FlatMattie

Juve
May 30, 2018
23
11
3
Edinburgh
In my most recent game we played the marauders scenario with me being the defender and the attacker having "scrag" as his special objective meaning he secretly selected one of my fighters and gets extra points for killing that fighter (he chose my leader).
After a fairly bloody fire fight and some fierce scraps on the flanks my leader took out my opponents last fighter (his beast of an aberrant carrying a two handed hammer) in CC so he played the last gasp tactic card and attacked back inflicting a serious injury, now my question is does he get to make the free coup de grace action as he normally would in CC or not?
I say he doesn't because his fighter is removed after the attack is complete and the coup de grace is a separate action made for free after the attack, he argues that the coup de grace is classed as part of the attack process. It's unlikely that either of us will back down as without the free coup de grace I win 6 points to his 5 but if he gets to make the coup de grace then the bonus points bring him up to 8 points and he wins.
 
It is a separate action. We've always played it as you only get the free CDA during your own activation, we do not allow it on reaction hits either.

There is some clarification that you have to pick consolidate or CDA as well but it was on Facebook or something. This also aligned with the way we play ish as well we require that any consolidation move keeps you in CDA range as well or you lose the option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oar locks
The free CDG comes as the final step in the close combat sequence.
There is some clarification that you have to pick consolidate or CDA as well but it was on Facebook or something. This also aligned with the way we play ish as well we require that any consolidation move keeps you in CDA range as well or you lose the option.

That is in the compendium now in the relevant step of the combat sequence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vonvilkee
For the OP - just looked at the CC section of the compendium rulebook (p68) and it says there that:

"Whenever a fighter makes a close combat attack against one or more enemy fighters they are Engaged with using a weapon with the Melee or Sidearm trait(s), this sequence is followed.

1. Turn to Face
...
6. Resolve Hits.
7. Reaction Attacks.
8. Consolidate or Coup De Grace"

I guess, technically, the card lets you make a CC attack and so you follow the full sequence, including CDG for the winner but also including reaction attacks. My guess (and it's just that) is that this isn't the intention, although it could mean you pick up more OOA results from the reaction attacks and have to make more injury rolls accordingly if it goes wrong.

So I'd say you can pick from:
A: single attack, no CDG or reaction attacks.
B: single attack, potential CDG if you take the enemy down/OOA, but risking full reaction attacks and further OOA yourself if you don't take them out.

Best to settle before the battle, naturally, although in this instance as both have advantages/draw-backs a roll off when it occurs might not piss anybody off too much.
 
Doesnt it die after making its fight action? At the same timing window as the guy wanted to take free cdg? I would say that the card stating it dies after the attack means it's dead before it gets free actions on the tail of the fight action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daemonstrate
Doesnt it die after making its fight action? At the same timing window as the guy wanted to take free cdg? I would say that the card stating it dies after the attack means it's dead before it gets free actions on the tail of the fight action.
It depends whether the free Coup de grâce action is part of the Fight action itself or if it's performed immediately afterwards. The way it's written, it's not clear (but I'd vote for the latter.) The guy is dying, he doesn't have time for a Coup de grâce.

Whether or not the enemy fighter can make reaction attacks doesn't matter. The fighter is already Out of action and therefore cannot go Out of action anymore (and Lasting injury are only rolled for the one Injury roll that makes the fighter go Out of action). For the same reason, they won't suffer any consequence if they make a grenade explode in their own face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vonvilkee
Have they removed multiple OOA results causing multiple roles on the Lasting Injury table?
Multiple OoA results from the one Injury roll that made the fighter go Out of action cause as many rolls on the Lasting Injury table.
A fighter who is already Out of action cannot go Out of action anymore (as going OoA implies a change of state from not-OoA to OoA), therefore it's useless to resolve further attacks against them.
 
How does that work for multiple hits during the one action?

We've always just rolled them all simultaneously and applied the results. Seems simpler than rolling each Wounding hit sequentially.
 
How does that work for multiple hits during the one action?
That's the million dollar question!
There must be some kind of sequence (there is a similar problem for Firepower rolls when attacking with a lascutter) but it's not described anywhere. Considering they only put 3 injury dice for each player in the starter box (and the maximum Damage characteristic among weapons is 3), I'd say they expect you to make injury rolls one at a time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kairae
Yeah, the Lascutter question I'd solve the same way. Make all the attacks simultaneously and then apply the results of a failed ammo roll at the end of the action.

