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.

Hello.

I'm running into a bit of an issue where, well, none of the people I've played against in 2.0 have been aware of a certain rule, and most people are hesitant to downright antagonistic about playing it "correctly". I'm wondering if this is common, and I should just accept that I'm not going to play the rules as they're written, or if I just have had weird opponents.

In 2.0, during combat, if there are no more engaged models, the wound pool empties. This means this is the sequence that plays out:
1. My I4 unit charges your I4 unit.
2. We do our "beginning of initiative pile in moves"
3. I make my I4 attacks (as Active player, I decide order of resolution for simultaneous effects)
4. You pull, let's say, the 5 models in base-to-base with mine as casualties.
5. You go to make your attacks, and I say "the wound pool will empty, as there is no more engagement, so there's no point. However, you can pull the back 5 guys if you'd like and all 10 of your models will get attacks".

This is where the argument begins. Something about it being simultaneous, so all attacks happen no matter what, even if that makes the explicit rule about wound pools emptying irrelevant. Something about how it worked in 1.0, and 7th ed before it.

75% of the arguments have been because I pulled my own models out of combat and denied myself attacks, for the benefit of limiting damage to my unit (hey, maybe you shouldn't have charged in such a way where you only engaged 2 of my models?)

I want to note that I try to make it clear, repeatedly, throughout games, that this eventuality will happen if my opponent does what they are doing. If they charge a certain way to minimize actually engaged models, I'll say "hey, you're going to be throwing 70 attacks at me, but I'll only remove 1 model". And they'll be like "huh? no." and then go about doing that thing they're doing. Then I'll pull the 1 model and they'll say "hey, what about the rest". Cue the argument.

This is especially bad when single model units (dreadnoughts, knights, kytans) are involved. 99% of the time they'll only get in base-to-base with a single enemy model, which means they can only kill a single enemy model (unless the opponent chooses to pull engaged-by-coherency models first, in an effort to get attacks back). When I make the charge, and do 3 Instant Death wounds to my opponent's terminator command squad, and they pull 3 models, I say "Hey, you can just pull that 1 guy there and the wound pool will empty, then your I1 guys can pile in and chain fist me!".
Cue argument.

This has happened in pretty much every single game of 2.0 I've played, even against regular opponents who refuse to read/comprehend the rules I repeatedly cite.

So, what about you all? Do you play by this rule? Are you aware of it? Do you willfully ignore it?
What would you do in my situation? Play by an unspoken houserule? (I am hesitant to do this because the farther reaching consequences of playing the way they seem to want to play it, and without rules to fall back on, a game could easily devolve into a situation with no resolution.)


edit: I should clarify two things, because the usual answer for this sort of question is "talk with your group".
1) My group is very dismissive of this entire situation, and seemingly refuse to give it any thought. 1 person has looked at the rules and agreed that it says what it says, and when we play we'll play it "correct" but when that person plays anybody else they'll just shrug and do whatever their opponent says the rules are.
2) I play at events outside of my normal group fairly often, so I'm trying to get a check of how the wider world plays it. My personal experience so far would suggest that nobody plays it "correctly", but having a wider view doesn't hurt. The events I play at are fairly local so it could just be that the local groups all kind of intermingle and play a certain way, but "normal" players play by the rules.

I agree that this is the correct play. I also have never seen this being used in any game. I also think it's a boring rule that shouldn't be there - it reeks a lot of 40k 9th+ to my mind, where the intent and spectacle takes a backside to very specific and gamey mechanics.


Suggestion: Your step 5 above should perhaps include a note about what I-step the opponent is now in. I assume it's I3 or lower, but if it's I4, then I think maybe you're playing it wrong and models should not be removed until the I-step is over and both sides have fought. Or are you arguing that any given I-step favours the active player?

Edit-add:
Dead before Striking
If a model is removed as a casualty before its Initiative
step, it cannot strike back. When striking blows
simultaneously, it may be convenient to resolve one
side’s attacks and simply turn the dead models around to
remind you that they have yet to strike back.

Edit-2:
Actually, searching through the rule book for "chooses which" and "simultaneous" I cannot find any mention of the active player selecting which simultaneous effect takes place first, at all.

badgerson wrote:
I agree that this is the correct play. I also have never seen this being used in any game. I also think it's a boring rule that shouldn't be there - it reeks a lot of 40k 9th+ to my mind, where the intent and spectacle takes a backside to very specific and gamey mechanics.

In my opinion, the gamier mechanic is a melee attack being able to remove a model 20" away from the attacker. Which is exactly what the wound pool emptying when there are no models left engaged prevents.

Suggestion: Your step 5 above should perhaps include a note about what I-step the opponent is now in. I assume it's I3 or lower, but if it's I4, then I think maybe you're playing it wrong and models should not be removed until the I-step is over and both sides have fought. Or are you arguing that any given I-step favours the active player?

As said in Step 1, both units are I4. Models are removed immediately when their Wounds characteristic are reduced to 0. The Active player is slightly favoured because they get to decide the order simultaneous effects/actions are resolved. The Reactive player is given a choice though - take more damage and get to make return attacks, or take less damage at the cost of return attacks.

If the situation was Active player has I4 and Reactive has I1, this is a lot simpler.
I4 attacks are resolved. I1 is reached, and the I1 models pile in, and make their attacks.

The "problem" people see is that since the pile in has already occurred when both sides have the same I, they feel bad about the choice between taking/dealing more damage. They usually feel that they are entitled to both (they remove models until there are no more models in engagement, and the models they remove still get to cause wounds despite the emptied wound pool), but I have had players remove far more models than they should have for... some reason. Not backed by rules.

