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.

Hey there chaps,

Close combat is defined on the very first page of the assault section, in the little summary box -

"Close combat is where two units from opposing armies are in base contact with each other."

Fight close combat and Initiative steps require you to be either "In close combat" or "in the combat" - The stomping model will never get round to its initiative step to attack as it does not meet the base definition put forward for being in close combat.

Indeed, it is quite probable (and can be interpreted as such) that if one has the capacity to be close enough to engaged two or more units as the result of a Charge, that it MUST be a Multiple Charge.

In other words, if there are units close enough to be engaged by the Charge, you must declare it a Multiple Charge. If you get close enough to engage a second unit, they are close enough that the combat could "involve more than two units".

The definition of multiple combats does not allow for leeway as an option, however, the first sentence of the Charge Sub-Phase does indicate a possibility of a choice, but as to if that is just a binary choice (To Charge or Not Charge), is up to one's on interpretation.

I will point out that just moving a Stomper just close enough so that the base definition of "engaged" without further context technically applies so you can Stomp and not risk wiping out the unit before hand is a pretty petty move and could be considered rules lawyering. If a Stomper has used the Movement Phase to get that close to a Combat, it really should be Charging.

And if the Stomper has no other friendlies in the Combat, if it gets of everyone in base contact before Initiative Step 1, it stops being engaged and thus unable to Stomp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

choclatechocobo wrote:
Hey there chaps,

Close combat is defined on the very first page of the assault section, in the little summary box -

"Close combat is where two units from opposing armies are in base contact with each other."

Fight close combat and Initiative steps require you to be either "In close combat" or "in the combat" - The stomping model will never get round to its initiative step to attack as it does not meet the base definition put forward for being in close combat.

And does that define when a unit or model is "in combat"?

It has already been noted that a unit may not be "engaged in combat", and still be "locked in combat". It only lasts a short time (till the end of that phase), but it still applies.

 Charistoph wrote:
Indeed, it is quite probable (and can be interpreted as such) that if one has the capacity to be close enough to engaged two or more units as the result of a Charge, that it MUST be a Multiple Charge.

In other words, if there are units close enough to be engaged by the Charge, you must declare it a Multiple Charge. If you get close enough to engage a second unit, they are close enough that the combat could "involve more than two units".

The definition of multiple combats does not allow for leeway as an option, however, the first sentence of the Charge Sub-Phase does indicate a possibility of a choice, but as to if that is just a binary choice (To Charge or Not Charge), is up to one's on interpretation.

I will point out that just moving a Stomper just close enough so that the base definition of "engaged" without further context technically applies so you can Stomp and not risk wiping out the unit before hand is a pretty petty move and could be considered rules lawyering. If a Stomper has used the Movement Phase to get that close to a Combat, it really should be Charging.

And if the Stomper has no other friendlies in the Combat, if it gets of everyone in base contact before Initiative Step 1, it stops being engaged and thus unable to Stomp.

Your line of reasoning would allow a Stomper to cozy up to a combat that it is not participating in and be able to launch Stomp attacks merely by being close enough to a friendly model in base to base combat.

Your line of reasoning does not follow the rules which has been pointed out several times with textual reference.

If you follow the rules, the Stomper does not get to Stomp unless it has been locked in combat.

You have failed to point to any rules that would allow a unit that is not locked in combat to be in combat (barring the case of a non-Walker vehicle which is wholly irrelevant and accounted for by the vehicle rules). For a unit to be in combat the Fight Sub-Phase must have initiated with a model in that unit in base to base combat with an enemy model.

A Secondary Target that does not wind up having a model in base to base combat with the enemy is not in combat.



Until you back up your claims you are in violation of Tenet # 1 of YMDC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

choclatechocobo wrote:
Hey there chaps,

Close combat is defined on the very first page of the assault section, in the little summary box -

"Close combat is where two units from opposing armies are in base contact with each other."

Fight close combat and Initiative steps require you to be either "In close combat" or "in the combat" - The stomping model will never get round to its initiative step to attack as it does not meet the base definition put forward for being in close combat.

And does that define when a unit or model is "in combat"?

It has already been noted that a unit may not be "engaged in combat", and still be "locked in combat". It only lasts a short time (till the end of that phase), but it still applies.

