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.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Insaniak the reason why I asked that question is because those actions are done at then end of combat or after all attacks have been resolved. I point this out because, checking who is engaged is done at the start of the combat and would leave an inconsistency in your assertation that it is a phase with multiple things happening. just like after you paint the wall you need to let them dry...

Sorry, you've lost me.

I've never stated that resolving attacks is a phase. The 'phase' at hand is the assault phase. Resolving attacks is one part of that. The fact that you do something else afterwards has no bearing on what specific actions are included in resolving your attacks.

Also, it does say that they have to be in base contact to be able to attack. Not be a part of the assault but specfically attack. So it does stand alone. And also means he has to be in base in order to attack....

Yes, it does say that. But not as a rule. It's an explanation of the result of a rule. So no, it doesn't stand alone as a rule, because it isn't.

insaniak wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Insaniak the reason why I asked that question is because those actions are done at then end of combat or after all attacks have been resolved. I point this out because, checking who is engaged is done at the start of the combat and would leave an inconsistency in your assertation that it is a phase with multiple things happening. just like after you paint the wall you need to let them dry...

Sorry, you've lost me.

I've never stated that resolving attacks is a phase. The 'phase' at hand is the assault phase. Resolving attacks is one part of that. The fact that you do something else afterwards has no bearing on what specific actions are included in resolving your attacks.

Or to be even more specific than that, within the assault phase there are 3 main steps, 1) move assaulting units, 2) defenders react and then 3) resolve combats.

Once you select a particular combat to fight there are no more specific 'steps' listed, instead you are just resolving the combat. Once you pick that particular combat to resolve it is exactly when you check to see what models are engaged with what enemy units.

Now, the rules for ICs specify that they count as a different unit when the 'attacks are resolved'. However, there is no 'resolve attacks' step anywhere to be found, so that rule must therefore apply in every sense when resolving attacks, a big part of which is determining which models can attack which.

And as very clearly explained by the visual example on page 49, characters fight as a distinct unit from the unit they're joined to, and that is why they can be picked out (and must be in base contact to attack), because they are a separate unit when it comes time to check who is engaged with whom.

We have a position that requires a very minor assumption: "resolving attacks" starts with "the start of the fight", when engaged models is determined.

We have a position that requires assuming implied permission to attack units you are not engaged with. Because the IC unit wasn't around when engagement was determined. Clearly, this is a much larger assumption.

In the, unfortunately many, situations where GW uses an undefined phrase you gotta go with the interpretation that required the least amount of assumption.

IIRC ICs are always ICs in close combat, and not targetable if you can only target the unit and not the IC

Anyways, even if they were, BT ICs are always ICs only in combat as per the codex