90561
Post by: ninkey
A buddy and I had a rules query around disordered charge this weekend.
When making charge moves we are clear that we need to keep in unit coherency. When charging in opposing directions
A) Is it possible to formalise a conga line of coherecy across the two units if it is possible for all models of the charging unit to get into combat with the primary unit. (Albeit with 2/3 attackers on each defender)
B) if that's fine and you can have a line between the two combats, the pile in moves would then break cohenecy. Is this OK? Or is pile in restricted in some way?
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Coherency is no longer 100% required while Charging. Check the current Errata on GW's site for more information.
Now, is your question about Multiple Charges or Disordered Charges? There is an important difference.
For Multiple Charges, you try and get as many models in base to base contact as possible between all the targets of your Charge. If a model cannot use its Charge Distance to get in to Base Contact with a Primary Target, but can use it to get in to Base Contact with a Secondary Target, it can do that.
Doing it to two different units separated by the Charging Unit, though... That seems like gaming the system to me. The Secondary Target are those "you think the Charging unit can Engage at the same time as the Primary Assault." So, they have to be close enough together that you could be within 2" of a Secondary Target while in Base Contact with a Primary Target.
Disordered Charges have nothing to do with Unit Coherency, and only affect the Charge Bonus. Other rules besides Multiple Charges do call it in to play, I believe.
90561
Post by: ninkey
Thanks for a quick response.
To clarify yes it's multiple charges with disordered charge being a subset rule of that.
I get where you are coming from with it being a bit cheeky rules wise but is it technically ok?
It seems like it would be an advantage to do this - link the units in coherency on charge then after being hit pile in ( it's orks so they pile in after I strike) without fear of being removed as a casualty before that..
95922
Post by: Charistoph
ninkey wrote:Thanks for a quick response.
To clarify yes it's multiple charges with disordered charge being a subset rule of that.
I get where you are coming from with it being a bit cheeky rules wise but is it technically ok?
It seems like it would be an advantage to do this - link the units in coherency on charge then after being hit pile in ( it's orks so they pile in after I strike) without fear of being removed as a casualty before that..
The rule states you must be able to "engage" the Secondary Target while Charging the Primary Target.
Models are Engaged when they are within 2" of a model in Base Contact of a Combat. It's pretty hard to have two units so far apart Engaged at the same time.
90561
Post by: ninkey
His argument on that one is that the rules for engagement apply to model not a unit. As long as it's in coherency in the charge even if via a conga line thenumber come pile in everyone just piles in one way or another.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Yes, it applies to a model, but you still have to be within 2" of an engaged model when the model charges. It means there's a practical limit on how far away the two units you fight can be. Models engaged with the first unit can be up to 2" away from a model in base contact, so being within 2" of that means your theoretical maximum distance between the two units you want to fight is 4" + twice the base size of your models. That means that for most units you won't see them charging two units 8" apart, and for your regular bases about 6" apart is going to be the maximum separation you can have between the two units you are charging.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
ninkey wrote:His argument on that one is that the rules for engagement apply to model not a unit. As long as it's in coherency in the charge even if via a conga line thenumber come pile in everyone just piles in one way or another.
In order to do a Multiple Charge, any models of the Secondary Targets have to be in engagement range of the Primary Target. In other words, within 2" of a Primary Target model that will be in Base Contact with your Charging unit's models.
In order to Charge two different ways, the Primary Target must be spread out in a crescent shape so that both Horns could be in Base Contact, but the center could either not be reached, or not reached by all the models involved.
For example, if the unit you were going to charge has models mixed in with another unit, that would be fine (probably even necessary), but if the two targeted units are separated by the distance between them and your unit as well as the room your unit is taking, there is no way you could Charge one, and have the models of the other be Engaged in that fight.
105443
Post by: doctortom
On further reading, I take back what I said.
Charistoph, when they talk about the secondary unit being one you think you can engage, it doesn't mean that you have to be within 2" of a model that's in base contact with the first unit. If the model is engaging, it accomplishes this by getting into base contact with the second unit. It's not allowed to so this if it's able to move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target unit. Once the model moved into base contact with the second unit, it's engaged with the second unit. This is how the first unit gets engaged in the first place, with a model moving into base contact. The same language would apply for moving a model into base contact with the second unit.
"Engagement range" for the secondary unit would merely be the movement distance between a model in the charging unit and the secondary unit. It's not limited by the distance between the first and second unit (except for needing to be close enough that the charge range rolled is sufficient for a model in the unit to be able to reach each target, and you con't have to move the entire unit onto unengaged models in the primary unit). It used to be more complex pre-draft FAQ with having to maintain coherency, but the Draft FAQ threw that out of the window.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
 doctortom wrote:On further reading, I take back what I said.
Charistoph, when they talk about the secondary unit being one you think you can engage, it doesn't mean that you have to be within 2" of a model that's in base contact with the first unit. If the model is engaging, it accomplishes this by getting into base contact with the second unit. It's not allowed to so this if it's able to move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target unit. Once the model moved into base contact with the second unit, it's engaged with the second unit. This is how the first unit gets engaged in the first place, with a model moving into base contact. The same language would apply for moving a model into base contact with the second unit.
"Engagement range" for the secondary unit would merely be the movement distance between a model in the charging unit and the secondary unit. It's not limited by the distance between the first and second unit (except for needing to be close enough that the charge range rolled is sufficient for a model in the unit to be able to reach each target, and you con't have to move the entire unit onto unengaged models in the primary unit). It used to be more complex pre-draft FAQ with having to maintain coherency, but the Draft FAQ threw that out of the window.
Then you are changing the definition of "engaged" than what is in the book:
A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.
The condition of performing a Multiple Charge is:
Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.
In other words, it is as I said. In order to Charge a Secondary Target, that unit must have models that would be Engaged if you Charged another. The key phrase is " at the same time" Obviously, the first definition would not work, as you cannot move in to Base Contact with a model of a unit you did not Charge (or Pile in a Combat with), so only the second definition would apply.
In order to perform a Multiple Combat both units have to be in Charge Range in the same direction and close enough so that if you managed to get any of the models of the Primary Target in Base Contact, the other unit would have models within 2" of that base contact. If both are completely separated by the Charging Unit (or equivalent distance), there is no way that is going to happen.
105443
Post by: doctortom
 Charistoph wrote:
Then you are changing the definition of "engaged" than what is in the book:
A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.
The condition of performing a Multiple Charge is:
Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.
.
