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.

Lord Perversor wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


I'm curious, exactly what is the houserule that Charistoph is passing as RAW?

That a model can be engaged in combat while not being Locked In Combat.

A model can be engaged without being locked. Most obvious example - vehicles. If a unit of Skitarii charge a landraider, the landraider is engaged, but not locked in combat. Presumably, the Skitarii would also not be locked in combat as well. I forget the exact wording.

The rules means the unit attacking the Vehicle it's NOT locked in combat (it can be shoot at as normal) and also vehicles never become Locked in combat, also if the vehicle is destroyed nothing happens the unit can't pile in,sweeping advance or consolidate move, they just remain where they are.

But on this case it's an exception for vehicles as they operate different in Assault than normal units.

Yes, it's an exception. It's worth noting that the exception doesn't apply to Walkers or chariots. Without special gear, though (I think mainly some gear for Tau - aren't they the ones with the vehicle upgrade that tries to do damage to a unit that attacks it?), the vehicles that can't get locked in combat can't attack in combat either. The question that col_impact is getting at is whether a model/unit can make an attack in an assault if it's not locked in combat. This was part of the discussion that got the previous thread locked down, but also dealt with multiple assaults and whether a declared secondary target would count as engaged with the enemy if it weren't locked in combat itself, but was within 2" of a model in the primary target that was in base contact with the enemy. I just see this thread ending up getting locked if we go about trying to rehash the things that were discussed there.

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


I'm curious, exactly what is the houserule that Charistoph is passing as RAW?

That a model can be engaged in combat while not being Locked In Combat.

A model can be engaged without being locked. Most obvious example - vehicles. If a unit of Skitarii charge a landraider, the landraider is engaged, but not locked in combat. Presumably, the Skitarii would also not be locked in combat as well. I forget the exact wording.

I appreciate your spotting of vehicles as an exception in which Charistoph's statement is true. However, as others have noted, vehicles are a special case that don't fully participate in the assault phase so the case is not relevant at all to the discussion at hand. Charistoph's claim goes well beyond vehicles as he has generally claimed it to be true for all unit types.

Charistoph made the claim in this thread that Stompers could be engaged in combat while not being Locked In Combat.

He made the claim in other threads that basic infantry could be engaged in combat while not being Locked In Combat.


If units can be engaged in combat while not being Locked In Combat then there are huge repercussions for how combat is to be played. Units, according to Charistoph, can attack in combats that they are not participating in by cozying up to the friendly models that are in those combats.

In the context of this thread it makes Stomps a lot deadlier and a whole heck of a lot harder to avoid.

Is Charistoph right and has everyone else been playing the assault phase wrong?

Or is Charistoph wrong and we have been playing assault correctly?

You can check how the rules as they are written factor into the discussion here . . . . http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/709910.page#9059756

Bringing up vehicles is actually very pertinent, since the whole thread is about SH Vehicles.

We'd also need to rehash Walkers and SHWs to see what's going on, as well as the Assault rule.

Just my two cents here, but Christaph is right. He is not misrepresenting anything, I just double checked the wording and he is effectively quoting it.

And as others have said vehicles have special rules which allow them to be engaged but not locked. And if my memory serves at least in the small rule book, they give an example to explain this: lets say a2 stomp attacks are given by the D3, those template can be thrown forward (so long as they touch) to include models not in base to base contact or locked in combat, even from squads who are not part of that specific fight.

I'll see if I can find the picture and summary and post it here with the page number.

Walkers, including Superheavy Walkers, are treat as Infantry in Assaults. So unlike other vehicles, Walkers can be locked in combat.

Per the new FAQ, if a SHW or GMC is not locked in combat before the final initiative step, they cannot Stomp. This was noticed well before the FAQs when the Thunderfist Gauntlet was added to the Imperial Knights wargear, and we had long discussions on why anyone would take an Initiative 1 melee weapon on a Superheavy. GW has gone ahead and reinforced that the Superheavy must still be locked in combat at Initiative 1 in order to Stomp.

Which means you can avoid Stomps by making sure the Superheavy is not locked in combat before it reachs the last Initiative step.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Walkers, including Superheavy Walkers, are treat as Infantry in Assaults. So unlike other vehicles, Walkers can be locked in combat.

Per the new FAQ, if a SHW or GMC is not locked in combat before the final initiative step, they cannot Stomp. This was noticed well before the FAQs when the Thunderfist Gauntlet was added to the Imperial Knights wargear, and we had long discussions on why anyone would take an Initiative 1 melee weapon on a Superheavy. GW has gone ahead and reinforced that the Superheavy must still be locked in combat at Initiative 1 in order to Stomp.

That is a misrepresentation of the question in the FAQ. The question is, "Q: If there are no models left in close combat with a Super-heavy Walker or Gargantuan Creature at the Initiative 1 step, can it still make a Stomp attack?"

This is a reference to being Engaged, as a unit cannot stop being "locked in combat" until after the combat is resolved, but a model can stop being Engaged during Combat. A combat is resolved after Initiative Step 1 and when the results of the Combat are tallied to see who Runs, Stays, get Swept, etc. A model can stop being Engaged during a Combat, though, as it is checked at every Initiative Step of the Combat.

So, again, there is a specific and notable difference to being locked in combat and engaged in combat. It is important to note the differences and when they apply.

Still, the end result is that if the Stomper is not Engaged at Initiative Step 1, it cannot Stomp. Unfortunately, that means your models nearest to the Stomper have to die in order to get away from a Stomp. There is no way around this short of killing the Stomper before Initiative 1 (good luck).

 Tsol wrote:
Just my two cents here, but Christaph is right. He is not misrepresenting anything, I just double checked the wording and he is effectively quoting it.

And as others have said vehicles have special rules which allow them to be engaged but not locked. And if my memory serves at least in the small rule book, they give an example to explain this: lets say a2 stomp attacks are given by the D3, those template can be thrown forward (so long as they touch) to include models not in base to base contact or locked in combat, even from squads who are not part of that specific fight.

I'll see if I can find the picture and summary and post it here with the page number.

1) Only if you read the Determine Who Can Fight in isolation of all the other rules in the Fight Sub-Phase could you agree with Charistoph. The Determine Who Can Fight rule explicitly references the other rules in the Fight Sub-Phase so ignoring those references is not following the rules as they are written. Simply reading the Determine Who Can Fight rule proves that "any models" is a subset of those models whose Initiative values we have permission to check (ie "in combat") and that have Piled In and those models that have Piled In must be part of 'this combat' - ie the current combat the active player has chosen to resolve. Tsol, please re-read the entirety of the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase starting with the Locked in Combat rule and re-assess your opinion of Charistoph's argument.

2) If units can be engaged in combat while not being Locked In Combat then there are huge repercussions for how combat is to be played. Units, according to Charistoph, can attack in combats that they are not participating in by cozying up to the friendly models that are in those combats.

If Charistoph is correct then we all have been playing combats wrong. If he is correct I could use a unit of Wraiths to tarpit some unit in assault while a Nightbringer could position itself within 2"/6" of one of the Wraiths and voila the Nightbringer gets to attack in the combat the Wraiths are locked in but not actually be in the combat. Similarly a GMC could position itself next to a friendly unit Locked in Combat and get to attack in that combat that it is not participating in and launch normal attacks and Stomps with impunity.

