Assault Madness

[Grenadier]

Let it be known I despise the assault phase with a passion that rivals an Inquisitor's hatred of heretics. It's always confusing, always leads to disputes, and always is a pain the posterior.

Nonetheless this unpleasant phase occurs in every battle.

And on occasion something exceptionally confusing occurs.

Example:

My squad of Black Templars engage in an assault against an enemy squad. Doesn't matter which side initiates said assault.

The assault ends with units still locked in assault.

If the assault continues into my opponent's turn he sometimes brings in another squad to lend his squad a hand.

But always after fighting the previous assault. So, my squad is battling the original squad. Then an addition turn of it is fought. My guys do their attacks.

Then boom: here comes the new guys and they make their hits on my guys. And because my guys already did their attacks against their previous opponents they're not allowed to strike the guys who just opportunistically jumped in. So it's essentially a free round of hits on my men who don't get to fight back.

Is this right?!?

Are you actually allowed to linger by with a squad not in the combat and then, after your opponent makes his attacks jump into it, gaining the charge bonus, and wail on the enemy and he not be able to strike back against the reinforcements because his attacks were spent on the guys he's already fighting?

Or is it consider an new assault despite it being reinforcements coming into an existing one? Can my guys then fight back against the new comers? Or do they simply suffer a round of hits they cannot answer? And if so does this mean their original target gains a new set of attacks?

See why this hand to hand nonsense maddens me? It seems some players can exploit an opportunity in an unfair way.

How do you handle these scenarios? If I had my way you wouldn't be allowed to bring a new squad in to an existing fight and gain free attacks without your opponent being able to strike back. If your intent is to reinforce a squad engaged in an existing attack the new squad should have to move into that close combat before anyone makes any fights. Not fight it first with the one and then jump in with the other.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

I'm pretty sure that all assault moves need to be declared before moving on to calculating the hits, and so your opponent couldn't send additional squads into the combat which had already been resolved that player turn. I don't have my rulebook with me, so I can't give you the exact page number.

[scrap square]

I'm pretty sure that all assault moves need to be declared before moving on to calculating the hits, and so your opponent couldn't send additional squads into the combat which had already been resolved that player turn. I don't have my rulebook with me, so I can't give you the exact page number.

True, you then choose where your attacks go

[Commander Vimes]

Whoever is doing that is playing it entirely wrong. At the start of the assault phase all units that are going to assault are moved into assault. Only after all units have been moved into combat does anyone attack. Whoever's turn it is picks the order that the close combats are resolved.

So if you have two units that are locked in combat, and another unit charges in what should happen is this:

Assaulting player moves in trying to base as many of his models with yours as he can with his movement.

Models attack in initiative order. Models in the the assaulted unit can choose to attack any enemy unit they are in base to base with. If they aren't in base to base, then they can pick any unit that another model from their unit within 2" is in base to base with.

All units from the losing side check morale.

So when you are fighting two units at once, you can split your attacks between them.

[wkz]

My expression when reading the above:
...
...
...
o.0
=,=; Ohhhhhh boy...

And no, the sequence you said is very, very, VERY wrong.


The big mistake here is this: The steps provided in the very start of the assault phase chapter (1. declare charges, 2. move charging units, 3. pile-in, 4. to-hit/to-wound, etc... ...) refers to the ALL the units on the ENTIRE 6 by 4 table, and is resolved for ALL the units involved before moving on to the next step.

By the time you start rolling dice for a unit's attacks, it means all the units should have resolved their earlier steps, which means all the units who should have charged, would have charged.

When you reached the resolution of an assault (all close combat attacks struck), there is absolutely no way another unit can pop out of nowhere, say "SURPRISE BUTTSE*!!" and proceed to attack you.

This is not a matter of your guys having no more CC attacks against him, but rather the fact that if he did not charge earlier there is NO WAY he should be in close combat now, and NO WAY he can start a close combat charge now.

Otherwise, you might as well declare your vehicle's side Heavy Bolters shooting the passengers of a destroyed Rhino after destroying said Rhino using the same vehicle's Lascannon turret. 'tis the same timing thing.