Which means that at least one model in the unit must be able to reach the second unit, not that all models must be able to reach the primary unit and some the secondary unit.
Charistoph wrote:In other words, it is as I said. In order to Charge a Secondary Target, that unit must have models that would be Engaged if you Charged another. The key phrase is " at the same time" Obviously, the first definition would not work, as you cannot move in to Base Contact with a model of a unit you did not Charge (or Pile in a Combat with), so only the second definition would apply..
They have to be able to reach the secondary unit but not be able to reach an unengaged model in the primary target unit. If they do so, they have successfully engaged the second unit. Your first model has engaged the primary unit already. After that you can model the models in any order you want. You can move the hindmost model in the unit toward a different unit that's behind it, provided you meet the requirements I mention in the first sentence in the paragraph.
Charistoph wrote:In order to perform a Multiple Combat both units have to be in Charge Range in the same direction and close enough so that if you managed to get any of the models of the Primary Target in Base Contact, the other unit would have models within 2" of that base contact. If both are completely separated by the Charging Unit (or equivalent distance), there is no way that is going to happen.
Untrue. It doesn't have to be in the same direction with the Draft FAQ eliminating coherency requirements. You merely have to be able to get a model that couldn't engage an unengaged model in the primary unit into base contact with a model in the secondary target unit; that has satisfied the requirements for engagement right there. If you make base contact, you are engaged with the secondary unit and are within 0" of yourself.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
doctortom wrote:Which means that at least one model in the unit must be able to reach the second unit, not that all models must be able to reach the primary unit and some the secondary unit.
If you have models going two opposite directions, then it is not at the same time. One will always be happening afterwards.
doctortom wrote:They have to be able to reach the secondary unit but not be able to reach an unengaged model in the primary target unit. If they do so, they have successfully engaged the second unit. Your first model has engaged the primary unit already. After that you can model the models in any order you want. You can move the hindmost model in the unit toward a different unit that's behind it, provided you meet the requirements I mention in the first sentence in the paragraph.
If your first model is engaging the Primary Target, but not the Secondary Target, how is it happening at the same time? It is not noted that all models Charge at the same time.
doctortom wrote:Untrue. It doesn't have to be in the same direction with the Draft FAQ eliminating coherency requirements. You merely have to be able to get a model that couldn't engage an unengaged model in the primary unit into base contact with a model in the secondary target unit; that has satisfied the requirements for engagement right there. If you make base contact, you are engaged with the secondary unit and are within 0" of yourself.
It does have to be close to the same direction in order to engage a Secondary Target while Charging a Primary Target at the same time, as they have to have a model within 2" of a model that is in Base Contact because of this Charge.
The key phrase is "at the same time", Charging models are noted as moving one at a time, unlike like Shooting the same Weapon is.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Charistoph wrote: doctortom wrote:Which means that at least one model in the unit must be able to reach the second unit, not that all models must be able to reach the primary unit and some the secondary unit.
If you have models going two opposite directions, then it is not at the same time. One will always be happening afterwards.
How do you figure that? They treat the unit as charging, the unit charges both at the same time. Using your logic, you would never get to charge a second unit because you are always moving a model to a second unit after the first unit. Models might be charging, but units charge.
From page 54: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."
If we go by what you're saying, that the unit is arriving on the secondary target after engaging the primary target, then you could never charge a secondary unit because by definition you have to engage the primary target with the first model; it wouldn't matter how close the secondary unit is to the primary unit. Ergo, they are treating the unit's charge as all happening at the same time.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
doctortom wrote: Charistoph wrote: doctortom wrote:Which means that at least one model in the unit must be able to reach the second unit, not that all models must be able to reach the primary unit and some the secondary unit.
If you have models going two opposite directions, then it is not at the same time. One will always be happening afterwards.
How do you figure that? They treat the unit as charging, the unit charges both at the same time. Using your logic, you would never get to charge a second unit because you are always moving a model to a second unit after the first unit. Models might be charging, but units charge.
I explained that. Not all models are Charging at the same time. If you are Charging one unit, you cannot be engaging a unit in the opposite direction " at the same time".
doctortom wrote:From page 54: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."
If we go by what you're saying, that the unit is arriving on the secondary target after engaging the primary target, then you could never charge a secondary unit because by definition you have to engage the primary target with the first model; it wouldn't matter how close the secondary unit is to the primary unit. Ergo, they are treating the unit's charge as all happening at the same time.
It seems to me that you are confusing a few things on engagement. Base Contact with an enemy unit is not all that is needed to engage another model (and hence that unit). You only need to be within 2" of a model that IS in Base Contact. The other side of the board does not qualify as 'within 2"', last I checked. I may be wrong, I am not a carpenter and cannot gauge distances very well by eye.
When you move that first Charging Model, it MUST be in Base Contact with a model from the Primary Target or the Charge fails. Any subsequent Charging model must attempt to reach Base Contact with an unengaged Primary Target model before it can even consider going in to Base Contact Secondary Target model. That Secondary Target model may already be engaged (and that should at least be possible) because of the Initial Charger, not just because it was within Charge Range.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Charistoph wrote: doctortom wrote: Charistoph wrote: doctortom wrote:Which means that at least one model in the unit must be able to reach the second unit, not that all models must be able to reach the primary unit and some the secondary unit.
If you have models going two opposite directions, then it is not at the same time. One will always be happening afterwards.
How do you figure that? They treat the unit as charging, the unit charges both at the same time. Using your logic, you would never get to charge a second unit because you are always moving a model to a second unit after the first unit. Models might be charging, but units charge.
I explained that. Not all models are Charging at the same time. If you are Charging one unit, you cannot be engaging a unit in the opposite direction " at the same time".
The unit is charging at the same time. And, you haven't explained it. Explain how direction matters on charging at the same time if you're treating the models as not charging at the same time. if you're going off of the models not charging at the same time, then you would never get to charge a second unit because that model is moving after the first model you move. it wouldn't matter what direction the second unit is in or what its distance is. Therefore, there must be something wrong with your argument that you haven't addressed.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:
A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.
The condition of performing a Multiple Charge is:
Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.
In other words, it is as I said. In order to Charge a Secondary Target, that unit must have models that would be Engaged if you Charged another. The key phrase is " at the same time" Obviously, the first definition would not work, as you cannot move in to Base Contact with a model of a unit you did not Charge (or Pile in a Combat with), so only the second definition would apply.