Actually, searching through the rule book for "chooses which" and "simultaneous" I cannot find any mention of the active player selecting which simultaneous effect takes place first, at all.

Sequencing on page 156.

Fair enough - there'll always be silly scenarios, so the best way to deal with it is actually following the rules as written

I added a couple edits to my post, btw.

Ah, as for sequencing section, I'd argue that is superceded by any reference to "simultaneous" and in this specific instance, definitely superceded by the "Dead before Striking" section.

badgerson wrote:

Ah, as for sequencing section, I'd argue that is superceded by any reference to "simultaneous" and in this specific instance, definitely superceded by the "Dead before Striking" section.

I'm not certain of the relevance of the "Dead before Striking" section. Or rather, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with it.

The models involved all do get to roll their attacks, but the wound pool will instantly empty before any are assigned if there are no more engaged models, so there's no point in turning them around and rolling their attacks if you're removing them in such a way that engagement would be lost.

However, if you remove say, the second row as casualties, or remove all but one of the first row to maintain engagement, then the "turned around" models do get to roll their attacks.

I think we're on the same page as each other, I just think there are a lot of specific scenarios with a lot of outcomes here that are hard to explain purely through text.

unit a and unit o are fighting and all models are I4.
ooooo ooooo aaaaa aaaaa
a causes 5 casualties.
xxxxx ooooo aaaaa aaaaa
o has 10 models that can fight and cause wounds, because engagement is maintained
ooooo xxxxx aaaaa aaaaa
o has 10 models that can fight, but cannot cause wounds because engagement was not maintained. Thus the wound pool will empty immediately upon being populated.

oooox xxxxo aaaaa aaaaa
o has 10 models that can fight and cause wounds, because engagement is maintained.

now let's say a causes 6 wounds to o
ooooo xxxxx aaaaa aaaaa
only 5 models are removed, but o cannot fight back because engagement is not maintained

xxooo xxxxo aaaaa aaaaa
6 models are removed but engagement is maintained and thus o can fight back with all models

now let's say o has I1 models and takes 6 wounds
ooooo xxxxx aaaaa aaaaa
only 5 models are removed, because engagement is not maintained and thus the wound pool empties. Then o piles in after losing 5 models, and attacks
ooooo aaaaa aaaaa

Ah, right, ok, so the argument is rather that you mean that the instant we lose B2B, there are no more engaged models in the I-step and the current wound pool empties. Yeah, I can see that.

However, that doesn't gel well at all with the "simultaneous" aspect of it. And dead before striking as a section seems to be there for the specific purpose of cancelling out this "loss of engagement".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You did open up a strategy that helps slower units a lot though.

My Militia should ideally have a sacrifical three models running out in front of the main squad, to soak up the I4 chargers... 20 wounds turns into 3, and much of my unit can then strike back in I3, provided the pile-in reaches. Interesting...

badgerson wrote:
Fair enough - there'll always be silly scenarios, so the best way to deal with it is actually following the rules as written

I added a couple edits to my post, btw.

Ah, as for sequencing section, I'd argue that is superceded by any reference to "simultaneous" and in this specific instance, definitely superceded by the "Dead before Striking" section.

Agreed. Simultaneous attacks means both sides have an opportunity to strike, regardless of which player goes first and how many of the opponents models they kill. Those dead models still get to strike back before being removed.

chaos0xomega wrote:

badgerson wrote:
Fair enough - there'll always be silly scenarios, so the best way to deal with it is actually following the rules as written

I added a couple edits to my post, btw.

Ah, as for sequencing section, I'd argue that is superceded by any reference to "simultaneous" and in this specific instance, definitely superceded by the "Dead before Striking" section.

Agreed. Simultaneous attacks means both sides have an opportunity to strike, regardless of which player goes first and how many of the opponents models they kill. Those dead models still get to strike back before being removed.

How do you reconcile this with the explicit rule that the wound pool empties when there are no more models left engaged?

I'd say that bit is for when we're not talking about simultaneous fighting.

badgerson wrote:
I'd say that bit is for when we're not talking about simultaneous fighting.

So you think that the rule is intended to only apply to the following situation:

o = I1
a = I4
ooooo ooooo aaaaa aaaaa

a causes 12 wounds and o kills their models out of engagement, emptying the wound pool after only allocating 5.
ooooo xxxxx aaaaa aaaaa

o's surviving models pile in, and fight.
..... ooooo aaaaa aaaaa

But if o and a are both I4, we should disregard the rule and thus...
xxxxx xxxxx aaaaa aaaaa

all of o would die (12 wounds allocated to 10 models, killing all 10)
but o would in return get to attack back with all 10 models?

Yes, that's exactly my current thinking!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or rather... Hm. Hm. Good point. I'm at a loss!


No, wait... Here goes. When they're all I4, they could only kill 5 models each.

 Rihgu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

badgerson wrote:
Fair enough - there'll always be silly scenarios, so the best way to deal with it is actually following the rules as written

I added a couple edits to my post, btw.

Ah, as for sequencing section, I'd argue that is superceded by any reference to "simultaneous" and in this specific instance, definitely superceded by the "Dead before Striking" section.

Agreed. Simultaneous attacks means both sides have an opportunity to strike, regardless of which player goes first and how many of the opponents models they kill. Those dead models still get to strike back before being removed.

How do you reconcile this with the explicit rule that the wound pool empties when there are no more models left engaged?

