Switch Theme:

Can you consolidate after killing a walker in close combat  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Confessor Of Sins





Newton Aycliffe

rigeld2 wrote:
Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models


"Assault, and are assaulted" refers to what happens before the rules then talk about the Fight Sub-phase ("In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models.")
Paragraph construction seems to show as much.

Or are you considering that line to apply to the entirety of the Assault Phase?

DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 BlackTalos wrote:
Or are you considering that line to apply to the entirety of the Assault Phase?

Since it doesn't specify "Charge" or anything like that, an assumption that it doesn't apply to the entirety of the assault phase is interesting.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gb
Confessor Of Sins





Newton Aycliffe

Well the wording of it seems to imply "declare charges, resolve overwatch and measure distances like you would for infantry" with all of the "Assault or be assaulted" rules and sections. The paragraph following then explains the Fight Sub-phase.

I would not assume straight away that the first line then refers the combat resolution. (Or that you would have to read back up top to understand how the next part of the Assault Phase is resolved).

DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran




 DarknessEternal wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Because you fight walkers like Infantry.

"In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models."

Please explain how that sentence is equivalent to "Walkers use all the close combat rules of Infantry."

Spoilers, they are not. The first is about fighting only, the second is the one you are imagining.

then what does it mean? that walkers take guard stances and need to train their footwork? seriously this is a rulebook and it refers to rules. fighting like infantry models means they are bound to the rules for infantry for close combat or i.e. the assault phase. to make sure that this is clear the rulebook states:
Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that Walkers make charge moves and can be locked in combat. Walkers that are locked in combat cannot be shot at.
In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models

fighting in close combat includes all the rules for the charge-sub-phases and fight-sub-phase which are as following:

charge-sub-phases

1. Declare Charge.
2. Resolve Overwatch.
3. Roll Charge Range (2D6" unless otherwise stated).
4. Charge Move.
5. Declare Next Charge or Finish Charge Sub-phase.

fight-sub-phase

The Fight sub-phase is when models from both sides make their melee attacks.

1. Choose a Combat.
2. Fight Close Combat.
3. Determine Assault Results.
4. Choose Next Combat or Finish Assault Phase.


if walkers were not obliged to those rules they couldn't assault or be assaulted, since we would not know how to proceed in a melee fight with a walker.

the consolidation move is part of the fight-sub-phase. so its part of the close combat which the walkers fights like infantry. to make this also clear the rulebook states:
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

please note that it reads "At the end of a combat" not "after you finished the assault phase". so in the moment you are consolidating you are still in the sub phase of assaulting, in which (again) the walker is treated like infantry.


these are special rules for walkers and hence override more generic rules for vehicles.





This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/21 15:24:35


 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 BlackTalos wrote:
I would not assume straight away that the first line then refers the combat resolution.

It doesn't, directly. It refers to the entirety of the assault phase.

(Or that you would have to read back up top to understand how the next part of the Assault Phase is resolved).

Why is it bad to assume that you should read the rules in their entirety to understand them?

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

sirlynchmob wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
Well since walkers do not have a LD score they can never take a morale test.


So, you're saying walkers don't fight like Infantry in assaults? they assault like infantry, except where they still use the rules in the vehicle section?

We are clearly told if the vehicle loses combat, nothing happens. You keep saying they assault like infantry models, yet they follow less than 1/2 of the same rules.


No I am saying walkers do not have a LD score so there is no possible way to take a morale test on any vehicle without a LD score.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/21 15:32:25


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





RedNoak wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
[
"In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models."

Please explain how that sentence is equivalent to "Walkers use all the close combat rules of Infantry."

Spoilers, they are not. The first is about fighting only, the second is the one you are imagining.

then what does it mean?


It means exactly what it says. Walkers fight like Infantry models. They do everything, on their end, like Infantry models.

It does not say or mean, "Everything fighting against Walkers, fights them as if they are Infantry models." Those two sentences are not equivalent. They are not even similar in effect.