That definition underscores what initiates the state of close combat between units (which is covered in the Locked In Combat section). The locked in combat rules keep the unit locked into that state of being until the end of the phase (so the Locked In Combat rules easily account for a unit being in combat but having no model in base to base combat with an enemy model as a consequence of casualties). It's all there in black and white in the text on the page of the BRB. I am curious - have you bothered to actually read the Locked In Combat rules?

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Indeed, it is quite probable (and can be interpreted as such) that if one has the capacity to be close enough to engaged two or more units as the result of a Charge, that it MUST be a Multiple Charge.

In other words, if there are units close enough to be engaged by the Charge, you must declare it a Multiple Charge. If you get close enough to engage a second unit, they are close enough that the combat could "involve more than two units".

The definition of multiple combats does not allow for leeway as an option, however, the first sentence of the Charge Sub-Phase does indicate a possibility of a choice, but as to if that is just a binary choice (To Charge or Not Charge), is up to one's on interpretation.

I will point out that just moving a Stomper just close enough so that the base definition of "engaged" without further context technically applies so you can Stomp and not risk wiping out the unit before hand is a pretty petty move and could be considered rules lawyering. If a Stomper has used the Movement Phase to get that close to a Combat, it really should be Charging.

And if the Stomper has no other friendlies in the Combat, if it gets of everyone in base contact before Initiative Step 1, it stops being engaged and thus unable to Stomp.

Your line of reasoning would allow a Stomper to cozy up to a combat that it is not participating in and be able to launch Stomp attacks merely by being close enough to a friendly model in base to base combat.

Your line of reasoning does not follow the rules which has been pointed out several times with textual reference.

If you follow the rules, the Stomper does not get to Stomp unless it has been locked in combat.

You have failed to point to any rules that would allow a unit that is not locked in combat to be in combat (barring the case of a non-Walker vehicle which is wholly irrelevant and accounted for by the vehicle rules). For a unit to be in combat the Fight Sub-Phase must have initiated with a model in that unit in base to base combat with an enemy model.

A Secondary Target that does not wind up having a model in base to base combat with the enemy is not in combat.

Spoiler:

Close combat is where two units from opposing armies are in base contact with each other.

Until you back up your claims you are in violation of Tenet # 1 of YMDC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

choclatechocobo wrote:
Hey there chaps,

Close combat is defined on the very first page of the assault section, in the little summary box -

"Close combat is where two units from opposing armies are in base contact with each other."

Fight close combat and Initiative steps require you to be either "In close combat" or "in the combat" - The stomping model will never get round to its initiative step to attack as it does not meet the base definition put forward for being in close combat.

And does that define when a unit or model is "in combat"?

It has already been noted that a unit may not be "engaged in combat", and still be "locked in combat". It only lasts a short time (till the end of that phase), but it still applies.

That definition underscores what initiates the state of close combat between units (which is covered in the Locked In Combat section). The locked in combat rules keep the unit locked into that state of being until the end of the phase (so the Locked In Combat rules easily account for a unit being in combat but having no model in base to base combat with an enemy model as a consequence of casualties). It's all there in black and white in the text on the page of the BRB. I am curious - have you bothered to actually read the Locked In Combat rules?

Sorry, a bit of clarification. The quote was from the first page of the Assault Phase section, in the summary box (page 44 on the epub version of the rules) It does underline in a simple way that combat is between units that are in base contact - models from units that have not been in base contact should never be getting checked for being engaged in combat.

Its not simply all models on the table that are checked to be "engaged in combat", it's models pertaining to a particular combat, each in turn after pile in moves have been made from an initiative step. This however, takes places after determining which combat to fight, and units fighting in a combat are determined by base contact.

A certain ignored one needs to learn how to read everything and remember to keep things in context, and also needs to remember YMDC Tenet #6 about interpretations. I have demonstrated the definition of "engaged", and you cannot debunk it since it comes from the BRB itself.

Chocolatechocobo, the concept of "in combat" has different meanings depending on where it is used, and something that the ignored one needs to keep in mind. For example, in the modern day, squads engaged in a firefight are "in combat".

This modern definition does not seem to mesh well with the game's version of "in combat" as it is used only in cases where a Charge has been successful. It has been associated with "engaged" and "locked", both of which have slightly different definitions involved, no matter what the ignored col believes.

