I've heard some people play assault & overwatch such that the target can only overwatch the unit that declares the charge first. Is this correct?
Or can the target choose not to overwatch the first assault and instead overwatch the 2nd, 3rd, etc. unit that declares the charge?

You can choose not to overwatch the first unit, but if their charge is successful and they make it into base contact, your can no longer overwatch.

If the first unit fails to make it to base contact, you can then overwatch the second unit. (As long as you didnt overwatch the first unit)

It is debatable. According to one side, you are locked as soon as a unit makes it into base contact (which leads to other wonky rules). According to others you are not locked until the following Fight sub-phase (which also leads to other wonky rules).

Yup, Personally I play as once a unit successfully charges you can no longer overwatch other units. But I've seen both sides. I just prefer that method because it allows for more tactical play, do you overwatch my one model that needs say a 10" charge, or do you rely on me not making the charge and overwatch my bigger closer unit to reduce its numbers.

 Happyjew wrote:
It is debatable. According to one side, you are locked as soon as a unit makes it into base contact (which leads to other wonky rules). According to others you are not locked until the following Fight sub-phase (which also leads to other wonky rules).

It really doesn't. At all. It'd be great if you'd stop asserting that it does.

So you disagree that when a unit is locked it can only make pile in and consolidation moves, neither of which charge moves are?

 Happyjew wrote:
So you disagree that when a unit is locked it can only make pile in and consolidation moves, neither of which charge moves are?

Never said that.
You're misunderstanding what happens. You're only locked when you're told to test. Are you told to test during a charge move - IE after it's started?

Happy, you are locked as soon as the first model of the assaulting unit makes it into B2B.

You also have to finish moving all the rest of the models the required charge distance before you move onto the next step, so there is no issue with other models being able to also make it into B2B.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Happy, you are locked as soon as the first model of the assaulting unit makes it into B2B.

You also have to finish moving all the rest of the models the required charge distance before you move onto the next step, so there is no issue with other models being able to also make it into B2B.

Except by your own admission you cannot move said models. Cannot trumps Must.

Why cant you move the models?


You arent at a step where a "cant" even comes up.

Breng77 wrote:
Yup, Personally I play as once a unit successfully charges you can no longer overwatch other units.

That is how my group plays it. (HIWPI)

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So you disagree that when a unit is locked it can only make pile in and consolidation moves, neither of which charge moves are?

Never said that.
You're misunderstanding what happens. You're only locked when you're told to test. Are you told to test during a charge move - IE after it's started?

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is 100% incorrect.

The actual rule is: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it my only make Pile In moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot." (23)

Note that this rule applies at all times when the condition is met. Unless you have a quote that says it only applies when " You're only locked when you're told to test."

Do you have a quote that says this?

And note i am not disagreeing with the "While a unit is locked in combat, it my only make Pile In moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot."

I am stating that the above rule does not prevent you from finishing the assault move that caused it to be locked in combat.

You have to finish the current assault before you are allowed to do or check anything else.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So you disagree that when a unit is locked it can only make pile in and consolidation moves, neither of which charge moves are?

Never said that.
You're misunderstanding what happens. You're only locked when you're told to test. Are you told to test during a charge move - IE after it's started?

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is 100% incorrect.

The actual rule is: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it my only make Pile In moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot." (23)

Note that this rule applies at all times when the condition is met. Unless you have a quote that says it only applies when " You're only locked when you're told to test."

Do you have a quote that says this?

Find permission to check for locked status while in the middle of resolving a charge move. I'd love for you to actually cite a rule showing that for once.

We play it that all intended assault moves against a unit are declared first. Overwatch is then resolved with the player on the receiving end of the assault deciding against which unit. Then assault moves are made.

which is fine if your house rulling it that way. However the rulebook clearly explains you declare charge's and overwatch, one at a time.

Is there an example in the rulebook of multiple units charging a single unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So you disagree that when a unit is locked it can only make pile in and consolidation moves, neither of which charge moves are?

Never said that.
You're misunderstanding what happens. You're only locked when you're told to test. Are you told to test during a charge move - IE after it's started?

(Emphasis mine)

The underlined is 100% incorrect.

The actual rule is: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it my only make Pile In moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot." (23)

Note that this rule applies at all times when the condition is met. Unless you have a quote that says it only applies when " You're only locked when you're told to test."

Do you have a quote that says this?

Find permission to check for locked status while in the middle of resolving a charge move. I'd love for you to actually cite a rule showing that for once.

I have, it is right here...

"Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it my only make Pile In moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot." (23)

Does a unit with the initial charger in base to base "have one or more models in base contact with enemies" If the answer is yes then the unit is "locked in combat"

The rule is a condition that is applied at all times if the unit has "one or more models in base contact with enemies" As per the rule on page 23

Find permission that tells you that you must check for locked status before the rule applies. I'd love for you to actually cite a rule showing that for once.

No deathreaper, it does not apply until after the entire unit finish's the assault move already in progress.


You do not have permission anywhere to stop the assault move already in progress.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, it is right here...

Hmmm... no, no it's not.
You must check for locked status before you can determine if it applies, correct?
Are you told when to check? I can show specific instances that tell you when to check, whereas you're asserting you check every second of every milimeter of movement, firing, assault, planning your turn...

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have, it is right here...

Hmmm... no, no it's not.

Hmm yes it is...

You must check for locked status before you can determine if it applies, correct?

No, it applies at all times when the unit fulfills the condition.

Are you told when to check? I can show specific instances that tell you when to check, whereas you're asserting you check every second of every milimeter of movement, firing, assault, planning your turn...

Irrelevant, the rule applies at all times when the condition is met, weather you are told to check or not.

Eihnlazer wrote:
No deathreaper, it does not apply until after the entire unit finish's the assault move already in progress.

You do not have permission anywhere to stop the assault move already in progress.

Incorrect, it applies at all times when the condition for the unit is met.

It is an If then statement.

If a unit has "one or more models in base contact with enemies" then that unit is "locked in combat"

"Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it my only make Pile In moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot." (23)

I'm not getting this argument at all lol, when you charge, opponent declares ow, resolves it, then you move in, if you make it the charge is a success sweet, move to next unit, if failed, oh well move to next unit, declare charge then apply ow if not already done and not in combat.

What's the issue there?

 DeathReaper wrote:

You must check for locked status before you can determine if it applies, correct?

No, it applies at all times when the unit fulfills the condition.

And how do you know if the unit fulfills the condition?

Do you have to know if it fulfills the condition for it to apply? The rule does not ask you to check, it does not ask you to know. It just says if you are in b2b, then the condition applies. You know if you are in b2b because you just finished moving the model into b2b...

edit: One side is claiming a timing in the application of the condition, which does not seem supported by the rules AFAIK.

 Dracos wrote:
Do you have to know if it fulfills the condition for it to apply?

Yes, you have to know if a rule applies before it can apply.