If you think Charistoph is correct then please comment on the absurd lines of play that his argument introduces into the game. Units will be able to strike blows into combats that they have not joined! If you accept his argument then you must accept it wholesale.

Or is Charistoph simply incorrect. My post here . . . (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/709910.page#9059756) . . . disproves his argument.

According to the rules, unless you are a non-walker vehicle (which is a case we don't care about because non-walker vehicles don't attack in combat), you cannot be engaged in combat while not being Locked in Combat.

col_impact wrote:

 Tsol wrote:
Just my two cents here, but Christaph is right. He is not misrepresenting anything, I just double checked the wording and he is effectively quoting it.

And as others have said vehicles have special rules which allow them to be engaged but not locked. And if my memory serves at least in the small rule book, they give an example to explain this: lets say a2 stomp attacks are given by the D3, those template can be thrown forward (so long as they touch) to include models not in base to base contact or locked in combat, even from squads who are not part of that specific fight.

I'll see if I can find the picture and summary and post it here with the page number.

1) Only if you read the Determine Who Can Fight in isolation of all the other rules in the Fight Sub-Phase could you agree with Charistoph. The Determine Who Can Fight rule explicitly references the other rules in the Fight Sub-Phase so ignoring those references is not following the rules as they are written. Simply reading the Determine Who Can Fight rule proves that "any models" is a subset of those models whose Initiative values we have permission to check (ie "in combat") and that have Piled In and those models that have Piled In must be part of 'this combat' - ie the current combat the active player has chosen to resolve. Tsol, please re-read the entirety of the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase starting with the Locked in Combat rule and re-assess your opinion of Charistoph's argument.

To play Devil's advocate, though, page 18 states "Work your way throgh the Initiative values of the models in the combat, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest." There is still a question of who is in the combat. Those who are locked, definitely. But, what about a second unit that was declared a secondary target of the charge? Is the act of declaring it a target enough to make it part of that combat and therefore eligible to pile in on their initiative even if the charging unit never moved into contact with the secondary target despite declaring it a target for assault? Remember that the charging rules only talk about a failed charge in relation to the primary unit; it does not say that if no models are moved into contact with the secondary target it is no longer part of the combat. I would not be surprised at all if GW plays it that if the unit isn't contacted you treat it like a failed charge, but they don't state this. You're left with the statement of that secondary unit being declared a target, which could mean that it counts as being part of the combat.

I'll agree that it wouldn't work for any other unit that happened to be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model, but there's enough gray area when a second unit is declared a target that it is considered a part of the combat at that point.

 doctortom wrote:


To play Devil's advocate, though, page 18 states "Work your way throgh the Initiative values of the models in the combat, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest." There is still a question of who is in the combat. Those who are locked, definitely. But, what about a second unit that was declared a secondary target of the charge? Is the act of declaring it a target enough to make it part of that combat and therefore eligible to pile in on their initiative even if the charging unit never moved into contact with the secondary target despite declaring it a target for assault? Remember that the charging rules only talk about a failed charge in relation to the primary unit; it does not say that if no models are moved into contact with the secondary target it is no longer part of the combat. I would not be surprised at all if GW plays it that if the unit isn't contacted you treat it like a failed charge, but they don't state this. You're left with the statement of that secondary unit being declared a target, which could mean that it counts as being part of the combat.

Thanks for your comment. I do have a response for your comment. The charge rules don't put a unit in combat so you are looking in the wrong place. The rule that puts a unit into combat and into the Fight Sub-Phase is the Locked in Combat rule. So please re-acquaint yourself with that rule and note how it acts as a gatekeeper for the entire Fight Sub-Phase.

 doctortom wrote:
I'll agree that it wouldn't work for any other unit that happened to be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model, but there's enough gray area when a second unit is declared a target that it is considered a part of the combat at that point.

Both of those conclusions go hand in hand. You cannot accept one and not the other. You either accept or reject both.

Otherwise feel free to explain the rules-based difference between one case and not the other. If you cannot find a difference in the rules then you are cherry-picking how you apply the Determine Who Can Fight rule.

 doctortom wrote:

To play Devil's advocate, though, page 18 states "Work your way throgh the Initiative values of the models in the combat, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest." There is still a question of who is in the combat. Those who are locked, definitely. But, what about a second unit that was declared a secondary target of the charge? Is the act of declaring it a target enough to make it part of that combat and therefore eligible to pile in on their initiative even if the charging unit never moved into contact with the secondary target despite declaring it a target for assault? Remember that the charging rules only talk about a failed charge in relation to the primary unit; it does not say that if no models are moved into contact with the secondary target it is no longer part of the combat. I would not be surprised at all if GW plays it that if the unit isn't contacted you treat it like a failed charge, but they don't state this. You're left with the statement of that secondary unit being declared a target, which could mean that it counts as being part of the combat.

I'll agree that it wouldn't work for any other unit that happened to be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model, but there's enough gray area when a second unit is declared a target that it is considered a part of the combat at that point.

Declaring a Secondary Target is insufficient for considering it Engaged, as that is never actively stated a condition for Engaged. The capacity to Engage is all that is needed for a Secondary Target to be declared, but that doesn't mean one has to Engage the Secondary Target, especially if they chose while moving their Charging models to avoid getting in to base contact with a Primary Target within 2" of the Secondary Target.

You do have a good point about the qualification of "in combat". It never actually states "locked in combat", does it? But the rules also have yet to introduce the concept of "engaged" at the point, either. So, it can be taken as part of interpretation.

But Stomp's qualifier is still only "engaged in combat" and when the combat (which it is engaged in) reaches its Initiative 1 Step. "Locked in combat" has yet to be fully demonstrated as pertinent in the second definition of "engaged". That "Determining Who Can Fight" calls on its term and provides its definition by no means places its definition exclusively within the confines of the Initiative Step at all times any more than the definition of the Save process is exclusive to the Shooting Sequence. The provisions required at the time the term is used are what is required, nothing else.

Stomp is not part of the process of striking blows (aka fight), but is placed in action at that same time as that process is going. If a fight the Stomper is not engaged in is being processed, the Stomper cannot process its Stomp.

 Charistoph wrote:

Declaring a Secondary Target is insufficient for considering it Engaged, as that is never actively stated a condition for Engaged. The capacity to Engage is all that is needed for a Secondary Target to be declared, but that doesn't mean one has to Engage the Secondary Target, especially if they chose while moving their Charging models to avoid getting in to base contact with a Primary Target within 2" of the Secondary Target.

You do have a good point about the qualification of "in combat". It never actually states "locked in combat", does it? But the rules also have yet to introduce the concept of "engaged" at the point, either. So, it can be taken as part of interpretation.

But Stomp's qualifier is still only "engaged in combat" and when the combat (which it is engaged in) reaches its Initiative 1 Step. "Locked in combat" has yet to be fully demonstrated as pertinent in the second definition of "engaged". That "Determining Who Can Fight" calls on its term and provides its definition by no means places its definition exclusively within the confines of the Initiative Step at all times any more than the definition of the Save process is exclusive to the Shooting Sequence. The provisions required at the time the term is used are what is required, nothing else.

