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.

Now that my eldar spend more time in h2h and acutally winning combat vs losing a guardian squad I'm running into this more and more. In general whether the winner massacres or consolidates 3" I've usually left to the opponent to interpret and I was fine with either way they call it. With more h2h going on... and I can't seem to understand a clear answer from the book I'll ask here.

1. If you wipe out a unit in h2h, your unit will get a massacre move. If you wipe out a unit because you ran them down.. do you consolidate or massacre?

2. If you have hit and run, and you wipe them out do you lose your ability to hit and run?

3. My other question is this. Its my understanding that if you are engaged in a combat that lasts more than a one turn, the models who are in b2b or within 2" of a model in b2b are locked and don't move during the pile in, under 4th edition rules. And under 3rd edition you just pushed everyone closer up to 6". Is that correct?

 

 

1. The rule is that it's d6' for a massacre, 3" for anything else. Wiping out a unit in a sweeping advance (running them down) that counts as a massacre, so d6. (p. 43) If they get away from the sweeping advance, then 3".

2. In order to hit & run, you "must be involved in a combat" at the end of the assualt phase when it takes place. If you've wiped out all your opponents, you're no longer involved in a combat.

3. Yes, engaged models technically aren't supposed to move forward, even if they're not in b2b. But most people don't actually play it this way.

The assault summary and the picture showing pile in moves says otherwise.

The assault summary and the picture showing pile in moves says otherwise.

The assault summary and the picture showing pile in moves says otherwise.
(fade in baseline)

Skyth can you explain please?

Hmm, the Assault Summary at the back of the book states that the Sweepers consolidate 3" if they do not catch the enemy, and d6" if they do. This confirms the text in the Sweeping advance section of the Assault rules.

Within the Assault rules there is no picture contradicting this. There is a picture within the Consolidate section that states that a victorious unit may consolidate 3", but the caption says nothing about 'Massacre' results or sweeping advances.


A successful sweeping advance produces a Massacre result per the last sentence under "Sweeping Advances" on page 43, and a Massacre results in a d6" consolidaiton rather than a 3" consolidation as seen in "Consolidation" on page 44.

The summary at the beginning of the assault rules says to (don't have rulebook handy, so paraphrasing) move models not in base to base into base to base, and there is a diagram in the assault rules of engaged models moving into base to base as part of a pile-in maneuver.

The assault... The assault... wikki wikkikki The assault summary.
assault, assault wikki wikkikki...
and the picture showing pile in moves says oth-otherwise.

wik... wikkikkiwikki

1. "Running down a unit" (catching them with your Sweeping Advance roll) DOES count as a Massacre, thus qualifying for the d6" consolidate. This is explicitly stated right on page 43. Last sentence of the final paragraph (before the designer's note box).

2. No. As Flavius said, if you've wiped out the enemy, you're not involved in a close combat, and thus not eligible to use Hit & Run.

3. Unlike the two above, this one is not 100% clear.

The actual text of the rule in the body of the rule (page 44, first paragraph under 'PILE IN' MOVES), states that you must move in models which are not engaged already. Engaged has a clearly defined meaning, referring both to models in base contact with the enemy, and to models within 2" of a friendly member of the same unit which is in base contact. The text here is very clear that there is no need to Pile In models which are engaged but which are not in base contact.

However, as Skyth noted, the assault phase summary on page 36 states that you Pile in models which are not in base contact, without mentioning whether they are engaged or not. The diagram on page 44 also seems to imply this; it doesn't actually tell you how far apart the models are, but presumably the unit of assault marines had to have been in coherency, so it looks like the back models are Piling In despite having been Engaged. The text at the bottom of the diagram DOES say models which are not engaged move in, so the diagram is also contradicting itself!

It seems clear to me and everyone I've read over the rules with that you aren't supposed to pile in models which are already engaged. This has the benefit of speeding up the game a little, and reduces one of the annoyances of 3rd edition (which did require all models not in contact to get into contact) and was a gigantic pain in the backside when it came to moving models and removing casualties in large assaults, particularly ones involving horde units like Orks and Tyranid gaunts. Still, the diagram and the summary continue to confuse people, so it's not a bad idea to discuss this one with opponents to make sure you're both on the same page.

Posted By Mannahnin on 01/25/2007 2:35 PM

It seems clear to me and everyone I've read over the rules with that you aren't supposed to pile in models which are already engaged. This has the benefit of speeding up the game a little, and reduces one of the annoyances of 3rd edition (which did require all models not in contact to get into contact) and was a gigantic pain in the backside when it came to moving models and removing casualties in large assaults, particularly ones involving horde units like Orks and Tyranid gaunts. Still, the diagram and the summary continue to confuse people, so it's not a bad idea to discuss this one with opponents to make sure you're both on the same page.

