Thoughts on Assault Allocations

[Ming]

An interesting discussion came up, that offers a bit of finesse to the combined assault rules, RAW or RAI?

I've been playing 40K for a while, and until about a month ago, regardless of being the attacker or defender, as long as you declared your dice allocations in the assault phase before you rolled them, I did not care where you allocated them, except for the caviats of the IC rules for allocation.

About 2-3 months ago, in the Badab campaign, the renegades (all a great group of players) identified that they thought we non-renegades had been allocating assault dice in error. They then to back up their claims, showed us the BRB page 41 bullets and the added third bullet from the FAQ. In a nutshell they wanted us to play in the following manner:

1. If a unit is assaulted in turn A by one unit of side X, pretty much everything is as normal. You fight it out, and say for argument sake, both sides X and Y have survivors that remain locked in combat...you fight again on Y's player turn. yadayada. Bullet 1 on Page 41.

[as normal, the defender consolidates the 6 inches into the combat before declarations and dice are rolled]

2. Then it is turn B. Side X charges in a second unit. Side Y is now attacked by 2 units! The renegade's interpretation of the rules as written is that side Y has to allocate all their attacks vs the first unit for this assault phase (X's turn), but any survivors can allocate their attacks on Y's turn to either attacking unit. This is worded in Bullet 2 on P41.

[note here that any unengaged enemy models can move up to 6 inches to consolidate with the new assaulting unit before declarations and dice rolls are made]

3. Lastly, if the attacker is actually assaulting 2 units, the attacker's units BTB with each enemy unit has to apply it's attacks to the unit it is BTB with. Non-BTB units can allocate to either defending unit, distance requirements (the 2-inch rule) applies. Declaration of attacks occur before dice are rolled. This is bullet 3 from the FAQ.

Overall, at the insistence of the players, we adopted these "clarifications" and played happily, and it actually created tactical finessing for assaults (hit a strong unit with a weaker unit, and while it is busy, hit them with a more powerful unit, to get a benefit for just one assault phase). It actually seemed to make the details of all these assault bullets and pages of text make sense.

We then used this when it came up in a monthly tournament.

I created a situaltion that one guy did not like - the microbattle within the battle went like this:

T1 my phase: I pod in a 10-man sternguard squad, libby, and kantor. I shoot up a bike captain and his command squad on bikes. Kill the retinue.

T1 his phase: His bike captain, nearby venerable dread, and dismounted tac squad shoot up my 12 guys, I lose like 7 sternguard. Ouch!

T2 my phase: normal assault squad deep strikes next to the pod (beacon). The asault squad shot up his tac squad. The libby, sternguard, kantor pistol the captain and then do a combined assault on he captain and the adjacent venerable. A bad choice, but we hoped for the best. The I5 T5 arty (2+/4+) bike captain applies his attacks to the libby and kills him. The dread fails to wound Kantor. We remain locked in combat.

T2 his turn: his tac squad stands there and shoots my assault squad. I take a bunch of casualties. Then we continue the assault. His dread misses Kantor, the captain kills all but 2 of the remaining sternguard.

T3 my turn: A terminator squad beacons in and shoots up the neaby tac squad. The assault squad piles in to aid the assault on the captain. This is where we get tricky - the other player wants to apply all the captains hits on the new assaulters, and I tell him he cannot for this phase, he has to continue on the remaining sternguard. Everyone else says has has to. We fight it out. At I5 the captain kills the last sternguard. At I4, Kantor is smushed by the venerable and then my assault squad kills his captain. We consolidate (I'm stubborn), the venerable is now BTB withe remnants of my assault squad (still very bad for me). The opposing player is pissed over losing the captain. Heck, I'm not happy either, the venerable is impossible to defeat, the captain had a S6 sword, and I've lost 3 KPs to 2 (plus both my HQs) and in T3 his turn I lose the assault squad. Not the best example, but, it illustrates what we are doing (besides trying to kill a venerable with a I1 powerfist...). In the end, I lost the actual game (the primary objective was table quarters, and I lost 1-0...). If I had killed the venerable T5 with my assault termies then I'd have had a draw 1-1 or maybe a win 2-1).

Thoughts? Does the actual details of the rules as written imply the allocation be finessed? Or is it just a free-for-all? If his captain had survived to T3 his turn and he was in BTB with 2 units (say both Kantr and the assault squad), he would allocated the captain's hits to either unit. Got it? RAW seems to be that he just could not do it on my turn, as he would be too busy with the ongoing attackers to turn around and decide to hit the new ones. On his phase/player turn, those restrictions would not apply....WWJD [what would Jervis do?]....

Lengthy....

[Old_Paladin]

This has come up before on this board.

But, to answer your question; Nope, you were wrong and he was right. His Captain was allowed to direct his attacks to whomever he wanted.

The reason: the rule book says you can only place attacks against units whom you are locked in combat with at the start of the combat.
The important phrase is "start of combat."
It does not say at the start of the assault phase (which it sounds like everyone else thought). The rulebook even defines 'start of combat,' being "before any attacks are made."