...
Just in case you don't know: Resolve all weapons' damage first, THEN perform the damage... by the time the passengers spill out of the wrecked Rhino (or: preforming the damage), the heavy bolters would have finished firing, and cannot fire again.



Again, to re-clarify what Commander Vimes had said so as to make it clearer:

a. Declare charges. Declare it for EVERY unit who is about to charge. Then move charges. Move squad A in fully, THEN move squad B in fully, etc... Repeat until all the charges of all the declared units on the table have moved into base to base.

After step a. ... if a unit wants to charge, say "Tough luck. Wait for your next assault phase".

b. Now move pile-in for all units who are now newly engaged in close combat (read: not previously engaged in Close Combat).

c. Now Roll your to-hit, to-wound, etc... This is for ALL units: those engaged from the previous player turn? They strike now. Those newly engaged? They strike now.

And those units previously engaged, but having a new unit charge them? All 3 or more units engaged in the mass melee strikes now. And at this point your Black Templars can choose to smack the ever loving s*** out of the new guys who are foolish enough to enter close combat against them.

[sangrail777]

WOW, Grenadier your really getting screwed.
Short answer is to do yourself a favour and take "Commander vines" and "wkz" advice on the matter.
Long answer: Reread pages 33-42 in rule book
pay alot of attention to pages 33 and 34 to resolve your problem "might I also suggest haveing your opponent do the same" (he doesn't appear to know what he is doing)

[Tynskel]

Yeah.

I highly recommend:
READING THE RULES

[AngelsofDeath]

Swirling Melee, Tactics, Templars. These three things come to mind after reading this post. Like the others said, all assault attacks happen at the same time, it is called a "swirling melee". The only attacks that go first are due to initiative value of the model or cover from terrain or grenades.

Tactics comes into play big time cause over whelming a player in assualt is key at times. If one of your units is wrapped up in hand to hand it benefits you to get another unit over there if you can to add in some more attacks and end it. Even allowing one unit to get assaulted (bait unit) and then having another sweep in and wipe out that unit is a tactic to use. Just food for thought.....

Last but not least is Templars, I have seen some pretty decent army lists come out of the Templars book. I know that codex is old, but he mix of weapons and rules allows you to field a pretty decent hand to hand army. I guess it comes down to who you are playing and what rules your opponent may be exploiting.

I would do more then just read....I would study, it might surprise you and make your 40K experience a bit more enjoyable.

[Caldera02]

So your playing templars......and you don't like assault......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.


OK on a serious note....what the guys stated above. Declare all your charges, move into contact, look to see who can swing at who...go through initiative steps, resolve combat. That easy.

[Grenadier]

Thanks for the clarification people!

Sadly, I don't have the rule book. I rely on my friend's rulebook. Problem is consistency. Neither of us can remember every single thing. And I trust in him not to be intentionally cheating. And so often in a battle things are being reread. I've noticed though on occasion we'll do one thing this way then in another game do it another way. I think we might have some interpretation issue. But be assured this nonsense won't happen anymore.

Now, another question:

It doesn't happen often but on occasion I'll be in a three way battle with my friend and his buddy.

The rules state you cannot shoot into hand to hand combat. But I've always interpreted this to mean "if you're men are in said combat." Nowhere does it say anything a player in a 3 or more battle can't shoot into a combat he's not involved in.

Your thoughts?

When I see them engaged in assault I see a nice juicy target to whammy. Is it allowed?

[Tynskel]

Well a three way battle is definitely a nonstandard game type. You should ask your friends if this is okay

[Commander Vimes]

40k is not designed for 3 sides, so the rules kinda break down, especially close combat (effectively 3 rounds of close combat for every 1 round of shooting each player gets).

Easiest way to handle it is the randomize the hits on between the enemies fighting. So 4+ one side, otherwise the other. Just understand that playing with three players leads to a lot of screwy situations that the rules can't cover.

[BrokenWing]

Just find out who has more points total (if anyone does) and have them form their own "team" while the other two fight against them as a team. Uneven games like 3 ways are just disasters.