The rules are pretty clear. Once a unit completes its charge move into BTB, then both it and the unit that it charged are locked in combat. The chargees can no longer fire Overwatch. I've never seen anyone try to argue otherwise in a real game.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
Do you have to know if it fulfills the condition for it to apply?

Yes, you have to know if a rule applies before it can apply.

May I ask where that is stipulated in the rules?

Sorry I think we have a miscommunication. You know that you just moved a model in B2B. What I'm asking is if you need to be told explicitly to check for the condition in order to "know".

Basically, deathreaper and Happyjew are stating that as soon as the first model of an assaulting unit touches b2b, that no other model in the assaulting unit can finish its charge because the unit is locked in combat and can only make pile in moves or consolidation moves.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Basically, deathreaper and Happyjew are stating that as soon as the first model of an assaulting unit touches b2b, that no other model in the assaulting unit can finish its charge because the unit is locked in combat and can only make pile in moves or consolidation moves.

That is indeed how I read the rules. Those posters are not to blame for how the rule was written (at least, AFAIK).

That being said, I play it that you finish your assault move with the unit. You are then locked in combat, and can not overwatch additional units declaring assaults.

Everyone plays it that way. Because that is the only way to play it.

Even if you interpret the RAW to mean you somehow stop moving your remaining models into assault, you really have no reason to argue it.

There is a certain disconnect here. As I read the thread, Happyjew was pointing out the ambiguity, and then told it does not exist.

No reason to cover up the ambiguity. Acknowledge it, give your solution and move on. Refusing to admit it exists, or attacking those who do, serves no purpose imo. /shrug

Can anyone point to the rules page that states "Cannot" trumps "Must". If not, what is the basis for this reasoning.

Edit: Seriously, I can think of one instance where the word "May" trumps "cannot" and two others where cannot is disregarded without the use of "must" or "may".

Eihnlazer wrote:
Everyone plays it that way. Because that is the only way to play it.

Even if you interpret the RAW to mean you somehow stop moving your remaining models into assault, you really have no reason to argue it.

I don't know about everyone. I play it the same way the majority plays it - once the unit finishes its Charge, then the units are considered to be locked.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You must check for locked status before you can determine if it applies, correct?

No, it applies at all times when the unit fulfills the condition.

And how do you know if the unit fulfills the condition?

It applies at all times when the condition for the unit is met as per the rules.

 Idolator wrote:
Can anyone point to the rules page that states "Cannot" trumps "Must". If not, what is the basis for this reasoning.

Edit: Seriously, I can think of one instance where the word "May" trumps "cannot" and two others where cannot is disregarded without the use of "must" or "may".

It is a function of a permissive ruleset.

If you are forced to move 6 inches every movement phase with a vehicle and that vehicle is immobilized, can you move the vehicle?

Also, in general can't trumps must.

However if there is a specific exception then can trumps cant, like a transport vehicle with the assault vehicle rule. You can not assault if you have disembarked from a transport. However if the vehicle has the assault vehicle rule you can assault even if you disembarked from said transport.

 Idolator wrote:
Can anyone point to the rules page that states "Cannot" trumps "Must". If not, what is the basis for this reasoning.

Edit: Seriously, I can think of one instance where the word "May" trumps "cannot" and two others where cannot is disregarded without the use of "must" or "may".

The rules never say this, just like the rules do not say it is a permissive ruleset.

However, generally, in order for "may" to trump "cannot" it will specifically mention the "cannot" rule. As a counter example, an Immobilised Walker cannot move. A Hllbrute that rolls Blood Rage must Run if not within 12" of an enemy. Which takes precedence?

I think with the Hellbrute there is an implied "if it is able" that would overrule must

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Can anyone point to the rules page that states "Cannot" trumps "Must". If not, what is the basis for this reasoning.

Edit: Seriously, I can think of one instance where the word "May" trumps "cannot" and two others where cannot is disregarded without the use of "must" or "may".

The rules never say this, just like the rules do not say it is a permissive ruleset.

However, generally, in order for "may" to trump "cannot" it will specifically mention the "cannot" rule. As a counter example, an Immobilised Walker cannot move. A Hllbrute that rolls Blood Rage must Run if not within 12" of an enemy. Which takes precedence?

Ork Codex PG 35.
3,3 Gah: the exit hole materialises in the wrong place. Resolve this shot upon the nearest unit to the intended target, be it friend or foe.

Pg 33 BRB Blast templates: You cannot place the blast marker so that the base or hull of any friendly model is even partially under it.

Note that this is not a scatter, you place the marker right where you're forbidden.

Please, some one define "Permissive rule set", a real definition and where I can find it.

Once that is done, could someone tell me what direction I am permitted to move my models in a normal movement phase. Truth is, it's just a rule set with permissive and restrictive rules in tandem. Otherwise there would never be a need for words such as "cannot".

Here's the definition of Permissive ( i figure that the actual definition is acceptable since it occurs no where in the game and applies to no game mechanic)
per·mis·sive [per-mis-iv]
adjective
1.
habitually or characteristically accepting or tolerant of something, as social behavior or linguistic usage, that others might disapprove or forbid.
2.
granting or denoting permission: a permissive nod.
3.
optional.
4.
Genetics. (of a cell) permitting replication of a strand of DNA that could be lethal, as a viral segment or mutant gene.

In fact, since I need specific permission in order to complete any task, wouldn't that be a restrictive rule set. Since, I am restricted from doing anything not given permission in the rules.

 Idolator wrote:
In fact, since I need specific permission in order to complete any task, wouldn't that be a restrictive rule set. Since, I am restricted from doing anything not given permission in the rules.

That is the very definition of a permissive rule set. You cannot do anything unless you have permission to do it. A restrictive rule set is one where you can do anything you want unless told you cannot.

 screaminskull wrote:
We play it that all intended assault moves against a unit are declared first. Overwatch is then resolved with the player on the receiving end of the assault deciding against which unit. Then assault moves are made.

If you were looking for a quote to the contrary, pg 20 BRB.

1. Declare Charge.
2. Resolve Overwatch.
3. Roll Charge Range
4. Charge Move.
5. Declare next charge or finish.

Then, the fight subphase begins, where you

1. Choose your combat.
2. Fight the combat.
3. Determine results.
4. Repeat the fight phase for your other units, or finish if you all the fights are done.

There's a huge tactical difference than this method and the, "declare all charges then move" method.

Idolator,
Specific Exceptions also trump General Restrictions, if they did not then things like 'Assault Vehicles' would not work. Many other rules also exist to be nothing but Specific Exceptions to specific situations or even naming the rule they are an exception of. Should they lack the ability to trump the restriction in question then these rules would have no purpose, they literally would be impossible to evoke, and that is clearly not the Writers intentions.

In the rule you quoted we are told to place the marker in a set position, with specific permission for this marker to be placed where it would otherwise be illegal by the fact the rule in question informed us we must target friendly units if they meet the requirements.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
In fact, since I need specific permission in order to complete any task, wouldn't that be a restrictive rule set. Since, I am restricted from doing anything not given permission in the rules.