That means that until dice are rolled for melee, you can select any unit (within the normal restrictions of base contact, range, etc.) that are part of the potential target group(s).

[Ming]

Ah, but that is the rub.

I guess the guys who brought this up were thinking - If "at the start of combat" means at the start of dice rolling, and not at the start of the assault phase of that player turn, why would you need to have any of these bullets concerning it? There would never be the means for the units to change position after the dice rolls start until all dice are rolled. The other issue itself becomes bullet #3, which locks the attacker to allocating his hits specific to units he is BTB with, but would also "unlock" that requirement in the opponents turn/assault phase. Further complicating it is the text on page 33, resolve combats, which talks about resolving combats after "move assault units" and "defenders react".

Ultimately, if you don't think of anything other than which unit you are actually engaged with after the moves are made (for either side, any phase), then all goes back the what I'd been doing before all this started. Regardless, in the game I played in the tournament, the outcome would have been the same. The Captain would have died, from one unit or the other. On the other hand, I might have ended the game with a better outcome for me...but still have been stuck punching the venerable till I ran out of dice...

[BuFFo]

This is where we get tricky - the other player wants to apply all the captains hits on the new assaulters, and I tell him he cannot for this phase, he has to continue on the remaining sternguard.

As Old Paladin said, you played it wrong.

The game has three phases, movement, shooting and assault.

'At the start of combat' has nothing to do with 'At the start of the Assault Phase'. If it were, it would have been worded that way.

How can you decide who is attacking who at the start of a phase when combat has not even begun for that round for all units? I have never, ever seen anyone allocate attackers and defenders BEFORE the player whos turn its moves his Charging units!

The assault phase begins. All Chargers are made. Then all Defenders react if need be. Then combat starts and you allocate who can attack who for the entire round.

[DarkLink]

I'm with Buffo and Old Paladin on this.

I had thought, because my gaming group had pointed it out, that you were correct. But now that I actually read the rule, it doesn't have anything to do with the "beginning of the assault phase", only the "beginning of combat", as Buffo said.

[ForsakenImp]

Several rules, such as the Nightbringer's Etheral Tempest, happen at the beginning of the Assault phase. Such wording as "Beginning of Combat" clarifies that this rule does indeed apply after such rules.

Also, it keeps models that are removed/killed before the unit strikes from being unable to be hit by the unit in question.

Also, and I think we are overlooking this, it may just be another example of poor GW quality checking. Many of their rules could use a fairly simple re-write to be very clear and unambigous. Sometimes it seems as if a rule simply missed being changed when they edited another. This could very well be another of GW's standard misleading/useless rules.

[Ming]

Thanks for the discussion thus far. I was being pilloried for it by the guy who lost his captain as if I had made it all up. Crazy.

I posted the Adepticon INAT addendum to our store's site for consideration as a clarifyier for questions like this...looks like it may be accepted there as a standard.

[DarkLink]

Also, it keeps models that are removed/killed before the unit strikes from being unable to be hit by the unit in question.
.

Strategic casualty removal doesn't work anymore. Every unit still gets its full attacks, unless their only viable targets have been killed (as in, if they could only allocate attacks to an IC, and the IC gets killed, there isn't anything for them to hit anymore). Pulling model to get out of base to base won't prevent a unit from hitting you anymore.

[Culven]

As others have pointed out, those argueing that the unit charging into an on-going combat cannot be attacked are incorrect. I understand their point that the bulletpoint seems pointless, but I had someon in another thread point out that those bulletpoints are needed to address attack allocation in a multiple combat since it isn't mentioned elsewhere in the multiple combat rules. It only seems redundant because most players have already read the normal combat rules, and it seems like they would just apply as normal.

[Xas]

if you are puzzled about such low redundancy you shouldn not read the newer (IG/wolf) dexes...

there are many sentenzes like "... one (1) modell may buy XY for +Z Points..."

like "one" and "(1)" are not redundant :)

gw likes to over-clarify with the new takes. this imho is a good way to help clear rules.

[theHman]

Forgive me for playing devil's advocate here, but even after re-reading the CC rules over twice, I still think Ming played it right.

The errata bullet from GW states that:

"Models that at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) were engaged with more than one enemy unit, but were in base contact with just one of the enemy units, must attack that unit." - bold emphasis mine.

This reads to me that if your unit was already engaged in CC, and then gets charged by a new enemy unit, regardless of the fact they are now in base to base contact, they must attack the original unit from the turn before.

If you then grab your rulebook and turn to page 41, both of the bullets under the heading "Attacking" seem to validate this.

Bullet #1 says: "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. - bold emphasis mine.

Bullet #2 says: "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 between those units. Declare how they are splitting their attacks immediately before rolling to hit." - bold emphasis mine.

I'm open to discussion on this, but again, I'm pretty sure Ming played it right.

[Culven]

You seem to be making the same assumption that many make. You are equating "at the start of combat (before any blows are struck)" with the beginning of the Assault Phase. This is not when the rule checks to determine which unit(s) the model may attack. This is checked after Assaulting units are moved and before any attacks are made. At this point in time, all units which will be involved in combat that turn are Locked and all models will be Engaged with zero, one, or more units. Then one checks to see which units each model may attack.

