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).
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.
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
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.