That is the very definition of a permissive rule set. You cannot do anything unless you have permission to do it. A restrictive rule set is one where you can do anything you want unless told you cannot.

That's nonsense, I even put the definition of permissive up there. Requiring specific permission to complete a task is the very antipathy of permissive. I believe you fellows have your terms backward. Requiring permission is the very definition of restrictive.

re·stric·tive adjective \ri-ˈstrik-tiv\
: limiting or controlling someone or something

I am limited as to what I can do. Hence, restrictive.

And it doesn't address the question of: Since I require permission to do something, why is the word "cannot" ever used? If it's not permitted then it's not permitted.

Where is the permission to move my units in any direction that I wish?

I would like an actual definition. I don't think that there is one.

Citadel,
The issue is likely the gold old question of 'when does a unit get locked in combat?' and the unusual breaks which occur for charges no matter what interpretation is used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Idolator:
To put forth restrictions on actions they have just given a player permission to carry out.

To quote Tyr Grimtooth (from about a year ago.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Testify wrote:Which page in the 40k rulebook does it state that 40k is a permissive ruleset?
Cheers.

Permissive rule set is not a rule in itself, it is a format in which how rules are written.

Basically, a permissive rule set allows for you to do only which the rules allow you to do. This allows the writers to only have to include permission in the course of explaining a set of rules.

If you were to drop the permissive rule set, you would have to include everything that you do not have permission to do which would increase the complexity of the rules and subsequently the size of the rulebook. In addition, it would be infinitely impossible to include everything that you do not have permission to do. For example a non-permissive rule set would be required to have a rule such as,

"You cannot roll a 2+ on a d6 to automatically win a game."

However a person could then say,

"Well it doesn't say I cannot roll a 2+ on a d6 at 10:30am on July 1st, 2013 to automatically win a game."

The vast variables of what the rules can list that you cannot do, would make the game unplayable.

JinxDragon wrote:
Idolator,
Specific Exceptions also trump General Restrictions, if they did not then things like 'Assault Vehicles' would not work. Many other rules also exist to be nothing but Specific Exceptions to specific situations or even naming the rule they are an exception of. Should they lack the ability to trump the restriction in question then these rules would have no purpose, they literally would be impossible to evoke, and that is clearly not the Writers intentions.

In the rule you quoted we are told to place the marker in a set position, with specific permission for this marker to be placed where it would otherwise be illegal by the fact the rule in question informed us we must target friendly units if they meet the requirements.

Ah, but I was giving an example of when the term "cannot" is overridden by other text. It is a matter of opinion that the word "Cannot" always overrides "Must", nothing more than opinion. As "Must" is just as restrictive as "Cannot" if not more restrictive, as it precludes all other choices.

It applies here to this discussion, as it is made clear in the rules for assault, that a unit is considered "locked in combat" the moment that it touches an assaulting unit. Preventing it from shooting or moving other than to pile-in. It even uses y'all favorite word "cannot". As you pointed out, there is no specific rule that over rides this, not even the word "must" it stands that a unit would then be unable to fire anything, much less over watch once contact is made.

Idolator,
The statement that 'Can Not' Always over-writes 'Must' is too vague to be accurate, it is an absolute and does not take into account all the interactions that can occur in a game this complex. It is far better to state that a General Restriction will always over-writes General Permissions unless a Specific Exception is in play. As for the topic itself, it is already recognized as a 'broken rule' because the timing involved makes the rule... wonky.

 Happyjew wrote:
To quote Tyr Grimtooth (from about a year ago.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Testify wrote:Which page in the 40k rulebook does it state that 40k is a permissive ruleset?
Cheers.

Permissive rule set is not a rule in itself, it is a format in which how rules are written.

Basically, a permissive rule set allows for you to do only which the rules allow you to do. This allows the writers to only have to include permission in the course of explaining a set of rules.

If you were to drop the permissive rule set, you would have to include everything that you do not have permission to do which would increase the complexity of the rules and subsequently the size of the rulebook. In addition, it would be infinitely impossible to include everything that you do not have permission to do. For example a non-permissive rule set would be required to have a rule such as,

"You cannot roll a 2+ on a d6 to automatically win a game."

However a person could then say,

"Well it doesn't say I cannot roll a 2+ on a d6 at 10:30am on July 1st, 2013 to automatically win a game."

The vast variables of what the rules can list that you cannot do, would make the game unplayable.

So, there isn't a definition. Some dude's pontification is not a source. 12 people saying the same wrong thing doesn't make it true.
On top of that, he's wrong. It's exceptionally easy make a list of things that you cannot do. Here ya go: You can't do anything, except what you're told you can do.
That just about covers everything, except what you're told you can do. Which is what we have. a restrictive rules set. It restricts all activity except those that are expressly granted.

You're restricted from declaring that a roll of 2+ wins you the game, because you were never told that you can do that. TADA!

JinxDragon wrote:
Idolator,
The statement that 'Can Not' Always over-writes 'Must' is too vague to be accurate, it is an absolute and does not take into account all the interactions that can occur in a game this complex. It is far better to state that a General Restriction will always over-writes General Permissions unless a Specific Exception is in play. As for the topic itself, it is already recognized as a 'broken rule' because the timing involved makes the rule... wonky.

I think the problem with the "timing" is that it is often suggested that the timing is a rigid and strict sequence when it simply isn't, it's much more abstract.

JinxDragon wrote:
Idolator,
The statement that 'Can Not' Always over-writes 'Must' is too vague to be accurate, it is an absolute and does not take into account all the interactions that can occur in a game this complex. It is far better to state that a General Restriction will always over-writes General Permissions unless a Specific Exception is in play. As for the topic itself, it is already recognized as a 'broken rule' because the timing involved makes the rule... wonky.

I concur.

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
To quote Tyr Grimtooth (from about a year ago.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

Testify wrote:Which page in the 40k rulebook does it state that 40k is a permissive ruleset?
Cheers.

Permissive rule set is not a rule in itself, it is a format in which how rules are written.

Basically, a permissive rule set allows for you to do only which the rules allow you to do. This allows the writers to only have to include permission in the course of explaining a set of rules.

If you were to drop the permissive rule set, you would have to include everything that you do not have permission to do which would increase the complexity of the rules and subsequently the size of the rulebook. In addition, it would be infinitely impossible to include everything that you do not have permission to do. For example a non-permissive rule set would be required to have a rule such as,

"You cannot roll a 2+ on a d6 to automatically win a game."

However a person could then say,

"Well it doesn't say I cannot roll a 2+ on a d6 at 10:30am on July 1st, 2013 to automatically win a game."

The vast variables of what the rules can list that you cannot do, would make the game unplayable.

So, there isn't a definition. Some dude's pontification is not a source. 12 people saying the same wrong thing doesn't make it true.
On top of that, he's wrong. It's exceptionally easy make a list of things that you cannot do. Here ya go: You can't do anything, except what you're told you can do.
That just about covers everything, except what you're told you can do. Which is what we have. a restrictive rules set. It restricts all activity except those that are expressly granted.

