Splitting multiple combat problem

[DruidNei]

I've encountered a problem in a big tangled multiple combat. My gors were engaging night goblin horde, sharing frontage with a chariot and a razorgor on the corner of the goblin unit. There were two more units in this combat, but it's not relevant to the question so I omitted them.

g - goblin
o - gors
t - chariot
r - razorgor

It looked something like this:

ggggggg
ooooottrr

After a round of combat my razorgor was charged in the front by another goblin unit. There was not much left from the original unit facing my gors, so after another round they frontage shrinked rapidly, leaving only my razorgor and chariot in contact with the second goblin unit.

__gg_ gggggg
ooooottrr


My question is - what happens in the round when razorgor and chariot lose contact with the first goblin unit? How is CR calculated?
Rulebook says that when a unit is left out of combat it's banners, ranks etc. doesn't count, only casualties (No more foes rule). Does this rule apply here, where all units are still in combat? I wonder if chariot and razorgor can use casualties, banners and ranks from gors when counting their combat resolution. I assume that after CR is counted the fight is split into two fully separate combats. I wonder if I played the whole shrinking unit part right.

[Hell Storm]

Everything will apply for this combat round as one combat but afterwords it will become two separate combats.

[DruidNei]

Thanks for the answer. It seems we've played it right. Could you maybe point me to what rules say it's played like that?

[T10]

In the case of shrinking units you should nudge the units together in order to maintain contact. It seems to me that the units could be nudged together as follows: The gors, the chariot and the razorgor should be nudged into contact with each other, and the goblins should be nudged so that both units were in contact with the central chariot. This would maintain the combat cohesion.

Breaking up the combat should be the last resort.

-T10

[AntaresCD]

In addition to what T10 said, in that earlier round of combat when the first night goblin unit was shrinking, the nudging should have taken place to keep the chariot and razorgors in combat if at all possible. The way I normally see it played is in a situation like this, instead of taking evenly from both sides of the front rank, you start taking from the side that doesn't drop a unit out of the combat. It's faster then nudging, has the same result, and tends to have less "I just knocked you models over as I push stuff around" instances.

After the night goblins shrank the result should have been something along the lines of:

_____gg_
ooooottrr

Which would have made the subsequent charge result (using h for the new unit):

_____gghhhhhh
ooooottrr

OR (if unit h could have made the necessary charge move)

hhhhhhgg
_ooooottrr

In either case, you use combat reforms after this round to line things up more.

[GodlessM]

Everything will apply for this combat round as one combat but afterwords it will become two separate combats.

This is the correct answer; there's nothing in the rules that allow you to 'nudge' units. The Gors could reform across but the single models can't move.

[AntaresCD]

This is the correct answer; there's nothing in the rules that allow you to 'nudge' units. The Gors could reform across but the single models can't move.

Incorrect, BRB, page 61, Shrinking Units and Multiple Fights, second paragraph. In fact it specifically tells you to nudge the units. Incidentally, the No More Foes is on that page as well.

[Hell Storm]

In addition to what T10 said, in that earlier round of combat when the first night goblin unit was shrinking, the nudging should have taken place to keep the chariot and razorgors in combat if at all possible. The way I normally see it played is in a situation like this, instead of taking evenly from both sides of the front rank, you start taking from the side that doesn't drop a unit out of the combat.

The razorgor and the chariot were in combat so there would be no need to nudge anything. Furthermore, the second sentence is specifically prohibited. "If the unit is deployed in a single rank, then casualties are removed equally from both ends." (BRB p. 45)

Incorrect, BRB, page 61, Shrinking Units and Multiple Fights, second paragraph. In fact it specifically tells you to nudge the units. Incidentally, the No More Foes is on that page as well.

The page you provided says you may only nudge the unit should it lose contact with the enemy. As the unit is still touching someone, you are still in contact and therefor may not nudge the unit.

[AntaresCD]

The razorgor and the chariot were in combat so there would be no need to nudge anything. Furthermore, the second sentence is specifically prohibited. "If the unit is deployed in a single rank, then casualties are removed equally from both ends." (BRB p. 45)



The page you provided says you may only nudge the unit should it lose contact with the enemy. As the unit is still touching someone, you are still in contact and therefor may not nudge the unit.

