talking about.

*Note that I understand that the squad that inflicts the most wounds wins the combat, I'm just explaining cougar's question.

Bob the Hobo wrote:In my group, we just disallow 3-way or more assaults. It just gets too complex.

Huh? If you're going to ignore the rules because they're "too complex" why don't you just play checkers?

@Olympia. Just don't say if anything if you have nothing to add to the thread.

If you find that 3 way assaults are too complex take it real slow, or practise it, then if you find it's still too hard, just house rule it saying it's not allowed.