You're restricted from declaring that a roll of 2+ wins you the game, because you were never told that you can do that. TADA!

I'd content that the rules set is neither, it is much more of an implied ruleset as many of the rules are written in that frame of mind.

The only comment in the entire rulebook that makes any statement about the nature of the principals of the game is: "if your not sure what the rules is or how to apply it, make one up with you opponent"

Uptopdownunder wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Idolator,
The statement that 'Can Not' Always over-writes 'Must' is too vague to be accurate, it is an absolute and does not take into account all the interactions that can occur in a game this complex. It is far better to state that a General Restriction will always over-writes General Permissions unless a Specific Exception is in play. As for the topic itself, it is already recognized as a 'broken rule' because the timing involved makes the rule... wonky.

I think the problem with the "timing" is that it is often suggested that the timing is a rigid and strict sequence when it simply isn't, it's much more abstract.

the timing is rigid. But fall within the accepted rigidity of the game. In truth all units on all sides would be moving, firing and assaulting at the same time. But it's broken down into sections for ease of play. After movement, the shooting, during the shooting you declare a target with one unit at a time, fire and remove casualties. If that unit is wiped out you don't target it with the next unit because it has been removed. Therefore the target unit never gets a chance to roll saves against the units that would have shot at it, had it not been wiped out.

The same paradigm is used in the assault phase. The assaulted unit looses the ability to shoot when it has a unit all up in it's grill. This is because of the mechanic of assault. We don't declare all assaults then work it out, we do it one unit at a time, just like shooting. Does it give an advantage to the assaulting player. Yes, but it gives it to either player that is assaulting and is upfront for all to know.

That illustrates the fluidity of the timing quite nicely.

In some instances there is a sequential manner to the game, Unit shoots and destroys something and a second unit can shoot as if it was never there, but in other instances it isn't sequential such as units charging the same unit at "different times" thus disallowing overwatch on both YET both Hammer of Wrath attacks by two charging units would be resolved at the same moment in time, Init Step 10, against all members of the target unit without casualties being removed.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
That illustrates the fluidity of the timing quite nicely.

In some instances there is a sequential manner to the game, Unit shoots and destroys something and a second unit can shoot as if it was never there, but in other instances it isn't sequential such as units charging the same unit at "different times" thus disallowing overwatch on both YET both Hammer of Wrath attacks by two charging units would be resolved at the same moment in time, Init Step 10, against all members of the target unit without casualties being removed.

That's only because GW included the Initiative aspect that breaks the assault phase into different segments and has no other instance in the game. The assault phase, in truth should be handled just like shooting, where each unit completes it's assault in total before any other charges are made. But hey! Whadayagonnado?

There are plenty of instances where things flip flop between sequential and simultaneous though out the game.

Point is time is rubbery in 40k

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You must check for locked status before you can determine if it applies, correct?

No, it applies at all times when the unit fulfills the condition.

And how do you know if the unit fulfills the condition?

It applies at all times when the condition for the unit is met as per the rules.

And how do you know the condition is met?

You know the condition is met when it is met.

The requirement is to move the first charger into base contact so you keep checking if he is in base contact until such time as he is.

ok, but the general restriction of being locked is overridden by the specific application of charge moves on p21.

i.e. you are told that you must move all models in the unit the charge distance, within the given restrictions, in a particular way.

ergo there is no ambiguity within the rules in this case.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
ok, but the general restriction of being locked is overridden by the specific application of charge moves on p21..

Or is the general application of charge moves overridden by the specific restriction of being locked?

 nutty_nutter wrote:
ok, but the general restriction of being locked is overridden by the specific application of charge moves on p21.
i.e. you are told that you must move all models in the unit the charge distance, within the given restrictions, in a particular way.
ergo there is no ambiguity within the rules in this case.

How does that mean that a unit with an enemy model/s in B2B is not locked in combat ? Despite that being the specific definition.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
ok, but the general restriction of being locked is overridden by the specific application of charge moves on p21.

i.e. you are told that you must move all models in the unit the charge distance, within the given restrictions, in a particular way.

ergo there is no ambiguity within the rules in this case.

To be specific it would have to state "even if locked..." , otherwise the very explicit prohibition on moving other than to make pile in moves would override.

The rule book specifically tells you to move into base to base contact, it compels all models in the charging unit to move into base to base contact that's all you need.

No, that isn't "specific". It is how you generally move. Specific would be "even though locked they may move", same as atsknf specifically states it overrides sweing advance.

Being told how to do something does not make that something inherently more specific than something stating you cannot so it.

The rules for charging follow a specifically laid out sequence that you must follow, during which process you become locked in combat.

Suggesting that the locked in combat condition occurs "when you are directed to check" is just a made up notion that has no basis in the rules at all.

Units with one or more models in base to base contact are locked in combat and charging units must move all of their models one at a time into base contact or as near to as they can manage.

"Can I fire overwatch" ?
Am I being charged ? Yes
Is an enemy model or models in base contact with me ? Yes

I am locked in combat = No overwatch.

Anything else is just static.

You are ignoring what specifically means in regards rules. I gave you a specific example to illustrate it.

Your example allows units disembarking from an assault vehicle the ability to charge, even if they arrived from reserves. Do you support that?

How does my example do that ?

You are "specifically" told you can assault after disembarking, and your suggestions that this is sufficient to override an entirely different restriction, in this case "can't charge from reserves", would apply here.

You cannot move apart from pile ins once locked. Cite a specific rule stating fhat, EVEN IF YOU ARE LOCKED, you get to move other than a pile in.

It has to state exactly that to be specific. Otherwise it is not specific, but general.

Ok so just some silly irrelevant semantics then.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Ok so just some silly irrelevant semantics then.

Not at all.

If something specifically overrides something then you can do that thing even though it is generally restricted, such as disembarking units can not charge, but the Assault vehicle rules over-ride that...

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Ok so just some silly irrelevant semantics then.

Entirely relevant. You haven't shown how the charge rules are more specific than locked, so currently you are advocating a position that results in only one model moving in a charging unit.

The charge rules are more specific because they tell you how to move your models while your other models are in BTB with the enemy. It doesnt get more specific than that.

Regardless, Units make move actions, once a charge move is declared, that unit has already "moved". The model movement at that point does not trigger your locked "restriction". The rule states that all the models in that unit must move as part of that charge move.

Your interpretation of how "locked" works invalidates your own arguments and would also stop Fall Back Moves, since they do not say they can be done while "locked in combat" and are not Pile In moves.

Fragile wrote:
The rule states that all the models in that unit must move as part of that charge move.

And Can't trumps must in a permissive ruleset unless there is a specific exception.

Charge moves have no specific exception to override the locked rules.

Units declare moves, not models. By the time your restriction is in place, the unit has already declared its move action. The models moving are secondary and are required.