As to the first point, I was saying removing the rank and file from one side is the same as removing evenly and then nudging to the side, saving a step and lessening model futzing; I know you must remove evenly from both sides for the first rank - I was describing a shortcut. Which takes me to the second point of whether or not the goblins should be nudged. Since not nudging the goblins would drop the chariot and the razorgors out of combat and it is possible for there to be a configuration derived from nudging either attackers or defenders whereas they stay in combat along with everyone else then you must nudge to keep them in. You only drop units out of combat if there is no way to keep them in, either due to facing issues, or more commonly because the opposing unit connnecting them to the combat was outright destroyed.

To avoid quoting all three paragraphs on page 61, I'll summarize instead:

In multiple combat, if one or more units is no longer in base contact with the enemy but at least part of the enemy unit is still alive then the attacking unit is nudged as little as possible to bring it back into base to base. If the attackers cannot be moved, then the defenders are moved. You cannot use this nudge to alter facings, formations, or to charge a new foe.

The key portion is that in the first paragraph it specifically mentions the situation where a unit in a multiple combat is "stranded" but part of the enemy is still alive. This is most common in rear charges, as it mentions but the most common front facing situation is what was described here.

[Hell Storm]

In multiple combat, if one or more units is no longer in base contact with the enemy...

As the unit is still in contact with the enemy, you cannot use this rule. It only allows you to nudge a unit when it is no longer in contact.

It will become two separate combats because the units that are in combat are no longer touching the other units involved and you are not allowed to nudge them together. I don't know how to show you that you are wrong. I have provided the necessary rules that are relevant and explained to you how the situation is to be played. You continue to quote a rule that has no bearing on the situation in hopes of defending your argument but it isn't helping. If you can find a different rule that will help your case and is relevant, then please post it. Otherwise accept that you're wrong.

[Spudlow]

AntaresCD is correct. The original unit of goblins is in combat with the gors, chariot, and razorgors. Initial casualties must be removed in a way that keeps all three of these units in combat with the first unit of goblins for as long as possible. This will eventually result in what's left of the goblins being in front of the chariot, with the gors and razorgors fighting this goblin unit on the corners.

........gg
ooooottrr

Once the next casualty is removed, either the gors or the razorgors will no longer be in combat with this goblin unit. The logical choice would be to remove the goblin from whichever side did the wound. If the chariot caused the wound then there's more ambiguity.

[Hell Storm]

AntaresCD is correct. The original unit of goblins is in combat with the gors, chariot, and razorgors. Initial casualties must be removed in a way that keeps all three of these units in combat with the first unit of goblins for as long as possible. This will eventually result in what's left of the goblins being in front of the chariot, with the gors and razorgors fighting this goblin unit on the corners.

........gg
ooooottrr

Once the next casualty is removed, either the gors or the razorgors will no longer be in combat with this goblin unit. The logical choice would be to remove the goblin from whichever side did the wound. If the chariot caused the wound then there's more ambiguity.

I think you missed the part about the second unit of goblins coming in. On the turn that the second unit arrived, the first unit was whittled down to the show amount. Before that, it was still at the starting frontage.

And again, people are making up rules that don't exist. "Initial casualties must be removed in a way that keeps all three of these units in combat with the first unit of goblins for as long as possible." If this were true, then then it would be written somewhere. The rules on page 45 and 61 prove the exact opposite. You must take casualties away evenly on both sides. This is what causes the No More Foes rule to ever come into effect. If you had to maintain contact with everyone at all times, then GW wouldn't have written that rule.

[AntaresCD]

I think you missed the part about the second unit of goblins coming in. On the turn that the second unit arrived, the first unit was whittled down to the show amount. Before that, it was still at the starting frontage.

And again, people are making up rules that don't exist. "Initial casualties must be removed in a way that keeps all three of these units in combat with the first unit of goblins for as long as possible." If this were true, then then it would be written somewhere. The rules on page 45 and 61 prove the exact opposite. You must take casualties away evenly on both sides. This is what causes the No More Foes rule to ever come into effect. If you had to maintain contact with everyone at all times, then GW wouldn't have written that rule.