[BuFFo]

Forgive me for playing devil's advocate here, but even after re-reading the CC rules over twice, I still think Ming played it right.

The errata bullet from GW states that:

"Models that at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) were engaged with more than one enemy unit, but were in base contact with just one of the enemy units, must attack that unit."

Beginning of combat is not the same as beginning of the assault phase. Beginning of combat is after all defenders react, but before dice is rolled.

[theHman]

hmmm, well then why on earth did GW even bother with writing these bullets or even the section on multiple combats?
It makes no sense.

[BuFFo]

hmmm, well then why on earth did GW even bother with writing these bullets or even the section on multiple combats?
It makes no sense.

In 4th, the game checked who could attack who at each Initiative Step.

In 5th, you check who can attack who only once, and it never changes for any reason for that entire round.

Thats the change, and there's nothing more to it than that. As with most changes, this was done to speed combat up a bit. Specifically, since GW wanted close combat to be quicker, deadlier and with faster results, models can no longer be left out of combat half way through the fight... Now all, if not most most models in close combat, get to attack, making combat much deadlier.

[Extinction Angel]

It needs to be re-stated for solidarity and gives you the strict order of how to allocate your attacks. They simply need to be a little more distinct than "At the beginning of combat." Some people might get that right away but I think the majority of folks confuse that and I don't blame them, it's not worded very well at all.

If they added, "After attackers have been moved and defenders have reacted" that would get rid of any confusion I believe.

[Jwolf]

It is still possible to leave a model with nothing to attack.

Example: If you get a 2 model squad in BTB with TARGET containing something super-killy(SK) and a powerfist(PF), and the rest of the TARGET (but neither the SK or PF) the SK can kill off the two models and the PF will not be able to attack, as it must attack the squad it was in BtB with.

And yes, I've done this.

[BuFFo]

Yeah, well, if a unit that a certain attacking model is slated to attack has been killed by the time his Initiative comes around, then yes, he swings at mid air. I see this quite often with Initiative 1 models.

Under 4th edition rules, that power fist model at Initiative 1 would be able to target anything legal when his turn comes, but under 5th ed rules, hes just hugging air :)

[phoenyxx]

Actually those bullet points are necessary, but they do not prevent the targeting of a unit that has charged into an already ongoing combat.

Bullet #1 says: "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.

So if you have 10 models in one squad, 10 models in 2 attacking squads (5 in each), and each indiviual model is in base-to-base with one (and only one) model from only one of the two 5-man squads, then each model must attack the model that it is in base contact with. Thus, you must attack the unit you are in base-to-base contact with.

Bullet #2 says: "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 between those units. Declare how they are splitting their attacks immediately before rolling to hit."

Again, 10 models in 1 squad attacking 10 models in 2 squads (5 in each). Except this time all of your guys are in base-to-base contact with two models (one from both 5-man squads) or are within 2" of a model that is. I.e. every model in the 10-man squad can validly choose to attack a model in either one or the other opposing squads.

"Models that at the beginning of the combat (before any model attacked) were engaged with more than one enemy unit, but were in base contact with just one of the enemy units, must attack that unit."

Same drill - one 10-man squad engaged with two 5-man squads. Except this time you have some models that are in base-to-base with only one of the two squads, some models are in base-to-base with both, some models are within 2" of a model that is only basing one of the enemy units, and some models are within 2" of models that base both enemy units. This is the situation that the bullet point just above this paragraph is trying to clarify.

The models in this combat that are in base-to-base with a model from only one of the attacking squads may only attack models from the squad it is in base-to-base contact with. Why does this matter? 9 khorne beserkers and a champion with PF against two 5-man tactical squads. Four of the Zerks base one of the 5-man squads, three+champion base the other 5-man squad, and two are within 2" of either squad. Before any dice are rolled (i.e. at the start of combat) we determine who may attack whom and allocate those attacks. The 4 zerks attack the squad they are basing, the 3+champ attack their squad, but the 2 extras are allocated to the squad the champ is attacking. The 9 Zerks attack on their initiative and kill everything in the 5-man tactical squad that the PF Champ was in base-to-base contact with, while two guys survive in the other 5-man tactical squad.

The PF Champion may not attack either of the 2 surviving models in the other squad because it was not legally permitted to do so at the start of the combat. The PF Champ had to attack the unit it was in base-to-base with and could not alllocate any attacks to the other squad. That's all this rule means.

The PF Champ was considered engaged with 2 enemy units, because it was part of the squad that was engaged with 2 different enemy squads. However, the PF Champ was only in base-to-base contact with one of the two opposing units so it could only allocate its attacks to that one unit. If that unit is dead when its turn to attack comes around, then it may not attack at all. Even though it is now very likely within 2" of a unit that is in base-to-base contact with the other unit, it still may not attack that other unit because it was forced to attack the unit it was in base-to-base contact with at the start of combat (before any dice were rolled).