Broodlords Hypnotic Gaze Psychic Power

[Gwraith]

Hi all,

Sorry if this has been brought up before, I tried searching and couldnt find anything on it, if it has if someone could post me a link that would be good.

The Genestealer broodlords Hypnotic Gaze power says 'if the Broodlord rolls higher, that model may not attack in the ensuing close combat".

Does this mean for the entire combat, or the round? It reads as the entire combat, which makes it really powerfull. Technically the close combat doesnt end until one side has either been wiped out or fled, as "the ensuing close combat" may continue for several rounds of combat. Also, every other instance where something happens for a single round it is specifically stated as "for the round" not "in the ensuing close combat". I know without asking the man who wrote the book we may never know for sure, but I wanted to see what you all think.

Thoughts?

[matt_17]

It does indeed last until the combat is completely finished, rather than just the current round of combat.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

It's just the next round; you have to use it again to benefit from it again.

[niknokitueu]

I do not have 'nid rules, so please tell me when the power is cast.

If it is cast at the start of a round, I would lean towards 'entire combat'
If it is cast during the assault phase, I would lean towards 'that round of combat'.

Hopefully, thinking about the issue should make the answer self-evident. Then again, maybe not.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[Homer S]

I think the issue is it says "...may not attack in the ensuing close combat." and does not limit it to this round or turn. Also, it says cast during, after moves but before blows.

Homer

[Nurgling Chieftain]

"The entire rest of the same continuing close combat" cannot be what is being referred to, because it simply isn't a term in the game at all. It doesn't mean anything in-game, and furthermore, it doesn't make any sense, as such a construct could easily cease to involve either party while continuing, or perhaps even rejoining, in the same combat, or a different one.

Let's say a combat involves termagants, genestealers, dire avengers, and harlequins. The broodlord used Hypnotic Gaze on the Harlequin Troop Master. After the round of combat, the Harlequins use Hit-and-Run, wander off and slaughter another unit. Are they still affected? The close combat is still going, but they're not in it. They're in a different one. Next, the Dire Avengers have been so depleted that the survivors are completely surrounded by gaunts; the genestealers cannot pile-in and drop out of combat. Is Hypnotic Gaze still in effect now that neither party are part of the same combat? Next, the Harlequins, having finished off something else, charge back into the fray to rescue the last Dire Avenger. Hey, now they're part of the same combat again, but the genestealers aren't. How about now? Finally, the genestealers charge the locked Harlequins, just before the gaunts and dire avengers finish each other off entirely. They're in the "same" close combat again, yet no single model has been in that combat for it's entire duration. How about now?

Also, one combat can become two combats (usually due to casualties in a "bridging" unit) and two combats can become one combat (usually due to a multiple-charge into existing combats). "Same continuing combat until it ends" is just an extremely fluid concept in practice.

[Vlad Urkana]

It does say "ensuing combat" so the most important thing to do here is indentify what "ensuing combat" means. I would take it to mean that it lasts for the duration of the combat until one or both parties involved is no longer in the combat. It is definitely a poorly written rule that doesn't fit in the game as it currently stands. There is a much more in depth discussion about the rule on Warpshadow, but unfortunately I can't like to it right now since it is blocked from work.

[Nurgling Chieftain]

I would take it to mean that it lasts for the duration of the combat until one or both parties involved is no longer in the combat.

Why? Why drag such complication and invention into such a simple statement?

It's worth noting that "combat" has never referred to this weird construct. But at the time the Tyranid codex was created, it did refer very specifically to a single round of combat. Indeed, "round of combat" was subsequently errata'd into the ruleset where it previously did not exist - see the main rulebook FAQ. This is additional evidence that "combat" means "round of combat".

[Egaeus]

Why? Why drag such complication and invention into such a simple statement?

It's worth noting that "combat" has never referred to this weird construct. But at the time the Tyranid codex was created, it did refer very specifically to a single round of combat. Indeed, "round of combat" was subsequently errata'd into the ruleset where it previously did not exist - see the main rulebook FAQ. This is additional evidence that "combat" means "round of combat".

I suppose one would complicate it because of what the power does...

If the combat is not concluded at the end of the current "round" and continues into the other players turn (as the rules seem to support) it doesn't seem like the power should just arbitrarily end, especially if the Broodlord and the affected model are still locked in combat. It is still the same combat, as has been mentioned, until one side is destroyed or flees.

[Gwraith]

Nurgling Chieftain,

Combat is not anywhere near an abstract a combat as I feel your making it out. A "round" is one turn in a "combat" which clearly implies that the "combat" is not over, which is why this has come up. To me the fact that they made corrections in the FAQ to define "rounds of combat" as you previously stated is where this problem has come from. They have made a distinction between "a combat" and "a round of combat". For example, Mindshackle Scarabs in the Necron codex. It states in their rules "if he is still alive, the victim returns to normal once all blows have been struck in this round of combat" which makes what I feel is a clear definition. If you have rounds of combat, then simple logic would show the overall combat is not over. I know trying to bring logic into 40k is a flawed idea, but basic grammar tells me they have made a distinction for a reason. Obviously you feel your opinion is correct, but numerous other people have disagreed, so obviously it is at best unclear.

Regarding your argument about it being a very fluid concept, I think its quiet simple. It all comes down to, as someone else said, the definition of ensuing combat. It does create some potentially interesting situations with hit and run though, which I hadnt thought of. This has come up in tournaments before, and even the referees basically came down to dicing off on it, so I dont think its quiet as simple as your making out Nurgling. Cheers for your thoughts though.

Anyone else run into this at a tournament? How was it resolved.

[Morgrad]

As much as I would like it to last in perpetuity, unless I specifically saw something that states "until such time as the broodlord and/or the hypnotic-gazed model are no longer in base-to-base", I would never over-interpret a fairly simple (and already burly) power to make it insanely powerful. When in doubt, give your opponent the benefit of the doubt.

[Mephisto Dragonbane]

It's just a case of common sense. If the model it was cast on left combat with the rest of it's squad then the model is no longer in combat so the effect has worn off.

One combat can't become two combats ever it's literally impossible. Combat is either combat or not combat at all. the combat might grow in size and the amount of units may increase in the combat but it is never 2 combats.

Also it is just common sense to read, the ensuing combat to mean the whole combat. Combat doesn't end at the end of a round, the two units don't sit and have a doughnuts while everything else happens and then say fancy another fight? yeah why not?. Ensuing Combat encompasses the whole of the combat. If the broodlord dies then the effect wears off obviously. But until combat is done entirely then it stays in effect.

[Mephisto Dragonbane]

Indeed, "round of combat" was subsequently errata'd into the ruleset where it previously did not exist - see the main rulebook FAQ. This is additional evidence that "combat" means "round of combat".

didn't spot this post before my reply. If combat is errata'd into the ruleset to say 'combat' means 'round of combat' then it ends after the round clearly. I don't have a rulebook to hand so I can't check.

[Egaeus]

didn't spot this post before my reply. If combat is errata'd into the ruleset to say 'combat' means 'round of combat' then it ends after the round clearly. I don't have a rulebook to hand so I can't check.

The only errata changing "combat" to "round of combat" is specifically referring to the bullet points in the Multiple Combat section that tells who may attack whom. Since this can change from turn to turn it needs to be determined each "round". It stops the silly "you can only attack the unit you were initially engaged with and can't fight a new unit that joins the combat later".