Thats a rule for what happens between initiative steps. You strike at I4, kill some models, remove models, now your opponent goes to strike at I3 - oh look, empty wound pool, can't do anything. But when both sides are attacking at the same initiative step? Those attacks are simultaneous - that means they are happening at the same time. You can't tell me I don't get to make my attacks because you chose to role your attacks first and wiped the unit or because the models in my wound pool are being removed - those models are effectively still alive until after I roll my attacks against you and determine damage. Nothing is killed or removed until both sides are done making their attacks at the same initiative step. This is basically how it always worked prior to 8th edition 40k, its not really a debate or argument. Having played in tournaments for years until 6th/7th edition killed my interest, this is how simultaneous attacks and model removal was always understood, and I see zero in the Horus Heresy rules to indicate otherwise.

-deleted-

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

badgerson wrote:
Fair enough - there'll always be silly scenarios, so the best way to deal with it is actually following the rules as written

I added a couple edits to my post, btw.

Ah, as for sequencing section, I'd argue that is superceded by any reference to "simultaneous" and in this specific instance, definitely superceded by the "Dead before Striking" section.

Agreed. Simultaneous attacks means both sides have an opportunity to strike, regardless of which player goes first and how many of the opponents models they kill. Those dead models still get to strike back before being removed.

How do you reconcile this with the explicit rule that the wound pool empties when there are no more models left engaged?

Thats a rule for what happens between initiative steps. You strike at I4, kill some models, remove models, now your opponent goes to strike at I3 - oh look, empty wound pool, can't do anything. But when both sides are attacking at the same initiative step? Those attacks are simultaneous - that means they are happening at the same time. You can't tell me I don't get to make my attacks because you chose to role your attacks first and wiped the unit or because the models in my wound pool are being removed - those models are effectively still alive until after I roll my attacks against you and determine damage. Nothing is killed or removed until both sides are done making their attacks at the same initiative step. This is basically how it always worked prior to 8th edition 40k, its not really a debate or argument. Having played in tournaments for years until 6th/7th edition killed my interest, this is how simultaneous attacks and model removal was always understood, and I see zero in the Horus Heresy rules to indicate otherwise.

Except for the fact that pretty much the entire melee wound allocation rules text is different from the 7th edition rules text. I don't have the 5th edition rules text to check, but I assume 5th is worded more similary to 7th than it is HH 2.0.

Can you please use the "code" nomenclature I've been using to describe what you mean? I don't think I'm following very well.

You strike at I4, kill some models, remove models, now your opponent goes to strike at I3 - oh look, empty wound pool, can't do anything.

This part particularly doesn't make any sense when considering the rules and the argument being put forth. Are you saying that the models at I3 aren't allowed to fight because their wound pool empties? Why? they get to pile in first, thus they get to re-engage

Nothing is killed or removed until both sides are done making their attacks at the same initiative step.

This is also explicitly not how it works within the rules. You don't stop allocating wounds to a model until it's removed or the wound pool empties in HH 2.0. If you don't remove it until the end of the initiative step, a 1W model would absorbs all damage. 12W dealt, I allocate them all to 1W model. That's nonsense.

Edit: to clarify my initial point. 7th says this:

If there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step, the Wound is allocated to the next closest enemy model locked in that combat. If two or more models are equidistant from the attack, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model is closest. Take any save and remove the casualty (if necessary).
In either case, once a model has a Wound allocated to it during an Initiative step, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty. Note that all of the models in the target unit may be hit, wounded and removed as casualties during an Initiative step, including those that are not engaged. You can speed this process up by allocating Wounds in groups (see Fast Dice).

It is completely explicit that models outside of engagement get wounds allocated to, and there is no rule that explicitly states the wound pool empties when engagement is lost.

This is a direct and explicit change between editions, so "that's how it's always worked" doesn't hold up. It was explicitly changed.

badgerson wrote:No, wait... Here goes. When they're all I4, they could only kill 5 models each.

I'm not sure of the thought process behind this. You seem to be suggesting that we half play by the rule and half not? Which I could be okay with, if there's a logic to it.

edit:
I think I've come up with a reasonable houserule to attempt to codify with my fellow players.
Instead of emptying the wound pool when no models are engaged (just completely remove that boxed in rule on pg 187)...
Change the Takes Saves and Remove Casualties step's last paragraph on the same page from:
"Continue allocating Wounds in this fashion, taking Saves and removing casualties until the Wound Pool is empty, or all models in the target unit have been removed as casualties"
to read:
"Continue allocating Wounds in this fashion, taking Saves and removing casualties until the Wound Pool is empty, or all models in the target unit that were engaged with the attacking unit at the beginning of the initiative step have been removed as casualties".

A little wordy, but that's what you need when a situation can be as complex as this can be. Anybody see any flaws in that?

 Rihgu wrote:


Except for the fact that pretty much the entire melee wound allocation rules text is different from the 7th edition rules text. I don't have the 5th edition rules text to check, but I assume 5th is worded more similary to 7th than it is HH 2.0.

Sure, but nothing in the changes indicate that simultaneous attacks aren't actually done simultaneous. The dead before striking rules reinforce the fact, as theres no other reason for the rule to exist if one side gets to remove their opponents models before they can attack at the same initiative step.

Note also the sequence of the Fight Sub-Phase, specifically the Fight Close Combat step. At the start of each initiative step, you may pile in, and then you determine which models can attack. As all models at the same initiative step are attacking simultaneously, that means that you are determining that both your models and your opponents models are able to attack. Then you work through how many attacks are made, make your hit rolls and wound rolls, and allocate wounds and remove casualties. Both sides are attacking simulatenously, all of this is done at the same time for both sides, though they are processed one side at a time for the purposes of ease of play rather than having both players try to keep track of everything simultaneously. After one side finishes rolling their attacks and allocating their wounds, there is not a rule that allows you to go back to the top of the initative step and determine which models can attack a second time in the same initiative step. IE there is nothing that allows you to say "well I rolled my attacks first at I4, killed all the models in the wound pool, now you have to go back and determine which of your models can fight" - those models have already been determined to be eligibile to attack because you and your opponent are doing so simultaneously - that means at the same time. The fact that you got to roll your dice first doesn't negate that or make it something other than simultaneous. Thats why the dead before striking rules recommend you turn the models slain at the current initiative step around until they roll their own attacks in turn, and then remove them after they are done.

