PDA

View Full Version : Combat Decisions



EvC
17-02-2006, 13:34
When in combat, should you declare what exactly your troops are doing before dice rolls, or can you adopt a wait and see attitude?

For example, one of my units charges the enemy. I decide, "My champion will attack your champion". Then I fail to kill his champion, so I then use the two other troopers in base-to-base to try and kill him. OR should I say at the start, my champion will attack your champion, and the rest of my troops will all attack your troops", and then not change my mind depending on the results?

And carrying on in the example, I win combat and the enemy breaks. I'm not sure if I want to persue or not... must I make up my mind before he rolls the dice to see how far he flees? Or can I wait and see what he rolls?

Avian
17-02-2006, 13:54
Attacks are made in strict order of initiative, you can't let some In 4 models strike before others, no more than you can let an In 4 model strike after an In 3 model.
Thus if you want to allocate your attacks, you must do so at the start of each initiative step (or at the start of combat, if you prefer that).

And you really do have to decide whether to pursue or not before he rolls, this is quite plainly stated in the Restraining Pursuit section.

SuperBeast
17-02-2006, 13:55
Your example is actually redundant - in the BRB, under the Champion/Standard Bearer/Musician rules, it states that excess wounds suffered by a champion are passed on to the rank and file (not exact wording, but same message).
So you just allocate as many attacks as you can against the champion.
If you cause enough wounds to kill a model, the champion dies first, then any further wounds kill a normal guy.

As for general decisions, I don't recall any specific rule, but certainly in my group we declare.. no, silly me, found it;
Characters - Close Combat, BRB page 98
"Where a player has a choice choice of attacking characters or ordinary troops, he must nominate which model he is striking against before rolling to hit"
A particularly pedantic opponent could argue that this infers you must declare who is hitting who for all troops before any dice are rolled.
It hinges on whether or not there is a rule that states attacks should be rolled simultaneously. I'll check later.
Certainly in my group, allocation of attacks is declared for all models in a given combat before any dice are rolled.

(We also play that weapon choices must be declared during the charge, charging player first - but that's just us).

edit: Thanks, Avian. :) Brain wasn't in gear...

Avian
17-02-2006, 13:57
Your example is actually redundant - in the BRB, under the Champion/Standard Bearer/Musician rules, it states that excess wounds suffered by a champion are passed on to the rank and file (not exact wording, but same message).
That sentence was dropped in the first batch of erratas, as it basically made it pointless NOT to allocate as many attacks to champions as possible.

SuperBeast
17-02-2006, 14:07
That sentence was dropped in the first batch of erratas, as it basically made it pointless NOT to allocate as many attacks to champions as possible.

edit: Thanks, Avian. :) Brain wasn't in gear...

Saves me typing it twice. ;)
Ran across it for the first time the other night lookking into another rules query, and didn't check up on it further. Thanks for the catch.

Festus
17-02-2006, 15:05
Hi

Attacks are made in strict order of initiative, you can't let some In 4 models strike before others, no more than you can let an In 4 model strike after an In 3 model.
Thus if you want to allocate your attacks, you must do so at the start of each initiative step (or at the start of combat, if you prefer that).
This is not the case: The only rule about allocating attacks is that a *model* has to allocate its attacks before it hits.
Any other *rule* about the specific sequence of declaring attacks and attacking is made up.
cf. BRB p. 67f.

Actually, there are no (!) simultaneous attacks in WHFB.

However, it is important to point out that it is unsporting to allocate the attacks on a model per model basis. You *should* declare who is attacking whom in Initiative-based brackets, as Avian proposes.

Greetings
Festus

Avian
17-02-2006, 15:26
Actually, there are no (!) simultaneous attacks in WHFB.
You are confusing this with opposing models making simultaneous attacks.

As I said, models attack in strict order of initiative (with provisions for what you do it opposing models have equal initiative), therefore you can't let one In4 model go before another In4 model, which is what you are doing when you let one In4 model wait around to see how another In4 model's attack goes.

The note that a *model* has to allocate its attacks before he/she/it makes them is just there to stop people directing attacks after they see if the dice are with them or not. You don't need any such note in this case.

Festus
17-02-2006, 15:33
Hi

As I said, models attack in strict order of initiative (with provisions for what you do it opposing models have equal initiative), therefore you can't let one In4 model go before another In4 model, which is what you are doing when you let one In4 model wait around to see how another In4 model's attack goes.
I understood you perfectly well.

And as I said, you make this rule up: The rulebook only tells us that models with I *n* go before models with I *n-x*.

We can go on like this forever, but there simply is no rule in the BRB that dictates when to declare or allocate attacks other than on a model-to-model base.

Anything else is just a matter of convention and good behaviour.