Ok, I'll just quote it since you seem to not be willing to read it.

BRB, page 61 (parts in italics are my commentary):

Shrinking Units and Multiple Fights
Occasionally, a situation can arise when one or more units are no longer in base contact with the enemy, but at least part of the enemy unit is still alive. Hey look here is the description of a situation that covers the shrinking frontage! We're in a combat and our target isn't in base to base with us anymore. This normally occurs when an enemy has been charged in the rear - as casualties come from the rear rank first, this would in theory leave the attackers stranded from their foe. Clearly this is wrong, just as warriors on a real battlefield would push on to continue the fight, and would not stop fighting if the enemy was standing a few paces away, so must warriors on the miniture battlefield. This paragraph has now described a specific set of situations: Any time you have a multiple combat and a unit involved is no longer in contact with an enemy unit they were engaged with, but that enemy is still alive.

Whenever a unit becomes stranded in this manner, the attacking unit is immediately nudged (by as little an amount as possible) to bring it back into contact with the foe. So if the situation in the preceding paragraph, i.e. a shrinking unit you lose base to base contact with, occurs you nudge the units back into contact - that's pretty clear. This move cannot be used to alter the facing the attacker is in base contact with, nor is it an opprotunity to change the attacker's formation or charge a unit not engaged in the fight. So now we get the expected don't cheese this rule admonitions of keeping facing not engaging a new unit not in the combat, etc. If the attacker cannot be moved in this manner, then the defending unit is moved instead. Further we get that you nudge the defender if the attacker can't be nudged.

No More Foes
In multiple combats it can sometimes happen that at the end of a round of close combat some units are no longer engaged with any enemy unit (normally because the unit they were engaged with has been completely destroyed). So now we have the description of the other situation: Any time you have a multiple combat and, at the end of the round, a unit is no longer in contact with any enemy. They also point out the most common cause for this is a fully destroyed unit. Such units are out of combat for all purposes and can move normally from then on. Any combat result points that the unit would have added to the fight for wounds inflicted are still counted for the fight's overall combat resolution, but other bonuses, such as standards, charges, and so on are not. Note that such a unit cannot cancel out steadfast in an enemy. I will reiterate the point of this paragraph: At the end of a round of combat (so after all attacks are resolved but before CR is calculated), if you are no longer in contact with an enemy, you drop out of the combat.

----------

This, to me is pretty clear, but I'll illustrate the points with some examples to show the distinctions:

a = large frontage unit
b = first unit
c = a chariot
d = third unit

b, c, d are part of the same army.

____aaaaaaaaaa
bbbbbccddddd__

So in this round of combat let's say that unit a is down to only a single rank and starts taking wounds. Unit d dealt 2 successful wounds, now the fight looks like:

_____aaaaaaaa_
bbbbbccddddd__

Casualties were taken from both sides and everyone is still in contact, so we move on. The chariot then does 2 wounds, we have:

______aaaaaa__
bbbbbccddddd__

But now we have unit b stranded and the enemy it was engaged with is still alive! The round of combat is not yet over so per Shrinking Units and Multiple Fights we must nudge unit b back into contact with a. That is not possible, so we instead must nudge unit a:

_____aaaaaa___
bbbbbccddddd__

So now we have unit a in minimal base to base contact (i.e. corner to corner) and the fight continues. Now unit b does really well and scores 5 unsaved wounds, you end up with:

_______a______
bbbbbccddddd__

Again, unit b is stranded, but there is no way to move it without dropping unit d. So you don't move anything. So now the round ends. Now we find that unit b is still stranded at the end of a round of combat so No More Foes kicks in and b is effectively dropped from the combat. Combat resolution and so forth carries on.

If you were following the example then you'll notice the key timing distinction between Shrinking Units and Multiple Fights as compared to No More Foes. No More Foes is specifically checked at the end of the combat round.