Stomp is not part of the process of striking blows (aka fight), but is placed in action at that same time as that process is going. If a fight the Stomper is not engaged in is being processed, the Stomper cannot process its Stomp.

Charistoph, please provide a case where a Stomper can be 'engaged in combat' while not also being 'Locked in Combat'.

If I understand your argument correctly, that can only occur if a Stomper is close to friendly model in base to base contact and in combat with an enemy unit but while the Stomper is not actually in that combat (otherwise the Stomper would be Locked in Combat), correct? This amounts to Stompers being able to Stomp into combats that they are not in, correct?

Similarly based on how you are reading the Determine Who Can Fight rule, basic infantry can also launch attacks into combats they are not participating in simply by being close to a friendly model that is in combat, correct?

Are you aware that your argument carries with it huge repercussions and changes how all 40k combat is conducted?


Luckily, we can safely discard your argument as not adhering to the Rules As Written. Your argument fails to attend to the first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule.



In order for a model to be a candidate for 'engaged in combat' the model must be a subset of those models with which we have permission to check Initiative Values and that can Pile In. Only models that have permission to be in the Fight Sub-Phase can do either of those. Only models that are Locked in Combat have permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase.

Therefore, unless you are a non-walker vehicle, a model that is 'engaged in combat' must also be "Locked In Combat".

The other thread was locked for a reason, there is no need to rehash the arguments here.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

To play Devil's advocate, though, page 18 states "Work your way throgh the Initiative values of the models in the combat, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest." There is still a question of who is in the combat. Those who are locked, definitely. But, what about a second unit that was declared a secondary target of the charge? Is the act of declaring it a target enough to make it part of that combat and therefore eligible to pile in on their initiative even if the charging unit never moved into contact with the secondary target despite declaring it a target for assault? Remember that the charging rules only talk about a failed charge in relation to the primary unit; it does not say that if no models are moved into contact with the secondary target it is no longer part of the combat. I would not be surprised at all if GW plays it that if the unit isn't contacted you treat it like a failed charge, but they don't state this. You're left with the statement of that secondary unit being declared a target, which could mean that it counts as being part of the combat.

I'll agree that it wouldn't work for any other unit that happened to be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model, but there's enough gray area when a second unit is declared a target that it is considered a part of the combat at that point.

Declaring a Secondary Target is insufficient for considering it Engaged, as that is never actively stated a condition for Engaged. The capacity to Engage is all that is needed for a Secondary Target to be declared, but that doesn't mean one has to Engage the Secondary Target, especially if they chose while moving their Charging models to avoid getting in to base contact with a Primary Target within 2" of the Secondary Target.

You do have a good point about the qualification of "in combat". It never actually states "locked in combat", does it? But the rules also have yet to introduce the concept of "engaged" at the point, either. So, it can be taken as part of interpretation.

I don't claim that declaring a Secondary Target is sufficient for considering it Engaged. The question is whether it is sufficient for qualifying models in the unit as "models in combat", which is a prerequisite for fighting in the combat. "Work your way through the Initiative values of the models in the combat, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest." (page 48). If the models do qualify as being in the combat, then they would be eligible to pile in and to attack if possible. The pile in move might bring them within engagement range or base contact with the unit that charged.

This also solves one potential problem in that something not declared a target would never be considered in combat, so would never be given access to the rules that would determine if it were engaged.

@ col_impact - the Locked In Combat rules that you've quoted deal with units locked in combat, but do not deal with multiple units where another unit is declared a secondary target, but the charging unit ends up not moving into base contact with the secondary unit. It doesn't deal with the status of whether that secondary target would still be considered in the combat. (note that part of what you underlined says you look at the end of any phase to determine if the unit is no longer locked in combat; that won't apply here because you're in the middle of the phase, but - more importantly, it doesn't address the combat status of a secondary unit that isn't engaged. It's been declared a target, which does seem to indicate that it is supposed to be considered part of the combat, but there are no rules saying that the secondary target is no longer considered part of the combat if not locked in combat, unlike the rules for locking a primary target unit in combat. The rules for Initiative Steps merely say models in the combat, not models in a unit locked in combat, so there's enough gray area where the secondary target could still be consideered in combat for purposes of the battle without being locked in combat.

@fragile - I understand, I was feeling the same way, but I think I've got something here that wasn't really explored in the other thread. You don't have blanket permission for any old unit within range to be in the combat, since they couldn't be considered "in the combat" if they weren't either charging or declared a target of the charge. It does open the potential for a secondary target to still fight though even if not initially locked (which would presumably change if it gets to fight and has to pile in). Unlike col_impact's red-texted warnings, it's probably a very limited situation, so the repercussions aren't that huge, and doesn't change how "all 40k combat is conducted."

col_impact wrote:

 Tsol wrote:
Just my two cents here, but Christaph is right. He is not misrepresenting anything, I just double checked the wording and he is effectively quoting it.

And as others have said vehicles have special rules which allow them to be engaged but not locked. And if my memory serves at least in the small rule book, they give an example to explain this: lets say a2 stomp attacks are given by the D3, those template can be thrown forward (so long as they touch) to include models not in base to base contact or locked in combat, even from squads who are not part of that specific fight.

I'll see if I can find the picture and summary and post it here with the page number.

1) Only if you read the Determine Who Can Fight in isolation of all the other rules in the Fight Sub-Phase could you agree with Charistoph. The Determine Who Can Fight rule explicitly references the other rules in the Fight Sub-Phase so ignoring those references is not following the rules as they are written. Simply reading the Determine Who Can Fight rule proves that "any models" is a subset of those models whose Initiative values we have permission to check (ie "in combat") and that have Piled In and those models that have Piled In must be part of 'this combat' - ie the current combat the active player has chosen to resolve. Tsol, please re-read the entirety of the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase starting with the Locked in Combat rule and re-assess your opinion of Charistoph's argument.

2) If units can be engaged in combat while not being Locked In Combat then there are huge repercussions for how combat is to be played. Units, according to Charistoph, can attack in combats that they are not participating in by cozying up to the friendly models that are in those combats.

If Charistoph is correct then we all have been playing combats wrong. If he is correct I could use a unit of Wraiths to tarpit some unit in assault while a Nightbringer could position itself within 2"/6" of one of the Wraiths and voila the Nightbringer gets to attack in the combat the Wraiths are locked in but not actually be in the combat. Similarly a GMC could position itself next to a friendly unit Locked in Combat and get to attack in that combat that it is not participating in and launch normal attacks and Stomps with impunity.

If you think Charistoph is correct then please comment on the absurd lines of play that his argument introduces into the game. Units will be able to strike blows into combats that they have not joined! If you accept his argument then you must accept it wholesale.

Or is Charistoph simply incorrect. My post here . . . (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/709910.page#9059756) . . . disproves his argument.

According to the rules, unless you are a non-walker vehicle (which is a case we don't care about because non-walker vehicles don't attack in combat), you cannot be engaged in combat while not being Locked in Combat.

I think I may have missed a post or two, cause I don't recall Christoph saying separate units just being nearby a separate conflict are auto joined/can willing engage in combat. I'll go back and see if he said that, if so I agree. That is wrong. And again, I agree with your subphase, I think you're spot on. I have no contention there with either you or Christoph.