Greetings
Festus

Avian
17-02-2006, 15:44
We can go on like this forever, but there simply is no rule in the BRB that dictates when to declare or allocate attacks other than on a model-to-model base.
I'm not talking about allocating attacks, I'm talking about resolving them and the Big Red Rulebook tells us how to do this: in strict order of initiative. Thus, if Bob the Grunt and I have equal initiative, we strike at the same time unless we are on opposing sides.

Festus
17-02-2006, 15:53
Hi

I'm not talking about allocating attacks, I'm talking about resolving them and the Big Red Rulebook tells us how to do this: in strict order of initiative. Thus, if Bob the Grunt and I have equal initiative, we strike at the same time unless we are on opposing sides.
As much as I like your way of seeing things, I would prefer if you manage to back up your claim with actual rules.

The only rules I am aware of are on p.68 of the BRB. Those do not tell us what you describe, but they tell us something about *models* and *troops*. The rules even tell us that models with a higher I attack before models with a lower I.

The rules still don't tell us when model X - which happens to have the same I as models Y and Z - attacks in relation to Y and Z.

If you care to have a look at p. 65 of the BRB (in the Shooting section), it even tells us to roll dice of the same type together, because this makes the game flow faster. If you wanted to, you could roll every die on its own and finish one models attacks after the next.
The rules advise you on combining several dice into one roll, so that you save time.

Greetings
Festus

Avian
17-02-2006, 16:18
If you care to have a look at p. 65 of the BRB (in the Shooting section), it even tells us to roll dice of the same type together, because this makes the game flow faster. If you wanted to, you could roll every die on its own and finish one models attacks after the next.
The rules advise you on combining several dice into one roll, so that you save time.
Yeah, and does that not give you an inkling that rolling the dice one at a time or all at once amounts to the same thing and that the only difference is that you save time?
It does not say: "You can roll several dice at the same time, if you want to. This saves you time, but gives you a tactical disadvantage."

There isn't anything anywhere in the rulebook that lets you create initiative sub-steps between your own models. There is no way of saying "This guy has Initiative 4.0, while this one has 4.1", nor is there any rule saying "If two models on the same side have the same initiative, the owning player decides who attacks first."
This is what you want, but there is no such rule.

mageith
17-02-2006, 17:46
Hi

As much as I like your way of seeing things, I would prefer if you manage to back up your claim with actual rules.

I think Avian has it nailed. "To represent this, combatants strike blows in strict initiatve order." (68)

Combine that with the 'Fast Dice Rolling" rules on page 65 and we have a method. Roll all initiatives descending downward.

The exception, possibly, to this is in charging when all chargers have "automatic first strike". Whether "strict initiative order" still applies isn't clear but nearly every player I know, rolls all the dice at the same time, while allocating those hits as he sees fit.

I still tend to use strict initiative order when I charge, because I don't like rolling that many dice at one time. I seldom get complaints, but if I do I will roll as many as I can.




The rules still don't tell us when model X - which happens to have the same I as models Y and Z - attacks in relation to Y and Z.

Yes they do. "If opposing troops have the same initiative then the side which won the combat in the previous turn may strike first. If this doesn't apply, you should roll a D6 and the player who scores highest first."



If you care to have a look at p. 65 of the BRB (in the Shooting section), it even tells us to roll dice of the same type together, because this makes the game flow faster. If you wanted to, you could roll every die on its own and finish one models attacks after the next.
The rules advise you on combining several dice into one roll, so that you save time.

I mostly agree with this except there's nothing in the English version about saving time. The term "practical", I suppose, could be interpreted that way, but I think rolling all dice at once, picking different colors and naming who's who probably doesn't really save time. It takes more time.

Mage Ith

mageith
17-02-2006, 17:55
Hi

I understood you perfectly well.

And as I said, you make this rule up: The rulebook only tells us that models with I *n* go before models with I *n-x*.

We can go on like this forever, but there simply is no rule in the BRB that dictates when to declare or allocate attacks other than on a model-to-model base.

I had to read this thread several times. You guys first appear to be like boats passing in the night.

I think you are trying to saying there's a difference between 'allocation' and rolling dice. I don't think there is.

The main rule here is "...combatants strike blows in initiative order."

I think the term "strike" is the culprit. Of course, models don't actually strike blows. This is represented by rolling dice and/or allocating where the dice go.

I think the striking/rolling dice is done in layers based on Initiative. You appear to think that it's individual models based on initiative, but are willing to accept the convention that it's unsportsmanlike to do it that way (except in extreme cases?).

On the other hand, almost all my opponents think ALL the dice should be rolled for ALL initiatives and allocated by color and/or size. Only when the opponent's have an intervening initiatve (like so often happens with horses) are the dice rolled in more than one big group.

