Quick question about hatred...

[Regis Von Carstein]

My skellies were engaged to the front with a unit of ironbreakers. I then raised a unit of 11 zombies on the flank and next turn charged the flank and got off an invocation so the unit of zombies was at around 20.

My opponent told me that since his ironbreakers have hatred they get to reroll against the zombies in CC because it is the first round of combat against them.

I thought that he should not get the re-rolls since it was not the first round but I wasn't 100% so I just agreed to his interpretation since one or two more dead zombies would make no difference.

So what is the correct call?

 

[LordTobiothan]

As far as raw is concerned there is no definition for the first round of combat. Or whether or not a new unit entering the fight has its own counter for combat turns.

If a unit had a banner that did wounds based on the number of rounds in combat would the zombies take less? Seems wrong but there's no rules for it.

 

[Regis Von Carstein]

So how do you play it?

 

[Eternal flitter]

I would definitely say no re-rolls since it's not the ironbreakers first round of combat. I've never seen it played that way before and I don't think it reads that way either.

 

[LordTobiothan]

I play vampire counts and wood elves. One doesn't like multi unit combat much due to cr bleed and the other only ever charges in tandem or they die.

I've literally never hit this circumstance in real play.

By absolute (aka stupid) RAW, hatred only works on the first round of combat NOT the first round of the unit with hatreds combat with a particular unit. Those Direwolves that charged that cannon on turn 2? That was the first round of combat. No hatred for anybody after that.

I'd probably play it that they didn't get the rolls. Not for any particular reason, that's just what my assumption was before reading the rule.

 

[najo]

My skellies were engaged to the front with a unit of ironbreakers. I then raised a unit of 11 zombies on the flank and next turn charged the flank and got off an invocation so the unit of zombies was at around 20.

My opponent told me that since his ironbreakers have hatred they get to reroll against the zombies in CC because it is the first round of combat against them.

I thought that he should not get the re-rolls since it was not the first round but I wasn't 100% so I just agreed to his interpretation since one or two more dead zombies would make no difference.

So what is the correct call?

Warhammer is a RAI (rules as intended) game. The game clearly states this through out the book. I personally play RAW and then when I hit a snag use the most clear, straight-forward reading of the rules as RAI.

With that, there is two parts to this.

Part 1: First round of combat is very obvious. Its the first round of combat. For a unit engaged (like your friend's ironbreakers) it only gets one first round. The rules as clearly read do not allow your friend to re-roll against the zombies or other units in following rounds of combat for them.

Part 2: Hatred applies to the unit that has it, and its in relation to that unit. Under the rules for multiple combats it clearly says there are many complications that the rules can not specifically cover, and this is one of them. A unit charging into combat is experiencing its own first round of combat. Therefor, new arrivals to combats would still get their own hatred re-rolls, but they would not trigger re-rolls for units they are charging into.

Another consideration. A unit shouldn't benefit from its own Hatred more than once as Hatred clearly is intended to be benefited from in one round of combat. So, the Ironbreakers would only get re-rolls on their first round of combat, and not everytime a unit charges in to them.

 

[LordTobiothan]

As a curiosity @najo if a unit with hatred is charged by my doggies and gets there hatred and kills them, do my grave guard not have to worry about their hatred by your interpretation? As the unit already had their first round of combat and that is the only time you get hatred.

If hatred does work vs the subsequent charge of my grave guard, why wouldn't it work in the situation posed by the OP?

I'm not sure which is better really. Hatred is pretty worthless in one of the options. I can just chaff a rule you payed extra points per model for away.

 

[owain_b]

I think najo's post is saying that for that particular combat there is only one 'first round' so other units joining the combat don't trigger another first round for any of the units already in combat only for the new chargers.
So once all combatants have been killed and the original unit gets into combat again a new 'round one's ensues. That's how I interpreted it and how we play it.

 

[najo]

As a curiosity @najo if a unit with hatred is charged by my doggies and gets there hatred and kills them, do my grave guard not have to worry about their hatred by your interpretation? As the unit already had their first round of combat and that is the only time you get hatred.

If hatred does work vs the subsequent charge of my grave guard, why wouldn't it work in the situation posed by the OP?

I'm not sure which is better really. Hatred is pretty worthless in one of the options. I can just chaff a rule you payed extra points per model for away.

@owain_b has it. Its per engagement. Each individual combat has a first round. Its not the first round of combat that the unit fights for the whole game. Its each time the unit has a first round of combat for itself.

 

[LordTobiothan]

@owain_b has it. Its per engagement. Each individual combat has a first round. Its not the first round of combat that the unit fights for the whole game. Its each time the unit has a first round of combat for itself.

This is basically how I interpreted it at first reading. But this doesn't really preclude the situation in this thread. Making a distinction between killing an enemy and fighting a new one, and continuing to fight an enemy and still fighting a new one seems trivial.

denying hatred because 1 zombie survived the previous combat sounds cheesy as hell when put into perspective.

