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.

Missed that, thanks Moz

in a game with so many complex and interwoven rules these kinds of conflicts are bound to come up. i think everyone here can agree that semantics play a large part in most of these conflicts, because of differing interpretations of the wording. after carefully reading all above sited passages i would like to point out that
-GW makes a distinction between a moral check and a leadership check. top of pg 47 moral checks.
- concerning sweeping advances pg 43 specifically states phrases like "winning unit" and "victor". both of these imply a contest has occured in the current turn. otherwise you could argue that a unit that won the prior round of combat was still the victor in later turns. so its pretty much a given that turns are considered to be seperate entities as far as the rules go. Sweeping advances happens after the enemy has failed a moral check at the end of close combat <top of pg 48> which they have lost, and the close combat phase has ended.
- pg 47 also states that moral checks occure once a unit is defeated in close combat IN the assault phase, once results are established.

the long and the short of it is this. on pg 49 LMS tests are leadership tests, not moral tests. since sweeping advances result at the end of close combat once the victors have been determined, then the fall back by a last man standing is not applicable for sweeping advance .

so to complete the answer, units would take a LMS test at the START of any of their own turns in which they were the LMS. they would not be subject to sweeping advance.

So they stand there huddled together, no consolidate?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Victors of a close combat get a consolidate move. pg44
once again this is some what ambiguous wording by GW.
-if one side destroys the other they may consolidate via a massacre result
-sweeping advance says the victor of a sweeping advance may consolidate, if a unit escapes a sweeping advance the winner may consolidate
- since no unit was wipped out and no sweeping advance was initiated i would say that the enemy remains clumped. makes no sence IMO but there you have it.
i would also like to reiterate that the LMS is a totally differnt form of leadership based test that has nothing at all to do with the results of a close combat. it could come about via shooting as well or from a nearby vehicle exploding, dangerous terrain tests etc so since the turn order is dictated with both consolidate and LMS and they both occure in different parts of the turn i think we can infer that the unfortunate unit of orks in the original post are left where they are, for better or proabably worse.

You can't satisfy ALL the rules.

So which do you break?

Choose carefully, young padewan.

Your lightsaber might come out a ghastly red!

LMS doesn't affect models in a close combat because the test is taken at the start of the turn.

You can reach this conclusion by asking a few simple questions:

What happens in a multiple combat when a last man standing falls back at the beginning of his turn, but the other unit is full and remains locked? Does the enemy chase? Do they consolidate away from the other unit if they beat your running man down? The fact that the rules don't cover this area should give you an indication that you might be mistaken.

The idea that assault is "isolated" from the rest of the turn sequence is a constant theme throughout the BGB. I think it's pretty clear that LMS only affects unengaged models that are simply all alone at the start of your turn.

EDIT: Sennacherib also hit the nail on the head. LMS is indeed referred to as a Leadership test. Assault is only concerned with morale tests, and the implications of allowing a LMS to fall back from an assault at the beginning of the turn (and the fact that there are no rules covering what then happens to the enemy assault unit) provides a pretty strong basis for the conclusion that LMS doesn't affect "locked" models.

ColonelEllios wrote:What happens in a multiple combat when a last man standing falls back at the beginning of his turn, but the other unit is full and remains locked? Does the enemy chase? Do they consolidate away from the other unit if they beat your running man down? The fact that the rules don't cover this area should give you an indication that you might be mistaken.

Well, in a normal multiple squad combat, if one enemy runs away but the other does not then there is no chase or consolidate possible, so it would be the same for a lost LMS if another unit remains in combat. Looks like you are mistaken in assuming there is a problem.

Congratulations, you disproved point 1 of 3. Good luck with the others...

You haven't addressed the fact that no combat has taken place that turn, so therefore there is no "winner" of the combat, and then there is still the leadership, not morale, indicator, and also the theme of assault being isolated...

ColonelEllios wrote:LMS doesn't affect models in a close combat because the test is taken at the start of the turn. ...

The idea that assault is "isolated" from the rest of the turn sequence is a constant theme throughout the BGB. I think it's pretty clear that LMS only affects unengaged models that are simply all alone at the start of your turn.