The "at the same time" requirement means during the same Charge sub-phase. And saying that only the second definition of engaged applies is exactly backwards. The secondary charge target can't be "in the same combat" until after you have already moved a model into base contact with it.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
doctortom wrote:The unit is charging at the same time. And, you haven't explained it. Explain how direction matters on charging at the same time if you're treating the models as not charging at the same time. if you're going off of the models not charging at the same time, then you would never get to charge a second unit because that model is moving after the first model you move. it wouldn't matter what direction the second unit is in or what its distance is. Therefore, there must be something wrong with your argument that you haven't addressed.
Well, you did cut off many of the parts that explained it in what you quoted. If you Charged your Primary Target and kept trying to place Charging models in Base Contact with your Primary Target, could a Secondary Target in the opposite direction be possibly "engaged at the same time" before any other model moved?
Cal Hoskins wrote:The "at the same time" requirement means during the same Charge sub-phase. And saying that only the second definition of engaged applies is exactly backwards. The secondary charge target can't be "in the same combat" until after you have already moved a model into base contact with it.
Demonstrate where it implies "in the same sub-phase" as opposed to the normal constraints of "at the same time"? The Shooting Sequence places such a definition, but not Charging.
No it is not backwards to use the second definition first. For the Initial Charger cannot get in to Base Contact with any model of the Secondary Target. So, at that point, the second definition is the only one that can be applicable. The first can come later, as subsequent Chargers move in, but the second definition has to be possible in order for a Multiple Charge to occur.
Engaging a model is far easier than locking a unit in Combat. A model can be engaged without every being in Base Contact, just near a friendly unit which IS in Base Contact (it doesn't even have to be in the same unit!). A unit is locked in Combat when at least one of its models are in Base Contact with an enemy model.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Charistoph wrote:doctortom wrote:The unit is charging at the same time. And, you haven't explained it. Explain how direction matters on charging at the same time if you're treating the models as not charging at the same time. if you're going off of the models not charging at the same time, then you would never get to charge a second unit because that model is moving after the first model you move. it wouldn't matter what direction the second unit is in or what its distance is. Therefore, there must be something wrong with your argument that you haven't addressed.
Well, you did cut off many of the parts that explained it in what you quoted. If you Charged your Primary Target and kept trying to place Charging models in Base Contact with your Primary Target, could a Secondary Target in the opposite direction be possibly "engaged at the same time" before any other model moved?
Obviously, since the rules allow you to charge a secondary target. And, one more time, your argument here does not care if it's in the opposite direction or not; it would apply to a secondary target in any direction. So, given that we are allowed to charge a secondary target, and they state the unit must charge at the same time (note that it doesn't say models), then why does the direction make any difference? From what you say the model would arrive after the first model engages the primary unit, which would ipso facto mean the model didn't charge at the same time - IF GW is treating moving the models as NOT being the unit charging at the same time.
One other note - you don't move the model over to the first unit to find out it can't make it, then move it somewhere out. You measure the distance first to see if it's possible, and if it isn't it's free to move elsewhere. You don't treat the model as having run up to the first unit before finding out it can go somewhere else.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:The "at the same time" requirement means during the same Charge sub-phase. And saying that only the second definition of engaged applies is exactly backwards. The secondary charge target can't be "in the same combat" until after you have already moved a model into base contact with it.
Demonstrate where it implies "in the same sub-phase" as opposed to the normal constraints of "at the same time"? The Shooting Sequence places such a definition, but not Charging.
No it is not backwards to use the second definition first. For the Initial Charger cannot get in to Base Contact with any model of the Secondary Target. So, at that point, the second definition is the only one that can be applicable. The first can come later, as subsequent Chargers move in, but the second definition has to be possible in order for a Multiple Charge to occur.
Engaging a model is far easier than locking a unit in Combat. A model can be engaged without every being in Base Contact, just near a friendly unit which IS in Base Contact (it doesn't even have to be in the same unit!). A unit is locked in Combat when at least one of its models are in Base Contact with an enemy model.
"Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."
This "rule" contains so many problems that it makes me pretty sure that it is actually nothing more than descriptive flavor text. If you took "at the same time" to mean "at the same moment" then it would be almost impossible to pull off a multiple charge no matter how close the two target units were together without extremely precise movement. Also, no standard could possibly be applied to what someone thinks might be possible. Finally, the use of the word "engage" doesn't line up with how it is used in the rest of the rules set. Units don't engage other units, models engage other models.
You didn't address my assertion that you can't engage a model by simply being within 2" of it without it already being "in the same combat".
Just to make sure I understand how you think this all works, here's a little scenario:
Imagine two single model units from the same army standing 1" apart. An enemy single model unit wishes to charge them both and declares them as the primary and secondary targets. The charge roll is made and is plenty high to complete the charge. The charging unit is moved in a straight line directly at the primary target until contact is made. The charger does not contact the secondary target, but is within 2" of it. Are all three units in the combat now? I believe your answer is yes, and doctortom's is no. I would definitely say no.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
doctortom wrote:Obviously, since the rules allow you to charge a secondary target. And, one more time, your argument here does not care if it's in the opposite direction or not; it would apply to a secondary target in any direction. So, given that we are allowed to charge a secondary target, and they state the unit must charge at the same time (note that it doesn't say models), then why does the direction make any difference? From what you say the model would arrive after the first model engages the primary unit, which would ipso facto mean the model didn't charge at the same time - IF GW is treating moving the models as NOT being the unit charging at the same time.
Then you have been ignoring what I have been stating. How can a unit in the complete opposite direction be engaged by the Charging unit that is primarily heading the other way? You have to be engaging "at the same time as the primary assault".
Again, "engaging" does not require or mean being "locked in combat". Remember the difference between the two. It is entirely possible for a model not in Combat to be Engaged.
doctortom wrote:One other note - you don't move the model over to the first unit to find out it can't make it, then move it somewhere out. You measure the distance first to see if it's possible, and if it isn't it's free to move elsewhere. You don't treat the model as having run up to the first unit before finding out it can go somewhere else.
Nor did I suggest doing as such. The rule is set up that if the other units' models would be engaged with Charging a single unit, then you can multiple Charge, not just scatter to the four winds on a Charge.
Cal Hoskins wrote:"Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."
This "rule" contains so many problems that it makes me pretty sure that it is actually nothing more than descriptive flavor text. If you took "at the same time" to mean "at the same moment" then it would be almost impossible to pull off a multiple charge no matter how close the two target units were together without extremely precise movement. Also, no standard could possibly be applied to what someone thinks might be possible. Finally, the use of the word "engage" doesn't line up with how it is used in the rest of the rules set. Units don't engage other units, models engage other models.