[AngelsofDeath]

Thanks for the clarification people!

Sadly, I don't have the rule book. I rely on my friend's rulebook. Problem is consistency. Neither of us can remember every single thing. And I trust in him not to be intentionally cheating. And so often in a battle things are being reread. I've noticed though on occasion we'll do one thing this way then in another game do it another way. I think we might have some interpretation issue. But be assured this nonsense won't happen anymore.

Now, another question:

It doesn't happen often but on occasion I'll be in a three way battle with my friend and his buddy.

The rules state you cannot shoot into hand to hand combat. But I've always interpreted this to mean "if you're men are in said combat." Nowhere does it say anything a player in a 3 or more battle can't shoot into a combat he's not involved in.

Your thoughts?

When I see them engaged in assault I see a nice juicy target to whammy. Is it allowed?

Please please please please.....go buy the rule book. I almost bet ya if you ask someone real nice they might have an extra copy the small Black Reach rule book they might send ya. If I had one I would send it to you myself. You have to have a copy of the rule book to play, I dont know what else to tell ya.

But "NO" you cant shoot into hand to hand combat. I dont care if its a three way or a anyway. No shooting, there are times when a template may scatter onto a combat in progress, but no you can not shoot into it even if you are trying to kill both of the players in that combat.

[thecactusman17]

"NO" you cant shoot into hand to hand combat. I dont care if its a three way or a anyway. No shooting, there are times when a template may scatter onto a combat in progress, but no you can not shoot into it even if you are trying to kill both of the players in that combat.


Actually, you CAN fire into a combat, IF both sides in that combat are enemy forces (or in the case of Karazmazov, if you have a special rule). If you do so, you randomize your successful hits between the two sides of the combat and then roll to wound for each. This particular rule was created with apocalypse-style scenarios in mind.

[Archon Charybdis]

Actually I'm pretty sure the full BRB does have a section on 3 way battles called "Broken Alliance" or "Broken Truce" or something like that, and if I recall correctly it's ruling on shooting into combat was exactly what Commander Vimes suggested to do.

[AngelsofDeath]

Actually, you CAN fire into a combat, IF both sides in that combat are enemy forces (or in the case of Karazmazov, if you have a special rule). If you do so, you randomize your successful hits between the two sides of the combat and then roll to wound for each. This particular rule was created with apocalypse-style scenarios in mind.

Ok just trying to get this player a solid basis with the basic rules, and a much needed rule book. Not talkin about Apocalypse (cause we all know how much that is played.... pfff), and was not aware of any Special Characters that allowed you to fire into any assault.

[thecactusman17]

Ok just trying to get this player a solid basis with the basic rules, and a much needed rule book. Not talkin about Apocalypse (cause we all know how much that is played.... pfff), and was not aware of any Special Characters that allowed you to fire into any assault.

Karazmazov has a special rule allowing him to target a friendly model with his orbital strike, even if that model is in combat. Also, the original Vindicaire which is in the Witch Hunters codex has no firing restrictions at all which means that he can choose to shoot at any model on the board for any reason so long as he is alive, including himself!

Given that the OP is playing 3-way battles, the advice offered is pretty important.

Also, i agree that he should try and get hold of a rulebook. Not only are the large rulebooks quite fun to read, but there are a lot of strange turns of phrase and such that aren't immediately clear to everyone, and sometimes actions are possible where a quick glance at a friend's book might suggest they are not.

[Grenadier]

How long away is the 6th edition rulebook? What with my opponent and thus his rulebook moving I will not get play very often. As it is we only squeak in about 10 battles a year. So I'll either get the current or just wait for the 6th.

In total me and the other two had 7 three way battles. And I didn't care for them too much. Because at any given moment it's easily a two on one match. Sometimes I've let them team up against me as allie. Just to make it less complicated.

So how do you guys regard assault? Do you prefer to get into hand to hand as quickly as possible? Or view it as a last resort?