Specific permission is given, the allowance to move models while in btb. Otherwise, explain how you make a fall back move.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The rule states that all the models in that unit must move as part of that charge move.

And Can't trumps must in a permissive ruleset unless there is a specific exception.

Charge moves have no specific exception to override the locked rules.

Luckily they don't need it. As I've proven many times before.

Edit: Deleted.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The rule states that all the models in that unit must move as part of that charge move.

And Can't trumps must in a permissive ruleset unless there is a specific exception.

Charge moves have no specific exception to override the locked rules.

Luckily they don't need it. As I've proven many times before.

And as Insaniak pointed out in the RAI v RAW thread over in General, you are not locked until you reach your Initiative step in the following Fight sub-phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Assaults: I love this one! Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it may make only pile-in moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot. A strict RAW reading will cease all remaining models from charging as soon as the first model makes base to base contact.

Nope. By a strict RAW reading, nobody is actually locked or engaged until their initiative step.

The RAW silliness here is actually just that there is technically no way for a character to issue a challenge on the turn that they charged.

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The rule states that all the models in that unit must move as part of that charge move.

And Can't trumps must in a permissive ruleset unless there is a specific exception.

Charge moves have no specific exception to override the locked rules.

Luckily they don't need it. As I've proven many times before.

And as Insaniak pointed out in the RAI v RAW thread over in General, you are not locked until you reach your Initiative step in the following Fight sub-phase.

Not true. Again.
But whatever - I'm done. Have fun.

 Happyjew wrote:
And as Insaniak pointed out in the RAI v RAW thread over in General, you are not locked until you reach your Initiative step in the following Fight sub-phase.

Which has no basis in the rules and this interpretation prevents fall back moves.

Fragile wrote:
Units declare moves, not models. By the time your restriction is in place, the unit has already declared its move action. The models moving are secondary and are required.

Which does not matter as units that are locked can only make pile in moves.

Is a assault move a pile in move?

Is a fall back move a pile in move ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regardless, the Unit already moved. The moving of the models in the charge move does not trigger a "Unit" moving.

A unit move is a single action. I find no reason to stop it mid process and reevaluate is legality.

You declare a units move and you move the entire unit before checking coherency. This sets precedent that a units updated status is not checked until after the units move is complete.

Fragile wrote:
Regardless, the Unit already moved. The moving of the models in the charge move does not trigger a "Unit" moving.

The unit has not completed its move therefore the unit is still moving once it has a model in base contact, as such an illegal action.

 Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The rule states that all the models in that unit must move as part of that charge move.

And Can't trumps must in a permissive ruleset unless there is a specific exception.

Charge moves have no specific exception to override the locked rules.

Luckily they don't need it. As I've proven many times before.

And as Insaniak pointed out in the RAI v RAW thread over in General, you are not locked until you reach your Initiative step in the following Fight sub-phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Assaults: I love this one! Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat. While a unit is locked in combat, it may make only pile-in moves and cannot otherwise move or shoot. A strict RAW reading will cease all remaining models from charging as soon as the first model makes base to base contact.

Nope. By a strict RAW reading, nobody is actually locked or engaged until their initiative step.

The RAW silliness here is actually just that there is technically no way for a character to issue a challenge on the turn that they charged.

What page number and paragraph says " a unit is not locked in combat until you reach you initiative step in the following Fight sub-phase" I can't find those words, or words to that effect.

That wording would cause other problems though. It would mean that a unit in base contact from a previous turn would also no be locked in combat and could move away, shoot or declare a different assault against a different unit.

I still like that he was arguing that RAW is the only way to go and proceeded to cite implied rules. Cognitive dissonance is kinda fun to watch.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Regardless, the Unit already moved. The moving of the models in the charge move does not trigger a "Unit" moving.

The unit has not completed its move therefore the unit is still moving once it has a model in base contact, as such an illegal action.

Units take actions. The Unit declared a charge move, which is legal. The models then move. All the models must make the charge move. The unit has not declare any new movement, therefore has no conflict with the locked rule. Each model moving does not constitute a new Unit action.

Your point is proven invalid, both by your own stance and by RAW.

 Idolator wrote:
What page number and paragraph says " a unit is not locked in combat until you reach you initiative step in the following Fight sub-phase" I can't find those words, or words to that effect.

That's because there are no words to that effect.

What there is, is a sequence that breaks the assault phase down into separate sub-phases. The rules for the sub-phase in which you move your charging models makes no reference to considering the unit locked in combat, or the models engaged, in that sub-phase. It's not until you get to the 'Fight' subphase that they tell you how to figure that out.

It's worth pointing out that this is most likely unintentional, though. It seems unlikely that GW would have expected a unit to be able to Overwatch after already being successfully assaulted by another unit, and there is a reference to models being engaged in the charging sub-phase rules (just no reference to what it means at that point). It also prevents characters from ever issuing or accepting challenges in the first turn of an assault. So it seems far more likely that we are intended to count them as being locked the moment they are in base contact.

That wording would cause other problems though. It would mean that a unit in base contact from a previous turn would also no be locked in combat and could move away, shoot or declare a different assault against a different unit.

IIRC, that's covered later in the assault rules, where it deals with ongoing combats. Don't have the book on me at work to check, though.

I still like that he was arguing that RAW is the only way to go and proceeded to cite implied rules. Cognitive dissonance is kinda fun to watch.

Because that was such an important discussion that it warranted being dragged into an unrelated thread?

Sometimes people disagree with you. The world continues to turn.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
What page number and paragraph says " a unit is not locked in combat until you reach you initiative step in the following Fight sub-phase" I can't find those words, or words to that effect.

That's because there are no words to that effect.

I still like that he was arguing that RAW is the only way to go and proceeded to cite implied rules. Cognitive dissonance is kinda fun to watch.

Because that was such an important discussion that it warranted being dragged into an unrelated thread?

Ok, there are no written words to that effect. You have stated that plainly. I get it. There is no RAW to substantiate this point. Great!

Secondly, I did not drag anything from the other topic, that would be someone else did that. *cough* HappyJew *cough* so any outrage should be sent in a different direction.

I do know that sometimes that people disagree with me and I enjoy a lively debate and will gladly concede when shown that I'm wrong. I think that it's sometimes funny when an opponent gives contradictory statements that leads to a self defeating argument without admitting that they are simultaneously expressing opposing views. I mean REALLY funny.

Edit: I inserted the word "I" in front of "enjoy" in the last paragraph.

 Idolator wrote:
Ok, there are no written words to that effect. You have stated that plainly. I get it. There is no RAW to substantiate this point. Great!

There is a very large difference between 'The rules don't use these specific words' and 'There is no RAW to support that point'.

The rules as written support the argument that units are not locked until the 'Fight' sub-phase by not pointing out that units are locked until you get to the 'Fight' sub-phase section of the rules.

 insaniak wrote:

The rules as written support the argument that units are not locked until the 'Fight' sub-phase by not pointing out that units are locked until you get to the 'Fight' sub-phase section of the rules.