How is it clear? The rules for LMS make no mention of a unit in cc not being affected, in fact it lists the only exception. No where in the assault rules does it say that units in cc are immune from leadership tests. So again, how is it clear that you don't take a LMS test if you are in cc at the beginning of your turn?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozy, you did hear me when I said with the hundreds of games I've played around the globe that no one (that means zero) has ever even asked if LMS affects people in CC?

There's thinking outside the box, and then there's coming up with 'look, another GW error I'm going to proclaim and see what kind of gak I can stir up on the internet'.

There's alot of those. I'm guessing there's about 50 guys who'd love to use this to their advantage on the tournament scene, and then there's the rest of us who:

1) Would call over a judge and get a quick 'no' ruling.
2) Don't really give a gak that you know one of the 500 secret ways GW's game is broken and can be taken advantage of.
3) Suggest you make this errant stupidity quest of yours into something useful, hey I know put it into the Adepticon FAQ. It'll cover up at least one of the 500 loopholes, and all of your valiant tilting at windmills won't have been a complete and utter waste of time.

Right? Right.

ColonelEllios wrote:LMS doesn't affect models in a close combat because the test is taken at the start of the turn.

Eh? What brings you to that conclusion?

As for the remaining point: You're using intent arguments. Which is fine and good, it's obviously the way it is usually played. It's just not a view supported by the RAW.

There is no statement to the effect anywhere that "The rules for this section only apply to this specific order of events, in this phase, nowhere else". You are basing a large part of your argument on that assumption.


If you really want to argue against it, use the book to back you up. Try something like:
Relevant rule: P.44 - Once locked in combat a unit may ... not move in the movement phase.
P1 The start of the Turn is the movement phase. (p.14)
P2 Last man standing takes place at the start of the turn (P.49)
C1 Last man standing takes place in the movement phase.

P3 Locked units may not move in the movement phase. (p.44)
P4 Falling back is movement. (p.48)
P5 Sweeping advance does not apply because of the term victor. (p.43)
(Sennacherib's P5) Sweeping advance does not apply because the fallback occurs due to a leadership check, not a morale check. P.43 (Upon reading sweeping advance again, this isn't really based on anything).

See? Logical set of premises that lead to a reasonable conclusion.

C2 A locked unit cannot fallback in the movement phase.

We can then discuss wether or not P5 is actually contended. But seriously, stop coming up with crazy appeal to reason arguments that either don't have anything to do with the circumstances (Stelek) or are just plain wrong (Ellios).

Put your RAW on the table and lets talk about it.

@stelek. insulting someone does not prove your right. neither does making random statements about lightsabers and the like. statements need actual facts that both parties can examine in order to actually carry any weight in a discussion. for example... you claim to be well versed in 40k and have played all over the globe. by making such statements i have to assume that you are being honest and your not a snot nosed kid with an attitude problem who just likes to stir up trouble (sorry if that was insulting but given your behavior here on the forum observation would lead me to the conclusion that you are immature, therefor making the snotnosed comment more applicable . ozy has been around on this site a lot longer than you have giving greater creedance to his legitimacy as a player. that and the fact that his arguments have been concise and pertain to the game we all play coupled with the fact that addressing the issue at hand will enhance understanding of future games and rules discussions for all involved, lends merit to the end result of this thread.
in the interest of a productive discussion i think you would be better served to give up on orky thinking like might makes right and at least concede the fact that this is a situation that like it or not really does exist. it may go against what we as gamers would like to interpret the rules as saying, however the rules dont have whole chapters devoted to covering every little detail of the game. for example they say nothing about using loaded dice.

in light of what Moz has pointed out i would have to say that P3 locked units may not move in the movement phase would superceed all other points made. since a unit that is engaged in an unresolved melee is locked it cannot move and therefor cannot fall back. nice work.

If sweeping advance rules apply, they tell you specifically how to handle the move. The more specific overrides the general, yadda yadda.

Take for instance the same line (the part I omitted earlier) from P.44: Once a unit is locked in combat, it may only make pile in moves and may not move in the movement phase.

