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.

 oldzoggy wrote:
I guess the question is would they overlap or trigger at different times ?

I love it when GW adds simple rules in their getting started boxes .

Different times. First in the Fight Sub-phase as part of 'Determine Assault Results' and then at the end of the Movement Phase.

But it's not "combat," because it doesn't take place in the assault phase. These are just free hits that don't apply to the actual combat at all, aside from the possibility that the opponent will have fewer models in the next actual fight sub-phase. Like I said earlier, treat these hits just like a shooting attack. One side attacks, the other side takes the hits, and then could be forced to run because of those wounds.
If this were to be considered an actual combat, the opponent would ALWAYS lose (unless the Orks don't do any wounds), which would be totally unfair, and we all know the Orks don't get broken rules.

Appealing to a subjective idea of fairness isn't rules.

Additionally, you can't treat it as if it were a shooting attack, because units that are locked in combat can't make shooting attacks.

I didn't say that the models will actually shoot. I said that the hits/wounds should be treated as if they were CAUSED by a shooting attack; that is to say that one unit (Orks) generate hits, and then wounds, and then the wound pool is resolved on the unit being attacked. This special round of attacks is NOT to be treated as a round of close combat, because the opponent's models that are locked in combat do not get a chance to attack. If that were the case, Orks that survive one (or two) round(s) of combat would always win combat this way and force the other unit to break, under normal circumstances.
Please note that this is the way I'm interpreting it; I'm not saying that this is factual. It just makes sense to me that if it were meant to be treated like CC without the other unit attacking, the rule would have been clear about it.

How is "is allowed to Pile In and fight as if it were a Fight Sub-phase, but enemy units cannot fight back" not clear?

I still think that the RAI were to simply give the Orks free attacks on the enemy, and not to incur any other shenanigans (losing combat, morale checks, etc), but after looking at the rule again, it does in fact say "...and fight as if..." not "...and attack as if...", so now I'm not as sure as I was.
You seem pretty sure that this rule incurs an entire Fight Sub-phase, but that just doesn't seem fair to me. I like winning, but not because of rules that negate my opponent's ability to fight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose that if the casualties caused by the mid turn fighting were totaled at the end of the actual fight sub phase, thus not requiring any checks whatsoever in the movement phase, that would make sense. It would give the opponents a chance to catch up, though at a huge disadvantage.
Then again... It could be just as powerful as it seems. Once per game, I win and you lose. Period.

RAI is anyone's guess, but we seem to be agreed the RAW is fairly clear. Good reason to avoid the models in the formation - they still have to be locked in combat in the first place.

"Pile in and fight as if it were a fight subphase"

I don't think this gives permission to go to 'Determine Assault Results' in the brb (as much as I want it to)

Yes it does, it says fight as if in the fight sub phase, which includes the results of combat.

Page 44 in the rules, fight sub phase. I wrote it out earlier. If you don't believe me, go read it for yourself.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
"Pile in and fight as if it were a fight subphase"

I don't think this gives permission to go to 'Determine Assault Results' in the brb (as much as I want it to)

Why are you excluding the assault results step, when this is part of the su phase you are explicitly told to follow?

It's a damned simple rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
"Pile in and fight as if it were a fight subphase"

I don't think this gives permission to go to 'Determine Assault Results' in the brb (as much as I want it to)

Why are you excluding the assault results step, when this is part of the su phase you are explicitly told to follow?

It's a damned simple rule.

I think because 'Pile in and fight' is referring to just the Part 2 - 'Fight Close Combat' of the Fight Sub-phase.

I think if they intended for the results to be determined, make morale checks, flee, etc they would have specified it in the rule.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Otherwise they would have stated - 'Pile in, fight, and determine assault results' specifically


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Update

I found out how you should test for morale in this situation (apologies if someone already posted this)

Under Morale in BRB:

Casualties: A unit losing 25% or more of its current models during a single phase must take a Morale
check at the end of that phase. There is an exception: units that lose 25% or more of their current models
in the Assault phase do not take a Morale check.