Again, you keep saying units cannot be engaged, unless locked in combat, which is simply not true. I gave you an example as to how that is not always true. Did you miss it? I'll restate it, in case that I did not make it clear.

Stomp attacks can attack and kill units in melee that are not engaged or even locked in combat with it. Such as getting 2-3 pie plates and placing them with an attempt to get maximum wounds, even on units not currently in contact. A simple example of a uning being engaged but not locked in combat is, five space marines trying to plant a krak gernade on a Chaos Rhino. The Rhino is engaged in combat but is not locked. It can freely move away and is not inhibited by the marines (unless they damage it of course!).

As for any other semantics, I am sure there may be more examples of exceptions, but the wonderful thing about making absolutes statements like, "you can never be engaged in combat without being locked in combat", is, give one example of an exception, and the statement is shown false. If you just want to pettifog and say they are the same thing, sure, it doesn't bother me to concede they are the same thing, but the implications are still the same, now with less detailed and less useful wording.

I am not contesting anything else. Just the stomps example and how some things can be engaged but not locked, any other things being brought up, I have no opinion nor endorse.

Tsol - nearby units within 2" was an implication of what Charistoph had been discussing in the previous thread about charging two separate units. He never stated it, but it was one possible consequence of his argument (if you ignore the "models in combat" part and pretend it's any old unit). The question is whether a model/unit that isn't a non-walker/chariot vehicle can count as being engaged without having been locked in combat to start with, which the only way I can see that as happening is by having been declared a secondary target but ended up not getting locked in combat during the charge subphase. Even if you had been locked in combat but the models you were in base contact were wiped out in a higher initiative, you'd still count as being locked in combat until the end of the phase as the status for being locked in combat

Obviously a model can be engaged without being locked in combat - it happens to non-walker/ non-chariot vehicles all the time. It's a different question if they're the only ones to be able to achieve this status.

 doctortom wrote:


@ col_impact - the Locked In Combat rules that you've quoted deal with units locked in combat, but do not deal with multiple units where another unit is declared a secondary target, but the charging unit ends up not moving into base contact with the secondary unit. It doesn't deal with the status of whether that secondary target would still be considered in the combat. (note that part of what you underlined says you look at the end of any phase to determine if the unit is no longer locked in combat; that won't apply here because you're in the middle of the phase, but - more importantly, it doesn't address the combat status of a secondary unit that isn't engaged. It's been declared a target, which does seem to indicate that it is supposed to be considered part of the combat, but there are no rules saying that the secondary target is no longer considered part of the combat if not locked in combat, unlike the rules for locking a primary target unit in combat. The rules for Initiative Steps merely say models in the combat, not models in a unit locked in combat, so there's enough gray area where the secondary target could still be consideered in combat for purposes of the battle without being locked in combat.

Please review the Locked in Combat rules again.

If the charging unit fails to bring a model into base to base with an enemy model in the Secondary Target then that Secondary Target never becomes Locked In Combat and will not be a part of the ensuing combat. It is really that simple.

The Locked In Combat rule defines which units are in combat and which units are not in combat.

Simply declaring a unit as a Secondary Target has no consequence in and of itself on bringing that Secondary Target into the combat. The charge must successfully bring one of your models into base to base contact with an enemy model in that Secondary Target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tsol wrote:


Stomp attacks can attack and kill units in melee that are not engaged or even locked in combat with it. Such as getting 2-3 pie plates and placing them with an attempt to get maximum wounds, even on units not currently in contact. A simple example of a uning being engaged but not locked in combat is, five space marines trying to plant a krak gernade on a Chaos Rhino. The Rhino is engaged in combat but is not locked. It can freely move away and is not inhibited by the marines (unless they damage it of course!).

I appreciate your well-crafted response. However I want to point out that neither of these scenarios are in contention.

The non-walker vehicle scenario has already been identified as a corner case not affecting the argument at hand since non-walker vehicles do not attack in combat.

You are correct that a Stomper that is engaged in combat and Locked in Combat with an enemy unit can have his attacks affect a unit that he is Locked in Combat with, BUT the Stomper must be both engaged in combat and Locked In Combat with an enemy unit to be able to do that.

Charistoph's claim is that the Determine Who Can Fight rule can be taken out of context and applied generally to units not Locked in Combat.

 Charistoph wrote:
But Stomp's qualifier is still only "engaged in combat" and when the combat (which it is engaged in) reaches its Initiative 1 Step. "Locked in combat" has yet to be fully demonstrated as pertinent in the second definition of "engaged". That "Determining Who Can Fight" calls on its term and provides its definition by no means places its definition exclusively within the confines of the Initiative Step at all times any more than the definition of the Save process is exclusive to the Shooting Sequence. The provisions required at the time the term is used are what is required, nothing else.

In the above quote, Charistoph is proposing that we can take the Determine Who Can Fight rule out of the context of the Fight Sub-Phase. The first sentence of that rule, however, anchors it to the Fight Sub-Phase rule which is one reason among many that his line of reasoning falls short, in my opinion.

If you chop off the first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule that ties that rule into the Fight Sub-Phase section and apply the rule out of context then you get the scenario where any old infantry unit can attack in combats they are not participating in simply by being close enough to a friendly model that is in that combat.

If you allow units to be able to fight in combats that they are not Locked in Combat with then that has massive repercussions for all of 40k combat.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


@ col_impact - the Locked In Combat rules that you've quoted deal with units locked in combat, but do not deal with multiple units where another unit is declared a secondary target, but the charging unit ends up not moving into base contact with the secondary unit. It doesn't deal with the status of whether that secondary target would still be considered in the combat. (note that part of what you underlined says you look at the end of any phase to determine if the unit is no longer locked in combat; that won't apply here because you're in the middle of the phase, but - more importantly, it doesn't address the combat status of a secondary unit that isn't engaged. It's been declared a target, which does seem to indicate that it is supposed to be considered part of the combat, but there are no rules saying that the secondary target is no longer considered part of the combat if not locked in combat, unlike the rules for locking a primary target unit in combat. The rules for Initiative Steps merely say models in the combat, not models in a unit locked in combat, so there's enough gray area where the secondary target could still be consideered in combat for purposes of the battle without being locked in combat.

Please review the Locked in Combat rules again.

If the charging unit fails to bring a model into base to base with an enemy model in the Secondary Target then that Secondary Target never becomes Locked In Combat and will not be a part of the ensuing combat. It is really that simple.

The Locked In Combat rule defines which units are in combat and which units are not in combat.

Simply declaring a unit as a Secondary Target has no consequence in and of itself on bringing that Secondary Target into the combat. The charge must successfully bring one of your models into base to base contact with an enemy model in that Secondary Target.

I have reviewed the Locked in Combat rules, It doesn't address it. It only says that units locked in combat must fight in the combat. It says nothing about a secondary target of a charge that ends up not being locked in combat. The charge rules only deal with a primary unit, and the Failed Charge section deals only with moving the initial model - unless you think that if you don't move anybody in contact with the secondary target then it counts as a failed charge and "no models are moved", forcing you to put the models back where they were.

