Unit Charges, Combined Melee Attack, and what constitutes a "contributed charge attack"

A unit consists of 3 models that each have two melee weapons and the Combined Melee Attack advantage. The unit charges successfully, and all troopers are placed with the charging model’s charge target in their melee range, and some number of other enemy models also in all the troopers’ melee ranges.

The player elects to make a combined melee attack with all 3 models against the charging model’s charge target. The charging model’s first attack is a charge attack, by definition (as all the relevant criteria have been met).

Normally, the first attack made by the other 2 troopers would be a charge attack if it is made against an enemy model/unit that was in the charging model’s melee range at the end of its movement. In this case, though, the other 2 models who are contributing attacks are not actually making attacks.

When they contribute these attacks to the charging model’s attack, are they all considered to necessarily be “charge attacks” for the purpose of determining whether the combined attack itself is a charge attack?

Is it possible to elect that the contributing model is not contributing a charge attack, and later make an independent attack itself woth its 2nd weapon, which would then be “the first attack […] made by” that model? This would result in the combined attack not being a charge attack, but there might be some tactical reason that you would want to make a non-charge combined melee attack against the original charge target, while making the other troopers’ charge attacks against other targets.


The only possible way the quoted rules make any sense is if the contributed attacks are/must be/can only be charge attacks. I find that the argument for the opposite position negates its own existence.

If a model contributes its first attack against a valid charge target, that must be a charge attack by necessity; otherwise, it is impossible to ever get the charge bonus on a CMA, per the yellow-highlighted sentences.

If model can somehow contribute a non-charge attack that magically “counts as” a charge attack, then the yellow-highlighted sentences cease to serve any purpose and their presence in the text makes no sense. If those sentences carry no meaning, they effectively no longer exist,meaning the foundation for the hypothetical example cannot exist, which prevents this situation from ever arising in the first place.

(This applies to your other example as well: if we accept that Troopers B and C can contribute transubstantiated charge attacks, you’re effectively suggesting that those model can make two charge attacks per turn. We know that models can’t make two charge attacks per turn, so one of those attacks cannot be a charge. Which circles right back around to the first paragraph: either those yellow-highlighted sentences actually mean what they appear to mean, or they’re utter garbage and might as well be lorem ipsum text for all the good they do. In either case, the hypothetical example is negated.)

Generally, the rule book does not contain nonexistent rules and the developers don’t generally waste time espousing fanciful, impossible situations. :grin:

I think we can safely conclude that the yellow-highlighted sentences are there for a reason. :smile: I think you’re overthinking it.

The attack has to be a charge attack, even if it doesn’t absolutely 100% strictly conform to the charge attack rules when read in a rules-lawyer-y fashion, because that’s the only answer that makes any sense.

(I think this rationale stands just fine, so I’m not tagging Chuck et al on this one. Please feel free to ask for an Infernal if you desire, however.)


Counterpoint: For nearly 10 years, the rules for “Continuous Effect: Fire/Corrosion” didn’t actually specify that they dealt damage type: Fire/Corrosion.

Sometimes the authors suffer from the curse of familiarity and think that the rules say what they want them to, but they might not.

For what it’s worth, we always played it in past editions as “The first attack contributed is a charge attack, if it’s made against all models’ charge target.” But that’s from back when each individual trooper had its own charge target.

The rules for unit movement/charging have been changed multiple times since then, while the wording for CMA/CRA are, as best as I can tell, unchanged since the previous edition. It’s entirely possible intent has changed one way or the other, and that it’s not reflected in the rules as currently written.

@elswickchuck , for the sake of expediency.


My memory of this is vague, but I think in previous editions you were able to choose which attack to contribute to CMA, resulting in possible non-charge CMAs even if the unit charged. Because the contributing models are not actually making attacks, the attack being contributed is not automatically their first attack.

So if you have two attacks, one of which is the charge attack (A) and the other one is a non-charge attack (B), you can choose either one to contribute, and depending on your choice the end result may or may not be a charge CMA.

It’s similar to ranged units with Snap Fire, like Mk3 Reeves, “waterfalling” their CRAs so that a model can first shoot, then contribute their second attack (gained from destroying a model with a ranged attack) to the next model making a CRA with their first attack, who then contributes their second shot to the third model, etc.

I can speak for intent at least that the first attack/attacks contributed would count as the charge attacks.

Is there a suggestion of wording to reflect this that I can pass along?

As for the personal opinions: I do always find it funny that the Fire and Corrosion continuous effects never did that type of damage, though thankfully usually those that were resistant or immune never suffered them anyways lol.

1 Like

For Combined Melee attack if the second highlighted section was “…if all contributed melee attacks were eligible to be Charge Attacks.” or something similar.