"Close combat" in the definition you provided is half of the definition of "engaged". Yet, "engaged in combat" also provides a definition that goes beyond that "close combat" definition. It still requires that definition of "close combat" to be nearby, something that I think that the ignored col seems to forget in his emotional overreaction.

So by this second definition of engaged (being within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model in a combat), "in combat" does not necessarily mean two enemy units/models in base contact because we would have to ignore half of the definition of "engaged", but it does mean that such an event is happening nearby.

 Charistoph wrote:
A certain ignored one needs to learn how to read everything and remember to keep things in context, and also needs to remember YMDC Tenet #6 about interpretations. I have demonstrated the definition of "engaged", and you cannot debunk it since it comes from the BRB itself.

Chocolatechocobo, the concept of "in combat" has different meanings depending on where it is used, and something that the ignored one needs to keep in mind. For example, in the modern day, squads engaged in a firefight are "in combat".

This modern definition does not seem to mesh well with the game's version of "in combat" as it is used only in cases where a Charge has been successful. It has been associated with "engaged" and "locked", both of which have slightly different definitions involved, no matter what the ignored col believes.

"Close combat" in the definition you provided is half of the definition of "engaged". Yet, "engaged in combat" also provides a definition that goes beyond that "close combat" definition. It still requires that definition of "close combat" to be nearby, something that I think that the ignored col seems to forget in his emotional overreaction.

So by this second definition of engaged (being within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model in a combat), "in combat" does not necessarily mean two enemy units/models in base contact because we would have to ignore half of the definition of "engaged", but it does mean that such an event is happening nearby.

Your definition of "engaged" is incorrect. A model that is "engaged" must also be "locked in combat" (unless we are talking about the irrelevant case of a non-walker, non-chariot vehicle) and the determination of "engaged" is a step that occurs in the context of the Fight Sub-Phase and among those units that are locked in the current combat we are dealing with.



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 and that are in units that have permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase. 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").

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 attack in the current combat and are considered "engaged". Those models that are in a unit that is in the current combat but that are too far away cannot attack in the current combat and are considered "unengaged". 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 combat can indeed launch actual attacks in that combat as opposed to the unengaged models that cannot launch attacks.

 Charistoph wrote:
A certain ignored one needs to learn how to read everything and remember to keep things in context, and also needs to remember YMDC Tenet #6 about interpretations. I have demonstrated the definition of "engaged", and you cannot debunk it since it comes from the BRB itself.

Chocolatechocobo, the concept of "in combat" has different meanings depending on where it is used, and something that the ignored one needs to keep in mind. For example, in the modern day, squads engaged in a firefight are "in combat".

This modern definition does not seem to mesh well with the game's version of "in combat" as it is used only in cases where a Charge has been successful. It has been associated with "engaged" and "locked", both of which have slightly different definitions involved, no matter what the ignored col believes.

"Close combat" in the definition you provided is half of the definition of "engaged". Yet, "engaged in combat" also provides a definition that goes beyond that "close combat" definition. It still requires that definition of "close combat" to be nearby, something that I think that the ignored col seems to forget in his emotional overreaction.

So by this second definition of engaged (being within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model in a combat), "in combat" does not necessarily mean two enemy units/models in base contact because we would have to ignore half of the definition of "engaged", but it does mean that such an event is happening nearby.

The issue is that you cannot use engaged in combat to define a combat as the rule from which the term originates (Determine who can fight) requires you to have already selected a combat, the only definition of which prior inside the assault sequence is two or more units with models in base contact (Locked in Combat).

choclatechocobo wrote:
The issue is that you cannot use engaged in combat to define a combat as the rule from which the term originates (Determine who can fight) requires you to have already selected a combat, the only definition of which prior inside the assault sequence is two or more units with models in base contact (Locked in Combat).

The term does not originate in "Determine Who Can Fight", that is just the first place it is used and that is where they placed the definition. Saves are first defined how and where they can be used in the Shooting Phase, that doesn't mean we ignore the process for Assault. One must be aware of the context the term is being used to apply it in to other situations.

And you seem to be ignoring one simple fact about being "engaged in combat", and that is that there are two ways to be "engaged in combat". The first is by the same standards as "locked in combat", i.e. the model is in base contact, and many people seem to stop there. The second way to be "engaged in combat" is for a model to be near a friendly model that is in base contact. This version of "engaged in combat" is used when making a determination of a model's involvement in the combat because that friendly must be in the referenced combat.