There's 2 parts to that statement:
1- May only make pile in moves
2- Cannot move in movement phase

Consolidate, sweeping advance, etc... already override the first part. It would be difficult to argue that they would then not override the 2nd part.

If you want to nail it down, you really need to show that sweeping advance doesn't apply.

Define 'victor' as a term and why the lack of one prevents sweeping advance, or rule out the use of all assault phase rules for any other part of the rulebook. I find both positions tenuous, but we could be missing a piece of the puzzle.

Stelek wrote:Ozy, you did hear me when I said with the hundreds of games I've played around the globe that no one (that means zero) has ever even asked if LMS affects people in CC?

There's thinking outside the box, and then there's coming up with 'look, another GW error I'm going to proclaim and see what kind of gak I can stir up on the internet'.

There's alot of those. I'm guessing there's about 50 guys who'd love to use this to their advantage on the tournament scene, and then there's the rest of us who:

1) Would call over a judge and get a quick 'no' ruling.
2) Don't really give a gak that you know one of the 500 secret ways GW's game is broken and can be taken advantage of.
3) Suggest you make this errant stupidity quest of yours into something useful, hey I know put it into the Adepticon FAQ. It'll cover up at least one of the 500 loopholes, and all of your valiant tilting at windmills won't have been a complete and utter waste of time.

Right? Right.

I'm not trying to exploit anything. This situation came up IN A GAME on Sunday and we didn' t know how to resolve it. I posted how we decided to rule, then came here to get the experts take on things.

Moz has been fantastic in his analysis and is exactly why Dakka is known to be the place to go to get answers like this. Stelek, you have been useless except to cause Moz to post to show you how ridiculous you are. Stelek, please read the stickies at the top of this forum for advice on how to argue in YMDC.

I like the ruling that you can fail your LMS but since you are locked in combat you are not allowed to move. The question then becomes, what happens if you later win the assault...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

judging from the points that Moz made quite adequately i would have to say that if you later won the assault and wiped out your opponent, then beginning on your next movement phase in which you were not locked in combat you would be subject to LMS tests. makes sence right.

Moz wrote:Define 'victor' as a term and why the lack of one prevents sweeping advance,

In this situation you could easily take 'victor' to mean 'the side that isn't trying to run away from the combat' (having your opponent break and try to run away certainly seems like 'winning' the combat to me) ... at which point the rest of the rules work fine.

I think Yak may need to do a YMDC poll to decide this one.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Excuse me Moz, but my statements aren't "just plain wrong." You've proven that with your commentary.

The only thing I did different from you is not purposefully go through the book and find every statement that proves me right, and then line them all up in a way that's practical. I've done this before, and I've argued (correctly) for the proper interpretation of a rule without quoting the BGB until absolutely necessary, because someone else is too lazy to look at the same set of rules I am and apply the correct reading of the language.

That said, nice work. Damn me to hell for not having the rulebook on me, and only being able to argue from my years of experience playing the game and the abstract notion of the rules stuck in my head...

Moz wrote:There's 2 parts to that statement:
1- May only make pile in moves
2- Cannot move in movement phase

Consolidate, sweeping advance, etc... already override the first part. It would be difficult to argue that they would then not override the 2nd part.

Do they override the first part? The unit is no longer "locked" if it's making any consolidation or sweeping advance movement...

In either case, sweeping advance doesn't apply because no combat has been fought!

Moz wrote:

As for the remaining point: You're using intent arguments. Which is fine and good, it's obviously the way it is usually played. It's just not a view supported by the RAW.

There is no statement to the effect anywhere that "The rules for this section only apply to this specific order of events, in this phase, nowhere else". You are basing a large part of your argument on that assumption.


If you really want to argue against it, use the book to back you up. Try something like:
Relevant rule: P.44 - Once locked in combat a unit may ... not move in the movement phase.
P1 The start of the Turn is the movement phase. (p.14)
P2 Last man standing takes place at the start of the turn (P.49)
C1 Last man standing takes place in the movement phase.

P3 Locked units may not move in the movement phase. (p.44)
P4 Falling back is movement. (p.48)
P5 Sweeping advance does not apply because of the term victor. (p.43)
(Sennacherib's P5) Sweeping advance does not apply because the fallback occurs due to a leadership check, not a morale check. P.43 (Upon reading sweeping advance again, this isn't really based on anything).

