VC crumble question

[DragonArmy]

If there is a rule somewhere else in the book in explicit contradiction with this, then please quote it

jtrowell:

Warhammer 8th Edition page 46:

"The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then he proceeds to the next close combat."

With your reading of a round of close combat, explain the combat phase to me.

DragonArmy

As a side note, I have gone back and read half of your posts jtrowell over the last couple months. Great work!

[Smogg]

Lets take this sentence from page 46:

"The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then he proceeds to the next close combat."

Based on your interpretation, we should be reading this sentence as, do stage 1:Fight a round of close combat phase, and then move onto the next combat, without calculating combat results or doing flee and pursue.

My looser interpretation is that the phrase "a round of close combat" on page 46 is actually summing up all 4 phases: fighting a round close combat, doing combat results, taking a break test, and flee and pursue. Then we should move onto the next combat.

I think we should look at the whole paragraph in full:

"CLOSE COMBAT PHASE SEQUENCE
The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then proceed to the next close combat and continue until all units have fought. Resolve each combat completely, including any flee and pursue moves, before moving on to the next combat."

As you can see further down they remind the player to not just do step 1 but do the entire combat including flee and pursue move before moving on to the next combat. So even though they reference step 1, they later clarify that "remember to do all steps". Keep in mind that the summary of the close combat steps is boxed in to the right on the same page. One must assume the reader will glance to the box for undestanding as well.

I think the main point here is that the paragraph is about sequencing multiple close combats in the same phase. It's not actually about the underlying structure of each of these close combats.

If one still went with your example as a definition, it would be a quite murky definition placed out of context.

On the other hand the definitions of "round of close combat":
- As part of the title of step 1: Fight a round of close combat
- In transition between step 1 and step 2: concluding that we call 'combat round' or 'round of close combat'
... are more crisp definitions and within very relevant context.

[jtrowell]

jtrowell:

Warhammer 8th Edition page 46:

"The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then he proceeds to the next close combat."

With your reading of a round of close combat, explain the combat phase to me.

Good catch, but as Smogg answered since and if his own quote is correct and complete (I don't have my own rulebook with me to check now), the phrase you quote continue by telling us explicitely to resolve the round, so in fact it is another reminder that the resolution part is separate from the round of close combat itself, even if it always follows it in the current ruleset.

Do you see something else that we missed ?

DragonArmy

As a side note, I have gone back and read half of your posts jtrowell over the last couple months. Great work!

Wow, thanks for the comment ...

[DragonArmy]

I think we should look at the whole paragraph in full:

"CLOSE COMBAT PHASE SEQUENCE
The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then proceed to the next close combat and continue until all units have fought. Resolve each combat completely, including any flee and pursue moves, before moving on to the next combat."

As you can see further down they remind the player to not just do step 1 but do the entire combat including flee and pursue move before moving on to the next combat. So even though they reference step 1, they later clarify that "remember to do all steps". Keep in mind that the summary of the close combat steps is boxed in to the right on the same page. One must assume the reader will glance to the box for undestanding as well.

This is key. You a agree that saying, "a round of close combat," does not have to refer to step 1: a round of close combat

I think the main point here is that the paragraph is about sequencing multiple close combats in the same phase. It's not actually about the underlying structure of each of these close combats.

Again, you fall back on that, in this case "a round of close combat," does not have to refer to step 1: a round of close combat. I don't see how the phrase "If a unit charges into combat and, by the end of that round of close combat, all its enemies have been wiped out as the result of the combat (rather than the pursuit) the unit can choose to make a pursuit move." is actually a rule that is trying to move itself to happening between stage 1 and 2. even though it is contained in stage 4:flee and pursue. Again, even the wording "all its enemies have been wiped out as the result of the combat (rather than the pursuit)" seems to imply combats ending in ways other than a destruction from a pursuit.

If one still went with your example as a definition, it would be a quite murky definition placed out of context.

On the other hand the definitions of "round of close combat":
- As part of the title of step 1: Fight a round of close combat
- In transition between step 1 and step 2: concluding that we call 'combat round' or 'round of close combat'
... are more crisp definitions and within very relevant context.