So, "engaged in combat" does require a combat happening nearby, and I have repeatedly stated this, but it does not mean that it follows the same standards as "locked in combat" or "close combat". Because "engaged in combat" does not require models to actually be in base contact, but simply near it, "in combat" and "close combat" cannot be completely synonymous without separating "engaged" from "in combat", and that is the point that DoctorTom was pointing out.

 Charistoph wrote:

choclatechocobo wrote:
The issue is that you cannot use engaged in combat to define a combat as the rule from which the term originates (Determine who can fight) requires you to have already selected a combat, the only definition of which prior inside the assault sequence is two or more units with models in base contact (Locked in Combat).

The term does not originate in "Determine Who Can Fight", that is just the first place it is used and that is where they placed the definition. Saves are first defined how and where they can be used in the Shooting Phase, that doesn't mean we ignore the process for Assault. One must be aware of the context the term is being used to apply it in to other situations.

And you seem to be ignoring one simple fact about being "engaged in combat", and that is that there are two ways to be "engaged in combat". The first is by the same standards as "locked in combat", i.e. the model is in base contact, and many people seem to stop there. The second way to be "engaged in combat" is for a model to be near a friendly model that is in base contact. This version of "engaged in combat" is used when making a determination of a model's involvement in the combat because that friendly must be in the referenced combat.

So, "engaged in combat" does require a combat happening nearby, and I have repeatedly stated this, but it does not mean that it follows the same standards as "locked in combat" or "close combat". Because "engaged in combat" does not require models to actually be in base contact, but simply near it, "in combat" and "close combat" cannot be completely synonymous without separating "engaged" from "in combat", and that is the point that DoctorTom was pointing out.

If the term does not originate in "Determine Who Can Fight", even though you have admitted it is the first place it is used and where they have placed the definition, could you please direct me to where it does originate? I agree that in your example of saves, they are first defined in the shooting phase but that doesn't mean we ignore them - as the context is indeed important, as it is here. When we have to refer back to "engaged in combat" we can see that the context in which "engaged in combat" is defined is during the process in which we determine what models are allowed to fight in a combat, but we only ever reach the step to check what models can fight using this rule when we have already chosen a combat which we must have first already defined.

The only way to have first defined a combat to reach the "engaged in combat" step, is to use the "Locked in Combat" rule: "If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat." I am not ignoring that "engaged in combat" has two ways that allows models to fight in a combat - I am disputing that models from outside of an established combat are allowed to make attacks using the "engaged in combat" term - e.g, Combat was defined as between unit A and unit B. Although unit C has models that are within 2" of friendly models locked in base contact with an enemy model, combat has already been defined and chosen and therefore unit C will have no attacks.

Charistoph,

what is the first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule?

col_impact wrote:
Charistoph,

what is the first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule?

"After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an anemy model must fight."

Proving that engaged models must fight. So? He's looking at the second sentence:
"A model is gengaged in combat if:

It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.

It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact wiwth one or more enemy models in the same combat.

The first sentence proves that the models under consideration are a subset of the models that are in units that are participating in the Fight Sub-Phase (that had models in base to base contact at the beginning of the Fight Sub-Phase). The models are models that have Piled In in the current combat under consideration. The models are also models that we have permission to check Initiative Values which is given in the Initiative Step rules.



When we determine who can fight, we are determining who can fight in the current combat we are resolving from among the units that are participating in the combat. The rule separates out those models into two groups "engaged" and "unengaged" from among those models in the units in the current combat.

"Engaged" can never refer to a model in a unit that is not a participant in the current combat that is being resolved. If someone argues that "engaged" can refer to a model in a unit that is not a participant in the current combat then they are ignoring the first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule and trying to apply "engaged" out of context when "in combat" can only refer to a unit that had a model in base to base contact with an enemy model at the start of the Fight Sub-Phase per definition and per application in the "Locked In Combat" rules, and they are proposing a definition of "engaged" that will allow units to launch attacks in combats that are not participating in by merely cozying up to friendly models in those combats thereby drastically and absurdly changing the way 40k combat works.

choclatechocobo wrote:
If the term does not originate in "Determine Who Can Fight", even though you have admitted it is the first place it is used and where they have placed the definition, could you please direct me to where it does originate? I agree that in your example of saves, they are first defined in the shooting phase but that doesn't mean we ignore them - as the context is indeed important, as it is here. When we have to refer back to "engaged in combat" we can see that the context in which "engaged in combat" is defined is during the process in which we determine what models are allowed to fight in a combat, but we only ever reach the step to check what models can fight using this rule when we have already chosen a combat which we must have first already defined.