The second paragraph of Walkers and Assaults describes how other units fight against Walkers. It covers where the exceptions to fighting vehicles lie in fight against walkers. It never mentions consolidations. This is the only paragraph in the five under this heading that mentions anything at all about how other units treat Walkers in the close combat phase, aside from being charged.

"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 DarknessEternal wrote:
The second paragraph of Walkers and Assaults describes how other units fight against Walkers. It covers where the exceptions to fighting vehicles lie in fight against walkers. It never mentions consolidations. This is the only paragraph in the five under this heading that mentions anything at all about how other units treat Walkers in the close combat phase, aside from being charged.

So you're ignoring the first paragraph entirely?
Why?

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Walkers fight like infantry, so yes you can consolidate.

saying you cannot would be the same as saying walkers do not fight like infantry, so you cannot attack with your walker and on my turn I can walk out of base to base since you cannot lock models in assault.
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran




 DarknessEternal wrote:
The second paragraph of Walkers and Assaults describes how other units fight against Walkers. It covers where the exceptions to fighting vehicles lie in fight against walkers. It never mentions consolidations. This is the only paragraph in the five under this heading that mentions anything at all about how other units treat Walkers in the close combat phase, aside from being charged.


"It covers where the exceptions to fighting vehicles lie in fight against walkers. It never mentions consolidations."

bingo.

because there are no exceptions regarding consolidation!



p.s.

yay #100 post


This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/07/21 20:07:35


 
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




 DeathReaper wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
Well since walkers do not have a LD score they can never take a morale test.


So, you're saying walkers don't fight like Infantry in assaults? they assault like infantry, except where they still use the rules in the vehicle section?

We are clearly told if the vehicle loses combat, nothing happens. You keep saying they assault like infantry models, yet they follow less than 1/2 of the same rules.


No I am saying walkers do not have a LD score so there is no possible way to take a morale test on any vehicle without a LD score.


Exactly, once you get to resolution you are using vehicle rules again.

vehicles do not pile in and cannot be locked in CC, Walkers override this restriction
glancing hit = 1 wound, pens =2, walkers don't change this rule so we use it as is. to see who won
if the vehicle loses, nothing happens, walkers do not override this restriction
if the vehicle wins, the enemy must make a morale check as normal,
the vehicle can not consolidate or making sweeping advances, walkers override this restriction

How do you resolve combat against a vehicle using the infantry rules? you can't, it's impossible. So we use the rules for vehicles to do so, and are told quite clearly you do not consolidate against vehicles with nothing in the walker rules to override this restriction.

fighting is clearly the rolling to hit, wound, and saves during the initiative part. as seen on pg 78 fighting the assault, and pg 44 step 2 fight close combat. Attack results are after the fighting and can only be done using the vehicle rules.

 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran




jesus... you are a stubborn guy... ok i will try one last time...

first off, like i said before specific rules rule out generic ones.

walkers have a specific rule for the assault phase which is that they fight like infantry.

then like you mentioned before the rulebook states:
Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models, meaning that Walkers make charge moves and can be locked in combat. Walkers that are locked in combat cannot be shot at.
In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models. however...[rule specifications for walkers in close combat]


noticed the big "HOWEVER" followed by specific things that walkers do different like infantry models?
consolidation is not part of those things stated.
but consolidation IS part of a subphase of assaulting like stated in the following section regarding the assault sub phases:
fight-sub-phase

The Fight sub-phase is when models from both sides make their melee attacks.

1. Choose a Combat.
2. Fight Close Combat.
3. Determine Assault Results.
4. Choose Next Combat or Finish Assault Phase
.

and the statement:
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



for the arguments you have brought:
1.
Exactly, once you get to resolution you are using vehicle rules again.
[...]as seen on pg 78 fighting the assault, and pg 44 step 2 fight close combat. Attack results are after the fighting and can only be done using the vehicle rules.

no. like i stated above Determine Assault Results is step 3 of the fight sub phase of the assault phase.

