I'm still reading the book so this might be explained elsewhere but I'd imagine it should be in the close combat rules. Of course I might just be blind.

Several places outside the close combat rules refer to "rounds" of close combat. A close combat "round" is not defined anywhere I can see. In fact the close combat rules don't really provide a new-comer to the game (or gaming in general) with any explanation of ongoing combats. The whole section is written with charging and fighting in the same turn in mind.

Of course - I'm assuming the game has not changed so radically that combats continue "round" after "round" in the same game turn until one side runs or is wiped out. I'd like to see that though


Did I miss something or is a rule/definition/explanation missing from the book?

It's referring to int steps, each model moves into the combat and fights at its own int step now, giving you upto 10 rounds in one turn of cc

Your both right and both terribly wrong.. like warpath 2.
@bane- "rounds"=/= initiative steps, Matt is using the word round, but describing initiative steps, Iniative steps are never described as rounds in the book, but do appear elsewhere.

Rounds do exist outside the terminology, for theme in 3 places.. each of which just mean player turn.
places it turns up in the book;

USR of hatred only works for first round of close combat, not for subsequent rounds (turn) p37
p76 bottom left at the end of a round of close combat..calculate the assault result.
p65 Big paragraph+ heading round 2.. about how if in the first combat round/ A combat phase, the challenge has not been resolved.. it goes on to DING DING, ROUND2. (awesome loophole tightening about ATSKNF causing the exception of a second challenge per combat)

those are the only references to round, and whilst convuluted and pushed in for theme, are not required terminology for general fight ph(r)aseology.

If you complain an awful lot about it GW will create a nice responsive FAQ,despite the tongue lashing this place gives them for answering obvious questions.

killmaimburn wrote:If you complain an awful lot about it GW will create a nice responsive FAQ,despite the tongue lashing this place gives them for answering obvious questions.

I think Vampire Count players have a different definition of responsive

Presumably these responsive FAQs will include contradictory answers (Ogre FAQ), a statement of how we're not answering RAI (Ogre FAQ) or completely and unnecessarily change the way everyone plays the game and open up several unanswered whatifs (WHF BRB FAQ on crumbling/over-run).

Is that off topic?
Have you played 6th ed yet?
GW are lovely and responsive about 40k, to the point at which your colleague berates them for releasing them so quickly after release.. and others about how clarifications aren't required.Its so delicious.Haven't played the other thing since 88, nor do I wish to.

I'm not assuming round = initiative step. My assumption is that a "round" means a full run-through of all initiative steps 10 to 1 in a single turn, followed by working out results. If not, things like Glorious Interventions and Challenges don't make sense (because they keep referring to rounds.. in fact "round of a challenge is mentioned at one point).

I disagree that introducing the word round is not misleading. These are rules and if you suddenly introduce a term not previously used, what are people supposed to think it means?

Clearly BANE and I both came to different conclusions about its meaning and we've both played the game before. What on earth is a newcomer supposed to do?

BTW - I consider this a minor point in the general scheme of things. The rest of what I've read has seemed pretty good so far but I'm yet to finish it or play it. Soon...

Your assumption of round is correct Matt. Once combat is over and you've worked out results, you would have a 2nd round of combat next turn assuming your still combat.

mattjgilbert wrote:I'm not assuming round = initiative step.[...]Clearly BANE and I both came to different conclusions about its meaning and we've both played the game before.

I was (addressing bane) referring to the illustrative language you used ""round" after "round" in the same game turn", which had led to him mistakenly connecting the wrong path, to correct you. When rounds do indeed exist, for fluff*.

mattjgilbert wrote:My assumption is that a "round" means a full run-through of all initiative steps 10 to 1 in a single turn, followed by working out results. If not, things like Glorious Interventions and Challenges don't make sense (because they keep referring to rounds.. in fact "round of a challenge is mentioned at one point).

Thats correct, although I believe I exhaustively listed the times its mentioned, (scanning and reading all ground, around and turn-rounds from the BRB) and therefore contest “keep” .

mattjgilbert wrote:I [dis]agree that introducing the word round is [not] misleading. These are rules and if you suddenly introduce a term not previously used, what are people supposed to think it means?

killmaimburn wrote:convuluted and pushed in for theme, are not required terminology for general fight ph(r)aseology.

.. * I believe I agree, basically they tried to get all creative to big up their flagship 1 shall stand 1 shall fall and having said it once it crept in in stupid place (USR) like something trodden in by a guest who’d just been hiking and was too busy singing "with a knapsack on my back" to remove their boots. Creative flourish should not be encouraged within core rules, just grey boxes.

TL:DR- its another “furious assault” but with better reasons.

killmaimburn wrote:to the point at which your colleague berates them for releasing them so quickly after release..

A bit harsh!?

I was merely stating my opinion that if anything is done thoughtfully enough over a long enough period to have been read through a few times then it shouldn't need a revision within a week of publication.

I have this view over anything, not just GW books.