Can you please use the "code" nomenclature I've been using to describe what you mean? I don't think I'm following very well.

Dont know how. Your last set of code is generally right I think, although I think badgerson had it right in saying both sides would lose 5 models, because only 5 models are in base to base and once those 5 are removed the spillover is lost.

Are you saying that the models at I3 aren't allowed to fight because their wound pool empties? Why? they get to pile in first, thus they get to re-engage

Potentially, yes but its not guaranteed.

The Pile-In is optional and there are potential scenarios where I may choose not to pile-in my models at I3, such as if you have I1 models and there is some rule or situation that prevents them from piling in against me. If I think your I1 models are likely to mulch the remainder of my unit, I may want to prevent that from occurring to try to slow you down and stop you from winning combat or consolidating, etc. Likewise, if my I3 models are positioned behind my I1 models, then maybe those I3 models can't pile-in to engagement range because they are blocked from doing so by other models as a result of poor (or intentional) model placement on my part. OR, just the way the models were placed in general, my pile-in move doesn't allow me to move far enough to get those models into engagement range again. Theres any number of potential scenarios here in which the I3 models are unable to re-engage your models in combat.

It is completely explicit that models outside of engagement get wounds allocated to, and there is no rule that explicitly states the wound pool empties when engagement is lost.

This is a direct and explicit change between editions, so "that's how it's always worked" doesn't hold up. It was explicitly changed.

...okay? That doesn't say anything about simultaneous attacks and really has no bearing on this discussion. Both editions allowed for simultaneous attacks at the same initiative step, that hasn't changed - you haven't demonstrated that theres any rule, process, or mechanism in HH2.0 that changes the definition of what "simultaneous" means or how casualty removal in relation to simultaneous attacks functions in the way you believe it does, whereas I have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

I'm not sure of the thought process behind this. You seem to be suggesting that we half play by the rule and half not? Which I could be okay with, if there's a logic to it.

How is this only half the rule? The rule says that once you allocate wounds to models in base contact with an opponents models you have depleted the wound pool and excess wounds don't carry on to models not in base contact. Thats consistent with the interpretation.

We are both at I4, we determine fight eligibility for the initative step. For the purposes of sanity I am rolling my attacks first with the understanding that your attacks still happen regardless of the outcome of my dice rolls. We work through the process and I manage to cause enough models, but they get allocated to the 5 models in base contact and the excess spillover is lost, as per the rules. Because these attacks are simultaneous however and you still get to make your attacks against me - we already determined those models eligibility to fight at the start of this initiative step - those 5 dead models still get to resolve their attacks against me, so instead of removing them outright you mark them in some manner (turn them around per the recommendation in the rulebook) to indicate they are casualties and then process those attacks. They in turn kill the 5 models that were in base contact with them with the spillover being lost in the same way, consistent with the rules. Then we clean up and remove the dead models that were previously marked, etc. from the table. This is fully consistent with the rules.

Dont know how. Your last set of code is generally right I think, although I think badgerson had it right in saying both sides would lose 5 models, because only 5 models are in base to base and once those 5 are removed the spillover is lost.

This is anathema to everything else you're saying, as it REQUIRES the wound pools to empty in the way you're arguing against to function this way.

Anyways, I've edited my last post to contain a suggested codified houserule to satisfy people who'd like to play it more like it has historically worked rather than how it says it has worked.

Both editions allowed for simultaneous attacks at the same initiative step, that hasn't changed - you haven't demonstrated that theres any rule, process, or mechanism in HH2.0 that changes the definition of what "simultaneous" means or how casualty removal in relation to simultaneous attacks functions in the way you believe it does, whereas I have.

I'm sorry, but you have not. You've disregarded rules that exist to prove your point.

those models have already been determined to be eligibile to attack because you and your opponent are doing so simultaneously - that means at the same time.

Pg 156 says what to do when two things happen at the same time - if it doesn't explicitly say otherwise, Active player determines order.

Look at page 187, where it says that if there are multiple wound pools, they are resolved in order. Not simultaneously.
If you resolve 1 wound pool that ends with no target models engaged, and then make the target models attack... You're correct that they're fully in their right to! As determined at the beginning of the initiative step, they are entitled to roll their attacks!
HOWEVER!
Once we get to resolving their wound pool, since there are no models in the target unit engaged with the attacking unit
(a resolved first, now o is resolving, not the lack of engagement. the periods are empty space where removed models once were)
ooooo ..... aaaaa aaaaa

the wound pool is emptied per page 187.

Since you EXPLICITLY do not resolve wound pools simultaneously, even if both players roll their dice at exactly the same time, one wound pool needs to be resolved first.
If that results in units being removed from engagement, the second wound pool also empties.

If everybody is striking at the same initiative then all attacks are simultaneous and should be rolled before any models are removed from play. Hence the bit about rotating models to show they are dead but still able to strike back. Therefore it is impossible to have no models in base to base contact during an initiative step for one player but not the other.
What you are saying about emptying the wound pool only applies between Initiative steps. The pile in moves during those lower initiative steps should then get models back into base to base to fight.