I like this as an explanation of intention of the author.

So I guess you can hold your overwatch for a specific unit?

 Dracos wrote:
So I guess you can hold your overwatch for a specific unit?

As per the RAW, as they currently stand? Yes.

From my experience, though, most players assume that this isn't how it's supposed to work, and it's generally played that once you've been successfully charged you lose your ability to Overwatch against further chargers. YMMV.

Fragile wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Regardless, the Unit already moved. The moving of the models in the charge move does not trigger a "Unit" moving.

The unit has not completed its move therefore the unit is still moving once it has a model in base contact, as such an illegal action.

Units take actions. The Unit declared a charge move, which is legal. The models then move. All the models must make the charge move. The unit has not declare any new movement, therefore has no conflict with the locked rule. Each model moving does not constitute a new Unit action.

Your point is proven invalid, both by your own stance and by RAW.

It does not "declare any new movement" but it does not matter. The unit is moving if the models are moving...

Right, units take actions, but if a model in a unit moves is that unit moving? (Yes)

Then the rule applies.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Regardless, the Unit already moved. The moving of the models in the charge move does not trigger a "Unit" moving.

The unit has not completed its move therefore the unit is still moving once it has a model in base contact, as such an illegal action.

So you're advocating that a charge move of more than 2 inches cannot be made? You are aware that charge moves still must follow unit coherency rules and so the unit must end in coherency for it to be legal. Your view of the rules leads to a maximum charge range of 2 inches which would invalidate the stated charge range in the BRB. I'm sorry but please try again. Unit moves, as far as I can tell, are a single mechanic (though they have sub-mechanics within them) and you have not shown any reason to stop it mid-effect and reevaluate it's legality. I've already shown precedence for when status checks occur for moving units. Please state you evidence for when checks are made and your reasons for disregarding the 2d6 charge range rule or adjust your rules interpretations appropriately.

"All of the models in a charging unit make their charge move - up to the 2D6 distance you rolled earlier - following the same rules as in the Movement phase, with the exception that they can be moved within 1" of enemy models." -Charge Moves, page 21, BRB

"once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" Unit Coherency, page 11, BRB

 Abandon wrote:
Unit moves, as far as I can tell, are a single mechanic (though they have sub-mechanics within them) and you have not shown any reason to stop it mid-effect and reevaluate it's legality.

So you are ignoring this: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."(23)

Why?

 DeathReaper wrote:
So you are ignoring this: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."(23)

Because at the time that you are moving your charging models, that statement is not relevant.


If we're just going to lift rules out of context to satisfy an argument, why not just take '...enemies are locked in combat' to mean that your opponent's models can never move, ever, other than to pile in, because they're always locked in combat?

So nobody can move, nobody can shoot, nobody can ever fall back, and we're all just standing around looking at a bunch of models on a table. Woot.


I mean, seriously guys, RAW is awesome and all, but when we get to a point where we are deliberately taking rules out of context in order to break the game, that's no longer RAW. That's just a pointless waste of everyone's time.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Ok, there are no written words to that effect. You have stated that plainly. I get it. There is no RAW to substantiate this point. Great!

There is a very large difference between 'The rules don't use these specific words' and 'There is no RAW to support that point'.

The rules as written support the argument that units are not locked until the 'Fight' sub-phase by not pointing out that units are locked until you get to the 'Fight' sub-phase section of the rules.

Yes, there is a difference between specific words and "there is no RAW to support that point". It's a fair point.

However, That is a Rule as Intended argument or a Rule as Implied argument, not a Rule as Written argument.
I see your argument that "locked in combat" is only applied once you are in the "fight" sub-phase is based solely on the placement of the rule within the section "Fight Sub-phase" . I do get where you are coming from, but the Rule as Written makes no such claims that this only applies in the fight sub-phase. It is a bolded rule that stands on it's own. You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made, I contend that the writers intended for "locked in combat" to be applied only after the charging unit has finished it's assault move (otherwise it seriously breaks other rules, movement, coherency, etc.) and there's a third, hard and fast, RAW argument that states that once the first model makes contact, the unit is locked and can move no farther.

I don't believe that the placement of a rule dictates the only time that it comes into effect . If so, there are many instances where taking saves is mentioned in various game mechanics but conspicuously absent in the "Explodes" entry in the vehicle damage chart. It doesn't say to resolve as shooting or any other mechanic or even how to determine cover. Using the logic described any wounds caused to surrounding units, by an exploding vehicle cannot be saved. This is not to drag a different topic into this thread, it is merely a way to describe one of my my reasons for my point.

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So you are ignoring this: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."(23)

Because at the time that you are moving your charging models, that statement is not relevant.

I do not see how it is not relevant.

Are you suggesting that the rule is not in effect at all times when a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy?

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Ok, there are no written words to that effect. You have stated that plainly. I get it. There is no RAW to substantiate this point. Great!

There is a very large difference between 'The rules don't use these specific words' and 'There is no RAW to support that point'.

The rules as written support the argument that units are not locked until the 'Fight' sub-phase by not pointing out that units are locked until you get to the 'Fight' sub-phase section of the rules.

Which has nothing to do with what locked is. Where is the rule that you cannot move through friendly units ?

Once a unit makes BTB contact with the charge move, that unit is locked by definition. Once you charge with a second unit, Overwatch rules check for Locked, which you are. The assault phase is specifically sequential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So you are ignoring this: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."(23)

Because at the time that you are moving your charging models, that statement is not relevant.

I do not see how it is not relevant.

Are you suggesting that the rule is not in effect at all times when a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy?

Not when your trying to interrupt a specific legal action to try to declare that action illegal. You have permission to make a charge move. You are told all the models must move. You are told how to place them in BTB contact with the enemy. Nowhere in that sequence is the "check for locked". The unit has already taken its action, when you are moving the models, the unit is not moving, it already has once it rolled charge range and succeeded. Placing the models in their specific locations is completely irrelevant to whether the unit can move.

And you still have not addressed your locked rule vs fall back moves.

 Idolator wrote:
Yes, there is a difference between specific words and "there is no RAW to support that point". It's a fair point.

However, That is a Rule as Intended argument or a Rule as Implied argument, not a Rule as Written argument.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

If a rule is imposed at a specific point in the turn, assuming that this rule applies at that specific point in the turn is not an argument of intent. It's taking the rule as presented in the book.


The intent argument is the one that says that you should ignore that placement of the rule and assume that it is supposed to always apply, as I already mentioned.

You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made,

No, I don't. As I made very clear in my first post in this thread.

Using the logic described any wounds caused to surrounding units, by an exploding vehicle cannot be saved.

The fact that the rules aren't clear on whether or not a model gets a save in certain situations in no way affects whether or not the specific placement of a rule affects when that rule applies.

Fragile wrote:
Where is the rule that you cannot move through friendly units ?

You can move through friendly units if there is room between the bases. you can not move trough friendly models though.