I don't understand this comment. I think it is partly because I don't understand what you mean as "combat round" which has definitly a larger context then just stage 1. What is my definition? I also don't understand how looking at the paragraph in full changes anything?--It makes my point clearer that " a round of close combat " does not have to refer to stage 1.

I feel super confident with my response. Your arguments rests on the fact that saying "a round of close combat" must refer to stage 1: fight a around of close combat. What we have agreed upon is that the phrase "fight a round of close combat" does not in fact have to refer to stage 1, it can actually refer to fighting a round, adding up combat resolution, and taking break tests. I am going to add, which I don't usually say, for the first time I think you want to read the rules a certain way. You are right that you could read the rule your way, but I think you have a much harder argument that the rules should be read your way.

This is very clear to me. I don't think you will change your mind, so do we agree that we disagree? At this point I think our only answer is to mention this issue to our respective gaming groups. Players and the local GW staff in my area have agreed that you can overrun after crumbling. Since we will never play each other, my encouragement is to create your own ruling with your play group.

I have enjoyed this chance to view the rules. Have a great day!

[Smogg]

No, I do say excatly that a round of close combat refers to step 1, and I think the text you reference is pretty clear. They basically say, do step 1 (round of close combat) for every close combat, but remember you need to do step 2-4 as well. My point is that your paragraph is ment to structure the sequence of multiple combats, not the detailed structure of a single close combat. However the references I have are within the context of each step in the Close Combat. I don't think you find any clearer term definition in the whole book than specifically spelling out "..this concludes that we call 'combat round' or 'round of close combat' "

You ask what I mean by "combat round"? I don't belive I use that term anywhere. But its defined the same way as a round of close combat on p. 52

I thank for your sparing and yes I think we can agree to disagree
My main purpose was to open people's eyes for this rule change in 8th edition and give players with unstable units some clear places to point at in the rulebook when bringing this topic up with their friends and foes. I also wanted prepare them for the counter arguments they might face. Weather you choose to play them one way or the other, I'm confident it's no longer going to be taken for granted that it should be played like in 7th edition. The troll is out of the box. It will be discussed in the real world. The real test of this topic is the real world where players meet eye to eye and point their fingers into the rulebook to agree on how to play it.

In the end I just want to take the chance to summarize/smooth my original analysis which i stand by:

WHY YOU CAN'T OVERRUN AFTER CRUMBLE

Close Combat is structured this way:
1. Fight a round of close combat
2. Calculate close combat results
3. Looser takes a break test
4. Flee and pursue

Now the Overrun! rule states:
"If a unit charges into combat, and by the end of that round of close combat, all its enemies have been wiped out as result of the combat (rather than the pursuit) the unit can choose to make a pursuit move, even with no one left alive to pursue. This is an overrun move... "

Now since you need the calculated combat results to crumble the enemy, crumble can at the earliest take place in step 2.
But the condition of overrun states that:
- You must have charged
- You must have killed enemy by the end of that round of close combat (step 1)
So it's not possible to overrun after crumble.

Before its argued that a round of close combat is a loose term that can mean the whole combat, please notice how GW goes through great lengths to make the term clear:

From p48:
"1 FIGHT A ROUND OF CLOSE COMBAT"

From p52:
"2 CALCULATE CLOSE COMBAT RESULTS"
Once all models engaged in the combat have fought, this concludes that we call 'combat round' or 'round of close combat' "

[hazmiter]

Gw will most likely keep to the whole, you have crumbles in first round of your opponent charging.... Overrun....
Keep it as house rule.

Have fun, never lose sight of the fact that even though the game has rules, it needs to be fun.

[bad dice]

"CLOSE COMBAT PHASE SEQUENCE
The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then proceed to the next close combat and continue until all units have fought. Resolve each combat completely, including any flee and pursue moves, before moving on to the next combat."



Smogg you do know that if we use your interpertation this makes
absolutly no *********** sence

If so the first part:

"The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then proceed to the next close combat and continue until all units have fought
"

Tells you to do all combat rounds before test

the second part

"Resolve each combat completely, including any flee and pursue moves, before moving on to the next combat."