I don't think you will find anyone who agrees with you. All the content creators and reviewers, batrep producers, etc. that I've come across play it the same way I do, take Goonhammers Tactica article for instance:

https://www.goonhammer.com/horus-heresy-tactica-assaults-part-two-fight/

When you have a wound pool, your opponent allocates wounds from it to models in the unit you’re fighting that are engaged (technically one at a time, but you can fast roll if all the saves and so on are the same) until the wound pool is exhausted. They do this for all the wound pools you generate from models fighting at this initiative step, and you do it for all the ones they generate, and this is resolved simultaneously in the same step. So everyone fighting at the same initiative step gets to fight.

Pg 156 discusses sequencing, which is when rules tell you "when" to do something but not the order in which to do them in the event that multiple rules are telling you to do it at the same time (example given "at the start of the movement phase") i.e. it only applies when the wording of the rule is not explicit as to which rule resolves first, etc.

In this case, however, the rules are clear on these points - it tells you when to do the rules (during the fight sub-phase) and the order in which to do them in (choose a combat, then fight it in imitative order starting with a pile-in, then determine who can fight, determine number of attacks, roll to hit, roll to wound, form wound pools, allocate wounds, and remove casualties, then damage mitigation rolls, and then fight next initiative step). The rules on page 184 explicitly states that the attacks for all models at the same initiative step are happening simultaneously - the sequencing rules do not apply because you are explicitly being told to do them at the same time - the rules *want* you to do them at the same time, they aren't telling you "both players attack at each initiative step" - which would trigger sequencing because it tells you the when but not the order. They are telling you the attacks are made at the same time, which is in itself a specific and explicit timing and order (yes, "at the same time" establishes an order of events - its at the same time i.e. in parallel, rather than sequential), which does not meet the criteria laid out for the sequencing rule to trigger.

What pg 156 doesn't say anything about is when a rule says that both players do something at the same time, etc. That is itself not a trigger for sequencing, which would otherwise be necessary for the sequencing rule to apply here.

Page 188 likewise makes it clear that this is the case - "When striking blows simultaenously, it may be convenient to resolve one sides attacks and simply turn the dead models around to remind you that they have yet to strike back". Thats pretty explicitly clear that those models are still allowed to strike. The very direct implication of "it may be convenient to resolve one sides attacks" is that you don't *have* to have one player resolve their attacks before the other does - i.e. simultaneous actually *means* simultaneous, you and your opponent CAN literally attack and roll at the same exact time, but for the purposes of clarity you can have one player go before the other using a modified process that makes it clear that the opposing player still also gets to go regardless of the loss of those models. No sequencing to be had. In fact, the entire Fight sub-phase section is written in a way that permits simultaneous action, for example "determine who can fight" states "Any model whos initiative is equal to the value of the current initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight". There is no clause on this page in a prior rule that specifies that this means only those models belonging to one player, in fact prior to this it says "In close combat, both players models fight" and that (again) "if both sides have models with the same initiative, their attacks are made simultaneously". That means these rules are inclusive of all applicable models by all applicable players.

pg 187 is non-applicable in this discussion and doesn't prove the point you believe it does. Wound pools are formed from "the number of Wounds [you] have caused" and split into multiple pools based on differences in strengths, AP values, or special rules, etc. This establishes that any reference to multiple wound pools is based on "your" wound pools and not yours and your opponents (i.e. one player is not establishing the order in which both players wound pools resolve). If that wasn't the case then the last sentence of the second paragraph would cause a problem - "all wounds with exactly the same.... must go into the same pool". If we are both fielding identical units with the same special rules, and the "you" criteria in the first sentence on the page wasn't there, then both our wounds would go into a common pool which would allow us to kill each other using wounds caused against us. This is not the case, because they are separate pools that have no impact on one another, and are split or not split separately as is relevant to the player who caused them in a vacuum independent of whatever their opponent has done.

Likewise, the order in which multiple wound pools are resolved is determined by the "player whose unit is the target of the attack". I get to determine the order of the wound pools of the attacks targeting my unit, and you the attacks targeting yours. You dont get to determine the order for the attacks targeting my unit nor vice versa. This allows both players to operate simultaneously, because theres no timing or order conflict in whats written here if we are going simultaneously. Your wound pools have no impact on the order of mine, and mine have no impact on the order of yours. We are resolving them independently of one another and at the same time. For this page to do what you claim it does, these rules would need to be written differently or sequencing would need to apply, to force one player to decide the order for both of us. Thats not how it works.

I also don't see where it "explicitly" says both players do not resolve wound pools simultaneously - you need to provide a rules reference that EXPLICITLY states that to me. The fact that there is a literal rule called "Dead Before Striking" that is EXPLICITLY about what you do when resolving attacks and removing models in the event that both sides are striking simultaneously at the same initiative step basically makes it clear that they do.

It's really simple. Units that attack at the same Initiative attack at the same time.
It doesn't matter who rolls their dice first because the Initiative step is still the same.

OP your opponents are argumentative because you literally aren't playing by the rules of the game and are making up your own.

Also you can't move models away from enemy units, only towards them. That's how pile-in works.
Damage in combat is also not limited to models in base contact with the attacker. An unegaged model cannot attack but it can still take damage, in fact that is the point.
You don't want to lose the models closest to the enemy so you take the ones further away.

I also don't see where it "explicitly" says both players do not resolve wound pools simultaneously - you need to provide a rules reference that EXPLICITLY states that to me. The fact that there is a literal rule called "Dead Before Striking" that is EXPLICITLY about what you do when resolving attacks and removing models in the event that both sides are striking simultaneously at the same initiative step basically makes it clear that they do.