What we get from the Multiple Combats section is that a secondary target is a second unit that the charging unit thinks they can reach, and we also get that both target units are permitted to fire Overwatch (indicating there that the secondary target is in the combat). There is no statement in the Multiple Combats section about no longer treating the secondary target as part of the combat if a model is not put in base contact with it. If you say follow the normal rules for charging a unit, then you would also have to follow the rules for a failed charge and not be allowed to fight either unit you declared as a target if you don't successfully charge both of them. Yet, I don't think that is how you play it.

In short, "in combat" is not the same as "locked in combat", and neither is the same as "engaged in combat" Going through the initiative steps specifies models "in combat", but does not say "locked in combat".

If you have a rule that states you no longer consider the secondary target as part of the combat if it is not locked in combat, please quote the specific rule. The rule you have underlined before does not do it; it is already in the combat by having been declared a target and have had the opporunity for Overwatch fire. You need to show something that revokes that status from the secondary unit. If there's only one unit being charged, this is done by the Failed Charge rules, but (as I said earlier), there is not similar wording for a secondary target.

 doctortom wrote:


I have reviewed the Locked in Combat rules, It doesn't address it. It only says that units locked in combat must fight in the combat. It says nothing about a secondary target of a charge that ends up not being locked in combat. The charge rules only deal with a primary unit, and the Failed Charge section deals only with moving the initial model - unless you think that if you don't move anybody in contact with the secondary target then it counts as a failed charge and "no models are moved", forcing you to put the models back where they were.

What we get from the Multiple Combats section is that a secondary target is a second unit that the charging unit thinks they can reach, and we also get that both target units are permitted to fire Overwatch (indicating there that the secondary target is in the combat). There is no statement in the Multiple Combats section about no longer treating the secondary target as part of the combat if a model is not put in base contact with it. If you say follow the normal rules for charging a unit, then you would also have to follow the rules for a failed charge and not be allowed to fight either unit you declared as a target if you don't successfully charge both of them. Yet, I don't think that is how you play it.

In short, "in combat" is not the same as "locked in combat", and neither is the same as "engaged in combat" Going through the initiative steps specifies models "in combat", but does not say "locked in combat".

If you have a rule that states you no longer consider the secondary target as part of the combat if it is not locked in combat, please quote the specific rule. The rule you have underlined before does not do it; it is already in the combat by having been declared a target and have had the opporunity for Overwatch fire. You need to show something that revokes that status from the secondary unit. If there's only one unit being charged, this is done by the Failed Charge rules, but (as I said earlier), there is not similar wording for a secondary target.

I think you are misunderstanding the terms involved. The rules describing 'locked in combat' are in lower case so the phrase itself is semantically descriptive of what is happening. A unit is being locked in combat.

The rules in the section Locked In Combat describe how a unit is "locked" into a state of being "in combat". The "lock" holds the unit "in combat" initiating at the end of the charge sub-phase and lasting until the end of the fight sub-phase at which point the respective distances are checked at the conclusion of each fight sub-phase (and any subsequent) to see if the unit is still to be considered "locked" in a state of being "in combat". The "in combat" part of the phrase "locked in combat" is synonymous with "in combat". Part of the "locked in combat" rules relates how a unit can stop being "locked in combat". If the "in combat" part of the phrase "locked in combat" does not mean the same as "in combat" then that means there is no way for a unit to escape being "in combat" (except through death). What do you say about this conundrum for your argument, doctortom?

What determines if a unit will be "locked" in a state of being "in combat" will be if there is a friendly model in base to base combat with an enemy model which can only happen at the end of a charge move. If you fail to bring a model into base to base combat with the Secondary Target then that unit will not be "locked" into a state of being "in combat" and will skip the Fight Sub-Phase.

A charge only completely fails if the initial charger fails to get into base to base combat with the Primary Target. However, nothing says that both the Primary and Secondary target need to be "locked" into a state of being "in combat" for the charge to be considered a non-failure. So it is very possible that a charge will succeed at just 'locking' the Primary 'in combat and not 'locking' the Secondary 'in combat' and proceeding to the fight sub-phase with only the Primary 'locked' into a state of being 'in combat'.

The rules for 'engaged' or 'engaged in combat' describe how to determine whether a model that is 'in combat' is close enough to the fight to join in with its own attacks. Similarly the rules for 'unengaged' describe the inverse of 'engaged' -- "Unengaged models cannot attack in close combat – they’re too far from the crush of battle." "Engaged" or "unengaged" are properties of a model in a unit that has already been "locked" in a state of being "in combat".

Apparently I completely missed what the rule contention here was lol.

 Tsol wrote:
Apparently I completely missed what the rule contention here was lol.

Semantics. The only contention was semantics.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Tsol wrote:
Apparently I completely missed what the rule contention here was lol.

Semantics. The only contention was semantics.

SJ

YMDC is all about semantics, by definition.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


I have reviewed the Locked in Combat rules, It doesn't address it. It only says that units locked in combat must fight in the combat. It says nothing about a secondary target of a charge that ends up not being locked in combat. The charge rules only deal with a primary unit, and the Failed Charge section deals only with moving the initial model - unless you think that if you don't move anybody in contact with the secondary target then it counts as a failed charge and "no models are moved", forcing you to put the models back where they were.

What we get from the Multiple Combats section is that a secondary target is a second unit that the charging unit thinks they can reach, and we also get that both target units are permitted to fire Overwatch (indicating there that the secondary target is in the combat). There is no statement in the Multiple Combats section about no longer treating the secondary target as part of the combat if a model is not put in base contact with it. If you say follow the normal rules for charging a unit, then you would also have to follow the rules for a failed charge and not be allowed to fight either unit you declared as a target if you don't successfully charge both of them. Yet, I don't think that is how you play it.

In short, "in combat" is not the same as "locked in combat", and neither is the same as "engaged in combat" Going through the initiative steps specifies models "in combat", but does not say "locked in combat".

If you have a rule that states you no longer consider the secondary target as part of the combat if it is not locked in combat, please quote the specific rule. The rule you have underlined before does not do it; it is already in the combat by having been declared a target and have had the opporunity for Overwatch fire. You need to show something that revokes that status from the secondary unit. If there's only one unit being charged, this is done by the Failed Charge rules, but (as I said earlier), there is not similar wording for a secondary target.

I think you are misunderstanding the terms involved. The rules describing 'locked in combat' are in lower case so the phrase itself is semantically descriptive of what is happening. A unit is being locked in combat.

I am not misunderstanding. You are taking the only way to be in combat is to be locked in combat. We already know that's false because a vehicle can be in a combat (usually as a victim of the assault) without being locked in combat.

The Initiative count down step for piling in and attacking only requires a model to be in combat, it does not specify Locked In Combat. So, that would mean anything in the combat would be eligible for piling in.

col_impact wrote:
What determines if a unit will be "locked" in a state of being "in combat" will be if there is a friendly model in base to base combat with an enemy model which can only happen at the end of a charge move. If you fail to bring a model into base to base combat with the Secondary Target then that unit will not be "locked" into a state of being "in combat" and will skip the Fight Sub-Phase.