Tells us to do every thing and then move on


So if that is correct (and it is see the rules for pursueing into a fresh enemy)
Your interpertation is wrong

So i'll stick whit the reform and overrun after crumble. Thank you

Also 5 seperate attemps to get GW to awnser the question all came back the same. And even a indepth question came back whit the side note that i sould ignore the wording for a round of close combat as beeing only step one.

Now I know you say those guys are just mail trolls.
But i have to admid that, that makes more sense then your interpertation when looking at the rules overall.

But i gues we'll just have to wait for a faq on this to settle this topic for real.

[hazmiter]

Evening bad dice.
Yeah, I got that too, but my question was in reference to 40k, dreadknight from Gk codex.
The question of the day now seems to be when the FAQ will be done, if any.
Home rule sounds about right now, though undead get the advantage of free zombies on a 9+ to cast... Cheap chaff, redirectors.
My mate sound wave also agrees its crumble equals overrun reform if it happens first turn of combat, and reform if second round, or got charged.
And we did it by the book too.....
Crumble happens after combat resolution, but before the pursue, reform, overrun, phase.
We also think the undead have all the tools for the job, you just need to find out what works best, and he has started winning with them using some scary stuff.
Miniblender vamps, blender lords, casterlords lore of metal, necrovamps, necro spam (the funniest one of all due to having 500+ zombies in one turn just with raise dead, followed by multi invo spam).....
The necro spam, don't ask, I did that, and held 50 witchelves and helebron up for 3 turns...... XD

[Smogg]

"CLOSE COMBAT PHASE SEQUENCE
The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then proceed to the next close combat and continue until all units have fought. Resolve each combat completely, including any flee and pursue moves, before moving on to the next combat."



Smogg you do know that if we use your interpertation this makes
absolutly no *********** sence

If so the first part:

"The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then proceed to the next close combat and continue until all units have fought
"

Tells you to do all combat rounds before test

the second part

"Resolve each combat completely, including any flee and pursue moves, before moving on to the next combat."


Tells us to do every thing and then move on


So if that is correct (and it is see the rules for pursueing into a fresh enemy)
Your interpertation is wrong

So i'll stick whit the reform and overrun after crumble. Thank you

Also 5 seperate attemps to get GW to awnser the question all came back the same. And even a indepth question came back whit the side note that i sould ignore the wording for a round of close combat as beeing only step one.

Now I know you say those guys are just mail trolls.
But i have to admid that, that makes more sense then your interpertation when looking at the rules overall.

But i gues we'll just have to wait for a faq on this to settle this topic for real.

"The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then proceed to the next close combat and continue until all units have fought" - This does not explicit rule out also performing step 2-4, but i agree if not for the second part, you could have chosen to take it that way.

"Resolve each combat completely, including any flee and pursue moves, before moving on to the next combat." - And this clarify that of course you have to do all 4 steps.

There are two things to point out with regards to this example:
- These sentences are from a section that deals with another topic entirely: How to resolve MULTIPLE combats in the same turn!
- This is a use of the term "round of close combat" it's not it's definition.

So in your example it's not a definition and it's found within the wrong context.

It would make no sense to define "a round of combat" within a section that is only relevant when there are more than one combat going on at the same time. "a round of combat" is very central and that is excatly why you find it where you do. Part of heading of "FIGHT A ROUND OF CLOSE COMBAT" and P. 52. as concluding what ".. we call 'combat round' or 'round of close combat'"

One have to ask oneself which context is proper for a definition and where are the definition made in the strongest way.

With regards to mailing the order trolls, I did that as well and got the response that they could not answer the question, but refered me with a faq mail adress for submission of questions to go into the faq, letting me know that the faq adress usually dont have time to reply individually.

[Scalebug]

Heh, not to diminish Smoggs's and DragonAmy's et al's efforts here but the sheer TL;DR'ness of these outlays is a mayor evidence pointing towards the designer assuming the Wipeout! rule covered it well enough...

It is simply ridiculous to think that we were intended to do all this digging in the finer points of the rules to get an answer.