"Originate" is probably not the best word to use, and I can't honestly remember why I used it. "Exclusive" I believe was the term I meant to use. My brain's been a little fuzzy the last couple days due to a couple long road trips combined with twenty miles of walking and standing.

But yes, models "locked in combat" nearby are a minimum requirement for "engaged in combat", but that doesn't specifically mean that requires the model to be in a unit that is "locked in combat". And that's where conflating just "in combat" with "close combat"'s definition that equates to "locked in combat" is a bit off.

choclatechocobo wrote:
The only way to have first defined a combat to reach the "engaged in combat" step, is to use the "Locked in Combat" rule: "If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat." I am not ignoring that "engaged in combat" has two ways that allows models to fight in a combat - I am disputing that models from outside of an established combat are allowed to make attacks using the "engaged in combat" term - e.g, Combat was defined as between unit A and unit B. Although unit C has models that are within 2" of friendly models locked in base contact with an enemy model, combat has already been defined and chosen and therefore unit C will have no attacks.

And this is taking it back to the thread that was closed that I and DoctorTom tried to avoid, and col_ignored kept pushing.

The question I have for you is, "what does 'outside of an established combat' mean to you"? Where is that actually defined without ignoring the second definition of "engaged"?

Keep in mind, that this is a matter of interpretation, specifically as to who "in the same combat" is being addressed to, the friendly model or the model we are checking to see is engaged.

I am saying that it can be interpreted that the "in the same combat" is looking at the "friendly model in base contact with {an} enemy model" is in, and that means being within 2" actually IS involving that model in the combat, and it isn't "outside" the combat by virtue of this interpretation.

I understand that some people are looking to see if the model we are checking to see if engaged is "in the same combat" as the "friendly model in base contact". Again, I am simply stating that it can be easily interpreted as such as GW's lack of clear rules processing comes in to play.

 Charistoph wrote:


The question I have for you is, "what does 'outside of an established combat' mean to you"? Where is that actually defined without ignoring the second definition of "engaged"?

The Determine Who Can Fight rule is only addressing those models that are in units that are in the current combat. The second definition of "engaged" only applies to models that are in units that are the current combat being resolved. Suggesting otherwise is to drop the first sentence of the rule, the Fight Sub-Phase that the rule occurs in, and the definition of "in combat" that has been established elsewhere.

 Charistoph wrote:

Keep in mind, that this is a matter of interpretation, specifically as to who "in the same combat" is being addressed to, the friendly model or the model we are checking to see is engaged.

I am saying that it can be interpreted that the "in the same combat" is looking at the "friendly model in base contact with {an} enemy model" is in, and that means being within 2" actually IS involving that model in the combat, and it isn't "outside" the combat by virtue of this interpretation.

The bit of text you are pointing to makes absolutely ZERO mention of involving the model in the combat. You are trying to make rules out of a prepositional phrase. The "in combat" part of "engaged in combat" is merely additional information that the model under determination is part of a unit that had a model in base to base contact with an enemy unit at the start of the Fight Sub-Phase.

How exactly a unit is involved in a combat is explicitly detailed in the Locked In Combat rules. What being in close combat means has also already been defined in the Summary of the Assault Phase.

 Charistoph wrote:

"Originate" is probably not the best word to use, and I can't honestly remember why I used it. "Exclusive" I believe was the term I meant to use. My brain's been a little fuzzy the last couple days due to a couple long road trips combined with twenty miles of walking and standing.

No worries, we all get a little fuzzy and tired! Exclusive does make more sense in what you were trying to say.

