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.

Page 41 of the 5th edition Rulebook, under topic title "Multiple Combats":

"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."

I'm probably a huge noob for asking this, but could someone clarify exactly what this means? Specifically the terms engaged and beginning of combat, with respect to the context of the above statement. I had skimmed over this particular point a couple times without ever really reading it, and a friend pointed it out to me yesterday.

Scenario where the above-quoted rule would come into question for me:

- Infantry 'Unit X' charges an enemy Infantry 'Unit Y', and combat is resolved for that turn. Models/units that were engaged ( am I using this correctly? ) are now locked in close combat. Next turn, another Infantry 'Unit Z', friendly to 'Unit Y' ( really it doesn't matter which side ), counter charges. Can 'Unit X' allocate attacks to the newly engaged 'Unit Z'?

I've always understood the tactic of counter charges, but if I am reading/understanding the statement correctly, it seems to indicate that a counter charging unit cannot have attacks allocated against it, which would be pretty damn broken. Is this the correct interpretation?

I had searched for threads similar to this, and there were a few posts that touched on defining 'beginning of combat' and rules about multiple combats, but they were always tricky situations where a multi-combat was questionably devolving into multiple regular ( 1 v 1 ) combats. I am asking specifically about counter-charges and attack allocation from previously engaged units, so I hope this is not a repeat topic.

-Uncoordinated.

The rule falls into the area of multiple combatants. So Group "A" designates that it's going to assault Group "B" and while doing so comes into base contact with some units of Group "C". Those models that are in Group "A" that came into BTB with Group "B" and are within 2 inches of a model that are in BTB must attack Group "B" even though they may have an opportunity to attack more models in Group "C" after the pile in.

What happens in the following assault rounds basically returns everything to normal. The attacker can fully decide how he would like to distribute his attacks and he can assign people to either group.

At least that's my take on it.

Following the Assault phase process, all charging models are moved, then all counter charging models are moved... then you move on to resolving each individual combat sequentially.

So the 'beginning of the combat' is the point after all charges and counter-charges have been made, before attacks are rolled, not the beginning of the phase.

So yes, counter-charging units can be attacked.


Models are 'engaged' when they are in base contact with an enemy model, or within 2" of a model from their own unit who is in base contact.



Keep in mind that attacks are allocated on a model-by-model basis, not by unit. So in your example, models in unit X can attack Unit Z, but only if they are engaged (either in base contact or within 2" of another model from their unit in base contact) with them. And models that are in base contact with an enemy must allocate their attacks to the unit with which they are in contact.

So any unit X models in base contact with models from both Y and Z can allocate to either. Any models in base contact with just Y or Z must attack the unit they are in contact with. Models within 2" of friendly models in base contact can allocate to whichever unit those friendly models are in contact with.

In the interest of public safety, I'd like to point out the errata in the rulebook FAQ http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_FAQ_40Krulebook_Feb2010.pdf, since the original post's quote was from the uncorrected rulebook text. What Insaniak's posted is essentially correct, but the wording has been officially changed to follow his explanation, rather than just being an interpretation.

According to the revised text, the eligible targets for attacks are determined for each round of combat, so there is never a situation where one unit's models can attack another unit without being attacked back.

This came up over the weekend at a tournament. The local players and the T.O. interpreted the new FAQ to mean that if a Tyranid warrior unit was engaged with a demon prince since the previous turn, and the warriors were charged by plague marines, the warriors could only make attacks against the demon prince, as the warriors were in BTB only with the prince at the beginning of the "round of combat".

They believe the "round of combat" consists of the entire assault phase. As the warriors were BTB with only the prince at the beginning of the phase, then the marines moved in, warrior attacks could only be allocated to the prince. I couldn't find any other reference to "round of combat", but it falls under the Attacking section of the Multiple Combat heading. I assumed the new bullet point was clarifying that if a model is in engaged with more than one unit, but is BTB with only one unit, he may allocate attacks only to the unit he is BTB with.

Can anyone tell me why they changed the word "combat" to "round of combat" in the three bullet points on page 41, and what they are trying to clarify?

Sigh......

Even after GW does an errata on the phrasing, people still manage to get it wrong. Your TO and local players were wrong. Yes, the bullet point spells out what you think it does.
They were trying to clarify waht insaniak speels out in his post, taht you determine who is engaged after assault moves/charge reactions and that determines who is engaged with who and so who can attack who.

Yeah, this threw me the first time I read it too. As noted, the “Beginning of Combat” is AFTER all the assault moves. Which models can attack which unit is determined at the Beginning of Combat. A SM Sgt with a power fist which is only engaged with enemy unit A before any attacks are thrown, will not be able to throw attacks against enemy unit B, even if all of enemy unit A is killed at I4 before he gets to swing. OTOH, if the Sgt is in base contact with both enemy unit A and enemy unit B before any attacks are made, he will be able to throw against B if A is killed completely at higher Initiative steps.

Krak_kirby wrote:Can anyone tell me why they changed the word "combat" to "round of combat" in the three bullet points on page 41, and what they are trying to clarify?

It was an attempt to clarify that they're talking about that particular close combat, rather than the entire phase. Not a very good one.