I would just like to add that I think you're crazy on this point (and I mean that in the nicest possible way).

I've never personally met anyone who doesn't pile-in models not in base contact (whether they are engaged or otherwise).

But that's not why you're crazy. That's because you believe playing that way speeds up the game.

When playing that engaged models don't pile in, when it comes time to make the pile in moves, you have to do a new measurement to tell who has to plie in (as casualties have usually changed who is left engaged), and if you have a huge horde unit, the engaged models block other models in their unit from getting into base contact (or within engagement  range) as piliing in models follow the basic charging restrictions (they can't move through friendly models). It takes extra time to figure out if some models can squeeze through the space left by the engaged models that are not in close combat.

In essence, by having only non-engaged models pile-in, it generally makes it so less models end up engaged in close combat the next phase than if you pile-in all models not in base contact; a concept that doesn't jive with the whole meaning of the move in the first place, IMO.

Uh Oh.

Mannahnin vs. Yakface. This is going to be a battle of epically verbose proportions.

I dont know why the summary would say that you get a d6 consolidate if you sweeping advance a unit. In the description of sweeping advance in the assault section, it specifically states that wiping out models via sweeping advance does NOT count as a massacre result, thus only allowing a 3" consolidate.

edit - wow, I have no idea why I thought the word "not" was in there.  My bad.

You've got that backwards Slyde.

"Note that this does constitute a 'Massacre!' result." p43

Posted By yakface on 01/25/2007 3:00 PM

I would just like to add that I think you're crazy on this point (and I mean that in the nicest possible way).

One of us is crazy.  Or there is some other difference between our play environments which neither of us is accounting for.

Posted By yakface on 01/25/2007 3:00 PM

I've never personally met anyone who doesn't pile-in models not in base contact (whether they are engaged or otherwise).

 

I'm fortunate enough to play with some folks who read the rules carefully, and in a couple of stores where the groups have noticed that GW summaries and diagrams don't always match the main body text, and it's better to rely on the body text where they're in conflict.

Posted By yakface on 01/25/2007 3:00 PM

But that's not why you're crazy. That's because you believe playing that way speeds up the game.

When playing that engaged models don't pile in, when it comes time to make the pile in moves, you have to do a new measurement to tell who has to plie in (as casualties have usually changed who is left engaged), and if you have a huge horde unit, the engaged models block other models in their unit from getting into base contact (or within engagement  range) as piliing in models follow the basic charging restrictions (they can't move through friendly models). It takes extra time to figure out if some models can squeeze through the space left by the engaged models that are not in close combat.

But you’d still have to measure all those engaged models moving from the back anyway if you were piling them in.

 

Since you already measured who was close enough to attack at the beginning of the assault phase, I find that with horde units it’s just a quick pass with the tape measure to double check who’s engaged after casualty removal.  When you’re not moving the front models except where you need to, some of them typically stay in the same place. 

 

I really don’t see why the engaged second rankers would ever block the back models from fitting in, especially since you can just remove them as casualties before the base to base models.  This goes hand in hand with the 4th edition rule that models within 2" of the ones in base contact can throw their full attacks.  Casualty removal is also faster, because again you can take the guys who are 2" back and aren't wedged into base contact, weapons entangled, etc.

Posted By logan007 on 01/26/2007 6:37 AM
Uh Oh.

Mannahnin vs. Yakface. This is going to be a battle of epically verbose proportions.

LOL this should read VERBOSLY EPIC.

Does throwing an independent character into this mix change anything?

For example an IC charges with a squad (joining it or not joining it does that matter) and has nothing left in base contact with it, but the squad is still locked and needs to work out pile ins.

Thus can a pile in move put another unit into combat? or does an IC that joined a unit count as still being part of that unit for pile in purposes even though IC always fight by themselves?

As long as the IC is attached to the unit before combat begins, he stays part of the unit and part of the combat until the combat ends. Since he does NOT count as a member of the unit for purposes of throwing attacks, he will need to pile into base contact at the end of the phase if he isn?t already, even if all the other models in the unit he?s attached to are already Engaged.

modwars r0xor!!!

Actually, I've got one further question while we're talking about consolidations and massacres.

If a fearless unit loses a round of close combat and subsequently fails enough armour saves (for being outnumbered) that the unit is wiped out, does the other unit only consolidate?

