This question has cropped up on several forums atm and I am interested to gauge the reaction of our fabled forums

"Does an enemy unit get an overrun move (on a charge) if a unit of unstable models is wiped out due to the effects of crumble?"

Two schools of thought

"The yes crowd" crumble is an effect of combat thus the charging unit can overrun as the unstable unit died due to the combat"

"The no crowd" Crumble is the result of a combat, thus overruns are ment to be enacted before crumble takes place.

The wording in the rulebook is a little ambiguous and leaves it open ended. The resulting conclusion could bring about a dramatic change in how to play TK

Thoughts?

this is what I found:

page 53 on wipeout:
if a wipeout occured, overrun can follow. however, it is in the 'determine combat result' step of combat that it is checked if a wipeout occured. the excact words are: 'if one side has been completely wiped out in the fight, the other side is automatically the winner. (...) if the unit charged this turn, it can choose to overrun'

So, wipeout triggers at the "who's the winner?-step". only one step later than that, breaktests (and in our case crumbling) are resolved, so any removed models due to the combat result do not contribute to the possibility of an overrun.

further, at page 58 on overrun:
overrun happens when a charging units enemies are completely destroyed at the end of that round of close combat.

luckily for us, a round of combat is defined by GW in the rulebook at pages 48 to 51, in the paragraph "Fight a round of close combat".
I'm bnot quoting the whole paragraph, but you can check yourself: the round of close combat ends with removing casualties.

so you see: overrun is possible when you killed all guys the honnest way. casualties due to combat resulution (be it due to a caught fleeing unit or due to crumbling) do not contribute to the possibility of an overrun.


we have played it like that all allong, actually.

Oooh, cool. We've always played it the other way. This makes speed bumps more viable to deploy.

I agree with Krael.

Unfortunately, most people, including the judges at the upcoming tournament, do not (I asked ahead of time).


We will be lucky to find people, especially veterans who refuse to understand that old rules don't apply to new editions, who will agree to follow the rules.

To be honest this is both good and bad. It makes speed bumps more useful but it means setting frenzied units up for a flank charge will be riskier... Had no idea it worked this way to be honest, but I'm really not fond of trying to argue it either...

The argument can be condensed in a pretty simple, but non-ruleslawyer-agressive explanation, I think:

'Unstable' (crumbling) happens after we (automatically) passed our breaktest thanks to 'unbreakable'; breaktests occur when overruns do not."

But I understand your reluctance of arguing 'in your own favour', it's never nice.

That is nicely put :-) Sadly I can't see me arguing that case neither. I have regularly issues with rules because The rules applied in my local store are in french... I own only the english rulebook and I have just about had it with being confronted with players who by themselves are not that rules-savvy, but have the french set. Lastly I even allowed someone to apply true line of sight rules just the way he liked it, because I just didn't want to be bothered anymore. In a way I have made it my policy to apply whatever they fervently believe is the rule even though I know my rules as well as possible. (if I do something wrong or am not sure I have the habit of looking it up after the game, that helps a lot)... So, arguing this case, even though probably based on quite solid arguments, ... I guess I don't have the heart to do it anymore.

Here is something I found when checking up on it:

BRB pg 52
"2. Calculate Combat Result

Once all the models engaged in the combat have fought, this concludes what we call a 'combat round' or 'round of close combat'. Now you must determine which side has won. ..."

Well, here it is really black on white, the definition of a round of close combat. After the round of close combat comes the combat resolution.

As you mentioned, under 'wipeout' on page 53 is mentioned the special case of a unit completely destroyed 'in the fight' which means that the winner is automatically decided. So a 'wipeout' is a means of determining the combat result.


However, here comes the problem, why I would say, overrun is possible if the unit was wiped out in combat resolution through crumble:
pg 58 brb:
'Overrun'
"... If a unit charges into combat and, by the end of that round of close combat, all its enemies have been wiped out" (so far so good for the argument, but now...) "... as the result of the combat (rather than the pursuit) the unit can choose to... (etc.)"

So, this seems fairly clear now. Example with a skeleton warrior unit:
20 models, 10 killed in combat, no wounds, got charged, lose by 11. Crumble after their round of close combat.
So, is an overrun possible:
a) If a unit charges into combat (yes)
b ) by the end of that round of close combat, all its enemies have been wiped out as the result of the combat (yes, the result of the combat was that the skeletons lost by more than they had models left and crumbled away, so, were in fact wiped out).