Pg 187, Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties.

To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, the Wounds caused must be allocated and any Saving Throws taken. if several pools of Wounds need to be allocated, the player controlling the target unit must decide in which order they are allocated. All Wounds from a single pool must be allocated before moving on to the next pool of Wounds using the following procedure.

All the content creators and reviewers, batrep producers, etc. that I've come across play it the same way I do, take Goonhammers Tactica article for instance

Thank you, this is what I opened up the thread for. It seems that it is not common to play by the rules, then. I will suggest the houserule I posted earlier in the thread to my group and try to codify this so we all have the same understanding of how this works.

We are at an impasse at this point. You are strongly of the opinion that you can, somehow, resolve these steps simultaneously without falling back on the Sequencing rule on 156. I do not believe that that is possible, and in fact the rules give us guidance on how to *actually* resolve it, even though they call them "simultaneous". If simultaneous resolution was possible, what purpose does the Sequencing rule serve? Why not resolve all of those rules simultaneously, as they all occur simultaneously? Why, in some cases, does the Active player get to decide, but in the case of combat, it is done simultaneously? This idea asks more questions than it answers.

It is explicit.

Page 188 of the core rulebook says as follows:

"When striking blows simultaneously, it may be convenient to resolve one sides attacks and simply turn the dead models around to remind you that they have yet to strike back."

Your inability to read the rules doesn't make everyone else in the world wrong.

 Gert wrote:
It is explicit.

Page 188 of the core rulebook says as follows:

"When striking blows simultaneously, it may be convenient to resolve one sides attacks and simply turn the dead models around to remind you that they have yet to strike back."

Your inability to read the rules doesn't make everyone else in the world wrong.

So are we not removing the models and therefore can continue allocating wounds to the "dead" models or are we not emptying the wound pool when engagement is lost? Which rule are you choosing to ignore to make this point?

Or is it the case that, as I've said in this thread multiple times, that rule on page 188 refers to moments when engagement is not lost during wound allocation, therefore the wound pool doesn't empty immediately?

edit: to be clear, I am NOT, and have NEVER said, that the models that get killed do not get to make attacks. I am saying their attacks are useless because the wound pool empties before you get to allocate any of them IF AND ONLY IF they are removed as casualties in such a way that there is no more engagement between the two units before they get to attack themselves.

Models are removed at the end of an initiative step.
An initiative step ends when all models at that initiative have attacked.
It doesn't matter if your dice rolls kill an entire unit at initiative step 4 if the enemy unit has yet to attack at initiative step 4 it still gets to attack. You could do a million wounds that kill the enemy unit a thousand times over and it wouldn't matter because they still strike in the same initiative step.
Those are the rules. Your interpretation is blatantly wrong.

 Gert wrote:
Models are removed at the end of an initiative step.
An initiative step ends when all models at that initiative have attacked.
It doesn't matter if your dice rolls kill an entire unit at initiative step 4 if the enemy unit has yet to attack at initiative step 4 it still gets to attack. You could do a million wounds that kill the enemy unit a thousand times over and it wouldn't matter because they still strike in the same initiative step.
Those are the rules. Your interpretation is blatantly wrong.

Please read page 187, "Take Saves and Remove Casualties".
"If the Save is failed, reduce that model's Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty."
Bold mine.
Furthermore
"Continue allocating Wounds in this fashion, taking Saves and removing casualties until the Wound pool is empty or all models in the target unit have been removed as casualties."
Bold mine again.

Models are clearly removed before the end of the initiative step. Explicitly.

Edit: This is the real reason people are argumentative with me. They seem to have their own idea of how rules should work and make them up to their own accordance. When the actually written rules clearly indicate otherwise.

It's ludicrous that you make assertions like that and have the gall to tell me that I'm the one with the inability to read. I'd be fine with arguments against my case if they involved actual rules citations. However, stating things like "Models are removed at the end of an initiative step." shows me that you are in no way attempting to see this through in good faith. At least chaos0xomega, though I disagree with them, maintained respectful discourse in good faith.

And you've conveniently left out this prior step:

"To determine how many casualties are caused at a PARTICULAR INITIATIVE STEP, the Wounds caused must be allocated and any Saving Throws taken."

Well well well... looks like you're flat out wrong again.
So with the combination of simultaneous attacking and that little rule there, looks like I'm correct because I read the entire rules section in order and didn't cherry pick rules that benefited my viewpoint.

Funnily enough, the rules tend to make sense when you read them in order as intended.

 Rihgu wrote:

I also don't see where it "explicitly" says both players do not resolve wound pools simultaneously - you need to provide a rules reference that EXPLICITLY states that to me. The fact that there is a literal rule called "Dead Before Striking" that is EXPLICITLY about what you do when resolving attacks and removing models in the event that both sides are striking simultaneously at the same initiative step basically makes it clear that they do.

Pg 187, Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties.

To determine how many casualties are caused at a particular Initiative step, the Wounds caused must be allocated and any Saving Throws taken. if several pools of Wounds need to be allocated, the player controlling the target unit must decide in which order they are allocated. All Wounds from a single pool must be allocated before moving on to the next pool of Wounds using the following procedure.

So you don't understand the definition of "explicitly". Got it. For this to say what you want it to say it would need to actually say that "Players do not resolve wound pools simultaneously". It doesn't.

What this actually says is that I get to decide the order of the wound pools targeting my unit. This says nothing about the wound pools targeting my opponents units. I can decide the order of the wounds caused by my opponent against my unit and my opponent gets to decide the order of the wounds caused by me against his unit. We resolve them. There is no conflict here, because these two separate orderings of wound pools are being resolved simultaneously. The order of wound pools resolved against my unit has no impact on the order of wound pools resolved against my opponent.