 

[najo]

This is basically how I interpreted it at first reading. But this doesn't really preclude the situation in this thread. Making a distinction between killing an enemy and fighting a new one, and continuing to fight an enemy and still fighting a new one seems trivial.

denying hatred because 1 zombie survived the previous combat sounds cheesy as hell when put into perspective.

I'm confused. That is not how I understood his situation. The Ironbreakers and Skeletons were fighting. The ironbreakers already got hatred against the skeletons. @Regis Von Carstein then summoned 11 zombies, boosted them to 20 with invocation and charged them in to the ironbreaker's flank on the next round. The ironbreakers were still fighting the skeletons. So the first round of combat is passed and the ironbreakers don't get hatred re-rolls against the zombies as they still engaged.

Now, if the skeletons are killed and the ironbreakers unengaged. Then the zombies charge and its a new combat, the ironbreakers would get hatred again. But that is not the impression I have as Regis mentioned charging the flank, and if they were unengaged the ironbreakers likely would have reformed to not present their flank.

 

[LordTobiothan]

I'm confused. That is not how I understood his situation. The Ironbreakers and Skeletons were fighting. The ironbreakers already got hatred against the skeletons. @Regis Von Carstein then summoned 11 zombies, boosted them to 20 with invocation and charged them in to the ironbreaker's flank on the next round. The ironbreakers were still fighting the skeletons. So the first round of combat is passed and the ironbreakers don't get hatred re-rolls against the zombies as they still engaged.

Now, if the skeletons are killed and the ironbreakers unengaged. Then the zombies charge and its a new combat, the ironbreakers would get hatred again. But that is not the impression I have as Regis mentioned charging the flank, and if they were unengaged the ironbreakers likely would have reformed to not present their flank.

Which brings us back to "my one zombie survived combat and I'm charging you with this other unit, you don't get hatred"

Which sounds horrendously wrong. Anyone aware of how it works could almost ensure you never get your hatred vs anything you actually want it on.

 

[Infernal Skull]

^ Correct.

When a unit with Hatred is first engaged in combat, that's its first round of combat and the Hatred re-rolls kick in. The unit's Hatred will not activate again until the unit reaches a point where it is no longer engaged in combat. It doesn't matter how many other units come and go in the combat; unless the unit with Hatred becomes unengaged, it doesn't get any more Hatred re-rolls. Once the unit has become unengaged it will get Hatred re-rolls in its first turn of the next combat it joins.

 

[LordTobiothan]

^ Correct.

When a unit with Hatred is first engaged in combat, that's its first round of combat and the Hatred re-rolls kick in. The unit's Hatred will not activate again until the unit reaches a point where it is no longer engaged in combat. It doesn't matter how many other units come and go in the combat; unless the unit with Hatred becomes unengaged, it doesn't get any more Hatred re-rolls. Once the unit has become unengaged it will get Hatred re-rolls in its first turn of the next combat it joins.

While that is the common assumption there actually aren't any rules defining what the "first round of combat" is.

Honestly either interpretation is RAW correct and both have very easy arguments for which is RAI correct.

 

[najo]

While that is the common assumption there actually aren't any rules defining what the "first round of combat" is.

Honestly either interpretation is RAW correct and both have very easy arguments for which is RAI correct.

First round of combat is relative to the when a unit becomes engaged. The RAW and RAI both support this assumption and there is nothing in the rules that supports an already engaged unit getting a new first round of combat because another unit decides to charge in. For the already engaged units, it is not the first round of combat.

 

[LordTobiothan]

First round of combat is relative to the when a unit becomes engaged. The RAW and RAI both support this assumption and there is nothing in the rules that supports an already engaged unit getting a new first round of combat because another unit decides to charge in. For the already engaged units, it is not the first round of combat.

But it is the first round of combat that unit has ever had vs that unit. So it absolutely still fits the definition of the units first round of combat. The language is not explicit it is permissive of any occurrence of a first round of combat.

I can easily see how it can be interpreted that way and the rules do not actually reside on one side or the other.

 

[najo]

But it is the first round of combat that unit has ever had vs that unit. So it absolutely still fits the definition of the units first round of combat. The language is not explicit it is permissive of any occurrence of a first round of combat.

I can easily see how it can be interpreted that way and the rules do not actually reside on one side or the other.

Hatred doesn't say "enemy's first round of combat" it says THE first round of combat. It is all from the context of the unit with hatred. It also says the rest of the combat is fought normally. When you reference rules for Multiple Close Combats, it says that the rules are written in one-to-one combat form and that "multiple combats often create situations not entirely covered by the rules."

By the way Hatred is supposed to play and the context of the rulebook, units do not get a second re-roll form hatred unless they unengaged and re-engaged again.

 

[LordTobiothan]

Hatred doesn't say "enemy's first round of combat" it says THE first round of combat. It is all from the context of the unit with hatred. It also says the rest of the combat is fought normally. When you reference rules for Multiple Close Combats, it says that the rules are written in one-to-one combat form and that "multiple combats often create situations not entirely covered by the rules."

By the way Hatred is supposed to play and the context of the rulebook, units do not get a second re-roll form hatred unless they unengaged and re-engaged again.