So neither one of you actually describe the convention/interpretation in my area, but I still think Avian has the better interpretation of the rules in this case.

Mage Ith

Festus
17-02-2006, 18:34
Hi


Yes they do. "If opposing troops have the same initiative then the side which won the combat in the previous turn may strike first. If this doesn't apply, you should roll a D6 and the player who scores highest first."

We are not talking about opposing troops here, this is clear to both parties.

I think the striking/rolling dice is done in layers based on Initiative. You appear to think that it's individual models based on initiative, but are willing to accept the convention that it's unsportsmanlike to do it that way (except in extreme cases?).
This is the point at hand.

Remember we are talking rules here, not conventions or habits, but simple rules.

I still do not see a rule in the BRB that forces you to roll all the attacks simultaneously. In a gaming environemt, I see things done, but those are not necessarily the rules.
I don't even disagree that it is the *proper* or *best* way to do things, but I do question the foundation of this convention within the framework of the rules and rules alone.

Convince me, please...

Greetings
Festus

Avian
17-02-2006, 18:37
I still do not see a rule in the BRB that forces you to roll all the attacks simultaneously. In a gaming environemt, I see things done, but those are not necessarily the rules.
I don't even disagree that it is the *proper* or *best* way to do things, but I do question the foundation of this convention within the framework of the rules and rules alone.
Well, you want to resolve attacks with the same Initiative at different times, something the rules say nothing about.
I say you're the one that should be digging around for quotes. :eyebrows:

Festus
17-02-2006, 18:53
Hi

I already gave you the relevant rules: It's *models* which attack, not units. And it is not *all models attack at their I-level*, but *models attack at certain times*.

Your call...

Festus

mageith
17-02-2006, 18:56
Remember we are talking rules here, not conventions or habits, but simple rules.

:) If it were simple you and Avian wouldn't be going round and round.



I still do not see a rule in the BRB that forces you to roll all the attacks simultaneously. In a gaming environemt, I see things done, but those are not necessarily the rules.

If the term "strike" really means roll the dice (And I think it pretty clearly does) and if "strict initiative order" means layers of initiative (which I think it pretty clearly does), then rolling lots of dice is attacking simultaneously and is clearly sanctioned by GW (based on the fast dice section).

I think these are perfectly reasonable interpretations and to interpret otherwise is to almost purposely look for arcane and unrealistic meanings. (I hope this is not too harsh. But sometimes I feel you go out of your way to find fresh but confusing ways to interpret rules.)

Whether fast dice rolling is required or merely a convenience is a side issue and the actual term "practical" doesn't really support or unsuport either argument. The fact that fast dice rolling is in the book at all, means simultaneous attacks is OK.


I don't even disagree that it is the *proper* or *best* way to do things, but I do question the foundation of this convention within the framework of the rules and rules alone.

The rules in this case are not perfectly clear beyond a shadow of a doubt. (The law requires less though: "beyond reasonable doubt". Another word for that might be "intention". )

OTOH, we are are not really lawyers. The end purpose of rules interpretatons is to get on with the game. It's also the purpose, more or less, of fast dice rolling. There are many conventions that have doubtful rules support. Sometimes one doesn't want to look too closely, especially if one accepts that the currently generally accepted method is proper and best.

Mage Ith

mageith
17-02-2006, 19:04
Hi

I already gave you the relevant rules: It's *models* which attack, not units. And it is not *all models attack at their I-level*, but *models attack at certain times*.

At best this is a rules contradiction with the rule "Combatants strike blows in strict initiative order."

Your reference refers to allocations. My reference refers to the actual combat.

In other words, once the order of striking is determined, then allocation (within that order of striking), model by model, is triggered. This is hinted at, if not actually demonstrated by the order of the rules:
WHO STRIKES FIRST?
followed by
WHICH MODELS FIGHT.

Mage Ith

Festus
17-02-2006, 21:04
Hi

I concede.

Obviously, the rules on this point are not as precise as I think they should be (-again). But they still seem to serve the purpose.
To me, looking into the rules a bit more closely should reveal any inconsistencies and loopholes. Here we do have one, which can only be solved by using a real-life-approach in a gaming environment. I do think that this works, but still isn't *foolproof*.

Which neatly brings me to another point: How will two Characters with multiple attacks and the same I-value *strike* then, i.e. allocate attacks and work out hits against an enemy?

Greetings and good night
Festus

Avian
18-02-2006, 11:21
Which neatly brings me to another point: How will two Characters with multiple attacks and the same I-value *strike* then, i.e. allocate attacks and work out hits against an enemy?
If they are on the same side they strike simultaneously, so any solution that does not hinge on seeing how one character does before deciding what the other will try to do is okay.

warlord hack'a
18-02-2006, 20:10
agreed,

now let's continue gaming ;-)