 Charistoph wrote:

But yes, models "locked in combat" nearby are a minimum requirement for "engaged in combat", but that doesn't specifically mean that requires the model to be in a unit that is "locked in combat". And that's where conflating just "in combat" with "close combat"'s definition that equates to "locked in combat" is a bit off.

choclatechocobo wrote:
The only way to have first defined a combat to reach the "engaged in combat" step, is to use the "Locked in Combat" rule: "If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat." I am not ignoring that "engaged in combat" has two ways that allows models to fight in a combat - I am disputing that models from outside of an established combat are allowed to make attacks using the "engaged in combat" term - e.g, Combat was defined as between unit A and unit B. Although unit C has models that are within 2" of friendly models locked in base contact with an enemy model, combat has already been defined and chosen and therefore unit C will have no attacks.

And this is taking it back to the thread that was closed that I and DoctorTom tried to avoid, and col_ignored kept pushing.

The question I have for you is, "what does 'outside of an established combat' mean to you"? Where is that actually defined without ignoring the second definition of "engaged"?

Keep in mind, that this is a matter of interpretation, specifically as to who "in the same combat" is being addressed to, the friendly model or the model we are checking to see is engaged.

I am saying that it can be interpreted that the "in the same combat" is looking at the "friendly model in base contact with {an} enemy model" is in, and that means being within 2" actually IS involving that model in the combat, and it isn't "outside" the combat by virtue of this interpretation.

I understand that some people are looking to see if the model we are checking to see if engaged is "in the same combat" as the "friendly model in base contact". Again, I am simply stating that it can be easily interpreted as such as GW's lack of clear rules processing comes in to play.

The issue with using the second sentence of engaged in combat to determine if a model is in combat is that it allows a unit to break a myriad of rules that happen during combat. Going back to the three unit scenario, let us say unit A and C are friendly towards each other.

Unit A and B are clearly locked in combat as they both have models in base contact with each other. If we imagine that unit A is sandwiched between unit B and C, it allows Unit C to use the engaged in combat rule to launch attacks against Unit B without becoming locked in combat, by hiding behind Unit A. Unit B is therefore unable to respond in kind, as in the Multiple Combats section, under Directing Attacks we are told that extra rules apply, these being

Because unit A blocks base contact with unit C, it prevents Unit B from becoming either locked in combat or even engaged in combat with unit C. Unit B is not even able to use the Pile In mechanic to lock Unit C into combat, as a Pile In move is explicitly only allowed to move you into base contact with either an enemy model already locked in combat, or a friendly model locked in combat. This means that unit C is effectively immune to any attacks from unit B. Normally, a unit that is unable to hurt an enemy in combat would use the "Our weapons are useless" rule to fail their morale check automatically, however this rule also explicitly states you may only choose to do this against an enemy that you are locked in combat with, and they are not locked in combat with unit C.

If, somehow, by some special ability perhaps, Unit B is able to actually direct attacks against unit C while neither locked or engaged in combat - unit C would never be able to receive those wounds as during combat wounds are only able to be allocated to models that are either in base contact with an enemy model, or the next closest enemy model locked in combat, which unit C would fulfill neither of.

choclatechocobo wrote:
The issue with using the second sentence of engaged in combat to determine if a model is in combat is that it allows a unit to break a myriad of rules that happen during combat. Going back to the three unit scenario, let us say unit A and C are friendly towards each other.

Unit A and B are clearly locked in combat as they both have models in base contact with each other. If we imagine that unit A is sandwiched between unit B and C, it allows Unit C to use the engaged in combat rule to launch attacks against Unit B without becoming locked in combat, by hiding behind Unit A. Unit B is therefore unable to respond in kind, as in the Multiple Combats section, under Directing Attacks we are told that extra rules apply, these being

Spoiler:

A model that is in base contact with, or engaged with, just one enemy unit when it comes to strike must attack that unit.

A model that is in base contact with, or engaged with, more than one enemy unit when it strikes blows, can split its Attacks freely between those units. Declare how each model is splitting its attacks immediately before rolling To Hit. Wounds from Attacks that have been directed against a unit in a multiple combat cannot be transferred to another unit, even if the original target unit is completely destroyed (in this case, any excess Wounds are simply discounted and have no further effect).

Because unit A blocks base contact with unit C, it prevents Unit B from becoming either locked in combat or even engaged in combat with unit C. Unit B is not even able to use the Pile In mechanic to lock Unit C into combat, as a Pile In move is explicitly only allowed to move you into base contact with either an enemy model already locked in combat, or a friendly model locked in combat. This means that unit C is effectively immune to any attacks from unit B. Normally, a unit that is unable to hurt an enemy in combat would use the "Our weapons are useless" rule to fail their morale check automatically, however this rule also explicitly states you may only choose to do this against an enemy that you are locked in combat with, and they are not locked in combat with unit C.