Again, you are assuming that Locked in Combat is the only way to be in combat, which we already know is not necessarily the case. Breaking up "Locked in combat" into separate phrases "locked" and "in combat" does not mean that that's the only way to be in the combat. A secondary target gets to perform overwatch as well as a primary target in an assault. Is that an indication that he is considered in combat? Yes; units that aren't in combat (barring special rules) don't get to perform overwatch, so we already know the secondary target unit is in the combat. If nothing charges into base contact with it, is it still in combat? According to the rules as written, yes. It has already been in combat, and there is no provision for a secondary unit to lose it's status of being in combat if nothing moves into base contact with it (unlike the rules for a primary target). This means that you default back to the rules of having to pile in on your initiative (and combat ending if both sides can't reach each other on the pile in).

Is it sloppy of GW to not specify that a secondary target is no longer considered part of the combat if it is not locked in combat? Yes. Is it RAW right now? No, by only saying "in combat" and not "locked in combat" when it has already gone through some of the processes designated by the close combat rules.

Being able to fire Overwatch is no indication of "being in combat", and there is nothing to support such.

To fire Overwatch, all is needed is a Charge declared against the unit (or be near one in the case of some Tau units). Charges can fail and nothing ends up in combat.

So, just being declared a target of a Charge is insufficient to be "in combat", even for a Secondary Target. Other factors must needs be in play.

What "in combat" means for the rest of the time varies and is dependent on the unit in question, the circumstances being in place, and often if it is "engaged" or "locked". Models engaged in combat may swing blows, but units locked in combat may not fire Overwatch.

But at the very least, "in combat" cannot occur without something having been "locked in combat" at some point that Phase due to the nature of combat. "Engaged in combat" cannot occur without at least someone friendly nearby also being "locked in combat", if they are not "locked in combat" themselves.

 Charistoph wrote:
Being able to fire Overwatch is no indication of "being in combat", and there is nothing to support such.

To fire Overwatch, all is needed is a Charge declared against the unit (or be near one in the case of some Tau units). Charges can fail and nothing ends up in combat.

So, just being declared a target of a Charge is insufficient to be "in combat", even for a Secondary Target. Other factors must needs be in play.

What "in combat" means for the rest of the time varies and is dependent on the unit in question, the circumstances being in place, and often if it is "engaged" or "locked". Models engaged in combat may swing blows, but units locked in combat may not fire Overwatch.

But at the very least, "in combat" cannot occur without something having been "locked in combat" at some point that Phase due to the nature of combat. "Engaged in combat" cannot occur without at least someone friendly nearby also being "locked in combat", if they are not "locked in combat" themselves.

Yes, a charge needs to be declared. You are in the Charge sub-phase of the assault. Charges can fail, but that is detailed in the charge subphase (and deals with only the primary target). It does not detail resolving 'failed charges' for the secondary unit. We are already assuming the charge is successful by locking the primary target in combat. So, perhaps you fall to the "engaged in combat" definition at that point (if it's within 2" of a model in base contact with the enemy), though still I'd maintain you've participated in the combat by firing Overwatch, so would get to pile in. This effectively works out to a difference between being within 2" if you go by the engaged in combat definition, or 3" - the distance you get to pile in - if you go by the definition of needing to get into base contact with your pile-in move as is stated in the Initiative step rules.

 doctortom wrote:
I am not misunderstanding. You are taking the only way to be in combat is to be locked in combat. We already know that's false because a vehicle can be in a combat (usually as a victim of the assault) without being locked in combat.

Incorrect. A charge and the Locked in Combat determination against a non-walker (and non-chariot) vehicle is performed just like for a normal unit. The Charge move must succeed with the initial charger model in base to base contact with the vehicle for the units in question to be considered 'in combat'. The non-walker vehicle is simply not 'locked' however due to special exceptions granted to vehicles. And as already noted in the thread above, the corner case of non-walker vehicles is the only exception. Since non-walker vehicles make no attacks or Stomps in assault, the corner case has no impact on anything - no shenanigans are possible. What is important to realize is that the pathway to get 'in combat' is the same for all units, whether vehicle or not. Successful charges are what place units 'in combat' without exception.

 doctortom wrote:
A secondary target gets to perform overwatch as well as a primary target in an assault. Is that an indication that he is considered in combat? Yes; units that aren't in combat (barring special rules) don't get to perform overwatch, so we already know the secondary target unit is in the combat. If nothing charges into base contact with it, is it still in combat? According to the rules as written, yes. It has already been in combat, and there is no provision for a secondary unit to lose it's status of being in combat if nothing moves into base contact with it (unlike the rules for a primary target). This means that you default back to the rules of having to pile in on your initiative (and combat ending if both sides can't reach each other on the pile in).

Incorrect. There is nothing in the Overwatch rules that indicates the unit performing Overwatch is in combat. In fact, units that are in combat are prohibited from shooting. If you feel otherwise, prove your case with rules quotes.

A successful Charge move is what brings units into combat. A charge is successful if the initial charger gets into base to base combat with the Primary Target. Secondary and Tertiary targets do not get locked in combat unless they wind up with a model in base to base combat with the unit that charged them. The Locked in Combat rules are checked at the end of the Charge sub-phase so unless the rules are satisfied the units are not in combat for the subsequent steps of the Fight Sub-Phase and the Fight Sub-Phase is skipped. Declaring a Charge against a Secondary Target does not bring that unit into combat. The Overwatch performed by the Secondary Target does not bring it into combat.

The first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule requires that the models in question be a subset of the models that have had their Initiative Values checked and that have performed Pile In moves. A unit that is not put into combat by the Locked In Combat rules cannot be part of that determination. The Determine Who Can Fight rule determines which models in the current combat we are resolving can actually attack in the combat versus those who cannot attack ("engaged" versus "unengaged").


So a thorough examination of the rules involved indicate that my argument is firmly supported. Also, it doesn't lead to any absurd lines of play.

You have made the claim that performing Overwatch brings a Secondary Target into combat. Can you back that up with rules?

Also, you keep avoiding discussing the absurd lines of play your line of reasoning opens up. What is to prevent units from launching attacks in combats that they are not participating in by just being close to a friendly unit that is in that combat. If you allow the Determine Who Can Fight rule to be taken completely out of its context (which involves throwing away the first sentence of that rule) then you must accept all the problems associated with doing that and the absurd lines of play that result.

Indeed a Charge needs to be declared, as there is no other way to get in to any form of "combat" the game recognizes as such. A failed Charge against a Primary Target will not allow Charge movement in to a Secondary Target, so a successful Charge is still required.

As you say, there is no such thing as a Failed Charge against a Secondary Target, as you can move models in such a way as none of the Secondary Target models end up Engaged.

Does this mean they are "in combat" if they weren't Engaged or Locked but Declared? We have no information on this, either way, as "in combat" without "engaged" or "locked" has not been defined at any point as far as I know. It could be a case of, "if it is either 'engaged' or 'locked', it is 'in combat'". :shrug: Who knows.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
I am not misunderstanding. You are taking the only way to be in combat is to be locked in combat. We already know that's false because a vehicle can be in a combat (usually as a victim of the assault) without being locked in combat.

