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.

I have been watching tutorials and looking on forums on the fight phase and the charge phase all day and I still can't figure this out. I understand that in close combat. Chargers are activated first, then each player selects a unit, who piles in, resolves close combat attacks and consolidates, starting with the player whos turn it is. until all units in close combat that can attack have done so. Also, no unit can be activated more than once. Im confused about the part where chargers attack first. Can they be activated again after they have charged?And if each player has an uneven number of units in close combat eventually there will be only one player with multiple viable units that can be activated, can they then be activated one after another? Or does that player have to decide what units cannot attack at all. Here is an example:

two units of Chaos Space Marines (CSM squads 1 and 2) successfully charge three units of Space Marines (SM sqauds 1, 2 and 3). Which of the following activation sequences would be accurate?

Option 1:(Chargers can be activated again, leftover units can still be activated)
CSM squad 1 because it charged
CSM squad 2 because it charged
CSM squad 1
SM squad 1
CSM squad 2
SM squad 2
SM squad 3
Combat is over. This seems likely, but I dont like that chargers can attack again.I feel like the rule that a unit can only be activated once should apply here.

Option 2:(Chargers can be activated again, leftover units cannot still be activated)
CSM squad 1 because it charged
CSM squad 2 because it charged
CSM squad 1
SM squad 1
CSM squad 2
SM squad 2
Combat is over. SM squad 3 is too busy with their hands down their pants.

Option 3:(Chargers cant be activated again, leftover units can still be activated)
CSM squad 1 because it charged
CSM squad 2 because it charged
SM squad 1
SM squad 2
SM squad 3
Combat is over. pretty simple, if there were already CSM squads in close combat, they would then go through the IGOUGO activation sequence after the chargers have all been activated. This seems the most likely to me.

Option 4:(Chargers cant be activated again, leftover units cannot still be activated)
CSM squad 1 because it charged
CSM squad 2 because it charged
SM squad 1
Combat is over. This makes the least sense, two units are now just farting around simply because they cant be activated in sequence.

I feel like its option 3, because it makes the most sense to me. But its also possible that chargers can be activated again despite the rule where units can only be activated once. I dont know, the 8th edition rule book didn't even go through activation sequences really (edit; didn't really go through it in depth). In option 3, If there were units already in close combat, the IGOUGO activation sequence would still come in. Otherwise its just that all the units that charged activate, then the units that are attacked activate. It doesn't make sense that just because one side doesn't have the same number of units that there would be units just sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Im confused about whether chargers can be activated again because of the wording of the rules. It states that chargers go first, THEN each player pick units to fight. So does the single activation rule come before the "THEN" in that sentence or after? That was ambiguous to me.

Also, if there are multiple instances of units in close combat in your fight phase on different places on the board. Do you need to go through the sequence separately for each instance? if not, that would allow one players units to all attack (or mostly) in one instance and the other players units can do the same in the other instance of close combat. Which wouldn't make a lot of sense.

Thank you in advance for clarification on this.

All models that charged get to swing first unless you interrupt this with command points or abilities (such as slanesh marines ability).

Then starting with the player who's turn it is, take turns activating a unit that has not yet attacked.


You do not get to attack twice with the same unit.

Thank you for the feedback! Although Im unsure that you actually read my post. Im asking for clarification on the rules you just posted. Am I correct in saying that option 3 would be the correct sequence?

So charging units' attacks at the beginning of the sequence count towards that 1 attack that they get, its not separate. I just saw that it was possible to interpret the rules in a way where the no attacking twice applies after the charging units have attacked and wanted to make sure that it wasn't the case. Im pretty sure that's what you're saying.

Although, im still unsure whether units can attack in sequence. Im assuming they can. Just want to make sure. (read my post fully please if you need clarification on that). And do you need to go through the sequence separately for separate instances of close combat on the board?

Again, thank you for your feedback.

From page 182 of the main rulebook:

No unit can be selected to fight more than once in each Fight phase.

So how is it possible to interpret that this for some reason does not apply to a unit that charged?

I see, on page 182 in the rulebook, under 1. Choose unit to fight with. It mentions that. I must've missed the "in the fight phase" part. Thank you. The tutorials and guides I've looked at ended the sentence at "cannot attack twice" I thought that that could be referring to either the IGTYG sequence exclusively(of which I was unsure of whether the charging units attacks were apart of), or to the entire fight phase. Thank you for clarifying that. This is because of sentence structure, this rule was posted after the "then" part of the sentence with no reference to the fight phase.

Im still assuming that units can attack successively, since charging units can. So my only unresolved question left is if you need to resolve sequences separately for separate instances of close combat or if the sequence applies to the whole board all of the time.

The sequence applies to the whole board and the rules literally tell you on the same page and section that "if one player runs out of eligible units, the other player completes all of their remaining fights, one units after another". Nothing stops leftover units from performing their attacks other than murdering their way out of close combat. Fights aren't localized anymore. You pick a unit from anywhere on the table.

It's Option 3. Done.

Great! all of my questions have been answered. Thank you for clarifying the rules for me. I am learning how to play this game and I found close combat difficult to wrap my head around. But now I feel I have a good understanding of it.

Again, I appreciate the fact that you guys took the time to answer my question. Though I was surprised to see some hostility here. I know some of the answers to my questions were in the basic rules section of the rulebook. But I didn't have the rulebook on me when I wrote the first post. Only access to online resources like the youtube video tutorials and forums like this one. I thought I could get a quick answer on this part of the forum more effectively then waiting to get home so I can scour the rulebook for an answer. I even simplified it to a multiple choice question.