[Smogg]

Since my argument revolves around the introduction of the term 'round of close combat', I thought it might be helpful to look at how it was actually introduced:

7th Edition vs 8th Edition

7th Edtition-----------------> 8th Edition
1. FIGHT COMBAT ..........-> 1. FIGHT A ROUND OF CLOSE COMBAT
2. COMBAT RESULTS .......-> 2. CALCULATE CLOSE COMBAT RESULTS
3. BREAK TEST .............- > 3. LOSER TAKES A BREAK TEST
4. FLEE & PURSUE ..........-> 4. FLEE AND PURSUE
5. REDRESS RANKS .........-> 4. FLEE AND PURSUE

Notice how step 1 in close combat was completely renamed. You no longer fight "combat" in step 1. You fight "a round of close combat".

7th edition overrun:
"If a unit charges into combat and, by the end of that turn's combat phase all its enemies have been wiped out, the unit may make a pursuit move"
- So in 7th edition you did not have to kill all enemies by the end of step 1 in order to overrun.

8th edtion overrun:
"If a unit charges into combat, and by the end of that round of close combat, all its enemies have been wiped out as result of the combat (rather than the pursuit) the unit can choose to make a pursuit move, even with no one left alive to pursue."
- A clear change. In 8th edition you do have to kill all enemies by the end of step 1 in order to overrun.

So in 8th edition, a new term "round of close combat" is introduced, and its referenced in the overrun section.

[bad dice]

"The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then proceed to the next close combat and continue until all units have fought" - This does not explicit rule out also performing step 2-4, but i agree if not for the second part, you could have chosen to take it that way.

No it does! The word than means you have to move on.

Or do you want to implie that since there is no mention of the shooting rules that i could do my shooting phase in between ?
?But i have had it whit this discusion tbh.
There is absolutly no reason to asume that you are correct appart form one play on words in a small section of the rulebook.
And no mater what we bring up as a counter argument you just read into it whatever you want.

But just spamm that e-mail dress than. And we will have our awnser when it comes in the FAQ

[Smogg]

"The player whose turn it is nominates a close combat involving one or more of his units and fights a round of close combat using the rules described. Then proceed to the next close combat and continue until all units have fought" - This does not explicit rule out also performing step 2-4, but i agree if not for the second part, you could have chosen to take it that way.
No it does! The word than means you have to move on.

Look, even if you were right (which you are not), then that would result in a complete clash of things since P52 define the 'round of close combat' as concluded when you enter step 2. It cant both be concluded by step 2 and mean step 1-4. So if I am wrong and thereby a 'round of close combat' mean step 1-4, then we don't move towards any rule clarity, we only succeed in establishing a set of contridictary rules.

[bad dice]

You are wrong in concluding that by a round of close combat they always mean step 1

And anny evidance to the countary is not even taken into account by your logic, but just swept aside by concluding that you should not read the text in that way.

So the whole argument comes down to how you interpet the text.

And at that point futher discusion is no longer meaningfull.
Cause both you and me and every body else can use the text for each side of the argument, and ignore the other side in our vision
The only way this would be put to rest is tough a official FAQ


And as a final thing i would like to point out that i don't realy mind the overrun so much. But your interpertation would also prevent ppl from reforming.
Not only against crumbeling undead. But also against squigherd and skavenslaves.

This i beleave can never be as intended. And IMHO would break game balance for those last two units big time especialy the slaves.

But since we can not agree
The only thing we can do is agree to disagree.
It's not like we will ever play each other.

[Smogg]

I don't think I sweep your arguments aside. If I do, it is not my intention.
I actually stated two reasons why your argument does not hold: (1) Context and (2) Use vs Definition. I noticed that you have not addressed these 2 reasons.

Overall I think the rules are both clear and balanced. I have been playing them this way since 8th edition was published, and game balance wise, I see no reason why it should be easier to overrun undeads than any other unit.

[Aliarzathanil]

It should be easier to overrun undead because they NEVER break.