2.
fighting is clearly the rolling to hit, wound, and saves during the initiative part

that is your assumption, based on no evidence. fighting like infantry means fighting like infantry. fighting does mean the rules for fighting close combat. they follow EVERY rule infantry has to follow if not otherwise stated in the rules mentioned before (the HOWEVER part)

3.
How do you resolve combat against a vehicle using the infantry rules? you can't, it's impossible.

yes it is very possible. you just have to follow the rules in the rulebook.
the walker rules are pretty specific and you fill the gaps with basic infantry close combat rules. its really not hard most of us do it on a weekly bases.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/21 20:06:23


 
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta





I'm assuming nothing, we are clearly told when walkers fight like infantry, and it's in CC that walkers fight like infantry models. We have the assault phase and step 2, fight CC.

3, yes you follow all the rules in the vehicle section for resolution which includes not consolidating.

Determining assault results is not part of CC, it's part of the assault phase, but it is after fighting CC and after treating walkers like infantry when you go back to treating it like a vehicle so you can determine the assault results.

 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

sirlynchmob wrote:

I'm assuming nothing, we are clearly told when walkers fight like infantry, and it's in CC that walkers fight like infantry models. We have the assault phase and step 2, fight CC.

3, yes you follow all the rules in the vehicle section for resolution which includes not consolidating.

Determining assault results is not part of CC, it's part of the assault phase, but it is after fighting CC and after treating walkers like infantry when you go back to treating it like a vehicle so you can determine the assault results.


We are clearly told walkers fight like infantry.

Would an Infantry unit consolidate after destroying an infantry unit?

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 DeathReaper wrote:

We are clearly told walkers fight like infantry.


Consolidating is in what way equivalent to fighting? Walk me through that one.

Fight Close Combat is step 2 of the Fight Sub-phase. Consolidate isn't. This is the only part of the sub-phase where fighting is done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
The second paragraph of Walkers and Assaults describes how other units fight against Walkers. It covers where the exceptions to fighting vehicles lie in fight against walkers. It never mentions consolidations. This is the only paragraph in the five under this heading that mentions anything at all about how other units treat Walkers in the close combat phase, aside from being charged.

So you're ignoring the first paragraph entirely?
Why?

I'm not ignoring anything. You're making stuff up whole-cloth.

The first paragraph refers to making assault moves and being assaulted by the same. I can only read the words that are written.

What does "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" mean? That's easy, it's defined in the very same sentence: "meaning that Walkers make charge moves and can be locked in combat." That's it. That's all that it means.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/21 22:39:57


"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think this line in the rules carrys the most HIWPI weight.

"Walkers may make Sweeping Advances, Pile In moves and Consolidations unless they are Stunned or Immobilised."

Clearly more specific than the general rules that apply to regular vehicles.
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 DarknessEternal wrote:

I'm not ignoring anything. You're making stuff up whole-cloth.

The first paragraph refers to making assault moves and being assaulted by the same. I can only read the words that are written.

What does "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" mean? That's easy, it's defined in the very same sentence: "meaning that Walkers make charge moves and can be locked in combat." That's it. That's all that it means.

There's no such thing as assault moves - moves in the Charge sub-phase are charge moves.
There's a whole phase called the Assault phase... Why are you not applying this rule to that phase?

Please, show me what I made up out of whole cloth? Did I quote an actual rule or make up words? As far as I can tell, what I quoted was what's written meaning I made nothing up. Please apologize.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh






Dallas, TX

So do you get pile-in moves against a walker at the end of combat?

40k Armies I play:


Glory for Slaanesh!

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





rigeld2 wrote:
 BlackTalos wrote:
I would not assume straight away that the first line then refers the combat resolution.

It doesn't, directly. It refers to the entirety of the assault phase.


This you invented.

It does not refer to the assault phase. It refers to what it says it refers to, namely "meaning that Walkers make charge moves and can be locked in combat."

"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 DarknessEternal wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:

We are clearly told walkers fight like infantry.


Consolidating is in what way equivalent to fighting? Walk me through that one.

Fight Close Combat is step 2 of the Fight Sub-phase. Consolidate isn't. This is the only part of the sub-phase where fighting is done.


Consolidating is a part of the fight sub-phase.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 DeathReaper wrote:

Consolidating is a part of the fight sub-phase.

Thanks for your agreement that it isn't part of when Walkers fight like Infantry.