Myself: it's my last resort. I just hate the assault phase. My method is basically to shoot the crap out of everything. Then he'll have less to assault me with. Or I'll just have a few stragglers to mop up. Assault is not so bad when I use my Templars. A Terminator assault squad is a thing of beauty.

[Tynskel]

If you play orks or space marines or want to start either one or both- get the assault on black reach. It comes with a rulebook and a ton of models.

[Wildeybeast]

6th edition rulebook is rumoured to be coming summer 2012, though I'm personally taking that with an unheathily large pinch of salt.

[Grenadier]

I shall just wait for it. With my luck if I buy 5th now by the time I get used to it and somehow squeak in a few battles BAM! There'll come 6th and I'll have to learn all over again.

[david5th]

While what he did was wrong, my interpretation of mulitple combats is that you can only attack units you were engaged with in the previous assualt phase if charged by another unit. You can then fight them in the next assualt phase - pg 41 MRB.

I may be wrong but thats what i see.

[Shotgun Justice]

Grenadier - buy the mini rule book, there's hundreds of them on ebay. Sit down with it, put some tunes on and play out a few combats by yourself - follow the steps exactly as they are presented in the rulebook. Do a simple one unit v one unit first. Throw a few different initiative values into the mix, try that out. Then try a 3 unit combat. Will take you less than half an hour. Do this a couple of times - only through playing the rules out will you remember them. Then teach your friend the rules.
Also Templars love close combat - once you realise the destructive potential of it you will see why. Also remember that if you are in combat then you cant get shot and whatever you've assaulted cant shoot you either (apart from vehicles obviously)

David5th - you've got that bit wrong. Once assaulting units are moved and units are locked then engaged models may attack any unit that they are locked with and who are within range (base to base or within 2" for example). It is a logical follow on from being able to attack a unit that has assaulted you that player turn - this does not change for multiple combats.

[wkz]

While what he did was wrong, my interpretation of mulitple combats is that you can only attack units you were engaged with in the previous assualt phase if charged by another unit. You can then fight them in the next assualt phase - pg 41 MRB.

I may be wrong but thats what i see.

A breakdown of page 41, in this post:
_________________

First paragraph - fluff text saying "these are the rules for Multiple combat!"

"Defenders react" - clarifies the Pile-in move for reacting to a close combat charge to "you can pile-in against any unit who are assaulting you.

"Attacking" - tells us straight out "When it is time for a model to attack"

It then lists 2 bullet points:
"Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit" <---me thinks this is the cause of confusion. Will explain below

and

"Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) may split their attacks freely... Declare... before rolling to hit"

Lastly,
"Assault Results" - describes what happens after a combat. This is not in the scope of this thread.
_________________


Here's the interesting point: "Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit", and "Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) ..." with the key words being highlighted in Bold...

...does it mean at the beginning of the assault phase? Does a unit need to be determined to be engaged before any charges are declared, thus by the time a 2nd unit is moving into close combat it is already ineligible as a close combat target?

... or does it simply mean the start of "people smacking other people with sharp/blunt/insane/improvised close combat implements?", aka after the charge, but before the actual close combat is performed?



And here's where I disagree with david5th: "at the beginning of the combat" should mean "after all the charging have been done, BUT before close combat attacks have been determined". This is because there is already another term used for what david5th said and it is "Start of the Assault Phase".

So basically, after the charge, models are now in base-to-base with each other and it is THEN that "who can smack who" is determined. Thus, the new unit entering combat is an eligible target.



Explanation of how david5th is wrong:

This ties in with the same wording as one other major core close combat rule:
_________________

Who Can Fight, pg 35, 2nd paragraph: "Units that have one or more model in base contact... said to be "locked in combat" Within such units, the following models are said to be 'engaged' and must fight:
- Models in base contact with any enemy models
- Models within 2" of at least one model in their unit... base contact with any enemy models.

Who Can Fight, pg 35, bottom paragraph: "Working out which models are engaged in combat is done at the start of the fight, and will not change until its end... "
_________________

And how it ties in:
* The condition of Engaged: note the use of the word "ANY" (bolded above). As long as Model A is in base to base contact with ANY model (no matter if they charged or not, multi-unit combat or not) in this Assault Phase, the model is engaged.