If, somehow, by some special ability perhaps, Unit B is able to actually direct attacks against unit C while neither locked or engaged in combat - unit C would never be able to receive those wounds as during combat wounds are only able to be allocated to models that are either in base contact with an enemy model, or the next closest enemy model locked in combat, which unit C would fulfill neither of.

That's not breaking rules, though. That's just breaking your feelings on how you think it should properly work. There is a difference. You are looking at the consequences of what you want to happen, rather than what it actually states. I find it equally stupid and irritating that all models have to fire at the same target, even though they may have Weapons which are geared to damage different targets, but I don't have my Las/Plas Crusader Squad firing its Lascannons at a Trukk while the Bolters are firing at Boyz.

The fact is the second sentence of "engaged in combat" still applies, otherwise, only Base Contact would be allowed to Attack in Close Combat, no matter if the model is in a "locked" unit or not.

In order for "engaged in combat" to be only referring to models "locked in combat" is for the context of the phrase which calls upon "engaged" to only be addressing models "locked in combat" in the first place. The base definition of "engaged in combat" does not do this in and of itself, according to one possible interpretation. And it is vital for "in combat" to include models which are "engaged in combat" as well as "locked in combat" otherwise more things break than someone hiding behind another unit.

Now, it can be an interpretation that the models being called upon to check if they are "engaged" were those "locked in combat" before Striking Blows. But this one would not necessarily apply to Stompers.

 Charistoph wrote:
.

The fact is the second sentence of "engaged in combat" still applies, otherwise, only Base Contact would be allowed to Attack in Close Combat, no matter if the model is in a "locked" unit or not.

This is a reading/logical comprehension error on your part.

Per the second sentence. a model (which is in the current combat) that is 2"/6" from a friendly model which is in the current combat and that is in base to be base contact with an enemy model which is in the current combat can attack in the current combat, even though that model itself is not in base to base contact. So you are utterly incorrect that "only Base Contact would be allowed to Attack in Close Combat".

Read the rule again and remember . . .

 Charistoph wrote:
In order for "engaged in combat" to be only referring to models "locked in combat" is for the context of the phrase which calls upon "engaged" to only be addressing models "locked in combat" in the first place. The base definition of "engaged in combat" does not do this in and of itself, according to one possible interpretation. And it is vital for "in combat" to include models which are "engaged in combat" as well as "locked in combat" otherwise more things break than someone hiding behind another unit.

Incorrect. "In combat" is defined elsewhere - it refers to a unit that is in base to base combat with an enemy unit. When a unit becomes locked "in combat", it means that the unit is stuck in that state of being "in combat" until the state is checked at the end of the phase. When a model is engaged "in combat", the rules is simply referring to a model that is in a unit that is "in combat" (ie a unit that initiated the Fight Sub-Phase in base to base contact with an enemy unit by definition) AND either in base to base contact with an enemy model in the current combat OR close enough to a friendly model who is in the same current combat and who is in base to base combat with an enemy model in the same current combat.

So "in combat" has no problem referring to models that are "locked" and "engaged". The first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule mandates that we are only considering those models that are in units that are in the current combat being resolved, so per the rule we are simply not applying "engaged" to models that are not in the combat being resolved. Anyone who has ever played 40k before has encountered the situation where models in a combat are engaged but not themselves in base to base combat with an enemy model, but rather they are close enough to models in the same combat that are!

Absolutely nothing breaks when you apply the rules and combat proceeds absolutely as one would expect.

 Charistoph wrote:
Now, it can be an interpretation that the models being called upon to check if they are "engaged" were those "locked in combat" before Striking Blows. But this one would not necessarily apply to Stompers.

Incorrect. Stomp requires that Stomper is "in combat" which means that it is required to be in a unit that was in base to base contact with an enemy model at the beginning of the Fight Sub-Phase and since Stompers are walker-vehicles or GMCs this also means necessarily that the Stomper will be in a unit that is locked "in combat".



So the Stomper must be in the current combat and in base contact with the enemy or 2"/6" away from a friendly model in the current combat that is in base to base combat with an enemy model in the current combat to be able to launch a Stomp Attack.