See? Logical set of premises that lead to a reasonable conclusion.

C2 A locked unit cannot fallback in the movement phase.

We can then discuss wether or not P5 is actually contended. But seriously, stop coming up with crazy appeal to reason arguments that either don't have anything to do with the circumstances (Stelek) or are just plain wrong (Ellios).

Put your RAW on the table and lets talk about it.

Moz has sealed the deal on the RAW department. Whether or not the model takes a LMS test is irrelevant as even if it fails it isn't allowed to move in the movement phase.


Since LMS appears to go away in 5th edition this isn't an issue we'll have to even deal with for much longer. . .but I do wish this had been included in the INAT FAQ, but oh well.

Well, how 'bout this then, just for conversation sake (and the fact that I'm here at work)

The model has to take a LMS test. Even if he fails the test he can't move since a locked model can't move during the movement phase. Thus the model is now a broken unit that is in CC. No rulebook on me, so this is from memory. Wouldn't the model need to take another leadership check right then or be immediately wiped out? (Not counting space marines, fearless)

Actually, Moz, I've been waiting for YOU to put the RAW on the table. Your first attempt wasn't even close.

I'm not explaining the obvious to people intent on jumping on the bandwagon.

Want to be lemmings, fine. Just don't expect the rational (me) to follow you (the lemmings) off the cliff.

There is no LMS in CC. Ever. Never has been since the game was invented, and probably never will be either.

By the way, taking a LMS test is relevant Yak. Explain how the game rules function when a broken unit is in close combat.

They don't is the easy answer. Probably why LMS tests don't occur in CC, they break EVERYTHING else.

I hope the next rules discussion is intelligent, this one was horrid in that regard.

Actually I see a discussion amongst most other people in this thread. The only thing I see coming from you Stelek is insults and trash talk boasting that your games aren't played that way so the rest of us must listen to you as gospel.

Don't mind me if I completely ignore whatever point you're trying to make.

Hi Stelek, welcome to YMDC - we talk about the rules here. A lot of times people see things differently and the best arbitrator in these instances will be the rules as they are written in the rulebook. Would you care to join the conversation?

And my apologies Ellios, you were only plain wrong on two accounts so far, 3 intent arguments, and a conclusion that may very well be true but you offer nothing for us to base it on. If you would like to discuss the rules, you may find a rulebook handy.

Seriously, the two of you are great at this rules debate thing. I don't know if you've noticed but I've argued for both sides at this point, and both sides have issues that can be poked and prodded. Would you care to talk about the issues, using the rules, or is it getting close to lock the Stelek thread time?

I agree with Moz - a single model in CC might have to take LMS, but there is no impact to the game.

Lormax - I can't see why the unit would take a second Leadership test - what would be the rules basis to take the second test?

That said, this is the kind of thing that leads to a rules mess that, from a practical standpoint, is best blissfully ignored as Stelek chooses to do.

I'm sure this is why WFB says units in CC ignore Psychology.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Lormax - I can't see why the unit would take a second Leadership test - what would be the rules basis to take the second test?

At work atm, so again I'm going by memory. A broken unit that is put into CC needs to take another leadership check to rally or be wiped out completely, or am I incorrect?

It was already IN cc, lormax.

There are no rules for the situation you described.

Ignorance is indeed bliss. lol

Wrong post.

colonelellios wrote:

Moz wrote:There's 2 parts to that statement:
1- May only make pile in moves
2- Cannot move in movement phase

Consolidate, sweeping advance, etc... already override the first part. It would be difficult to argue that they would then not override the 2nd part.

Do they override the first part? The unit is no longer "locked" if it's making any consolidation or sweeping advance movement...

In either case, sweeping advance doesn't apply because no combat has been fought!

I'm sorry, was this not good enough for you Moz? Here's a hint...it doesn't require a page number to figure out this one...

Stelek wrote:It was already IN cc, lormax.

There are no rules for the situation you described.

Ignorance is indeed bliss. lol

Where's that ignore function?