I find that a simpler quicker gameplay then forcing sequential rolling.

But yeah, I can see how that's probably not RAW.
 
Huh. I always took the Last Gasp card to mean that the fighter going OOA gets one single attack with one single weapon. Not that he gets a full Fight (Basic) action. The card just says "...can immediately make an attack. This is a close combat attack if they are Engaged, otherwise it is a ranged attack."

Either way, the free Coup de Grace action would not apply from this card, just like you don't get a free Coup de Grace with retaliation attacks.
 
Last edited:
Whether an Attack means the full Fight Action or just one of the individual Attacks is kinda grey. It's also an issue with Dodge and Unstoppable Behemoth.

Personally I’m on the side of ‘an attack is a single Attack’ not the full action. But when this was recently raised on Facebook the counter argument was compelling.
 
“I would disagree with your interpretation as the rules for close combat on p68 of the current rulebook second paragraph state "Whenever a fighter makes a close combat attack....this sequence is followed", which implies that the entire sequence is a singular close combat attack.

Step 3 of that sequence Determine Attack Dice states to work out the number of attack dice to be rolled based on the attack characteristic, but actually avoids calling each one an attack.

Further you don't make attack rolls, rather you make Hit Rolls in step 5, then move on to resolve successful Hits in step 6.

All that said agree it with your gaming group and move on and have fun.”

I disagree with it from an “easiest way to play the rules” POV. But can’t fault the logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: almic85
I do think that GW should make it clear in their terminology. For example, if "an attack" is the whole sequence, then perhaps the sequence should be referred to as a series of "strikes". (Or alternatively, call the whole sequence "a melee" and each strike would be "an attack".)

The Characteristics Profile calls the stat "Attacks" (plural) witch represents the number of dice you roll. That implies each die you roll represents "an attack". Because "2 Attacks" == "2 dice". But, as previously noted by others, it is correct that the Close Combat sequence says to follow the whole sequence for "an attack".

So, I can see why you would give the fighter a full Fight action as strict interpretation of the RAW does call "an attack" the entire fight sequence. I just find it hard to justify that a guy who is going out of action, and trying to make one last final attack with his (possibly) dying breath, can still function like Bruce Lee and land multiple hits.

I think the card represents the fighter's "Last Gasp" as he raises his weapon and just manages to bring it down as he falls to the ground unconscious.

Also, the wording on the Tactics Cards tend to be ... shall we say, "loose"? That's why I'm sticking with the spirit of the card, and interpreting "an attack" to be "a strike" in this case.

But if someone wants to interpret it differently, I certainly am not going to say they are wrong. My interpretation is just my opinion.

Also, as a note: If a fighter has two Sidearms would you allow him to fire both using Twin Guns Blazing rule? I would think that if you are allowing a full attack sequence, you should allow the pulling of two triggers. That rule refers to each shot as "an attack" and says to resolve them in sequence. So it seems no, you can't pull two triggers, but you can engage in a whole series of close combat strikes? Doesn't seem right to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S
Technically, the reason you can't use Twin Gun Blazing with Last Gasp is because this card does not make the fighter perform a Shoot action and TGB can only be used with that specific action (you can't use TGB with Blind fire either, for the same reason.)

Since Last Gasp allows for shooting an Unwieldy weapon (normally a double action), I'm pretty sure you are supposed to get a full close combat attack.
I agree it's not very realistic, but if you only allow for one attack dice in CC then the ranged attack should also suffer some kind of penalty (I'd say -1 to hit, maybe even -2.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts
I don't think the physicality of pulling a trigger quite equates to that of making a series of close combat strikes.

And Last Gasp does not say you get a Fight (Basic) action either, yet if you allow the fighter to do the full sequence of close combat, that is what you are letting him do (with the Consolidate/Coup de Grace step disallowed by the end statement to remove fighter from play after the attack is resolved, that is essentially a Fight (Basic) action.) And in that sense, TGB does equate to a Fight (Basic) action.

So your argument to not allow TGB is because it doesn't say "a Shoot action", yet you want it to be a full Fight action despite the fact that it does not say "a Fight action." That doesn't persuade me.

I'm not saying TGB should be allowed. But if you are allowing a full sequence of close combat strikes, then to disallow TGB doesn't seem right at all to me. (Which means it's probably exactly what GW intends.)