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.

So this is probably an easy one, but we couldn't find a ruling in the main book or on the interwebs.

Scenario:
SM Terminators successfully assault a Wave Serpent loaded with Fire Dragons. The Wave Serpent explodes and (miraculously) all troops on both sides survive. The FDs passed their pinning check.

What we couldn't figure out was if the FDs were automatically in close combat with the Termies. When placing the FDs on the space occupied by the WS, the FDs didn't ~have~ to be placed in base-to-base contact, but eventually we decided that they were in close combat and proceeded. Needless to say, the Eldar player wanted to shoot (and possibly run) in the next turn, while the SM player was happy to duke it out. Relevant pages consulted in the main book were 63 and 67.

Thanks.

No, they are not in close combat with the unit that destroyed their transport.

don_mondo wrote:No, they are not in close combat with the unit that destroyed their transport.

Why not?

(Just so I can go back with something sourced)

Thanks, by the way.

Probably the easiest answer is that models must be placed 1" away.

Otherwise: the rules don't say you're in CC, so you're not in CC.

All models who bail out must be placed in base contact, at least 1" away from enemy models. If this is impossible, the unit is destroyed :censored:

Only those models that cannot be placed are destroyed

Your Eldar player was shafted in this ruling... poor FD need all the help they can get.

My SM friend responds: "I'm not sure I agree with them. Now, that I've looked at it... I think the Pile In! rule(page 40) that Brian found clearly effects them and they have to move within base contact."

To which I replied: "look at pg63 "Combat results", especially, "At the conclusion of a round of close combat against a vehicle there is no combat result, and so there are no... pile-in and no consolidation moves."

I was also looking at pg67 "Disembarking", especially, "Models cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy." and "Effects of Damage Results on Passengers" says that passengers must immediately disembark from wrecked vehicles. The confusion comes in the "Destroyed - explodes!" which only says that "surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be..."

EDIT: to which he further replies: "It also says, "In a multiple fight including enemy vehicles and other unit types, the result of the fight is worked out as normal against the latter, ignoring the vehicles.""

2nd EDIT: I also thought that another validation for not being in close combat may lie in the "pinning" test part of the "explodes!" entry. If passengers of a destroyed transport were already in close combat, they wouldn't be able to go to ground (pp. 24 and 33).

mars2024 wrote:My SM friend responds: "I'm not sure I agree with them. Now, that I've looked at it... I think the Pile In! rule(page 40) that Brian found clearly effects them and they have to move within base contact."

To which I replied: "look at pg63 "Combat results", especially, "At the conclusion of a round of close combat against a vehicle there is no combat result, and so there are no... pile-in and no consolidation moves."

I was also looking at pg67 "Disembarking", especially, "Models cannot disembark within 1" of an enemy." and "Effects of Damage Results on Passengers" says that passengers must immediately disembark from wrecked vehicles. The confusion comes in the "Destroyed - explodes!" which only says that "surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be..."

EDIT: to which he further replies: "It also says, "In a multiple fight including enemy vehicles and other unit types, the result of the fight is worked out as normal against the latter, ignoring the vehicles.""

2nd EDIT: I also thought that another validation for not being in close combat may lie in the "pinning" test part of the "explodes!" entry. If passengers of a destroyed transport were already in close combat, they wouldn't be able to go to ground (pp. 24 and 33).

The charging unit cannot engage the transported unit (it can't come into base contact with the embarked unit), so the disembarking unit is not Locked and therefore does not perform a Pile In move.

mars2024 wrote:My SM friend responds: "I'm not sure I agree with them. Now, that I've looked at it... I think the Pile In! rule(page 40) that Brian found clearly effects them and they have to move within base contact."

Why would Pile In affect them when they weren't involved in the combat to begin with?

Who even...why...what...

No. A unit in a transport does not magically poof into combat with the unit that assaulted their ride. The guy using the termies was probably just trying to avoid eating a lot of melta shots.

If units inside transports count as being in CC when the metal box is charged, then they should be able to hit back while inside the metal box.

Since they are not involved while inside the box, then they wouldn't be involved when they suddenly find themselves outside the box.

No...just no, why would they be?

insaniak wrote:

mars2024 wrote:My SM friend responds: "I'm not sure I agree with them. Now, that I've looked at it... I think the Pile In! rule(page 40) that Brian found clearly effects them and they have to move within base contact."

Why would Pile In affect them when they weren't involved in the combat to begin with?

The issue in his mind (the player saying the FDs are automatically in close combat) is that when embarked, the WS and the unit being transported are one unit. His thinking is that if the transport is destroyed, the unit within is exposed and occupying the same space. Thus, if the WS was in close combat, the transported unit is too.

The trouble is that this specific issue isn't spelled out in the MRB. It says that you can't pile-in against vehicles, but the vehicle isn't there anymore. It says that in multiple unit close combat, vehicles are ignored, but the transported unit isn't in close combat while embarked. It says that units surviving an exploded transport must make a pinning check or go to ground, but a unit gone to ground can't assault.

We all seem to agree now (even the SM player) that they FDs are not in CC, but I was hoping for a definitive "look at page-so-and-so and you'll find your answer". Maybe I've been playing too many old Avalon Hill games where the rules are laid out like legal code.

Thanks everyone!

mars2024 wrote:

insaniak wrote:

mars2024 wrote:My SM friend responds: "I'm not sure I agree with them. Now, that I've looked at it... I think the Pile In! rule(page 40) that Brian found clearly effects them and they have to move within base contact."

Why would Pile In affect them when they weren't involved in the combat to begin with?

The issue in his mind (the player saying the FDs are automatically in close combat) is that when embarked, the WS and the unit being transported are one unit.

They are actually seperate, as passengers can fire at a separate target to a vehicle.

It's a reasonable assumption.

But as noted, a unit that embarks in a transport does not join the transport or become part of its unit. They are still separate entities, one simply inhabits the other.

Tell him that if they are one unit, then the WS must embark itself, so you would have a WS inside a WS inside a WS, etc. all filled with FDs as well.

mars2024 wrote:The issue in his mind (the player saying the FDs are automatically in close combat) is that when embarked, the WS and the unit being transported are one unit.

Then he's barking up the wrong tree. From the rulebook FAQ:

Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

They're not one unit, ever.

- Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1. The fact that the recipient of the insult isn't in the room makes it no less rude. -

Multiple Unit Choices, on page 92, and the definition and description of Units, pages 3-5, make pretty darn clear that a squad and their transport are never considered one unit, for any purpose.

To further disprove your friend mars, you cannot be locked in combat against a vehicle(exception: walkers)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the FD were never engaged by the termies. This logic only makes sense if he understands that the FDs and the WS are seperate targets. Not the same unit!