"Models falling back from a combat can freely mo\re through all enemy models that were involved in that combat (they have already missed the chance to catch them) This is an exception to the normal rules for moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model." (30, Emphasis mine)

Page 30 says that "a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model."

and Page 85 in the Tank Shock rules has a reminder.

"Remember, though, that friendly models still cannot be moved through, so the Tank's movement will be stopped if any friendly models are in the way."

DR, you completely missed the point of that question, and it wasn't directed at you.

Care to come back to your debate?

 insaniak wrote:


If a rule is imposed at a specific point in the turn, assuming that this rule applies at that specific point in the turn is not an argument of intent. It's taking the rule as presented in the book.


The intent argument is the one that says that you should ignore that placement of the rule and assume that it is supposed to always apply, as I already mentioned.

You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made,

No, I don't. As I made very clear in my first post in this thread.

Using the logic described any wounds caused to surrounding units, by an exploding vehicle cannot be saved.

The fact that the rules aren't clear on whether or not a model gets a save in certain situations in no way affects whether or not the specific placement of a rule affects when that rule applies.

Wait....WHAT!?! Do you realize that these are two contradictory statements. Does anyone else? Honestly, Does anyone else?

Fragile wrote:
DR, you completely missed the point of that question, and it wasn't directed at you.

Care to come back to your debate?

I was simply answering your question.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Fragile wrote:
DR, you completely missed the point of that question, and it wasn't directed at you.

Care to come back to your debate?

I was simply answering your question.

And using Insaniak's logic, you can move through friendly units in the movement phase, because that rule is not applied until you reach further pages in the book, right?

Fragile wrote:
And using Insaniak's logic, you can move through friendly units in the movement phase, because that rule is not applied until you reach further pages in the book, right?

Until it was added to the rulebook FAQ, that was indeed the case. It was a fairly large and well-discussed hole in the rules when 6th edition was first released.

The FAQ 'clarifies' that you can't move through friendly models.

The rules in the book state that as DR quoted the pages. They just did not put it in the movement section.

Yes, that was the problem. The rules listed an exception to a normal rule that didn't actually exist until it was 'clarified' into existence in the FAQ.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Yes, there is a difference between specific words and "there is no RAW to support that point". It's a fair point.

However, That is a Rule as Intended argument or a Rule as Implied argument, not a Rule as Written argument.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

If a rule is imposed at a specific point in the turn, assuming that this rule applies at that specific point in the turn is not an argument of intent. It's taking the rule as presented in the book.


The intent argument is the one that says that you should ignore that placement of the rule and assume that it is supposed to always apply, as I already mentioned.

You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made,

No, I don't. As I made very clear in my first post in this thread.

Using the logic described any wounds caused to surrounding units, by an exploding vehicle cannot be saved.

The fact that the rules aren't clear on whether or not a model gets a save in certain situations in no way affects whether or not the specific placement of a rule affects when that rule applies.

Ok, Let me get this straight. Here's the relevant point that you made in your first post in this thread.

What there is, is a sequence that breaks the assault phase down into separate sub-phases. The rules for the sub-phase in which you move your charging models makes no reference to considering the unit locked in combat, or the models engaged, in that sub-phase. It's not until you get to the 'Fight' subphase that they tell you how to figure that out.

You are contending that you are not considered "locked in combat" until you have reached the fight sub-phase due to the listed order of operations described in the book, and that it is not required to have passed the "pile in" step to be considered "locked in combat" even though that goes against the listed order of operations described in the book. I just want to be clear here, it's hard for me to pick a place to stand when you're in both places.

If a rule is imposed at a specific point in the turn, assuming that this rule applies at that specific point in the turn is not an argument of intent. It's taking the rule as presented in the book.


If you are "assuming", then what is it that you are assuming? Are you assuming how they intended it to go? If not, then what?

What criteria are used to determine if a rule is determined to be imposed at a specific point. Is it the placement in the book? It's placement in a sub heading? Does it have to be specifically spelled out that this is the order that you use?

Assumptions, inferences and implications would all fall under the heading of "Deriving the Intent".

 Idolator wrote:
You are contending that you are not considered "locked in combat" until you have reached the fight sub-phase due to the listed order of operations described in the book, and that it is not required to have passed the "pile in" step to be considered "locked in combat" even though that goes against the listed order of operations described in the book. I just want to be clear here, it's hard for me to pick a place to stand when you're in both places.

I'm not in 'both places'. You have misunderstood my point.

I'm saying you are considered locked and engaged at the points in the sequence where the rules establish these things.

If you are "assuming", then what is it that you are assuming? Are you assuming how they intended it to go? If not, then what?

It seems the vast majority of your issues here stem from taking individual words or phrases out of context.

 insaniak wrote:


I'm saying you are considered locked and engaged at the points in the sequence where the rules establish these things.


.

Which would be when the charging unit makes BTB contact.

Edit: Or actually in your sequence of events, when the second unit is told to check for Locked to fire Overwatch.

Fragile wrote:
Which would be when the charging unit makes BTB contact.

Where in the rules for the charge sub-phase do they establish that moving into base contact counts them as locked?

In order to fire Overwatch on the second unit, the firing unit must check for being locked in combat per the Overwatch rules.

Locked in combat is defined at being in BTB with an enemy model.

Therefore you cannot fire at the second unit since you are told to check for locked before firing overwatch.

Fragile wrote:
In order to fire Overwatch on the second unit, the firing unit must check for being locked in combat per the Overwatch rules.

Locked in combat is defined at being in BTB with an enemy model.

Therefore you cannot fire at the second unit since you are told to check for locked before firing overwatch.

Assuming that the Overwatch rules actually specify that (don't have the book on me, so I'll take your word for it) then that works for me.

Well, two ways. First Overwatch is made like a normal shooting attack which cannot be done while locked and secondly

Overwatch Restrictions
It's worth pointing out that units that are locked in close combat cannot fire Overwatch

pg 21. So you have to check for Locked.

I have to ask, for those arguing that the first model in an assault that reaches b2b effectively locks the unit and thus no other models may move, do you actually play this way? Or has all of this just turned into argument for argument's sake?

citadel wrote:
I have to ask, for those arguing that the first model in an assault that reaches b2b effectively locks the unit and thus no other models may move, do you actually play this way? Or has all of this just turned into argument for argument's sake?

That argument was presented as a counter to the claim that the rule stating that a unit is locked if it is in base contact will apply out of sequence. So no, people don't play that way - that argument was supplied as a reason to not play that way.

When how RAW works is not made clear then determining RAW becomes a matter of interpretation. The one with the least amount of assumption that does not break rules and does not render any text meaningless is generally the correct answer. One usually cannot avoid all assumption in such a case as this particularly to determine intent where context is unclear. As I have pointed out any charge move that leaves the unit out of coherency is illegal an as such you would be rendering the 2d6 charge range meaningless if only the initial charger can be moved as it would have to stay in coherency with the rest of the unit. This interpretation cannot be correct. It is in fact the cause of the debate not the answer and advocating it as correct is advocating a broken rule system. Refusing to see things any other way is counter productive to finding a reasonable interpretation of the rules and has no place in constructive debate.