True on some areas. But it doesn't take that much precise movement to have two units close enough together for a front model to be engaged when a friendly model from another unit is also nearby. It may not happen very often with most armies, but it is more likely with the more horde-oriented units.
Cal Hoskins wrote:You didn't address my assertion that you can't engage a model by simply being within 2" of it without it already being "in the same combat".
Sure you can. To be "engaged" a model only has to be within 2" of a friendly model locked in combat with Base Contact. Nothing states it actually has to be IN that same combat to be engaged. Two units that have their front guys both being able to be hit by a Small Blast would qualify in this scenario.
It is possible, and more likely with some armies than others. We are more likely to see it happen with Tyranids than with Grey Knights, for example. The Venomthrope makes this even more likely. Terrain also has a say in this, too, as it may force two units down a narrow path as they cannot go over or through the terrain surrounding it.
Cal Hoskins wrote:Just to make sure I understand how you think this all works, here's a little scenario:
Imagine two single model units from the same army standing 1" apart. An enemy single model unit wishes to charge them both and declares them as the primary and secondary targets. The charge roll is made and is plenty high to complete the charge. The charging unit is moved in a straight line directly at the primary target until contact is made. The charger does not contact the secondary target, but is within 2" of it. Are all three units in the combat now? I believe your answer is yes, and doctortom's is no. I would definitely say no.
No, my answer is no, they are not all locked in combat. And this shows how you are missing what I am saying due to a misunderstanding of terms.
"Locked in Combat" requires a unit to be in Base Contact with an enemy model. "Engaged" requires either a model be "locked in Combat" OR be within 2" of a model that is in Base Contact and "locked in Combat". Distance to the enemy model does not have to be in consideration when determining being "engaged". A model can be next to the opposite end of the long oval of a Imperial Knight base from an enemy model, and still be "engaged".
So, while, the Secondary Target would not be "locked in Combat", it would be "engaged". Do you see the difference?
This would technically not be a good decision on the Charger's part, as that one-model Charging unit would not be able to lock the second model in combat, and would lose out on the Charge bonus.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph wrote:doctortom wrote:Obviously, since the rules allow you to charge a secondary target. And, one more time, your argument here does not care if it's in the opposite direction or not; it would apply to a secondary target in any direction. So, given that we are allowed to charge a secondary target, and they state the unit must charge at the same time (note that it doesn't say models), then why does the direction make any difference? From what you say the model would arrive after the first model engages the primary unit, which would ipso facto mean the model didn't charge at the same time - IF GW is treating moving the models as NOT being the unit charging at the same time.
Then you have been ignoring what I have been stating. How can a unit in the complete opposite direction be engaged by the Charging unit that is primarily heading the other way? You have to be engaging "at the same time as the primary assault".
Again, "engaging" does not require or mean being "locked in combat". Remember the difference between the two. It is entirely possible for a model not in Combat to be Engaged.
You are confusing "models engaged in combat" with "unit can engage" and your argument is based on a faulty conflation of those two distinct uses of engage in the BRB.
We have rules defining what it means for models to be engaged.
However, we do not have rules for what it means to say that a unit is engaged; therefore, it must be just dictionary usage of "engage" and "unit can engage" is just descriptive fluff.
OED - Engage = "enter into conflict or combat with (an enemy)"
Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.
The above statement is merely stating that in order to declare a secondary target you must think that you are able to roll a charge distance that could bring your unit into combat with that enemy unit.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Charistoph wrote:
"Locked in Combat" requires a unit to be in Base Contact with an enemy model. "Engaged" requires either a model be "locked in Combat" OR be within 2" of a model that is in Base Contact and "locked in Combat". Distance to the enemy model does not have to be in consideration when determining being "engaged". A model can be next to the opposite end of the long oval of a Imperial Knight base from an enemy model, and still be "engaged".
So, while, the Secondary Target would not be "locked in Combat", it would be "engaged". Do you see the difference?
This would technically not be a good decision on the Charger's part, as that one-model Charging unit would not be able to lock the second model in combat, and would lose out on the Charge bonus.
That doesn't make sense, to be honest. A secondary target can't be considered to be engaged if there is no model from your unit that is locked in combat with it, by definition. That secondary target is not engaged until the first model from the unit comes into base conact with a model in that secondary target unit.. You are imposing a requirement that it not there in your comments, that you must be able to be engaged with the primary unit as well as being locked in combat with the secondary unit. That requirement does not exist in the rules. It merely says that your unit engages both units at the same time. You do this with the second unit by moving into base contact and thereby being locked in combat. The only restrictions on the charging model are that it must be able to reach the secondary unit and it must not be able to reach an unengaged model in the primary unit. There is no requirement that it must be engaged with the primary unit if not in base contact with the secondary; this is an invention on your part. You have to give us a quotation from the rules (taking in mind the Draft FAQ has done away with the coherency requirement) that states that the model locking into combat with the secondary unit must also be in engagement range of the primary target.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
doctortom wrote:That doesn't make sense, to be honest. A secondary target can't be considered to be engaged if there is no model from your unit that is locked in combat with it, by definition. That secondary target is not engaged until the first model from the unit comes into base conact with a model in that secondary target unit.. You are imposing a requirement that it not there in your comments, that you must be able to be engaged with the primary unit as well as being locked in combat with the secondary unit. That requirement does not exist in the rules. It merely says that your unit engages both units at the same time. You do this with the second unit by moving into base contact and thereby being locked in combat. The only restrictions on the charging model are that it must be able to reach the secondary unit and it must not be able to reach an unengaged model in the primary unit. There is no requirement that it must be engaged with the primary unit if not in base contact with the secondary; this is an invention on your part. You have to give us a quotation from the rules (taking in mind the Draft FAQ has done away with the coherency requirement) that states that the model locking into combat with the secondary unit must also be in engagement range of the primary target.
Then you keep forgetting this section in "Determine Who Can Fight" which I quoted in my first response to you:
A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.
According to you, only the first condition applies. Yet, it lists a second condition you are ignoring. Unless you are stating that both conditions must be met (which would be ridiculous, especially for 1 on 1 model content). The Unit Coherency change addresses NOTHING in the quote above.
Then we have the conditions for a Multiple Charge:
Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.