"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






Ugg, this argument is reminding me of that stupid tank traps and walkers argument i had on BellofLostSouls.



Look, there is no clear definition either way, even if you think there is.

Im playing it that you can consolidate though since it just makes more sense to me.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 DarknessEternal wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:

Consolidating is a part of the fight sub-phase.

Thanks for your agreement that it isn't part of when Walkers fight like Infantry.

When fighting infantry, do you consolidate after winning combat and them breaking? Yes or No.

Edit: its also "assault", which is the entire Assault phase. If not, page and para explaining why.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/22 15:30:06


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





nosferatu1001 wrote:
If not, page and para explaining why.

Already covered exhaustively in this thread. You can keep demanding answers if you want, but they've already been given.

"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 DarknessEternal wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
If not, page and para explaining why.

Already covered exhaustively in this thread. You can keep demanding answers if you want, but they've already been given.
They actually have not been given. at least not an adequate citation.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Confessor Of Sins





Newton Aycliffe

rigeld2 wrote:
 BlackTalos wrote:
I would not assume straight away that the first line then refers the combat resolution.

It doesn't, directly. It refers to the entirety of the assault phase.

(Or that you would have to read back up top to understand how the next part of the Assault Phase is resolved).

Why is it bad to assume that you should read the rules in their entirety to understand them?


I will disagree that the first line refers to anything more than the Charge Sub phase, as here:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
The first paragraph refers to making assault moves and being assaulted by the same. I can only read the words that are written.

What does "Walkers assault, and are assaulted, like Infantry models" mean? That's easy, it's defined in the very same sentence: "meaning that Walkers make charge moves and can be locked in combat." That's it. That's all that it means.


However, having double checked again, the second paragraph
In close combat, Walkers fight like Infantry models.

must refer to the Fight Sub-phase (in it's entirety) or there would be no way of "1. Choosing a Combat" or "4.Choose next combat or finish assault phase". As "3.Determine Assault results" is covered by this, then so can the unit assaulting the walker act "as if it were infantry" and consolidate / pile-in.

There is a pitfall though: how do you do combat resolution when treating the Walker like infantry?
RaW is "total up the number of unsaved Wounds", which cannot happen against a Walker.
I understand the Intent was for p78 Assault results (for vehicles) to apply, but that paragraph both tells you how to count Glances and Pens AND that there are no Pile Ins, no SA and no Consolidation moves.

As much as i am now in agreement that RaW is clear in how Walker fight just like infantry (apart from the "However"), they may also never loose combat resolution as they take no Wounds.
So there is still a bit of an issue =P

DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 DarknessEternal wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
If not, page and para explaining why.

Already covered exhaustively in this thread. You can keep demanding answers if you want, but they've already been given.

Must have missed when you proved that "in close combat" excludes consolidation. Mind citing it?
   
Made in gt
Regular Dakkanaut






Even though it would have been a cool boost to dreadnoughts seems like it isn't meant to be. Fighting like infantry covers things like this. And what isn't covered is specified. So yeah, too bad.
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




nosferatu1001 wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
If not, page and para explaining why.

Already covered exhaustively in this thread. You can keep demanding answers if you want, but they've already been given.

Must have missed when you proved that "in close combat" excludes consolidation. Mind citing it?


You might as well just admit you are arguing for intent. RAW is quite clear on this one.

consolidation is part of close combat, LOL


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@blacktalos,
must refer to the Fight Sub-phase (in it's entirety) or there would be no way of "1. Choosing a Combat" or "4.Choose next combat or finish assault phase". As "3.Determine Assault results" is covered by this, then so can the unit assaulting the walker act "as if it were infantry" and consolidate / pile-in.


steps 1-4 can be done against vehicles and/or infantry.

CC is CC
the fight sub phase is the fight sub phase.

walkers fight like infantry in CC. which is step 2 fight CC.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/22 19:56:25


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

The fight sub phase is included in the definition of CC...

"Close combat is where two units from opposing armies are in base contact with each other." (The Assault Phase chapter, assault phase summary section).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/22 20:12:14


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: