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 model is within an inch does it have to fight? If it does fight, is it required to make all of their attacks?

Q: If any of your units are eligible to fight
in the Fight phase, can you choose for
them not to fight this turn? Also, if any of
your units charged in the Charge phase,
do they have to fight first in the Fight
phase, or can you choose for them to wait
until later in the phase?
A: All eligible units must fight in the Fight
phase; they cannot ‘pass’ and wait for
another phase. Additionally, a unit must
fight when it is its time to do so; it cannot
‘hold’ in order to fight later in the phase.
So if a unit charged in the preceding
Charge phase, it must fight before any
non-charging models in the Fight phase
(barring any related abilities).

Note that when a model fights, it must do all
of its close combat attacks if it can do so – you
cannot choose for it not to do so (though you can
still choose which weapon it uses for each close
combat attack).

Can you tell me which FAQ this is in so I can reference it? Thanks!

The Designers Commentary.

This is invalid without an errata. The core rules are pretty explicit on this stating that you may choose to make an attack.

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is invalid without an errata. The core rules are pretty explicit on this stating that you may choose to make an attack.

I see you have not yet encountered the phenomenon of Special Snowflake FAQs! Fear not citizens, for hope has arrived!

A Special Snowflake FAQ is one that contradicts RaW and acts as an errata when it really shouldn't. Par for the course when it comes to the last 2 decades of GW rules writing!

That being said, I don't think this is an Special Snowflake. I would like to know your reasoning. To my eyes, it's mandatory. "The number of close combat attacks a model makes against its target is determined by its Attacks characteristic."

If you mean "Any unit that charged or has models within 1" of an enemy unit can be chosen to fight in the Fight phase." then you are mistaken because "Can" is not a statement of optionality, it's a statement that they can be picked as opposed to those without 1" who cannot be picked.

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is invalid without an errata. The core rules are pretty explicit on this stating that you may choose to make an attack.

Page and quote please.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is invalid without an errata. The core rules are pretty explicit on this stating that you may choose to make an attack.

I see you have not yet encountered the phenomenon of Special Snowflake FAQs! Fear not citizens, for hope has arrived!

A Special Snowflake FAQ is one that contradicts RaW and acts as an errata when it really shouldn't. Par for the course when it comes to the last 2 decades of GW rules writing!

That being said, I don't think this is an Special Snowflake. I would like to know your reasoning. To my eyes, it's mandatory. "The number of close combat attacks a model makes against its target is determined by its Attacks characteristic."

If you mean "Any unit that charged or has models within 1" of an enemy unit can be chosen to fight in the Fight phase." then you are mistaken because "Can" is not a statement of optionality, it's a statement that they can be picked as opposed to those without 1" who cannot be picked.

"Can" and "must" are very different things IMO. Really though the word "chose" is very specific. It means you have a choice not to. I understand your thinking here. But IMO this isn't a FAQ fix - this needs an errata. The words need to change. I'm not even sure why anyone asked. The question is idiotic "does can chose mean must chose?"

Also - from a standpoint of balance between shooting and close combat. Nothing forces you to shoot with your guns just because you can. Why should it be any different in this situation? I ran into this in a game playing quinns against IG with hellhounds. More damage went through than should have and I was in a sitatuion were I just wanted to hide in CC and not take his near automatic explosion with a reroll. I figured I had to make the attacks so I looked that the rules. There was nothing ambiguous about it when we reviewed them. We came to the conclusion that the attacks don't have to be made.

Also
If "can" doesn't give you optionality. Where is the rule that forces you to make the attack. The rules you posted were the only part of the rules that I could fine that referenced fighting in close combat.

From 'Choose Unit to Fight With' (page 182 of the main rulebook emphasis added):

After all charging units have fought, the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units on both sides have fought once each.

You're confusing the wording that allows you to choose the order of the fights as allowing you to not fight at all.

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Choose Unit to Fight With' (page 182 of the main rulebook emphasis added):

After all charging units have fought, the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units on both sides have fought once each.

You're confusing the wording that allows you to choose the order of the fights as allowing you to not fight at all.

I guess I am. The word choice is poor though. Just use the word must - instead of can and this situation would never have come up.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Choose Unit to Fight With' (page 182 of the main rulebook emphasis added):

After all charging units have fought, the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units on both sides have fought once each.

You're confusing the wording that allows you to choose the order of the fights as allowing you to not fight at all.

I guess I am. The word choice is poor though. Just use the word must - instead of can and this situation would never have come up.

That would literally change the meaning of the rule. What unit would you fight with first if literally every unit says you must choose it to fight?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Choose Unit to Fight With' (page 182 of the main rulebook emphasis added):

After all charging units have fought, the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units on both sides have fought once each.

You're confusing the wording that allows you to choose the order of the fights as allowing you to not fight at all.

I guess I am. The word choice is poor though. Just use the word must - instead of can and this situation would never have come up.

That would literally change the meaning of the rule. What unit would you fight with first if literally every unit says you must choose it to fight?

Isn't the method with simultaneous actions that the controlling player chooses the order?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Choose Unit to Fight With' (page 182 of the main rulebook emphasis added):

After all charging units have fought, the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units on both sides have fought once each.

You're confusing the wording that allows you to choose the order of the fights as allowing you to not fight at all.

I guess I am. The word choice is poor though. Just use the word must - instead of can and this situation would never have come up.

That would literally change the meaning of the rule. What unit would you fight with first if literally every unit says you must choose it to fight?

Isn't the method with simultaneous actions that the controlling player chooses the order?

Great, so on my turn all my dudes get to decimate yours before you get any chance at retaliation or counterplay. Seems legit.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Choose Unit to Fight With' (page 182 of the main rulebook emphasis added):

After all charging units have fought, the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units on both sides have fought once each.

You're confusing the wording that allows you to choose the order of the fights as allowing you to not fight at all.

I guess I am. The word choice is poor though. Just use the word must - instead of can and this situation would never have come up.

That would literally change the meaning of the rule. What unit would you fight with first if literally every unit says you must choose it to fight?

Isn't the method with simultaneous actions that the controlling player chooses the order?

So the player who's turn it is wuld fight with all of his units instead of alternating choosing eligible units?

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is invalid without an errata. The core rules are pretty explicit on this stating that you may choose to make an attack.

The Designer's Commentary is treated as a FAQ/Errata as much as anything else they post in their FAQ section.

Indeed. FAQ contain errata and changes in GW-land and have done for years. Not a thing worth protesting.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Choose Unit to Fight With' (page 182 of the main rulebook emphasis added):

After all charging units have fought, the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with (starting with the player whose turn it is) until all eligible units on both sides have fought once each.

You're confusing the wording that allows you to choose the order of the fights as allowing you to not fight at all.

I guess I am. The word choice is poor though. Just use the word must - instead of can and this situation would never have come up.

That would literally change the meaning of the rule. What unit would you fight with first if literally every unit says you must choose it to fight?

Isn't the method with simultaneous actions that the controlling player chooses the order?

Great, so on my turn all my dudes get to decimate yours before you get any chance at retaliation or counterplay. Seems legit.

You talking about intervene? Doesn't that just interrupt the order of assaults as they get selected charging units in order? I really don't see a problem here. Then it says to alternate.

"until all eligible units on both sides have fought once each" I am not disagreeing - this is basically saying you have to fight. The first part needs to be changed though.