What do you mean ?only?? The only thing the winners can ever do after finishing a combat is consolidate. It?s just a question of whether you consolidate 3? or d6?.

As to whether wiping the enemy out via the No Retreat rule counts as a Massacre and gets you the d6? consolidate, I?d be inclined to say yes. The determine results section says that if one side destroys the other, it?s a massacre. The section on sweeping advances (as previously quoted) explicitly states that destroying the enemy via sweeping advance does count as a massacre. The morale rules don?t say one way or the other, but the enemy certainly are destroyed.

Great answers, I thought Logan's last question would be akin to throwing a monkey wrench into the works but... hey it works.

The assault summary... wikkikkiwikki

and the picture showing pile... wikkikkiwikki

wikkikki wik... wikkikkiwikki

Tha assault sumry an' the picture showin pile
Denyin tha Infernal Flavus his preffered playstyle
Otha suckas taking cues from the Yaks brain file
But then there's Manny with tha bloody and handy de-nial
But while you argue you don't see me sneakin down yo aisle
Trigger Baby gots your backa an makes the Dakka worthwhile
Trigger Baby you can't catch him he's atop this dogpile
Tighest rhymin beat timin an' a kickin hairstyle
And tha brothas that be piling are the ones I made mobile
And tha suckers they be shankin are part of yo profile
Tha rules I hardly know 'em cause they're for the servile
An tha rules I don need 'em cause instead I got guile

wikki wikkikki... the picture showing pile in moves says otherwise. wikkikki...

wik.


Freestyle from the Woodpile! Reprezent!


(fade out baseline)

Posted By Triggerbaby on 01/29/2007 6:03 PM
The assault summary... wikkikkiwikki

and the picture showing pile... wikkikkiwikki

wikkikki wik... wikkikkiwikki

Tha assault sumry an' the picture showin pile
Denyin tha Infernal Flavus his preffered playstyle
Otha suckas taking cues from the Yaks brain file
But then there's Manny with tha bloody and handy de-nial
But while you argue you don't see me sneakin down yo aisle
Trigger Baby gots your backa an makes the Dakka worthwhile
Trigger Baby you can't catch him he's atop this dogpile
Tighest rhymin beat timin an' a kickin hairstyle
And tha brothas that be piling are the ones I made mobile
And tha suckers they be shankin are part of yo profile
Tha rules I hardly know 'em cause they're for the servile
An tha rules I don need 'em cause instead I got guile

wikki wikkikki... the picture showing pile in moves says otherwise. wikkikki...

wik.


Freestyle from the Woodpile! Reprezent!


(fade out baseline)

And why are ya gonna post if ya ain't gonna say something worthwhile?

Posted By Lordhat on 01/29/2007 7:10 PM

And why are ya gonna post if ya ain't gonna say something worthwhile?

Except that was something oh so very worthwhile (and funny). While it neither added fuel to the fire nor extinguish the argument, it did lighten the mood, and that, sir, is most definitely worthwhile. Especially when it's Yak and Manny locked in kung fu grip action. 8)

Killjoy.

That's Killroy Killjoy, to you mister. :p

Funny stuff. Yak doesn't seem to have had time to respond, though, so I'm not sure if we're going to get any Kung-Fu action.

Needs more cowbell.

Posted By Triggerbaby on 01/29/2007 6:03 PM
The assault summary... wikkikkiwikki

and the picture showing pile... wikkikkiwikki

wikkikki wik... wikkikkiwikki

Tha assault sumry an' the picture showin pile
Denyin tha Infernal Flavus his preffered playstyle
Otha suckas taking cues from the Yaks brain file
But then there's Manny with tha bloody and handy de-nial
But while you argue you don't see me sneakin down yo aisle
Trigger Baby gots your backa an makes the Dakka worthwhile
Trigger Baby you can't catch him he's atop this dogpile
Tighest rhymin beat timin an' a kickin hairstyle
And tha brothas that be piling are the ones I made mobile
And tha suckers they be shankin are part of yo profile
Tha rules I hardly know 'em cause they're for the servile
An tha rules I don need 'em cause instead I got guile

wikki wikkikki... the picture showing pile in moves says otherwise. wikkikki...

wik.


Freestyle from the Woodpile! Reprezent!


(fade out baseline)

Triggerbaby posts cuz he's AWESOME!

But while Triggs is shankin' f'oo's left and right, whats Flava Flavius gonna be doin to get payback for denyin' his playstyle?

Notorious T.R.I.G. 4 LIFE!