Both of these set a condition that all targets of a Multiple Charge have to be rather close to each other AND the Charging Unit. A Crusader Squad hugging the rear of a Charged Land Raider Crusader for cover would qualify (if you could get around it), as they would be within 2" of a unit locked in that combat, but a Crusader Squad 24" away would not qualify as you could not engage it while Charging the Land Raider Crusader.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Charistoph wrote:
Then you keep forgetting this section in "Determine Who Can Fight" which I quoted in my first response to you:
A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.
According to you, only the first condition applies. Yet, it lists a second condition you are ignoring. Unless you are stating that both conditions must be met (which would be ridiculous, especially for 1 on 1 model content). The Unit Coherency change addresses NOTHING in the quote above.
I ignore the second option because you satisfy the requirement if you meet either condition, and a model moving into base contact with an enemy model satisfies the condition for being engaged in combat. You seem to be the one insisting that both conditions must be met for charging another unit, with your insistence that the secondary target must be engaged with a model in base combat with the primary target.
So, going by the rules here, all I have to do is move into base contact with an enemy model OR be within 2" of a model in base contact of an enemy model's unit in order to meet the requirement of being engaged with the enemy unit. Therefore, moving into base contact with a secondary target unit fulfills the requirement of engaging with that secondary target unit. No other requirements (other than being able to reach the unit, and the model moving into base contact not being able to get into base contact with an unengaged enemy model in the primary target) are given. That means it doesn't matter what direction or distance it is to the secondary unit as long as the model can reach them.
Charistoph wrote:
Then we have the conditions for a Multiple Charge:
Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.
Both of these set a condition that all targets of a Multiple Charge have to be rather close to each other AND the Charging Unit. A Crusader Squad hugging the rear of a Charged Land Raider Crusader for cover would qualify (if you could get around it), as they would be within 2" of a unit locked in that combat, but a Crusader Squad 24" away would not qualify as you could not engage it while Charging the Land Raider Crusader.
No, that's not true at all. The Unit has to engage at the same time, but the unit is taken as charging at the same time. You are basing your assumption (which is what it is) that they must be close to each other on the faulty assumption that the secondary unit counts as being engaged when there are no models in base contact with it. Before you move your first model to the secondary target, there is no model in base contact with that enemy unit. That means there can not be a model within 2" of a model locked in combat with that unit either. So,by the definition you provided, the unit is not engaged. This means that either the rules are treating the unit as charging at the same time even though models are moved one at a time, or you can never charge a secondary target unit because by the definition you seem to be using, you can't reach it at the same timel. Once again, the direction or distance between the units has absolutely no effect on that timing, unlike what you are trying to say. If you are allowed to charge a secondary target, which by the rules you can, any model therefore that can't reach an unengaged model in the primary unit but can reach the secondary unit is allowed to charge the secondary target. Again, direction and distance do not matter as long as the model can reach the unit.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:Just to make sure I understand how you think this all works, here's a little scenario:
Imagine two single model units from the same army standing 1" apart. An enemy single model unit wishes to charge them both and declares them as the primary and secondary targets. The charge roll is made and is plenty high to complete the charge. The charging unit is moved in a straight line directly at the primary target until contact is made. The charger does not contact the secondary target, but is within 2" of it. Are all three units in the combat now? I believe your answer is yes, and doctortom's is no. I would definitely say no.
No, my answer is no, they are not all locked in combat. And this shows how you are missing what I am saying due to a misunderstanding of terms.
"Locked in Combat" requires a unit to be in Base Contact with an enemy model. "Engaged" requires either a model be "locked in Combat" OR be within 2" of a model that is in Base Contact and "locked in Combat". Distance to the enemy model does not have to be in consideration when determining being "engaged". A model can be next to the opposite end of the long oval of a Imperial Knight base from an enemy model, and still be "engaged".
So, while, the Secondary Target would not be "locked in Combat", it would be "engaged". Do you see the difference?
The model in the secondary target is not in base contact with an enemy model. It is within 2" of a friendly model (the one in the primary target), but it is not in the same combat. It is not in a combat at all. Therefore it is not engaged.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
doctortom wrote:I ignore the second option because you satisfy the requirement if you meet either condition, and a model moving into base contact with an enemy model satisfies the condition for being engaged in combat. You seem to be the one insisting that both conditions must be met for charging another unit, with your insistence that the secondary target must be engaged with a model in base combat with the primary target.
So, going by the rules here, all I have to do is move into base contact with an enemy model OR be within 2" of a model in base contact of an enemy model's unit in order to meet the requirement of being engaged with the enemy unit. Therefore, moving into base contact with a secondary target unit fulfills the requirement of engaging with that secondary target unit. No other requirements (other than being able to reach the unit, and the model moving into base contact not being able to get into base contact with an unengaged enemy model in the primary target) are given. That means it doesn't matter what direction or distance it is to the secondary unit as long as the model can reach them.
How can you move in to Base Contact with something at the same time as your Primary Assault?
Answer, you cannot:
Charging models still cannot move through friendly or enemy models, and cannot move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not charging
...a charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.
So, we have to be able to use that second definition because the first is impossible if one does not fulfill the second during the Primary Assault.
A unit in the opposite direction of a unit you Charge cannot be Engaged by Charging that Primary Target. It is impossible. It would only be engaged if you avoided the Primary Target, which is not allowed.
doctortom wrote:No, that's not true at all. The Unit has to engage at the same time, but the unit is taken as charging at the same time. You are basing your assumption (which is what it is) that they must be close to each other on the faulty assumption that the secondary unit counts as being engaged when there are no models in base contact with it. Before you move your first model to the secondary target, there is no model in base contact with that enemy unit. That means there can not be a model within 2" of a model locked in combat with that unit either. So,by the definition you provided, the unit is not engaged. This means that either the rules are treating the unit as charging at the same time even though models are moved one at a time, or you can never charge a secondary target unit because by the definition you seem to be using, you can't reach it at the same timel. Once again, the direction or distance between the units has absolutely no effect on that timing, unlike what you are trying to say. If you are allowed to charge a secondary target, which by the rules you can, any model therefore that can't reach an unengaged model in the primary unit but can reach the secondary unit is allowed to charge the secondary target. Again, direction and distance do not matter as long as the model can reach the unit.
No, you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I am saying. Remember the condition is "can engage at the same time as the primary assault". Range is a factor in this as much as direction and terrain would be.