Incorrect. A charge and the Locked in Combat determination against a non-walker (and non-chariot) vehicle is performed just like for a normal unit. The Charge move must succeed with the initial charger model in base to base contact with the vehicle for the units in question to be considered 'in combat'. The non-walker vehicle is simply not 'locked' however due to special exceptions granted to vehicles. And as already noted in the thread above, the corner case of non-walker vehicles is the only exception. Since non-walker vehicles make no attacks or Stomps in assault, the corner case has no impact on anything - no shenanigans are possible. What is important to realize is that the pathway to get 'in combat' is the same for all units, whether vehicle or not. Successful charges are what place units 'in combat' without exception.

But there has been a successful charge - against the primary target. And yes, non-walker vehicles are an exception that's noted, but it means that there's at least one example. Nobody is arguing that successful charges are what place units "in combat:, but that's not necessarily exclusive. We'll take Charistoph's example of a secondary target that has a model that is considered engaged because it's within 2" of a model from the primary target unit. "Engaged in combat" would seem to be a qualifying statement as much as "locked in combat", and something that was declared a secondary target that met the "engaged in combat" status would seem to qualify being able to pile in during its initiative step.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
A secondary target gets to perform overwatch as well as a primary target in an assault. Is that an indication that he is considered in combat? Yes; units that aren't in combat (barring special rules) don't get to perform overwatch, so we already know the secondary target unit is in the combat. If nothing charges into base contact with it, is it still in combat? According to the rules as written, yes. It has already been in combat, and there is no provision for a secondary unit to lose it's status of being in combat if nothing moves into base contact with it (unlike the rules for a primary target). This means that you default back to the rules of having to pile in on your initiative (and combat ending if both sides can't reach each other on the pile in).

Incorrect. There is nothing in the Overwatch rules that indicates the unit performing Overwatch is in combat. In fact, units that are in combat are prohibited from shooting. If you feel otherwise, prove your case with rules quotes.

Units that are Locked in Combat are prohibited. They are already defined as being in a combat, however. Thanks for the strawman argument there, though. Overwatch is part of the assault process, however, and a target unit is involved in the process. Units that aren't in the combat don't get to participate in Overwatch (some that are locked don't get to either, but that's a different, specific prohibition.)

col_impact wrote:
A successful Charge move is what brings units into combat. A charge is successful if the initial charger gets into base to base combat with the Primary Target. Secondary and Tertiary targets do not get locked in combat unless they wind up with a model in base to base combat with the unit that charged them. The Locked in Combat rules are checked at the end of the Charge sub-phase so unless the rules are satisfied the units are not in combat for the subsequent steps of the Fight Sub-Phase and the Fight Sub-Phase is skipped. Declaring a Charge against a Secondary Target does not bring that unit into combat. The Overwatch performed by the Secondary Target does not bring it into combat.

Where are the rules stating that only Locked in Combat applies? A secondary target that counts as Engaged in Combat by being near the primary unit also has that valid "in combat" moniker associated with it.

col_impact wrote:
The first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule requires that the models in question be a subset of the models that have had their Initiative Values checked and that have performed Pile In moves. A unit that is not put into combat by the Locked In Combat rules cannot be part of that determination. The Determine Who Can Fight rule determines which models in the current combat we are resolving can actually attack in the combat versus those who cannot attack ("engaged" versus "unengaged").

It only states models "in combat", not models "locked in combat". And, as you point out, engaged models can attack. Once again we have Charistoph's example of a secondary target that was close enough to count as engaged.

col_impact wrote:
Also, you keep avoiding discussing the absurd lines of play your line of reasoning opens up. What is to prevent units from launching attacks in combats that they are not participating in by just being close to a friendly unit that is in that combat. If you allow the Determine Who Can Fight rule to be taken completely out of its context (which involves throwing away the first sentence of that rule) then you must accept all the problems associated with doing that and the absurd lines of play that result.

Please pay attention and don't bring up yet another strawman argument that was debunked. When I first talked about this I talked about the requirement of being "in combat" (not necessarily "locked in combat"). Units that just happen to be close that weren't declared targets wouldn't have any justification to say they were in the combat, so wouldn't be able to use the rules for counting down initiative steps. So, the absurdity you want to wave around doesn't happen. You don't have to worry about dogs and cats living together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
Indeed a Charge needs to be declared, as there is no other way to get in to any form of "combat" the game recognizes as such. A failed Charge against a Primary Target will not allow Charge movement in to a Secondary Target, so a successful Charge is still required.

As you say, there is no such thing as a Failed Charge against a Secondary Target, as you can move models in such a way as none of the Secondary Target models end up Engaged.

Does this mean they are "in combat" if they weren't Engaged or Locked but Declared? We have no information on this, either way, as "in combat" without "engaged" or "locked" has not been defined at any point as far as I know. It could be a case of, "if it is either 'engaged' or 'locked', it is 'in combat'". :shrug: Who knows.

Agreed there needs to be a successful charge, or there's no assault to start with as the models don't get to move. I agree that the information is lacking on whether the secondary target counts as "in combat" if they're not engaged or locked - they were declared a target, and participated in Overwatch, but nothing changed about their status of (supposedly) being in the combat, and GW didn't write up something to indicate. Col_Impact wants to claim they have to be locked in combat, but I'd think that something declared A target that's close enough to the right model in the primary target unit to count as engaged in combat would qualify. It would have been nice for some concise statement one in the multiple combats section rather than just having people assume you apply the rules of charging the primary target to the secondary target except when you don't, without saying which part you don't and how to handle it.

 Charistoph wrote:
Indeed a Charge needs to be declared, as there is no other way to get in to any form of "combat" the game recognizes as such. A failed Charge against a Primary Target will not allow Charge movement in to a Secondary Target, so a successful Charge is still required.

As you say, there is no such thing as a Failed Charge against a Secondary Target, as you can move models in such a way as none of the Secondary Target models end up Engaged.

Does this mean they are "in combat" if they weren't Engaged or Locked but Declared? We have no information on this, either way, as "in combat" without "engaged" or "locked" has not been defined at any point as far as I know. It could be a case of, "if it is either 'engaged' or 'locked', it is 'in combat'". :shrug: Who knows.

The rules for Determine Who Can Fight do not determine if a unit is in combat. That has already been determined at the end of the Charge sub-phase with the Locked In Combat rules. A unit is "locked" "in combat" (or simply "put" "in combat" in the case of a non-walker vehicle) at the end of the Charge sub-phase if a unit has a model in base to base combat with an enemy model. This is precisely how a Primary Target can wind up in combat while a Secondary Target might not. If a Secondary Target has no model in base to base combat with an enemy model at the end of the Charge sub-phase then it is definitively not in combat and will skip the steps of the Fight Sub-Phase.

The Determine Who Can Fight rules determine whether a model that already is in combat is able to attack in that combat - those models in a unit that is in the current combat and that are close enough to a friendly model in base to base contact with an enemy model can - those models that are in a unit that is in the current combat but that are too far away cannot. The first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule places it squarely in the context of the Fight Sub-Phase, the current combat being resolved, and the units that have been given explicit permission to participate in that combat (check Initiative Value, Steps, Pile In moves, etc) by the Locked in Combat rules. The only thing that "engaged in combat" tells us is that a model that is already in a unit that is locked in the current can indeed launch actual attacks in that combat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. There is nothing in the Overwatch rules that indicates the unit performing Overwatch is in combat. In fact, units that are in combat are prohibited from shooting. If you feel otherwise, prove your case with rules quotes.

