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.

If a unit multi-assaults a group of infantry and a transport they got out of, do they get to consolidate.

Example: 20 Orks, with some ICs multi-assault against a rhino and 5 space marines. They successfully kill both the Rhino and the Marines. Do they get to consolidate?

Pertinent rules:
Consolidation:

At the end of a combat, if a unit’s opponents are all either destroyed or Falling Back, or the end of combat Pile In was insufficient so that it is no longer locked in combat, that unit may Consolidate.

Vehicle Assault:

If the vehicle loses the combat or is destroyed, nothing happens. There are no Sweeping Advances, no Pile Ins and no Consolidation moves. The vehicle and the enemy remain where they are and are free to simply move away in future turns.

Multiple combats:

If none of a unit’s models are in base contact with any enemy models, and the combined Pile In moves would be insufficient to bring them into base contact with a unit that is locked in that close combat, it Consolidates instead.

Followup question: Does it make a difference if they fail to kill the Rhino, but successfully kill the marines?

I think so, because they were locked in combat with the Marines.

The rules for assaulting a vehicle simply say "nothing happens", that destroying the vehicle doesn't give you a consolidation move. However, killing infantry says "that unit may consolidate", giving you a consolidation move.

So vehicles don't give you one, infantry does give you one, and vehicles say nothing about taking away the consolidation given to you by killing the infantry. You get to consolidate.

Right. Vehicles simply don't grant you a consolidation. They don't deny it if you get one from another unit.

 DarkLink wrote:
Right. Vehicles simply don't grant you a consolidation. They don't deny it if you get one from another unit.

Just to play devil's Advocate, couldn't someone make a RAW argument that since the vehicle rules explicitly say that "nothing happens" if they lose an assault, then couldn't an argument be made that it does deny the one that you get from assaulting a non-vehicle unit?

tag8833 wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Right. Vehicles simply don't grant you a consolidation. They don't deny it if you get one from another unit.

Just to play devil's Advocate, couldn't someone make a RAW argument that since the vehicle rules explicitly say that "nothing happens" if they lose an assault, then couldn't an argument be made that it does deny the one that you get from assaulting a non-vehicle unit?

No, because you have permission to consolidate after the combat. If the rules conflict ("nothing happens" V "consolidate"), then the most specific one would be applied (consolidate). The Vehicle rule would need to specifically deny consolidation (which it does not do).

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Right. Vehicles simply don't grant you a consolidation. They don't deny it if you get one from another unit.

Just to play devil's Advocate, couldn't someone make a RAW argument that since the vehicle rules explicitly say that "nothing happens" if they lose an assault, then couldn't an argument be made that it does deny the one that you get from assaulting a non-vehicle unit?

No, because you have permission to consolidate after the combat. If the rules conflict ("nothing happens" V "consolidate"), then the most specific one would be applied (consolidate). The Vehicle rule would need to specifically deny consolidation (which it does not do).

Once again, just as a devils advocate, it does specifically say "No Sweeping Advances, no Pile Ins, and no Consolidations".

tag8833 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Right. Vehicles simply don't grant you a consolidation. They don't deny it if you get one from another unit.

Just to play devil's Advocate, couldn't someone make a RAW argument that since the vehicle rules explicitly say that "nothing happens" if they lose an assault, then couldn't an argument be made that it does deny the one that you get from assaulting a non-vehicle unit?

No, because you have permission to consolidate after the combat. If the rules conflict ("nothing happens" V "consolidate"), then the most specific one would be applied (consolidate). The Vehicle rule would need to specifically deny consolidation (which it does not do).

Once again, just as a devils advocate, it does specifically say "No Sweeping Advances, no Pile Ins, and no Consolidations".

whilst vehicles can be assaulted, they do not Pile In and cannot be locked in combat.

So the clause of "If the vehicle loses the combat or is destroyed" would not apply, as the Unit is also locked in a combat with another enemy Unit, which would take precedence.

I'm sure there is some deep analysis to be made about being locked in a combat with an enemy unit while simultaneously being "in combat" with a vehicle, and possibly some issue with multi-charging a Unit that can be locked and a Unit that cannot be locked at the same time, but the result of the end of such a combat is rather more simple:

You were never locked with the Vehicle, but calculate results as normal. "If the vehicle loses the combat or is destroyed" would apply to a single vehicle.

What i was trying to say: The rules you are quoting apply to single combats, which we know are superseded by the "MULTIPLE COMBATS" rules.