A model can only be engaged when it is close to another Model in base contact (if not in base contact itself). You are not allowed to Charge a unit you have not declared a Charge on. You cannot move a model in to Base Contact of anything but the units you Charge. Multiple Charge states you have to be able to engage those Secondary models AT THE SAME TIME you Charge the Primary Target. Charging the other way will engage a unit that could not be engaged by Charging the Primary Target. You will be engaging a unit AFTER you have engaged the Primary Target.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Charistoph wrote: doctortom wrote:I ignore the second option because you satisfy the requirement if you meet either condition, and a model moving into base contact with an enemy model satisfies the condition for being engaged in combat. You seem to be the one insisting that both conditions must be met for charging another unit, with your insistence that the secondary target must be engaged with a model in base combat with the primary target.
So, going by the rules here, all I have to do is move into base contact with an enemy model OR be within 2" of a model in base contact of an enemy model's unit in order to meet the requirement of being engaged with the enemy unit. Therefore, moving into base contact with a secondary target unit fulfills the requirement of engaging with that secondary target unit. No other requirements (other than being able to reach the unit, and the model moving into base contact not being able to get into base contact with an unengaged enemy model in the primary target) are given. That means it doesn't matter what direction or distance it is to the secondary unit as long as the model can reach them.
How can you move in to Base Contact with something at the same time as your Primary Assault?
Answer, you cannot:
Okay, we can just call it right there and say that units may never charge a secondary target. Or, you're wrong and you can. Since the rules say you can engage a second unit as a secondary target, I would believe that you're wrong.
Charistoph wrote:A model can only be engaged when it is close to another Model in base contact (if not in base contact itself).
OR move into base contact itself, then being close to another model in base contact does not matter. That is what you keep missing. How does the first model you move become engaged with the enemy? By moving into base contact with a model in the primary target. How does a model engage a secondary unit? By moving into base contact with the secondary unit. Nothing more is required, it does not have to be within 2" of an engaged model.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
doctortom wrote:
Okay, we can just call it right there and say that units may never charge a secondary target. Or, you're wrong and you can. Since the rules say you can engage a second unit as a secondary target, I would believe that you're wrong.
I gave the rules that you cut off in the quote. Are the quotes wrong? Have I misquoted?
The first quote comes from a normal charge. The second quote came from multiple chargers. The second quote only comes in to play after the determination made earlier ("engaged at the same times as the primary assault") is deemed possible.
So, again, a unit in the opposite direction of a Primary Target cannot be Engaged at the same time, it would be engaged AFTER you Charged the Primary Target which would violate the requirement made in the first couple paragraphs of Multiple Combat.
doctortom wrote: Charistoph wrote:A model can only be engaged when it is close to another Model in base contact (if not in base contact itself).
OR move into base contact itself, then being close to another model in base contact does not matter.
Are you ignoring what is in the parentheses now?
doctortom wrote:That is what you keep missing. How does the first model you move become engaged with the enemy? By moving into base contact with a model in the primary target. How does a model engage a secondary unit? By moving into base contact with the secondary unit. Nothing more is required, it does not have to be within 2" of an engaged model./quote]
You are using the end results to justify overriding earlier restrictions. How can you move in to base contact with something you do not have permission to move in to base contact with?
In order to move in to Base Contact with an Enemy model, you must Charge it. In order to Charge it, it must be legal to Charge. In order for a Secondary Target to be Charged, it must be able to be "engaged at the same time as the primary assault". You would not be able to Charge something you would not be able to engage at the same time, so you cannot declare the Charge. If you do not declare the Charge, you cannot Charge it. If you cannot Charge it, you cannot get in to Base Contact. If you cannot get in to Base Contact, this level of engagement is impossible. Therefore, the possibility of the second condition of engagement needs to be determined to justify the possibility of doing the first.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph,
You keep coming back to this rule: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." Can you explain what you think it means for a unit to engage. This isn't defined in the rules as far as I know. We can't really argue about the timing of this act unless we know what this act is. I still hold that this entire sentence is descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus holds no weight at all.
The second possible requirement for a model to be engaged is thus: "It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with
one or more enemy models in the same combat." Would you agree that the phrase "in the same combat" means "locked in the same combat"? If not, what does it mean?
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Cal Hoskins wrote:You keep coming back to this rule: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." Can you explain what you think it means for a unit to engage. This isn't defined in the rules as far as I know. We can't really argue about the timing of this act unless we know what this act is. I still hold that this entire sentence is descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus holds no weight at all.
I have explained what it means for a model to be engaged twice now. Can you provide any other situation or definition that could be used to describe a unit being engaged in any other manner?
Cal Hoskins wrote:The second possible requirement for a model to be engaged is thus: "It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with
one or more enemy models in the same combat." Would you agree that the phrase "in the same combat" means "locked in the same combat"? If not, what does it mean?
That would be an acceptable determination. The Secondary Unit must be close enough to be brought in to the melee the Primary Unit will be involved in. Being 24" away would not qualify. The other unit could try and move and Charge in later, but it would not be directly involved in the Combat before then.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:You keep coming back to this rule: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." Can you explain what you think it means for a unit to engage. This isn't defined in the rules as far as I know. We can't really argue about the timing of this act unless we know what this act is. I still hold that this entire sentence is descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus holds no weight at all.
I have explained what it means for a model to be engaged twice now. Can you provide any other situation or definition that could be used to describe a unit being engaged in any other manner?
Yes, you have explained how a MODEL is engaged. (Though I don't think we quite agree.) But how is a UNIT engaged? Is it engaged when the first MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or each time a MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or something else? The rules are silent on this as UNITS being engaged is not a game mechanic.
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:The second possible requirement for a model to be engaged is thus: "It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat." Would you agree that the phrase "in the same combat" means "locked in the same combat"? If not, what does it mean?
That would be an acceptable determination. The Secondary Unit must be close enough to be brought in to the melee the Primary Unit will be involved in. Being 24" away would not qualify. The other unit could try and move and Charge in later, but it would not be directly involved in the Combat before then.
OK, then how in my earlier hypothetical situation can the secondary target be engaged if it is not locked in combat?
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Cal Hoskins wrote:Yes, you have explained how a MODEL is engaged. (Though I don't think we quite agree.) But how is a UNIT engaged? Is it engaged when the first MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or each time a MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or something else? The rules are silent on this as UNITS being engaged is not a game mechanic.
Again, do we have another standard to work with?
Model actions and determinations can affect how a unit is considered. Consider the language in Stubborn or determining if the unit Charges. In Stubborn, only one model needs to have the rule, but " If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead". In determining if a unit can Charge, " The unit shot Rapid Fire weapons, Salvo weapons, Ordnance weapons or Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase" cannot Charge, but models are what actually do the Shooting, not the unit.