I hope I didn't come across as condescending. That was not my intention. And if I'm not in the correct forum to ask for clarification on the rules. I apologise. Please let me know what forum is appropriate for that kind of thing and I will post any future questions I have on there.

Thank you JohnnyHell for answering my multiple choice question.As well as Arkaine for answering the bonus question regarding multiple isolated close combat instances on the board. I was surprised though. I cant think of a huge issue that could come up from that right now, but It feels like there could be.

The fun thing about 'whole board' being in one group is that you might have a strategy that relies on wiping out your foe in one area, but your opponent could strike first there. Or you could have a pile of units in one place you REALLY need to kill but one unit engaged elsewhere... do you gamble their survival or fight them first? What if your big plan fails as a result? Choosing which to fight with first is super important. Plan the order of your attacks carefully.

It adds in a nice strategic layer.

I see. That could add an interesting aspect to the game. And I'ts good to know in order to consider strategies in the future.

Though it feels like the I go then you go sequence is supposed to add realism to the game, and the fact that they arent resolved in isolated close combat instances on the board takes away from that realism IMO. But those are the rules I guess and I can appreciate the strategic layer it adds to the game.

 Spacepeasant wrote:
I see. That could add an interesting aspect to the game. And I'ts good to know in order to consider strategies in the future.

Though it feels like the I go then you go sequence is supposed to add realism to the game, and the fact that they arent resolved in isolated close combat instances on the board takes away from that realism IMO. But those are the rules I guess and I can appreciate the strategic layer it adds to the game.

Thing is, the IGOUGO was added as an alternative to Initiative for balance sake. If you remove it, then we need to go back to determining some other way of who fights when. Initiative was clearly a broken concept that had all kinds of issues, like the old cover rules. Simply allowing the active player to attack first with everything is too advantageous and would dissuade locked combats entirely. So what you're actually doing as a general is determining how fast each of your units reacted during that battle. Like building a Turn Sequence for an RPG. Guys that charged go first because they were prepared for the assault while the ones they charged are on the defensive. But after that, it's a battle of who acts quicker and that's something you now have control over instead of relying on stats.

I see what you're saying. I'm not too familiar with other edition rules as I am learning how to play now in the 8th. But I have heard about initiative and how that worked. I'm glad the system was changed in order to balance the game. I don't have a problem with the activation sequence. Just that its board wide.

for example, my previous example with the CSM and SM squads could be going on on one part of the board (lets assume no one charged and everyone is already in close combat), and a similar instance going on on the other side of the board. except replace the second group of CSM squads with Berzerkers. Suddenly its within your interest to activate all of the berzerkers first and the other player to activate their SM squads facing the CSM squads first. In this situation the battle is basically two groups of units just ripping another group of units apart while they fart around doing nothing. Does Not seem realistic to me that this is possible. Why should the fact that battle is going on elsewhere on the board affect the sequence of an isolated combat? But it does add a layer of strategy to the game that I can appreciate.

Well from the mechanics side, it does because you get the same problem as before if lots of mini battles are occurring instead of treating them all as one ongoing conflict. The units aren't squirreled away to duel each other in some God Arena. They're all part of the same battle and outside forces and join the fray as long as they get to be within 1" of your models. Even smites or buffs can still work on your locked units.

From the realism side, we're discussing a turn setting where one side attacks first while the other side just stands there and takes it waiting for their turn instead of both sides fighting at the same time. Realism be damned.

Sorry it took me a while to respond. I just got back from work. I think I might be using the term "isolated close combat" wrong. Im sorry if that's the case. What I mean is a group of units connected through close combat (>1" distance from enemy). Not Initiative based combat like in the 7th. Im sure theres a good reason for the board wide sequence. But Im just trying to see why.

I've made a sketch of a scenario I will use for explanation. I'll put the imgur link to the image here:

https://imgur.com/n3Xere8

Please excuse my bad penmanship and crap drawing skills. I really didn't put a lot of effort into it.

Ok, in this scenario, there are two isolated close combats. It makes sense to me to resolve the sequence separately for those two instances. If one unit piles in or consolidates in a way to lets say merge the two combats. Any unit who hasn't made their attacks get added to the sequence. This could add a really cool layer of strategy to the game as pile in moves and consolidation can mess with the combats sequence even more than it already does.

Having a board wide sequence makes the scenario possible where the berzerkers can get out all of their attacks in in isolated close combat instance 1 and the space marine squads could get in all of their attacks in close combat 2 without any counterattacks on either side. Which if you think about it. One group of people in close combat shouldn't affect how another group of close combat makes its attacks, if they are separated by more than 1". When it comes to mechanics. I can see how this would make things simpler. But it takes away from the realism of the game IMO. I said this before, and I agree that turn based combat between units lacks realism as it is. But it doesn't mean that realism should be abandoned all together. I mean the purpose of this whole game is to simulate combat between two armies while balancing simplicity and realism.

Maybe merging sequences would be too complicated, or there would be issues that I'm unaware of. Or maybe it would be a problem to decide what isolated close combat happens first. I mean I don't work for games workshop and Im sure there is a good reason considering they do extensive work to make the game work and to balance everything. But to me, it's one of those things that just doesn't feel right.