As far as the rule for keeping units engaged if at all possible not being "written anywhere," it is written on page 61 as I just described (again), just not in the simple sentence you seem to expect. Shrinking Units and Multiple Fights is pretty explicit that if you were engaged with an enemy unit and you're not touching it anymore due to casualties, nudging occurs to restore base to base. Again, "whenever a unit becomes stranded in this manner [no longer in base to base with an enemy it is fighting], the attacking unit is immediately nudged (by as small an amount as possible) to bring it back into contact with the foe." Note: "immediately nudged" Then, "In multiple combats it can sometimes happen that at the end of a round of close combat some units are no longer engaged with any enemy unit..." Note: "at the end of a round of close combat"

[Spudlow]

Thanks for taking the time to put all that up here AntaresCD. That's going the extra mile.

In regards to the second goblin unit that charges in, remember that a unit cannot charge multiple units unless there is no other way of completing the charge than by making contact with those units. It seems to me that the second goblin unit would be able to hit the razorgors and not the chariot, so that should be all it gets to charge.

[Hell Storm]

You are still misreading the first paragraph. As you yourself have quoted, "Occasionally, a situation can arise when one or more units are no longer in base contact with the enemy,..." Seeing as they are in contact with an enemy, you CANNOT use this rule. What is being stated in the rule is you are allowed to move (nudge) if no one in the unit is touching an enemy. But in the situation that was described, the unit was still in contact with an enemy unit, so you may not nudge your unit.

[AntaresCD]

You are still misreading the first paragraph. As you yourself have quoted, "Occasionally, a situation can arise when one or more units are no longer in base contact with the enemy,..." Seeing as they are in contact with an enemy, you CANNOT use this rule. What is being stated in the rule is you are allowed to move (nudge) if no one in the unit is touching an enemy. But in the situation that was described, the unit was still in contact with an enemy unit, so you may not nudge your unit.

In my example unit b was touching no one but it could not be moved, as per the end of the second paragraph you then move the defender. Since doing so does not bring it out of base to base with the chariot and unit d, you are obligted to do so immeditaely, therefore making it so all units involved in attacking unit a are still in contact with unit a. "If the attacker cannot be moved in this manner, then the defending unit is moved instead." I know my post was long, but it seemed to be necessary at this point. Did you read all of it? Your objection seems to imply otherwise.

The paragraphs are very clear:

-The situation where a unit loses base to base contact with the enemy is defined.
-You are then directed to immediately nudge the attackers back into base to base contact when the situation occurs.
-You are directed to instead move the defender if the attacker cannot be so moved.

Those three bullets allow you to make a very clear summary, one that we've been using: You are required to keep units in base to base contact if at all possible as frontages shrink.

The next paragraph describes how to resolve combat when after the round is over you still have a unit stranded (which usually only happens when the enemy is completely destroyed, but can happen in other ways as I showed in my example).

Where is the confusion?

It's a simple process flow. Everytime you remove casualties in a multiple combat check the following:
1) Did any unit get stranded from the unit(s) it was fighting? If yes, go to 2, if no go to 4.
2) Can I nudge the attacking unit back into contact (without breaking contact with any other enemy it is engaged with)? If yes, do so then go to 4, if no, go to 3.
3) Can I nudge the defender to bring the units back into contact (without breaking contact with any other enemy it is engaged with)? If yes, do so then go to 4, if no, go to 4.
4) Continue with the rest of the combat.

After all attacks and casualties have been resolved but before you calculate CR you do the following:
-Is any unit still stranded (this will only happen if the enemy is completely wiped out or it was not possible to nudge units after facings shrunk)? If no, continue with normal CR calculation, if yes, then the stranded unit drops out of the combat and only CR from wounds count.

This is derived from the first paragraph very clearly defining the situation as any time a unit engaged with the enemy loses base to base contact with said enemy, the second paragraph stating that in that situation you must immediately nudge the attackers back into base to base contact and if unable to do so you must nudge the defenders instead, and then the final paragraph states that at the end of a round of close combat if a unit is stranded then you drop it from combat.

[Spudlow]

Seems there might be a difference in interpretation about what is meant by the phrase "the enemy" which comes from "Occasionally, a situation can arise when one or more units are no longer in base contact with the enemy". If I understand your above comment correctly Hell_Storm, you're suggesting that as long as a unit is in contact with ANY enemy then it cannot be nudged. I believe that AntaresCD has the same interpretation that I do in that the phrase "the enemy" is referring to one specific enemy unit instead of any enemy unit. If "the enemy" is a specific enemy unit, then the interpretation would be that a unit will be nudged over to remain in combat with ALL of the enemies it is fighting if possible.

