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.

Simultaneous 100% matters. That 7th edition had different rules for how to handle model removal and wound allocation stuff 100% does not. They have no bearing on eachother.

That HH has a rule that says that all remaing wounds in the wound pool are lost if at any point there is no longer any models engaged is meaningless, that changes nothing in terms of simultaneity. The point at which that occurs is the same for both players, because they are doing it at the same time. You can't have simultaneous events occur where one of the events occurs before the other, can you? They wouldn't be simultaneous then.

And the change was implemented in order to prevent a combat from wiping an entire squad in combat from 10% away and to reduce the general lethality if melee action. It's not there to stop a player from attacking at the same initiative step, it's there to limit the damage caused by the attacks instead.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

badgerson wrote:
I don't understand why you'd so adamantly remove simultaneous fighting from the game when that is explicitly a part of the initiative step rules. In what scenario would simultaneous fighting ever happen, according to you?

Right? If the rule says these things happen simultaneously then what does he even think that means? I cannot comprehend a valid interpretation of that statement that means anything other than "do this at the same time". Anything that involves establishing some sort of order in which things occur between both players essentially renders it as no longer simultaneous.

Yeah, so OP is very much not playing the rules correctly, and is in fact trying to cross the streams of various rules to get a massive advantage in Assault when fighting at the same initiative.

TLDR: the simultaneous strikes rule cited spells it out perfectly, dead models get to fight when they’re at the same initiative step as their killer. The way OP wants to play it, via the ‘active player choice’ argument, is DOA based on the more specific Assault rules here. Moreover, if OPs method actually held water it would make most shooting reactions the game worthless, as all of those (such as the IW one) have a similar clause of keeping ‘dead’ models around to indicate they still get to shoot. But via OPs logic he could ignore that, tell you to remove your entire squad, and completely ignore your reaction because he’s the active player, not to mention I’m sure he’d argue to count the reaction as used regardless.

Other than the simultaneous stuff it does sound like it’s being played correctly, but incredibly shittily. The HH2.0 method of deciding whether or not you want to pile in, and relatively easily denying combat via some gamey model placements and chosen model removals, is a pretty big smear on an otherwise solid rule set. It’s a big step back from the original 7th edition close combat wound allocation rules, and k can’t believe I’m praising 7th ed rules.

Any arguments about ‘20 inch melee attacks’ can be checked at the door when we remember that models are tokens and the game is an abstraction. We’re using static guys on bases to represent the press of a swirling and often times running melee, rather than a couple of guys forming into neat likes to politely take a designated number of swings at their specific moment, with anyone behind them calmly waiting their turn to step forwards / perhaps just twiddling their thumbs, with the understanding that if the one guy infront of them dies their adversary will be honor bound to stand just outside of arms reach for s few volleys of bizarrely inaccurate weapons fire.

Right, why not emailing GW ? I never tried to ask them about rules but maybe they could answer. I mean, according to previous posters, the common way is the way GW plays it itself in its tournaments so that should close the case, shouldn't it ? I must say it was interesting to follow this debate !

Whoever that OP guy is, glad they aren't showing up in this thread. They sound like a real piece of work, morganfreeman.

Shooting rules/reactions have a very clear order of how they happen, and explicitly describe the mechanics of how you keep the dead models around. There would be no way for a person to argue what you're saying this 'OP' character would. It's a non sequitur to the subject at hand - assault phase stuff.

Right? If the rule says these things happen simultaneously then what does he even think that means? I cannot comprehend a valid interpretation of that statement that means anything other than "do this at the same time". Anything that involves establishing some sort of order in which things occur between both players essentially renders it as no longer simultaneous.

So the problem here is that I cannot comprehend a way to enact these things simultaneously. In my 15 years of tabletop experience, I've never had a "literal simultaneous" situation occur besides like, both players writing something down and then revealing at the same time.

Simultaneous means "at the same time", right? So what happens when things happen "at the same time"? We follow the sequencing rule, which tells us how to do things "at the same time".

It is as incomprehensible to me how to resolve literally simultaneous attacks as it is to you on how to resolve these two rules "at the same time"

I have a unit that has a rule that say something like "At the start of your opponents movement phase, if this unit is not engaged in close combat, you may move this unit up to 6".
My opponent has a unit with a rule that says something like "At the start of your movement phase, this unit may declare and resolve a charge against an enemy unit within 12" and line of sight as though it were the assault phase."

At this point, I'm fully admitting that this is ambiguous enough that I could be fully in the wrong, and just completely unable to grok the intent. That's why I offered the houserule to codify things to my group, which ends up with the same result as "literally simultaneous", and my group comprehends it. If I'm internally playing this way, it also means I can play against strangers at events without even a conversation because the end result is the same, even if I'm arriving at it via a different process.

Although, in my efforts to try to comprehend "literally simultaneous", I am running into an issue.
Going back to the code blocks. unit o and unit a are both I4, we resolve all hit rolls and wound rolls and come up with 10 unsaveable wounds each (for convenience).
ooooo ooooo aaaaa aaaaa

Earlier in the thread, chaos0xomega and badgerson came to the agreement that that would result in the first rank of each unit dying, but every model would get to make attacks.
ooooo xxxxx xxxxx aaaaa

If the attacks are happening truly simultaneously to each other, then those dead models "are still there" when the 5 remaining wounds would be allocated to each unit, which means the back row is still engaged. So actually, all 10 wounds would be allocated to each unit, causing mutually assured destruction, right?

At first, I thought such a resolution would be counter to the No Models Engaged In Combat rule, but I thought deeper about it
ooo oo ooooo aaaaa aaaaa
A could only kill 7 models in this case, because the third rank of 'o' was never engaged, thus if the first 5 and the next 2 died, the Wound Pool would empty.

I am trying to make an honest effort here, I know that accusations of me being TFG or looking for a big advantage have been thrown about, but I am trying in good faith to understand how these rules function, and truly apologize if I have frustrated anybody here.