I don't need to care when you charge. As long as I am in base to base with you, I can attack something... and from "Multiple Attack"-"Attacking" I can attack the unit I am engaged with. Which bring us to whether or not my model is engaged in the first place...

* How Engaged is worked out: Note that you work out who is Engaged at the "start of the fight". See how similar in wording this is from the disputed "start of combat"? Up to and including a single word which is not described in any way in the rulebook and whose context is determined by the word's own meaning? ("fight"/"combat")

The wording is clear: WHEN we determine if a model can smack a 2nd, "just entered combat" unit is exactly the same time you determine if a model can smack the first unit they're already stuck in close combat with.


Lastly (and I should have started with this rather than the wall of text above, but i digress...) , note the very first page of the Assault phase chapter, inside the big box of sequences... It goes something like: "Pick a combat and resolve it. Move onto the next... until you run out of close combats".

"at the beginning of the combat" in Multiple combats refers to this, more than anything else. The moment you pick a combat to resolve (and note that this is after the "assaulting" "charging" "moving into base to base" step), you start the close combat sequence of all those units. And when you start that, you start determining who is actually engaged and can be smacked around.

At which point you can declare the luckless "late to the party" charging unit as an eligible choice for some of your models... and who is about to get their *** handed to them by the Black Templars a few initiative steps later, late to the party or not. :D

[Nabterayl]

Here's the interesting point: "Models that were engaged with just one of the enemy units at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) must attack that unit", and "Models that were engaged with more than one enemy unit at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) ..." with the key words being highlighted in Bold...

...does it mean at the beginning of the assault phase? Does a unit need to be determined to be engaged before any charges are declared, thus by the time a 2nd unit is moving into close combat it is already ineligible as a close combat target?

... or does it simply mean the start of "people smacking other people with sharp/blunt/insane/improvised close combat implements?", aka after the charge, but before the actual close combat is performed?

And here's where I disagree with david5th: "at the beginning of the combat" should mean "after all the charging have been done, BUT before close combat attacks have been determined". This is because there is already another term used for what david5th said and it is "Start of the Assault Phase".
I quite agree. "at the beginning of the combat" means after all assault moves have been made but before any blows have been struck. "Combat" is never used to describe the assault phase generally, but to describe what happens between units locked in combat with each other. And that can't start at the beginning of the assault phase, or otherwise a unit that charged another would never be engaged with the target of its charge at the start of "combat."

[Xenith]

My expression when reading the above:
...
...
...
o.0
=,=; Ohhhhhh boy...

Very True.

Once even a single attack dice has been rolled, no more models may move in the assault phase.

What your friend is doing is like shooting, with a unit, then moving them back 6", as he didnt move them in the move phase.

It goes: Move all models that wish to assault, Pick a combat, make attacks, resolve combat, pick next combat.

[Grenadier]

So basically in assault he can attack one of my units with one of his. And we figure out the results of it. But then he cannot bring another squad to the same combat. That if he intends to use two squads on one they both are brought in on the first round?

[Warp]

Listen, get the rulebook. Really, GET. THE. RULEBOOK.

The rulebook (in particularly the little Black Reach one which you can find on e-Bay) is not expensive, and I'll be blunt and say that if the cost of the book is a problem, then you're going to run into a lot more problems in the future.

Your friend is not necessarily trying to cheat you. The way he describes the rules to you may just be his interpretation of the rules. Not all the rules are written clearly and even the ones that are written that way can be misunderstood or misinterpreted by the best of us, it's basic human psychology. Having two sets of eyes on the rules is always a good idea. Now, the sequence you're describing is clearly laid out in the rules, so do yourself the favor, get the rulebook and then you can get down to arguing about the really controversial issues :)

edit: Just to add, one of the reasons why I said this so plainly is that we simply cannot recite all the rules on this forum. It's against GW policy, they hate the thought of someone essentially learning the game by piecing together rules quoted from the book from various forums, like mkz's text.