Cal Hoskins wrote:OK, then how in my earlier hypothetical situation can the secondary target be engaged if it is not locked in combat?
Because it is within 2" of a "Friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy model in the same combat".
The model in base combat needs to be locked in the same combat, not the unit in question.
70567
Post by: deviantduck
I run thundercav often and this happens quite a lot and no one has ever blinked twice at it.
Enemy Units are each 1 model units: E1, E2.
For argument's sake it's a star with a couple ICs.
Charge roll is 12.
E1 and E2 are 20 inches apart.
They fire overwatch.
E1....................CCCCCC.........................E2
First model charges the primary enemy unit and makes it. The primary target is now engaged.
E1C....................CCCCC.........................E2
So satisfying that all models in the primary target are engaged, the unit is free to assault a secondary target.
E1C.......................CCC.........................CE2
Now both targets are engaged in combat and the rest of the unit can charge whomever they like.
E1CCC..............................................CCCE2
Legal and out of coherency.
Where have any of the rules of assaulting been broken?
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:OK, then how in my earlier hypothetical situation can the secondary target be engaged if it is not locked in combat?
Because it is within 2" of a "Friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy model in the same combat".
The model in base combat needs to be locked in the same combat, not the unit in question.
Back to my previous hypothetical again... After the charge move the model in the secondary target is within 2" of a friendly model. That friendly model is in base contact with an enemy. But, that friendly model is not "in the same combat" as the model in the secondary target. So how is the model in the secondary target engaged?
95922
Post by: Charistoph
 deviantduck wrote:First model charges the primary enemy unit and makes it. The primary target is now engaged.
E1C....................CCCCC.........................E2
And right here, E2 is not engaged at the same time, nor could be considered within the engaged rage at the same time, or even possible, so not a valid target.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cal Hoskins wrote:Back to my previous hypothetical again... After the charge move the model in the secondary target is within 2" of a friendly model. That friendly model is in base contact with an enemy. But, that friendly model is not "in the same combat" as the model in the secondary target. So how is the model in the secondary target engaged?
Because it is within 2" of "a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat." Nothing requires the model to be in a unit locked in combat. Who can fight in a Combat is whoever is engaged.
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.
The rules then classify "engaged" as anyone in base contact in the fight or any friendly model close enough to them.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Cal Hoskins wrote:Charistoph,
You keep coming back to this rule: "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." Can you explain what you think it means for a unit to engage. This isn't defined in the rules as far as I know. We can't really argue about the timing of this act unless we know what this act is. I still hold that this entire sentence is descriptive rather than prescriptive and thus holds no weight at all.
This is correct. There are no rules defining what it means for a unit to engage; therefore the dictionary meaning of "engage" is in effect.
OED - "engage" = enter into conflict or combat with (an enemy)
This is pretty cut and dry. Charistoph's argument has a faulty premise (that unit engage = model engage) and therefore a faulty conclusion.
Until he can point to actual rules defining what it means for a unit to engage we have no other choice than to accept that the dictionary meaning of the word is in effect. His posts belong in the Proposed Rules forum since he is adding to the rules.
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:Yes, you have explained how a MODEL is engaged. (Though I don't think we quite agree.) But how is a UNIT engaged? Is it engaged when the first MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or each time a MODEL within it becomes engaged? Or something else? The rules are silent on this as UNITS being engaged is not a game mechanic.
Again, do we have another standard to work with?
Yes, we have the dictionary as noted above.
Charistoph wrote:
Model actions and determinations can affect how a unit is considered. Consider the language in Stubborn or determining if the unit Charges. In Stubborn, only one model needs to have the rule, but " If a unit is both Fearless and Stubborn, it uses the rules for Fearless instead". In determining if a unit can Charge, " The unit shot Rapid Fire weapons, Salvo weapons, Ordnance weapons or Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase" cannot Charge, but models are what actually do the Shooting, not the unit.
All of Charistoph's argument here is HYWPI and belongs in the Proposed Rules forum.
Further, all of his examples are erroneous. Stubborn specifically confers the ability of the special rule from a model having the special rule on its datasheet to the unit that contains that model. And units shoot and make shooting attacks per the rules, so shooting is something the BRB defines as happening individually at the model level AND collectively at the unit level.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:Back to my previous hypothetical again... After the charge move the model in the secondary target is within 2" of a friendly model. That friendly model is in base contact with an enemy. But, that friendly model is not "in the same combat" as the model in the secondary target. So how is the model in the secondary target engaged?
Because it is within 2" of "a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat." Nothing requires the model to be in a unit locked in combat. Who can fight in a Combat is whoever is engaged.
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.
The rules then classify "engaged" as anyone in base contact in the fight or any friendly model close enough to them.
Just to be clear, you are proposing that a model can be engaged in combat, and be eligible to pile in and strike, even though that model's unit is not locked in combat? I don't think you will get anyone to agree with that.
"It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."
You seem to be implying that the "friendly model" must be "in the same combat" as the "enemy model(s)" it is in base contact with. Am I correct in this assumption? If that were true, the entire phrase "in the same combat" is completely extraneous as there is no way for anything else to possibly be true. I believe that the "friendly model" must be "in the same combat" as the model we are currently checking the engagement status of.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Cal Hoskins wrote: Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:Back to my previous hypothetical again... After the charge move the model in the secondary target is within 2" of a friendly model. That friendly model is in base contact with an enemy. But, that friendly model is not "in the same combat" as the model in the secondary target. So how is the model in the secondary target engaged?
Because it is within 2" of "a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat." Nothing requires the model to be in a unit locked in combat. Who can fight in a Combat is whoever is engaged.
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.
The rules then classify "engaged" as anyone in base contact in the fight or any friendly model close enough to them.
Just to be clear, you are proposing that a model can be engaged in combat, and be eligible to pile in and strike, even though that model's unit is not locked in combat? I don't think you will get anyone to agree with that.
One big problem here is that a unit has to be locked in combat in order to participate in the assault phase. If a unit is not locked in combat it is skipping all of the assault phase which includes piling in and striking of course.
So basically the rules defeat Charistoph's argument.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Cal Hoskins wrote:Just to be clear, you are proposing that a model can be engaged in combat, and be eligible to pile in and strike, even though that model's unit is not locked in combat? I don't think you will get anyone to agree with that.