Oddly enough, since this happens in the movement phase then the above applies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to the original poster about what happens to the ork unit (it doesn't make a sweeping advance):

From BRB:

Falling Back from Close Combat

Models Falling Back from a combat can freely move through all enemy models that were involved in that
combat (they have already missed the chance to catch them). This is an exception to the normal rules for
moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model. If any models
would end their move less than 1" from one of these enemies, extend the Fall Back move until they are
clear.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to the original poster about what happens to the ork unit (it doesn't make a sweeping advance):

From BRB:

Falling Back from Close Combat

Models Falling Back from a combat can freely move through all enemy models that were involved in that
combat (they have already missed the chance to catch them). This is an exception to the normal rules for
moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model. If any models
would end their move less than 1" from one of these enemies, extend the Fall Back move until they are
clear.

This has already been covered that at the end of the Fight Sub-phase, if the loser falls back from combat, the victor gets to sweeping advance. This entry applies specifically to those victors that were too slow to catch the fleeing unit, thus the "(they have already missed the chance to catch them)" part.

Chaos - part of fighting is working out who won. Because that's part of the fight sub phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Chaos - part of fighting is working out who won. Because that's part of the fight sub phase.

"every unit from the Formation that is locked in combat is allowed to Pile In and fight as if it were a Fight sub-phase"

-I think this statement just gives you permission to pile in and fight - not do the entire Fight sub-phase

Fight, I believe, is just referencing step 2 in the fight sub phase: "Fight Close Combat" which does not cover assault results

BUT its not like its that bad anyway - in the Morale rule it says as long as you cause 25% casualties in any phase they have to make a morale check.

If you think it should work otherwise, reread the rules and prove that the rule is giving permission to go to assault results.

It seems to me that the rule allows you to essentially have an extra fight sub-phase that only your models get to attack in. So you would announce that you're using the special rule then (if you wanted clarification) refer to the rule book 'Fight Sub-Phase' section and follow the steps: choose the combat in which your formation models are stuck, pile in, determine who can fight, determine attacks then roll to hit and to wound, allocate wounds, determine assault results, check morale and potentially sweeping advance and finally pile in or consolodate. In my mind that is 'fighting as if in the fight sub-phase', stopping part way through wouldn't be following the instructions of the special rule or the rule book.

Saying that 'if that was the case the special rule would also say to determine assault results' isn't much of an argument, using that logic wouldn't it also be fair to say that if we weren't meant to determine assault results the special rule would say 'fight as if in the fight-sub phase but do not determine assault results'?

That's how I would play it as that seems RAW, but as always if something doesn't seem clear then talk to your opponent before it comes up.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Chaos - part of fighting is working out who won. Because that's part of the fight sub phase.

"every unit from the Formation that is locked in combat is allowed to Pile In and fight as if it were a Fight sub-phase"

-I think this statement just gives you permission to pile in and fight - not do the entire Fight sub-phase

Fight, I believe, is just referencing step 2 in the fight sub phase: "Fight Close Combat" which does not cover assault results

BUT its not like its that bad anyway - in the Morale rule it says as long as you cause 25% casualties in any phase they have to make a morale check.

If you think it should work otherwise, reread the rules and prove that the rule is giving permission to go to assault results.

I agree that just "fighting" is what was probably intended. However, RAW is all screwed up.

Fragile wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Chaos - part of fighting is working out who won. Because that's part of the fight sub phase.

"every unit from the Formation that is locked in combat is allowed to Pile In and fight as if it were a Fight sub-phase"

-I think this statement just gives you permission to pile in and fight - not do the entire Fight sub-phase

Fight, I believe, is just referencing step 2 in the fight sub phase: "Fight Close Combat" which does not cover assault results

BUT its not like its that bad anyway - in the Morale rule it says as long as you cause 25% casualties in any phase they have to make a morale check.

If you think it should work otherwise, reread the rules and prove that the rule is giving permission to go to assault results.

I agree that just "fighting" is what was probably intended. However, RAW is all screwed up.