Units that are Locked in Combat are prohibited. They are already defined as being in a combat, however. Thanks for the strawman argument there, though. Overwatch is part of the assault process, however, and a target unit is involved in the process. Units that aren't in the combat don't get to participate in Overwatch (some that are locked don't get to either, but that's a different, specific prohibition.)

Overwatch happens before the Charge move. A unit that is Overwatching is not in any combat because a successful Charge move (which is a requisite for being in combat) has not happened yet.

If you want to suggest otherwise you will need to start quoting actual rules, since the rules simply do not support you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A successful Charge move is what brings units into combat. A charge is successful if the initial charger gets into base to base combat with the Primary Target. Secondary and Tertiary targets do not get locked in combat unless they wind up with a model in base to base combat with the unit that charged them. The Locked in Combat rules are checked at the end of the Charge sub-phase so unless the rules are satisfied the units are not in combat for the subsequent steps of the Fight Sub-Phase and the Fight Sub-Phase is skipped. Declaring a Charge against a Secondary Target does not bring that unit into combat. The Overwatch performed by the Secondary Target does not bring it into combat.

Where are the rules stating that only Locked in Combat applies? A secondary target that counts as Engaged in Combat by being near the primary unit also has that valid "in combat" moniker associated with it.

The rules for Locked In Combat explicitly define the change of state that happens to a unit that is locked in combat.



The rules for Determine Who Can Fight define 'engaged in combat' as a model that is already in the current combat (having Piled In) and that is close enough to a friendly model in base to base combat with an enemy model in the current combat. The "in combat" moniker, as you call it, of 'engaged in combat' is not pulling the model into the combat but merely describing the model as "in [this] combat" since it is only indicating that the model can attack in the current combat as opposed to unengaged models which cannot attack. The models being considered for 'engaged in combat' are just the subset of models that are in units that are 'locked in combat'.

If you think the preposition 'in combat' of 'engaged in combat' is alone enough to propel a model from a state of 'out of combat' into a state of 'in combat' then not only do you have the problem of the rules making absolutely no mention of this change of state (whereas the Locked in Combat rules provide a robust description of this change of state) but you also have the problem of absurdly allowing models to cozy up to friendly models in combat and being able to launch attacks into combats that they are not participating in. If 'engaged in combat' can bring a Secondary Target into combat that has failed thus far to be 'in combat' then 'engaged in combat' will bring any model that is cozy enough to a friendly model in combat. This is not a strawman. This is a direct logical consequence of your line of reasoning.

But really, the absurd consequences of your line of reasoning only underline what we already know, that 'engaged in combat' refers to a model that is already in the current combat, having been put in the combat explicitly by the Locked In Combat rule. 'Engaged' versus 'unengaged' merely govern who gets to attack (among the models in a unit that is already locked in the current combat) based on the distance to the closest friendly model in base to base combat with an enemy model in the current combat.

col_impact wrote:


Overwatch happens before the Charge move. A unit that is Overwatching is not in any combat because a successful Charge move (which is a requisite for being in combat) has not happened yet.

Overwatch is still part of the charge subphase of the assault phase, and involves only units being targeted for charged - i.e. units the charger says willl be in the combat.

col_impact wrote:
If you think the preposition 'in combat' of 'engaged in combat' is alone enough to propel a model from a state of 'out of combat' into a state of 'in combat' then not only do you have the problem of the rules making absolutely no mention of this change of state (whereas the Locked in Combat rules provide a robust description of this change of state) but you also have the problem of absurdly allowing models to cozy up to friendly models in combat and being able to launch attacks into combats that they are not participating in. If 'engaged in combat' can bring a Secondary Target into combat that has failed thus far to be 'in combat' then 'engaged in combat' will bring any model that is cozy enough to a friendly model in combat. This is not a strawman. This is a direct logical consequence of your line of reasoning.

And once again you are misrepresenting what I am saying. Not surprising, since you've done that to me and to Charistoph many times before. There is no "cozying up" to get involved in the combat.. Get that through your skull. If you're not declared a target unit or are a charging unit, you aren't in the combat. I even repeated myself in the previous post about this. Yet, you want to persist in your gloom and doom about what is, yes, a strawman argument about everybody and his brother being able to get involved with the combat just because they're close enough. I've pointed out it's not true several times, Charistoph is saying nothing about it, so you continuing to bring it up as if that's what we're maintaining is happening is you trying to perpetuate a lie. I don't see any reason to continue arguing when you want to continue lying.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Overwatch happens before the Charge move. A unit that is Overwatching is not in any combat because a successful Charge move (which is a requisite for being in combat) has not happened yet.

Overwatch is still part of the charge subphase of the assault phase, and involves only units being targeted for charged - i.e. units the charger says willl be in the combat.

col_impact wrote:
If you think the preposition 'in combat' of 'engaged in combat' is alone enough to propel a model from a state of 'out of combat' into a state of 'in combat' then not only do you have the problem of the rules making absolutely no mention of this change of state (whereas the Locked in Combat rules provide a robust description of this change of state) but you also have the problem of absurdly allowing models to cozy up to friendly models in combat and being able to launch attacks into combats that they are not participating in. If 'engaged in combat' can bring a Secondary Target into combat that has failed thus far to be 'in combat' then 'engaged in combat' will bring any model that is cozy enough to a friendly model in combat. This is not a strawman. This is a direct logical consequence of your line of reasoning.

And once again you are misrepresenting what I am saying. Not surprising, since you've done that to me and to Charistoph many times before. There is no "cozying up" to get involved in the combat.. Get that through your skull. If you're not declared a target unit or are a charging unit, you aren't in the combat. I even repeated myself in the previous post about this. Yet, you want to persist in your gloom and doom about what is, yes, a strawman argument about everybody and his brother being able to get involved with the combat just because they're close enough. I've pointed out it's not true several times, Charistoph is saying nothing about it, so you continuing to bring it up as if that's what we're maintaining is happening is you trying to perpetuate a lie. I don't see any reason to continue arguing when you want to continue lying.

How am I lying? I have been pointing out that your line of reasoning has no basis in the rules which you have yet to counter by pointing to rules. Nowhere in the Declare Charge or the Resolve Overwatch are there any rules that would place the unit in combat.





The only place where a unit is explicitly put into combat is in the Locked In Combat rules (which I have already quoted in previous posts).

Therefore, the mere act of Declaring a Charge against a Secondary Target does not put them in combat. If you think otherwise back up your claim with rules!

Since a Secondary Target is not "in combat" unless the unit is locked in combat (by including a model in base to base combat with an enemy model), if you rely on the Determine Who Can Fight rule to bring a Secondary Target into combat that is not "in combat" you are logically also allowing any unit that is also not "in combat" to be able to launch attacks into combats that they are not participating in by simply being close enough to a friendly model that is in the combat.

If you want to prove me wrong then point to rules that would place a Secondary Target "in combat" with the mere act of Declaring the unit as a Secondary Target. Otherwise I am right and you are the one trying to peddle a line of reasoning with no rules support. Back up what you claim or concede the argument.