Saying the rest of the charge move cannot take place because on model is now in b2b with an enemy is akin to saying a model that Vector Strikes cannot shoot in the shooting phase because it says it counts as having fired one weapon so it counts as having already made its shooting attack... That could be true except it renders the text about firing additional weapons that turn meaningless and is therefore not correct. Just like reducing charge range to 2 (maintaining coherency)inches is not correct. The whole unit needs to move 2d6 in any correct interpretation regarding moving charging models as they are very particular about how this goes. If you are presenting a view of the rules that does not include this you are either stating that RAW is broken and there is no way to proceed by the rules or just cluttering a thread with meaningless theorycrafting that leads nowhere productive.

That people(myself, rigeld, insanik, etc.) have come up with working interpretations containing little assumption and observance of all the rules means it is not 'broken'. Refusing to see that this is the case seems like pure obstinacy. Yes there is some assumption in each but not unreasonably so and all rules are followed within the theory so unless someone has a better working assessment of RAW that should be the end of that.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Unit moves, as far as I can tell, are a single mechanic (though they have sub-mechanics within them) and you have not shown any reason to stop it mid-effect and reevaluate it's legality.

So you are ignoring this: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."(23)

Why?

I didn't ignore that rule. Please read the whole post before responding and perhaps you would care to explain the problems with your view on RAW before questioning others.

citadel wrote:
I have to ask, for those arguing that the first model in an assault that reaches b2b effectively locks the unit and thus no other models may move, do you actually play this way? Or has all of this just turned into argument for argument's sake?

You will find the majority of these arguments in YMDC are not how people play. It is simply an exercise in debate within RAW.

This argument comes up a bit. Most likely its from the change from 5th edition declaring all the charges at once, to 6th's consecutive charges.

@fragile @insaniak I figured. I've enjoyed the read and the ideas that many users put forth. Looks like GW should hire some dakka subscribers to proof-check their rulebooks : p

thanks for the earnest response

citadel wrote:
@fragile @insaniak I figured. I've enjoyed the read and the ideas that many users put forth. Looks like GW should hire some dakka subscribers to proof-check their rulebooks : p

thanks for the earnest response

They should just write how they want things to go and send it over to the MTG judges to write the actual rules for them IMO

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
You are contending that you are not considered "locked in combat" until you have reached the fight sub-phase due to the listed order of operations described in the book, and that it is not required to have passed the "pile in" step to be considered "locked in combat" even though that goes against the listed order of operations described in the book. I just want to be clear here, it's hard for me to pick a place to stand when you're in both places.

I'm not in 'both places'. You have misunderstood my point.

I'm saying you are considered locked and engaged at the points in the sequence where the rules establish these things.

If you are "assuming", then what is it that you are assuming? Are you assuming how they intended it to go? If not, then what?

It seems the vast majority of your issues here stem from taking individual words or phrases out of context.

Now, you're projecting.

I clearly take all of your statements as a whole, you can tell because I point out the the incongruous nature of your statements. I don't cut and post, creating out of context portions to attack without the support of the the rest of your statements. I use the statements in their entirety and either try to sum them up or ask for clarification. I also restate my points instead of references to "earlier".

You have made many seemingly contradictory statements. Here are a few. You're red, I'm yellow.

If a rule is imposed at a specific point in the turn, assuming that this rule applies at that specific point in the turn is not an argument of intent. It's taking the rule as presented in the book.


The intent argument is the one that says that you should ignore that placement of the rule and assume that it is supposed to always apply, as I already mentioned.



You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made,

No, I don't. As I made very clear in my first post in this thread.

This was the statement that you made first. It is the relevant portion, but not it is the entire relative portion.

What there is, is a sequence that breaks the assault phase down into separate sub-phases. The rules for the sub-phase in which you move your charging models makes no reference to considering the unit locked in combat, or the models engaged, in that sub-phase. It's not until you get to the 'Fight' subphase that they tell you how to figure that out.

So, it is established that you believe that "locked in combat" does not occur until the fight sub phase based on the order of operation listed in the rules. Is this a correct statement?

Then there was this bit.

You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made,

No, I don't. As I made very clear in my first post in this thread.

Now there is the rub, the order of operations listed in the rules, clearly place "locked in combat" after "pile in moves" are made.

You have stated that the order of operations determine when you are considered locked in combat and have denied that that the order of operations determines when you are locked in combat. It's all right there.

That would be both sides of the argument. I'm honestly trying to figure out where you're coming from. You've both agreed and disagreed with my point.

Which is: the order of operation is not the indicator for when units are considered locked in combat. Units are considered locked in combat after the first assaulting unit is in base contact. which prevents the assaulted unit from conducting any actions.


Edit: I know that I put it twice. That's on purpose to represent the incongruous, circular nature of the statements.

 Idolator wrote:
You have stated that the order of operations determine when you are considered locked in combat and have denied that that the order of operations determines when you are locked in combat. It's all right there.

No, I stated that the order of operations determines when you are considered locked in combat and also stated that I don't think that this was the intention of the writer.


There is no contradiction there. I disagreed with your statement that I was arguing that the writer intended for the order of operations to determine when you are considered locked because I don't believe that was the writer's intention. My argument was an interpretation of RAW, not intention.

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
You have stated that the order of operations determine when you are considered locked in combat and have denied that that the order of operations determines when you are locked in combat. It's all right there.

No, I stated that the order of operations determines when you are considered locked in combat and also stated that I don't think that this was the intention of the writer.


There is no contradiction there. I disagreed with your statement that I was arguing that the writer intended for the order of operations to determine when you are considered locked because I don't believe that was the writer's intention. My argument was an interpretation of RAW, not intention.

Ok, just so that I'm clear. You were not stating that the writer INTENDED for "locked in combat" to only be in effect after "pile in moves" are made,but that the Rules as Written require that "locked in combat" is only in effect after "pile in moves" are made.

Yes, that's what I was saying.

Again, I made that exceedingly clear by pointing out in my first post in this thread that I didn't think the RAW was what the writer intended.

Honestly though, I do not think where it landed has any bearing on what RAW would be. It had to be defined somewhere and there seems to be the place where it would fit in context.

For clarity, I would have gone with a summary of terms, either at the start of the assault section, or squeezed in later if necessary but clearly separate from the ongoing process.

But then, their refusal too adequately define and consistently use keywords has always been one of GW's big issues.

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, that's what I was saying.

Again, I made that exceedingly clear by pointing out in my first post in this thread that I didn't think the RAW was what the writer intended.

Well, then! I apologize. I honestly thought that you supported the order of operations part but disagreed with it restricting the issuing of challenges. That's why it seemed to me that you were on both sides.

Yes, the rule could be interpreted as relying on it's placement to determine when it's effect occurs. I interpret that differently.

At least we can all agree that the RAW is crap because it's placement and wording break other rules.