Thank you, this is what I opened up the thread for. It seems that it is not common to play by the rules, then.

Because... thats not the rules. As Gert said you're making stuff up. Your interpretation of the rules are wrong. How you think this works is objectively not how it works. This isn't a matter of belief or opinion. GW even hosts official HH at Warhammer World with their own designers present - AND THIS IS HOW THEY PLAY IT. Your opponents are playing it the way you want to with you and then playing it differently because you are stubborn and wont listen to anyone with more experience or knowledge than yourself, and its easier to just cave in and move on with their lives than to continue arguing with you. If you're noticing that literally everyone plays it differently from you, not just your own local group but also regionally, nationally, and/or internationally, chances are the problem is you and not everyone else - it is unlikely that you are a prodigal savant that has arrived at a true understanding of the rules that the entirety of the unwashed masses have grossly misunderstood.

We are at an impasse at this point.

Because you are stubborn, not because you are possibly right.

You are strongly of the opinion that you can, somehow, resolve these steps simultaneously without falling back on the Sequencing rule on 156.

As explained, sequencing does not apply here. At all. Show me in the sequencing rule where it says that it is used to resolve the order of rules which resolve "simultaneously" - it doesn't. It tells you to use sequencing when the rules don't tell you the order in which things happen, in this case the rules do. "Simultaneous" is an order - it means parallel processing. Other rules that don't happen simultaneously are sequential processing. These are both valid orders. Theres no conflict about who goes when or what goes first. There is a process that you have to follow, and both players do it at the same time. The rules are *actually* explicitly clear on that.

I do not believe that that is possible, and in fact the rules give us guidance on how to *actually* resolve it, even though they call them "simultaneous".

It is possible. I've been playing this game for 20 years. As stated, up until 8th edition, this is how attacks at the same initiative *always* worked. Regardless of the specific idiosyncrasies of how wounds were allocated in any given edition, there was never a scenario when models swinging at the same initiative step were not able to complete their attacks. In many games, my opponent and I truly resolved the attacks simultaneously. I determined the eligible models and number of attacks, my opponent did theirs, we told eachother, I rolled my dice, he rolled his, we told eachother how many wounds we managed, rolled our saves and removed our casualties and moved on. Not that hard. The only time the guidance (which has basically been the same since at least 4th edition) came into play is if I was playing against someone I didnt really know or trust, or a competitive game where ensuring accuracy and keeping my opponent accountable actually mattered and we wanted to make sure we weren't getting cheated or cheating eachother. The guidance is just guidance, you don't have to do it that way, but it makes it easier to resolve an activity, and its only there because - guess fething what - the process happens simultaneously. If it didn't, the guidance wouldn't be there.

If simultaneous resolution was possible, what purpose does the Sequencing rule serve? Why not resolve all of those rules simultaneously, as they all occur simultaneously? Why, in some cases, does the Active player get to decide, but in the case of combat, it is done simultaneously? This idea asks more questions than it answers.

I have a unit that has a rule that say something like "At the start of your opponents movement phase, if this unit is not engaged in close combat, you may move this unit up to 6".
My opponent has a unit with a rule that says something like "At the start of your movement phase, this unit may declare and resolve a charge against an enemy unit within 12" and line of sight as though it were the assault phase."

Which thing happens first? The rules don't tell us, they tell us that both things happen at the start of the same movement phase.

If I do my move, I can potentially prevent my opponent from using his rule by moving away to break line of sight to get out of 6". If my opponent uses his rule, then he can potentially prevent me from using my rule by declaring a charge against me and locking my unit in combat.

So rather than getting into a fistfight over it, GW gave us the sequencing rule (which isn't a new thing) to tell us how to determine which thing happens first in a fair and reasonable manner, because it would be impossible to create a rules construct that can account for every possible interaction like this (they tried, rules that used to say "At the start of x phase" became "At the start of x phase, before y has occurred" - and that helped some, but there were still situations where two rules said "at the start of x phase before y has occurred" that caused conflicts).

THAT is what Sequencing is for.

In this case though, it doesn't apply. GW wrote "simultaneously" for a reason. Its been in various iterations of the game for the past 20+ years and has been played this way the entire time by everyone - GW Grand Tournament Winners, the kid at the local shop, Jervis Johnson and Rick Priestly themselves. Its not an accident the word is there, its there for a purpose. They want this resolved simultaneously. They want models of equivalent initiative to be able to reasonably kill eachother in combat - thats why we have the initiative system at all.

If they wanted you to alternate based on the active player or a sequencing order, they would not have said simultaneously and would have said "the attacking player strikes first" or "the charging unit strikes first" or whatever - initiative would not serve any other purpose if actual simultaneous attack resolution wasn't a possibility otherwise. They explicitly tell you the order of resolution for just about every other rule in the core book, it would be real weird for them to overlook this one specific section of the book and have you default to a sequencing rule located 20 pages prior without even clarifying that you should.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:

So are we not removing the models and therefore can continue allocating wounds to the "dead" models or are we not emptying the wound pool when engagement is lost? Which rule are you choosing to ignore to make this point?

Nobody is ignoring any rules. Simultaneous means at the same time - during a given initiative step where we both have models at the same initiative, if my models are dead, yours are too. If your models are alive, mine are too. Just because you think you have already killed my models because you rolled your dice first doesn't mean you actually did. In truth the rules are set up with the assumption we are doing it at the same time, but gives us the option to do it one at a time to prevent potential confusion about who is doing what when. In truth, we are wounding eachothers models and removing them at the same exact time. Its not hard to wrap your head around.