[Bitten Black Sheep]

In the end I just want to take the chance to summarize/smooth my original analysis which i stand by:

WHY YOU CAN'T OVERRUN AFTER CRUMBLE

Close Combat is structured this way:
1. Fight a round of close combat
2. Calculate close combat results
3. Looser takes a break test
4. Flee and pursue

Now the Overrun! rule states:
"If a unit charges into combat, and by the end of that round of close combat, all its enemies have been wiped out as result of the combat (rather than the pursuit) the unit can choose to make a pursuit move, even with no one left alive to pursue. This is an overrun move... "

Now since you need the calculated combat results to crumble the enemy, crumble can at the earliest take place in step 2.
But the condition of overrun states that:
- You must have charged
- You must have killed enemy by the end of that round of close combat (step 1)
So it's not possible to overrun after crumble.

Before its argued that a round of close combat is a loose term that can mean the whole combat, please notice how GW goes through great lengths to make the term clear:

From p48:
"1 FIGHT A ROUND OF CLOSE COMBAT"

From p52:
"2 CALCULATE CLOSE COMBAT RESULTS"
Once all models engaged in the combat have fought, this concludes that we call 'combat round' or 'round of close combat' "

If crumble takes place during Phase 2 as you say, - Calculate Combat Result, then how do we interpret the Wipeout rule located at the end of Phase 2 rules?
" If one side has been completely wiped out in the fight, the other side is automatically the winner. In such cases the unit automatically restrains pursuit and reforms. Alternatively, if the unit charges this turn it can choose to overrun."
I think that the location of the rule at the end of combat result calculation (followed by application of the unstable rule) is significant. If it came at the start of the section and therfore immediately after the round of combat, the interpretation might be different. But it comes right at the end and specifically allows an overrun.

[hazmiter]

KIA ora, and a +1

[Smogg]

If crumble takes place during Phase 2 as you say, - Calculate Combat Result, then how do we interpret the Wipeout rule located at the end of Phase 2 rules?

So since you ask, I'll repeat my take on the wipeout rule:

P 52 and p 53 describe the step 2 : Calculate Combat Results.

When you enter step 2. There is basically two options:

1. There are still models alive on both sides
2. There are only models alive from one side

P 52-53 goes into detail on how to deal with situation 1. That is, how to calculate which side won, and to determine the combat resolution.

P 53 the Wipeout! section at the end tells you what to do in situation 2. If there are only models alive from one side: Don't add up combat resolution because the surviving side is automatically the winner.

The Wipeout! rule is important so you don't end up fleeing even after killing your enemy. You automatically won! YAY
Now the end of the Wipeout section then kindly remind the reader (Who at this point may not have read P57 and P58) that further into the book they can find rules for their two options: Restrain or Overrun

In short:
Wipeout! Handles the one exception where you DON'T calculate close combat results. Therefore it does not make sense to try use Wipeout! to allow for overrun after crumbling. Crumbling does require calculating a close combat result!

Either way. The wipeout! rule still reference the overrun rule on p58. If you want to overrun, you have to follow the rule in the overrun section.

But lets look in the actual text of the wipeout rule:
"Of course, if one side has been completely wiped out in the fight, the other side is automatically the winner."

Fight obviously refer to the fight as in "Fight a round of close combat"
Automatically the winner only make sense in the context where you DON'T need to calculate the close combat result

Frankly the wipeout rule just support my whole argumentation by being fully aligned with the close combat structure and the restrictions written in the overrun section.

I don't see any problems with the wipeout! rule being placed in the end since its a question of situation 1 (normal calculation) and situation 2 (automatic victory) where situation 1 is the most common.

[hazmiter]

Mmmhmmm, and my hydra says crumbling the hoard of zombies is a hobby.
Reform after crumble is impossible if there is no overrun etc, which invalidates a lot of things.
Which just goes to say that if what you say is true, then there also needs to be a FAQ, because without option to overrun at end of close combat step 2 due to crumble, there is also no reform.
Thus this arguement, debate, is going around in circles.
Also, on top of that, until there is a FAQ stating otherwise, my friends and I shall be playing using the overrun, reform after crumble, as per 'mail order gw troll answer' because there cannot be a reform without overrun option.

Sorry smogg, you do have a good argument, but so do the others, bad dice and everyone else that has pitched in.
So i think after tomorrow I shall sign out of this thread.
Night all.