I am aware that you could argue that the 'result of the combat' was that to the skeletons were dealt 10 wounds and that only the 'effect' or 'consequence' of that combat result brought about the crumbling to dust. But I think it is a very thin argument.

So, the way I see it,
we get charged, we get wiped out on a crumble, can the opponent do an overrun? IMO yes, he can. In fact, citing the original poster: the "no" crowd says crumble is a result of the combat, thus overrun should occur before the crumble... I think this reasoning disregards that overrun is a direct consequence of the result of the combat. If you stop reading after "by the end of that round of close combat all its enemies have been wiped out", then yes, overrun occurs before crumble. But you need to read on...

How do other people read this?

I read it the same way, I belive they do get an overrun move since units can do there free reform from the same situation. There was also a FAQ that can be seen to support that they can overrun if they died from crumble.

BRB FAQ pg 6

"Q: If I charge an enemy and they are wiped out before the
Close Combat phase, can I choose to either Overrun or Reform
From Victory? If I can, when does this occur? (p58)
A: Yes. This occurs at the start of the Close Combat phase
before any blows have been struck."


True this does specify before the CC phase but it is talking about a unit overruning due to a result other than wounds caused in combat.

That quote from the FAQ is irrelevant. It explains a completly different scenario to that of crumbling. It reffers to situations when blows have not even been struck.

In the crumble scenario, blows have been struck and then combat is yet to be resolved. models are still left at "the end of a round of combat"

In the FAQ you quoted, it relates to a unit dieing before combat occurs such as from the effects of a spell or even shooting. All models die before the end of "a round of combat" which means the overrun rule activates

I think your conclusion is flawed. Here is why

"... 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... (etc.)"

'the result of the combat'. This is the key phrase. It dosnt say 'as a result of a round of close combat' nor does it say 'as a result of the close combat phase'

It refers the result of combat. However the BRB still qualifies the overrun special move as wiped out at the end of the round of close combat, which is before the combat is resolved.

Wipeout is the 'result' of the round of close combat, before the resolution of combat is preformed.

The 'result of combat' can only refer to the result of a round of close combat because the other term, combat resolutuion is well defined as coming after the overrun trigger point

I definely can't say that my argument is perfect. Problem here is a very poor wording imo... Yet, they did add the "other than pursuit" exception. My logic tells me: what was the result of my combat? well, my men 1st lost combat and 2nd crumbled. So they were destroyed through other means than pursuit... Why should they add that exception if they didn't want to hint at the possibility that units can be wiped out through crumbling?

I sure can see your argument, but mine as well as yours seem to turn around the question what they meant by 'wiped out as a result of combat'. I am afraid an faq would be nice here to clarify it.

For me personnally nothing changes. As I mentioned before I don't like arguing very thin or debatable interpretations of rules during a game, especially when I have to do it against a ruleset that is applied in another language. That's just the cross I have to bear if I want to play thegame :-)

In the end we have two paragraphs.
-The "wipeout" paragraph on page 53 is pretty clear: no overrun.
-The "overrun" paragraph on page 58 says 'if by the end of the round of close combat, the units is wiped out due to combat'

there is a refference to a moment in time, the end of the round of close combat, that is actually well defined on page 52, as you showed yourself.
"as a result of the combat", subsequently, is english an can therefore indeed be interpreted in multiple ways, if you really want to. It has, however, NO corresponding definition elsewhere in the book. So, even if you say that crumbling is a result of combat as well, crumbling hasn't happened yet when you check for overrun-possibilities, as defined on page 52.


In short: you can interpret the "overrun" paragraph on page 58 to allow overruns after crumbling ONLY IF:
-you ignore the definition of the combatround on page 52
-you ignore the paragraph on page 53 outright saying that it isn't possible.


fact is: when both players don't care for rules lawyering, my earlier quote gives a very natural answer to the question: 'Unstable' (crumbling) happens after we (automatically) passed our breaktest thanks to 'unbreakable'; breaktests occur when overruns do not."

when both players DO care for rules lawyering: you can point out that people arguing for overruning need to deliberately ignore two paragraphs (page 52 & 53) to even be able to call a third one (page 58) ambiguous.


I think we are ready to start thinking about how we can exploit this to the fullest! *evil grin*

@ Krael

Oh believe me, I am thinking about how I could exploit it (mostly my thoughts turn about how my hierotitan could now better protect my magebunker because when he is charged by something nasty he usually dies through crmble... not being able to overrun would give another turn of protection to my very pricey bunker. Besides this a sphinx, always prone to sudden death in combat resolution due to poor attacks and a few unwelcome 6es could be better used to protect the flank of your main combat unit or line. No overrun is in fact a very huge thing imo.)