That opens an entire other reading that I can remove a units hatred entirely by throwing some wolves at them. As that would be THE first round of combat, in respect to the unit with hatred, everything after that is no longer the first round the unit with hatred has been in combat.

I'd like to clarify that I would have absolutely assumed it worked as you say if I ever ran into hatred units, which I don't oddly enough. But the rules do not support that interpretation and exclude all others.

Nothing disallows it to be read that each new enemy is a new first round of combat for the unit vs that enemy, and as shown by the OP, some may read it that way.

There's also the third completely supported interpretation I posted above. But I can't see anyone reading it like that honestly.

 

[Hellion Nox]

I figured it was at the beginning at a round of combat. A unit joining 'a combat' will not trigger another 'first round of combat' thus not giving another chance of hatred.
If we were to play like your friend here, I bet you there'd be loads of other situations and rules that we could "interpret" (*ahem* exploit) this way.

 

[LordTobiothan]

I figured it was at the beginning at a round of combat. A unit joining 'a combat' will not trigger another 'first round of combat' thus not giving another chance of hatred.
If we were to play like your friend here, I bet you there'd be loads of other situations and rules that we could "interpret" (*ahem* exploit) this way.

You cant claim one interpretation is an exploit just because you disagree with it. There's absolutely no rule or other precedence that makes your ruling any more right then his friend's, aside from what you believe to be the common knowledge of how it works.

As I've already noted many times in the thread, it is not even close to favoring one interpretation over the other. Although throughout all the rules forum threads I've been through ive noticed people tend to feel personally attacked when their idea of common sense is questioned.

 

[Regis Von Carstein]

I am not sure whether the "fluff" part of the description should play a role in interpreting the rules RAI. If it does, then there should definitely be no re-rolls when the zombies charge in because the ironbreakers would have been "blood-mad hacking" the skeletons and then "the impetus would be spent" by the time the zombies charge in.

 

[LordTobiothan]

I am not sure whether the "fluff" part of the description should play a role in interpreting the rules RAI. If it does, then there should definitely be no re-rolls when the zombies charge in because the ironbreakers would have been "blood-mad hacking" the skeletons and then "the impetus would be spent" by the time the zombies charge in.

The fluff supports the third absolutely ridiculous interpretation most really. They go madly blood hacking at your dire wolves turn 1 and are spent for the rest of the battle.

 

[najo]

You cant claim one interpretation is an exploit just because you disagree with it. There's absolutely no rule or other precedence that makes your ruling any more right then his friend's, aside from what you believe to be the common knowledge of how it works.

As I've already noted many times in the thread, it is not even close to favoring one interpretation over the other. Although throughout all the rules forum threads I've been through ive noticed people tend to feel personally attacked when their idea of common sense is questioned.

There is a more correct reading though. The context of the rules as a whole sets the tone, how the rules are understood and the most plain, straight forward reading of the rules. With GW, you can't remove a specific rule from the rules around them. That is how RAI works and as said before, Warhammer is an RAI game when it comes down to it.

You keep taking an uncommon interpretation and then trying to say it is equal. Technically it is one way to read it, and there is this new third way of reading it, but when you read the combat rules, and then the multiple combat rules and the rules for hatred, and you use hatred in both single and multi-combats, 99.9% of players are going to resolve the hatred question above as everyone in this thread has except you

This is not most people accepting a unwritten common ruling, this is most people reading Hatred straight forward, the way GW intended and how they write rules.

And as for upsetting people in other threads, keep in mind that latching on to an obscure, devil's advocate type argument and then arguing it over and over is going to rub people the wrong way. I get your point, but arguing rules over and over when everyone else posting disagrees is going to create friction.

 

[LordTobiothan]

I haven't really had to argue rules over and over with anyone. More often then not I'm the only one putting the rules in my posts and everyone else's reposts the same message a dozen times about how they play it. Key word most, no one take this as a personal attack

You can't even call the interpretation common. Being on a forum means that after a very short amount of time the greater majority of its users will read the rules the way they see others on the forum reading them.

Questions like these often come up from new forum users because a completely common reading might be entirely uncommon here.

I've seen no evidence towards the RAI being in favor of either direction based on how the rule is written and taking a poll of the board is an entirely unfair method to determine the "right" ruling.

 

[estwheadn]

I'm sure you guys have given great explanations of the rule. Forgive me for not reading them and possibly repeating what someone else has said.

If a unit has a rule that works in the 'First Round of Combat' then this applies to that unit's first round in the combat. In the OP's post the iron breakers had already been in that combat for a round. Whether or not the zombies join that combat does not change the fact that it is no longer the dwarves' first round of fighting in that combat.

I had a similar situation this weekend against orcs with choppas and that is the explanation that the gw store owner gave us.

EDIT:
Ok so I read a few posts up and I think what is confusing people like lordtobiothan is the definition of a 'combat'. You could never have a 'new first round of combat' unless you have a new combat. That is based off more than just common sense, it is also based off the dictionary definition of the word 'first'.

So really it's a cut and dry scenario here, no reason to pull up RAW vs RAI because they are the same in this situation