Or is it the case that, as I've said in this thread multiple times, that rule on page 188 refers to moments when engagement is not lost during wound allocation, therefore the wound pool doesn't empty immediately?

not even sure what you mean here. The wound pool empties as the models are removed. We are removing our models simultaneously. Get it?

I am saying their attacks are useless because the wound pool empties before you get to allocate any of them IF AND ONLY IF they are removed as casualties in such a way that there is no more engagement between the two units before they get to attack themselves.

Still wrong. You emptying your wound pool does not empty mine within the same initiative step. The attacks are being resolved simultaneously. My models aren't removed until the same time yours are - ergo if your models are in base contact with mine as needed for you to attack me, mine are still in base contact with yours - regardless of whether you finished rolling your dice before me. That is what simultaneous means.

Models are clearly removed before the end of the initiative step. Explicitly.

Yes, and they are removed SIMULTANEOUSLY, because the rules tell you explicitly that these attacks are happening simultaneously.

What does simultaneously mean?

AT THE SAME TIME. It doesn't really matter if they get removed at the end or before the end, they are still being removed at the same time. At the same time I am reducing the wounds on my models, you are removing the wounds on your models. Ergo, our models are still in base contact effectively until the end of that initiative step because we have effectively "paused" time and said that all these models are doing things and dying at the same time.

Edit: This is the real reason people are argumentative with me. They seem to have their own idea of how rules should work and make them up to their own accordance. When the actually written rules clearly indicate otherwise.

No, they are arguing with you because you are wrong and you cannot accept it and you are blatantly TFG. Your interpretation of the rules is 100% erroneous. You are inventing things out of whole cloth and ingoring a very explicit instruction provided to you by the rules as to how to resolve this situation.

It's ludicrous that you make assertions like that and have the gall to tell me that I'm the one with the inability to read. I'd be fine with arguments against my case if they involved actual rules citations. However, stating things like "Models are removed at the end of an initiative step." shows me that you are in no way attempting to see this through in good faith. At least chaos0xomega, though I disagree with them, maintained respectful discourse in good faith.

Well that boat has sailed. I have no patience for this. We have provided "actual rules citations" and also pointed out that you're ignoring them and that your own citations are being interpreted by you incorrectly.

Lets be clear - You did not figure out that the whole world is playing a rule wrong. Theres 20 or more years of precedent (maybe even 30+, i think I remembered reading the same rule in the Rogue Trader rulebook) saying that what we are telling you is the correct way, and you are in complete denial on the topic and insisting otherwise.

The reason this has worked for the last 20 or 30 years is because Age of Darkness 2.0 introduces a new rule, the "No Models Engaged In Combat" rule, which throws a wrench in everything.

This problem doesn't come up in 7th edition because 7th edition has different rules that mean that it doesn't come up. That is likely the case for every edition as far back as Rogue Trader, as well. There is no 20 years of precedent for this scenario as it's new to this ruleset specifically (as far as I know, I don't have a copy of Rogue Trader, 2nd, 3rd, etc available. Just 7th and WHFB 3, 5, 6, and 8th right now.) Historically, whether or not it was literally simultaneous or "follow the sequencing rule" simultaneous didn't matter.

You are inventing things out of whole cloth and ingoring a very explicit instruction provided to you by the rules as to how to resolve this situation.

I have cited every single rule I'm using. I will admit, it's entirely possible that I am wrong in connecting simultaneous resolution with the Sequencing rule on page 156. If I've made anything up out of whole cloth, it's that connection.
And I'll admit that everything hinges on that link, so if it's erroneous, I am in the wrong. If I ever catch one of the rules guys at a convention or something, I'll directly ask them.

For the time being, my group has accepted the houserule I suggested, and it ends in the same result as playing it literally simultaneously, which is something that my brain literally cannot grok at all, judging by this thread.

This does mean that I personally am going to get loads more attacks as I'll no longer be allocating wounds in such a way that I don't get to attack back. I hope my opponents are ready for that dread.

So you've houseruled a way to get an advantage in game.
Well done.

 Gert wrote:
So you've houseruled a way to get an advantage in game.
Well done.

Respectfully, yes.

Because the way I've always played it has been, according to you, incorrect, and also a huge disadvantage to me. So now that I'm playing it the way I'm being told to play it (ultimately - though not exactly by the same path, the result is the same), I get a comparative advantaged.

For example, in the last game I played, my opponent dealt 4 instant death wounds to my squad of justaerin who charged (they resolved their attacks first, despite me protesting that this would give me a severe disadvantage).
I removed 4 justaerin, and then did not make any attacks with the entire unit of 12 + abaddon (so 9 total remaining) because no more models were engaged and I had already done the I1 step pile in. Then we did the end of combat phase pile in.
Next turn, they resolved their attacks again. Woops, I lost 2 more justaerin, but thankfully 1 was still engaged. Phew!

So yes, compared to that, this houserule is a big advantage for me!

The one time this has been anything other than a disadvantage for me was when my opponent had a Kytan. This opponent was the one who, when presented with the evidence, actually agreed that I was correct. So, as the active player, I resolved my I1 attacks first, destroyed the Kytan, and he pulled it away without getting to resolve stomps. And I had even said "hey man, nobody else we play with plays like this, anyways, just make your stomps", but he agreed with my read of the rules and likes to play a clean game like I do.

I don't understand why you'd so adamantly remove simultaneous fighting from the game when that is explicitly a part of the initiative step rules. In what scenario would simultaneous fighting ever happen, according to you?