I wish the wording of it all were better chosen. Does 'wiped out' in the overrun definition refer to the same 'wipe out' case defined in the combat resolution section? Not so clear imo. What exactly is the combat result? As you rightly say it is not clearly defined, which is the chink in the armour of my own argument why overrun may be possible. Overrall I really like the way you present the argument why it should be possible, especially if you apply your simplified explanation. I guess I will ask people in my gaming environment (though not over the board as that would only lead to distress I think) what their take is on this. Maybe the translation is better phrased and for once it plays in my favour.

I really think I nailed the case beyond doubt. appart from the hard rules arguments below, note the fact that somebody asking to overrun after crumbling is basically asking me to lose combat twice:

1-20 skellies get 15 casualties; I loose combat
2-So I take a break test... I pass, because you know, unbreakable
3-So I don't flee, and he doesn't persue, but I DO crumble (to extinction)
4-Now he wants to persue ANYWAY? (the rules clearly state overrun is for all means and purposes an persuit with the sole exception that "wipe out", so why should he get two instances of persuit?)

That is the main argument why I think it should not be allowed, indeed.

That's exactly why not being able to overrun after a wipe out through crumbling is such a huge thing.

There we are, 2 persons on the internet, agreeing with eachother. What are we gonna do now? This can't end well :(

damnation :blink:

I guess I shouldn't share that PM you sent me, Krael, where you said roland is a "huge waste of space and should leave the internet to more grown up people" right?





:D

Ha! A waste of space :-) I have been called worse :lol:

Oh how mean, how mean. Thankfully the internet is not interested in my age or my maturness :-) It would be rather a lonely world wide web I guess.

What, I send that one to you?
d*mn, must have mixed them up.
Could you forward that message about Sleboda to the man himself, Rolandbu?
Thanks :)

Nah, I'll be kind and keep the dirty talk about my fellow Tomb Kings to myself. Words can be so hurtful and you kind of outdid yourself there :-)
We wouldn't want that, I guess. Besides, I might just be waiting for a better occasion :ph43r:

I wouldn't be so glib, roland. I have that one you sent to me about Krael. You remember, right? Something like "If that dweeb ever says something insightful, it will be a miracle or just lucky..."






:)




(In case it's not obvious to all, this post and my last one are a total joke.)

at note nr. 1: Well, and I am right, am I not? :P



at note nr. 2: (and in case someone somehow didn't get it, just tell him, he'll explain)

Who didn't get what?
I don't follow.

just the joke :-)

anyway... hmmm... Here I am with nothing to say... awkward...

The French rule book states something that is maybe more clear about that. A raw translation of that part says :

"If an unit has charged and at the end of the round of close combat all its ennemies have been annihilated (included because of the combat result, but not because of a pursuit)"

It maybe is one example where the translation gives some clarity on the intention of the rule. It seems that the combat result can indeed trigger an overcharge, and not only the round of close combat.

please give the french quote?
the english after all, also says "..as a result of combat (rather than persuit).."

and still: at the end of the close combat round, we havn't crumbled yet, because we are still checking who has won or lost, so doesn't matter

French quote of the second paragraph of the "Irresistible charge", page 58 :

So in french, in parenthesis, they say "included because of the combat result". I can't find anything else that applies in the combat result that would kill models other than the Unstable rule.

There are ways to charge and be killed by the end of the round of combat that have nothing to do with fighting.

For example, you charge as part of a pursuit from your turn. It is now the enemy's turn and he plays Skaven. You are fighting slaves. He shoots into combat with a warpfire thrower and unfortunately kills all the slaves before you have had a chance to swing a single attack.

It can happen in your own turn as well with a scattered catapult shot.

Comets can come down and blow away things in combat before they fight.


It's unusual, sure, but it does happen that sometimes an enemy is wiped out before combat, and this rule lets them get their overrun.

None of the examples you've given are things that happen because of the combat result.

ahm,.. impact hits, for example?

you charge a unit of 10 something with a big bus of chariot and kill them all of with the impact hits,... even though no1 has "fought against one other" the chariots keep on crusing,..

that is the situation that the french stuff quote explains...

ah merde :-) Well, I can't really think of anything else, too. So, for me in my locale Overrun stays possible after crumble, unless someday they make an FAQ.