So which interpretation is correct? Just depends on how you read it I guess.

Anybody have a third of fourth opinion on this?

[Spudlow]

In my example unit b was touching no one but it could not be moved, as per the end of the second paragraph you then move the defender. Since doing so does not bring it out of base to base with the chariot and unit d, you are obligted to do so immeditaely, therefore making it so all units involved in attacking unit a are still in contact with unit a. "If the attacker cannot be moved in this manner, then the defending unit is moved instead." I know my post was long, but it seemed to be necessary at this point. Did you read all of it? Your objection seems to imply otherwise.

The paragraphs are very clear:

-The situation where a unit loses base to base contact with the enemy is defined.
-You are then directed to immediately nudge the attackers back into base to base contact when the situation occurs.
-You are directed to insterad move the defender if the attacker cannot be so moved.

Those three bullets allow you to make a very clear summary, one that we've been using: You are required to keep units in base to base contact if at all possible as frontages shrink.

The next paragraph describes how to resolve combat when after the round is over you still have a unit stranded (which usually only happens when the enemy is completely destroyed, but can happen in other ways as I showed in my example).

Where is the confusion?

It's a simple process flow. Everytime you remove casualties in a multiple combat check the following:
1) Did any unit get stranded from the unit(s) it was fighting? If yes, go to 2, if no go to 4.
2) Can I nudge the attacking unit back into contact (without breaking contact with any other enemy it is engaged with)? If yes, do so then go to 4, if no, go to 3.
3) Can I nudge the defender to bring the units back into contact (without breaking contact with any other enemy it is engaged with)? If yes, do so then go to 4, if no, go to 4.
4) Continue with the rest of the combat.

After all attacks and casualties have been resolved but before you calculate CR you do the following:
-Is any unit still stranded (this will only happen if the enemy is completely wiped out or it was not possible to nudge units after facings shrunk)? If no, continue with normal CR calculation, if yes, then the stranded unit drops out of the combat and only CR from wounds count.

This is derived from the first paragraph very clearly defining the situation as any time a unit engaged with the enemy loses base to base contact with said enemy, the second paragraph stating that in that situation you must immediately nudge the attacekrs back into base to base contact and if unable to do so you must nudge the defenders instead, and then the final paragraph states that at the end of a round of close combat if a unit is stranded then you drop it from combat.

You MUST be a computer programmer!

Very well done....I'm just going to sit over here and be quiet.

[Hell Storm]

In my example unit b was touching no one but it could not be moved, as per the end of the second paragraph you then move the defender. Since doing so does not bring it out of base to base with the chariot and unit d, you are obligted to do so immeditaely, therefore making it so all units involved in attacking unit a are still in contact with unit a.

If you look at it from that perspective, it makes more sense. I was only looking at it from Unit A's point of veiw (your example) when I should have been looking at it from Unit B's side as well. Since B was stranded and it couldn't move, the enemy must move.

It just seems like that could be very easily abused. What if there was a character in place of the last D on the right (in the unit). He was able to attack when Make Way would happen but when the unit slides over, he loses his attacks because of the movement. He was engaged but due to the nudge he would no longer be engaged? I guess that it is just a little odd.

Either way, I was wrong and i'm sorry for long, drawn out argument. My apologies for the slightly attacking comments.

[AntaresCD]

S'ok Hell Storm, no hard feelings. I don't mind long discussions and I don't think any comments went bad.

I do agree though that this can be abused when characters and unit champions are brought into play since they have different profiles. It's just something you have to take into account much in the same way as where you put the unit champion and characters in a unit. Much like any rule that can be abused I'd put it down to the opponent I'm playing; if something like that comes up, unless they have a history of abusing rules or are clearly being malicious, then I'd take it as it is. If they are "one of those" types of people then I'll duly note it and never play them again. I play for the fun and the strategy personally, and neither of those require winning, much less bending every rule to the breaking point.