Yes, for now I think anyone using this formation should clarify with their opponent or TO which way to play it before the game. You don't want it to get all awkward with rules reading when it happens.

Have you read what is in the fight sub phase?

It doesn't say, part of the fight sub phase, or just the first bit of the fight sub phase, or the part of the fight sub phase that has the word fight in it, it says the "fight sub phase".

That is 4 parts, from one to four. Page 44. It couldn't be more clear. The whole fight sub phase not part of it.

Even though this sounds OP, it's not, it's highly situational, and is in no way a game changing rule.

 r_squared wrote:
Have you read what is in the fight sub phase?

It doesn't say, part of the fight sub phase, or just the first bit of the fight sub phase, or the part of the fight sub phase that has the word fight in it, it says the "fight sub phase".

That is 4 parts, from one to four. Page 44. It couldn't be more clear. The whole fight sub phase not part of it.

Even though this sounds OP, it's not, it's highly situational, and is in no way a game changing rule.

Yes but consider - it tells you to 'pile in' and 'fight' as if it were a fight sub phase. Not 'pile in', 'fight' and 'determine assault results' as if it were a fight sub phase.

If you want to nerf yourself, feel free. I'm going to use it explicitly as it states.

If we use the assumption that the "fight subphase" includes damage calculation, then could a unit be forced to perform two leadership tests in the same movement phase? One for failing combat and one for losing 25% of their forces.

 the Signless wrote:
If we use the assumption that the "fight subphase" includes damage calculation, then could a unit be forced to perform two leadership tests in the same movement phase? One for failing combat and one for losing 25% of their forces.

Yes.

One would happen during the movement phase as a result of the ork fight subphase from this special rule. The other would happen at the end of the movement phase depending on casualties suffered.

Another question regarding leadership, in the rule book it writes:

BRB wrote:To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved Wounds inflicted by each side onto their opponents. This includes all Wounds caused during the Fight sub-phase, whether from normal Attacks, the Hammer of Wrath special rule, or other factors. Do not include Wounds caused in the Charge sub-phase, such as those from Overwatch, failed dangerous terrain tests, etc.

So during after a second round of close combat against the same squad in the assault phase, do you include wounds inflicted in both Fight sub-phases when deciding who won combat, or does the wording of "the Fight sub-phase" mean that it refers to only the fighting that occurs during that assault phase?

Singular, otherwise it would have been the fight sub phases

I know there has been a longstanding issue with IC's joining formations and benefitting from their rules but I've never found a consensus on how to play it.

In this case its made more complicated by the fact that this formation has an IC.

What if the painboy from this formation joins an ork unit from a different detachment? Does that unit gain the ability or is it the painboy only that gets to attack in the movement phase?

The unit the IC joined is not a unit from the formation. The IC "loses" their unit status when they join another unit

 Nithaniel wrote:
I know there has been a longstanding issue with IC's joining formations and benefitting from their rules but I've never found a consensus on how to play it.

In this case its made more complicated by the fact that this formation has an IC.

What if the painboy from this formation joins an ork unit from a different detachment? Does that unit gain the ability or is it the painboy only that gets to attack in the movement phase?

This question has been greatly debated and resulted in locked threads after it goes in circles. Best bet is to put it up on the FAQ site and hope for an answer. Until otherwise, talk it out with your opponent.

The debate is more about 'can special rules granted to units in a formation be conferred to an IC (from a different detachment) that joins said unit?', not about 'does an IC from a formation confer the formation benefits to any unit he joins?'. In the case of Pile on da Pain, if the Painboy joins another unit he definitely doesn't give the whole unit that special rule.

xlDuke wrote:
The debate is more about 'can special rules granted to units in a formation be conferred to an IC (from a different detachment) that joins said unit?', not about 'does an IC from a formation confer the formation benefits to any unit he joins?'. In the case of Pile on da Pain, if the Painboy joins another unit he definitely doesn't give the whole unit that special rule.

Its the same argument from the other side.