I am afraid "Impact Hits are resolved at the very beginning of the close combat" (brb pg 71) and further on "as Impact Hits are close combat attacks (albeit of an unusual kind)..."

So, your argument that impact hits can kill a unit without anyone fighting against each other is flawed, as the impact hits themselves are attacks of one unit vs. the other. Think of them as attacks made with the highest possible initiative (even before "always strikes first").

hmmm, let's assume the rules shouldn't be dependent on the language they're writtin in.

In english it says:

In french it says apparently:

The key point clearly is the comparrison of the statements "as a result of the combat" and "y compris suite au resultat de combat".
I had some french in highschool, so I can see how the latter roughly translates to something like "(included following the outcome of combat, but not because of a persuit)".
Far2Casual (who I assume speaks french better then me) however, translates resultat de combat as combat result. Combat result is a defined term in WHF (combat res), and the term doesn't show up in the english rule...
If indeed 'resultat de combat' is the defined term for combat res in the french book... then that translation changed the rule by introducing a defined term to it. If this is the case, then I don't know what to make of it; on the one hand that seems like a sloppy translation job, on the other hand, the rule is less ambivalent in french, so even if it wasn't the translaters decision to make, the book is better off for it.
At any rate, in a french game environment I wouldn't start a rule argument on the basis of the 'suposedly purer' english rules, that goes too far.
In short, if 'resultat de combat'=combat res, then I'm sorry, skellies are overrun in france more easily (Heh, captain america probably agrees :P).

on the flipside, I refuse to take translations of the english book as a kind of 'extra FAQ'; that goes equally too far.

so in the end, english skittles just are tougher
madness

Great summary sir.

I am indeed a french native, and the "résultat de combat" is indeed the french translation of the defined term "combat result".

The text is so clear in french that nobody ever questionned it actually. In the french community, we very often use the english version for rules discussions and use it as the most accurate version. But here the rule is so clear in french and so vague in english that there is, for us, no debate. Crumble = overrun.

I can understand why it would not convince you, english speakers, but at least you have that information :)

Ya, I suspected it would be the defined term.
I can only agree with your interpretation of your book then.

En bref:

Les squelettes français ne peut pas tenir la ligne. :D

Couldn't agree more. It is a translation and there are definitely differences between the books. Translations are definitely no FAQ for the english book.

In my case, it is nice to know that arguing such a point would just lose me in rule lawyering, which is not what I look for when I go to play a game of warhammer (or any game. As a golden rule in Pen & Paper, the dungeon master is always right... If only they could translate this to the Tomb Kings a lot of problems would be solved right away :-)

thx for confirming it

Wait what?

So your trying to argue, that because a translation from English to French emphasises a slightly different phrase so much so that you consider it clear enough that the English version is wrong?

Sorry I don't buy that argument. The English version is 100% clear. Overrun is only alowd if you wipe your enemy out after a round of combat, and a round of combat is the first step in the combat phase. Crumble, as a result of an unbreakable unit loosing a round of combat is preformed in the step after overrun qualifier is checked.

Arguing based on a translation of the origional text into another language is a moot point. Did the designer who wrote the rule translate the text? Did the translater actually understand the meaning or context of the rule to begin with? Was it simply a poor traslation?

Do you want further evidence to clarify what the rulebook states clearly in english? Go read the Light magic Spell that allows you to fight a second round of combat in a combat phase (that was released with storm of magic). Tell me how the wording in that does not refer to the same steps in close combat as the wording for overrun does?

Close combat phase
Close combat
combat
round of close combat

All these terms are similar but not interchangable and have different meanings with regards to the rule book

also:
Combat result
Result of a round of close combat
Result of combat

Niether are any of these the same terms.

Simply look at it another way. If you win a combat vs an enemy that is not unbreakable, you will force a break test on them, which may allow you to pursue them if they flee. If the unit is unbreakable, instability comes into play instead of making a break check. An unbreakable unit can never run. This check is done after a round of close combat is preformed. Overrun can only occur if you wipout an enemy on the charge in a round of close combat. Overrun, is a type of pursuit move that is alowd due to the fact you have wiped out the enemy on a charge. The fact remains, that if an unstable unit crumbles as a result of a round of close combat, it is past the point where overrun can trigger.

Crumble is done instead of a break test. An unbreakable unit atomatically passes its break test. If overrun where able to occur after crumble, then likewise, an enemy unit would be able to make a pursuit move if an unstable unit crumbled to death in a later combat phase where it did not charge as well. This is clearly not the case.