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.

After rereading the rules i think that the fleeing unit can disengage as the rules for Falling Back state they can leave the combat. However they can not move thru the unit they are in combat with as they did not get a chance to do a sweeping advance. That would mean if even one model in the fleeing unit can not make it more than 1"of from an enemy model (if it was surrounded and it can not move thru them) then the unit is trapped and destroyed.

I can find rules on pg. 26 that define who the winner is, and then what that winner may do and it involves actions that happen in the assault phase. Can you point me to any pages/rules that allow you to declare a unit to be "the winning unit" at some other time or for some other reason?

Indeed you can. But winner / loser are just labeling which side gets to take actions. "The side that caused the most Wounds is the winner." Pretty simple.

"The losing unit must make a Morale and Falls Back if it fails." Emphasis on Morale and Falls Back (from GW). There is no loser. Just the side that is falling back.

The problem here is the basic problem we have with most of the rulebook. GW doesn't stick with terminology. The quote in question "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors....."

Now we have "victors". Since they clearly defined "winner" and what a winner was, why did they use "victor"? They didn't define 'victor". Simply because they are writing the rule in the context that was presented, which was the assault phase and they were using plain speech to describe which unit could take which action.

The rest of that line ".... attempting to cut down their fleeing foes." Shouldn't that be enemy models? Again, its flowery speech.

 Gloomfang wrote:
@Kevin
Basically yes. The rules for Falling Back do not allow you to become unlocked from combat. That forces you to be within 1"of an enemy modle. Eating dinner with my son, i will check for pg rerences when i get home.

If that is the case then I would say that the units are still locked in combat at the start of the following assault phase and they would follow the rules for pile in and such and the rule for not being locked anymore if no models make it to b2b. As it stands, there are zero rules that allow leaving an assault outside of the assault phase. Wait, I take that back, I can think of one and that is on Vargard Obyron. But his rule specifies such, and from what I saw in the psyker rules there is nothing signifying they would be removed from close combat at all, simply that they make a fall back move. But again, there's no blanket rule allowing a unit to leave close combat outside of the assault phase.

Fragile wrote:

I can find rules on pg. 26 that define who the winner is, and then what that winner may do and it involves actions that happen in the assault phase. Can you point me to any pages/rules that allow you to declare a unit to be "the winning unit" at some other time or for some other reason?

Indeed you can. But winner / loser are just labeling which side gets to take actions. "The side that caused the most Wounds is the winner." Pretty simple.

"The losing unit must make a Morale and Falls Back if it fails." Emphasis on Morale and Falls Back (from GW). There is no loser. Just the side that is falling back.

The problem here is the basic problem we have with most of the rulebook. GW doesn't stick with terminology. The quote in question "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors....."

Now we have "victors". Since they clearly defined "winner" and what a winner was, why did they use "victor"? They didn't define 'victor". Simply because they are writing the rule in the context that was presented, which was the assault phase and they were using plain speech to describe which unit could take which action.

The rest of that line ".... attempting to cut down their fleeing foes." Shouldn't that be enemy models? Again, its flowery speech.

Yah that's basically what I was getting at here:

NeoParn wrote:
...Are everyone involved in combat during the movement phase ; who has not been forced to fall back by a malediction, considered the winner of that close combat...

You think that winning/victor means "the guys not falling back" and I think it is meant to be a condition regarding combat resolution. Neither of us seems equipped to disprove the other's assertion of the rules without making assumptions (anyone not falling back from combat has won that combat) or applying other rules which don't apply here for context (unit's locked in CC don't test morale for shooting casualties).

GW rules are full of this sort of inconsistencies. That's why I feel like the result of these situations are loopholes that need some clear FAQ. My OPINION is that the unit should fallback from CC as pg. 30, isn't subject to sweeping advance as per pg. 26 but CAN be trapped! and destroyed as per pg. 30 again. /OPINION