Not entirely. To Pile In, a model must be in a unit that is locked in combat. To be Engaged, a model just needs to be in close enough. And it is entirely possible for a model to be "locked in combat" and not "Engaged", as well.
As for striking blows, well, the rule does state, "any model... who is engaged with an enemy model must fight".
Cal Hoskins wrote:"It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."
You seem to be implying that the "friendly model" must be "in the same combat" as the "enemy model(s)" it is in base contact with. Am I correct in this assumption? If that were true, the entire phrase "in the same combat" is completely extraneous as there is no way for anything else to possibly be true. I believe that the "friendly model" must be "in the same combat" as the model we are currently checking the engagement status of.
"Friendly model" is either from the same Faction and Army or at least a Battle Brother. "Enemy model" is a model that is part of the your opponent's army. That part is rather self-explicative, I would think. It is explained in several parts of the rulebook, after all.
The "same combat" is the Combat that has been chosen to be resolved at that time. If the "same combat" was for the model we were referencing, it would be better placed before the mention of the "friendly model". But that could also be classed as an interpretive difference as well.
Compare:
A model is engaged in combat if It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.
A model is engaged in combat if in the same combat with a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models and within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of that model.
Now, relevance could indicate that it is only considering models already locked in that same Combat, but it doesn't specify such, either. It is a rather general statement. After all, why would you consider a model not locked in that combat?
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
"It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."
In your opinion, what exactly has to be "in the same combat" as what? There is the model we are currently checking to see if it is engaged. There is a friendly model. There is at least one enemy model.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:Just to be clear, you are proposing that a model can be engaged in combat, and be eligible to pile in and strike, even though that model's unit is not locked in combat? I don't think you will get anyone to agree with that.
Not entirely. To Pile In, a model must be in a unit that is locked in combat. To be Engaged, a model just needs to be in close enough. And it is entirely possible for a model to be "locked in combat" and not "Engaged", as well.
As for striking blows, well, the rule does state, "any model... who is engaged with an enemy model must fight".
Incorrect. A unit that is not locked in combat skips the assault phase altogether, as noted above and proved with BRB citation, and cannot participate in the determination of what models are engaged.
So to be engaged a model must be close enough to an enemy that it is locked in combat with.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Cal Hoskins wrote:"It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."
In your opinion, what exactly has to be "in the same combat" as what? There is the model we are currently checking to see if it is engaged. There is a friendly model. There is at least one enemy model.
I am stating that the "a model is engaged" is not required to be locked "in the same combat". The model we are checking to see if they are engaged should be within range of a "friendly model in Base Contact" which is "in the same combat" as the Combat as we are processing the Initiative Step for. That is what I referenced before when I stated, " The "same combat" is the Combat that has been chosen to be resolved at that time".
85004
Post by: col_impact
You keep overlooking the fact that a unit that is not locked in combat has no permission to be participating in any aspects of the assault phase.
A model cannot engage an enemy model that is in a unit that is not locked in combat.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:"It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat."
In your opinion, what exactly has to be "in the same combat" as what? There is the model we are currently checking to see if it is engaged. There is a friendly model. There is at least one enemy model.
I am stating that the "a model is engaged" is not required to be locked "in the same combat". The model we are checking to see if they are engaged should be within range of a "friendly model in Base Contact" which is "in the same combat" as the Combat as we are processing the Initiative Step for. That is what I referenced before when I stated, " The "same combat" is the Combat that has been chosen to be resolved at that time".
So, using this interpretation would you allow a model that never charged and was never the target of a charge to get involved in a combat?
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Cal Hoskins wrote:So, using this interpretation would you allow a model that never charged and was never the target of a charge to get involved in a combat?
In a way. The rules state that those that fit in this category can fight. The level of involvement does get a little odd in some areas, as they are not allowed to Pile In to this fight, and must be in place when this Combat is selected to Fight.
And it is this level of engagement we are looking for at a minimum when we see if we can declare a Multiple Charge. There is no single way a unit 20" away from the nearest model of a Primary Target could possibly fit in to either of these definitions of engagement at the same time. Any Charge movement would involve engaging that second unit after you have engaged the Primary Target, not while you were engaging the Primary unit.
-----------------------
And if anyone is wondering, I have col_ignored on Ignore. I can see that he has posted, but I have to actually go out of my way to see what he has posted. I find his posts to generate toxic discussions, and this is the best way to avoid temptations. If any of the rest of you wish to understand my view on what he has posted, present the question and I will address it.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:So, using this interpretation would you allow a model that never charged and was never the target of a charge to get involved in a combat?
In a way. The rules state that those that fit in this category can fight. The level of involvement does get a little odd in some areas, as they are not allowed to Pile In to this fight, and must be in place when this Combat is selected to Fight.
And it is this level of engagement we are looking for at a minimum when we see if we can declare a Multiple Charge. There is no single way a unit 20" away from the nearest model of a Primary Target could possibly fit in to either of these definitions of engagement at the same time. Any Charge movement would involve engaging that second unit after you have engaged the Primary Target, not while you were engaging the Primary unit.
You still have not shown permission for a unit not locked in combat to participate in the assault phase (specifically the Fight Sub Phase).
Also, you continue to confuse 'model engage' with 'unit engage'. The former has rules. The latter has no rules so the dictionary definition is in play. If you force 'model engage' onto 'unit engage' you are making up rules.
Even further, your argument is based on the false premise that we should read "at the same time" hyper-literally when the BRB in all other cases uses "at the same time" to mean "in the same game action/step". So long as the player thinks he can reasonably complete a charge move (which is a single game step) against a Primary and Secondary target then he can declare a Primary and Secondary target.
Basically, your line of reasoning has no rules support and belongs in the Proposed Rules section.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:So, using this interpretation would you allow a model that never charged and was never the target of a charge to get involved in a combat?
In a way. The rules state that those that fit in this category can fight. The level of involvement does get a little odd in some areas, as they are not allowed to Pile In to this fight, and must be in place when this Combat is selected to Fight.
And it is this level of engagement we are looking for at a minimum when we see if we can declare a Multiple Charge. There is no single way a unit 20" away from the nearest model of a Primary Target could possibly fit in to either of these definitions of engagement at the same time. Any Charge movement would involve engaging that second unit after you have engaged the Primary Target, not while you were engaging the Primary unit.
Should we let everyone know that all the units prevented from charging due to Deep Strike, Infiltrate, Scout, firing Heavy Weapons, and whatever else can still get into a combat just by getting close to one? It seems like it could potentially change every game ever played.
Here's a few rules quotes:
"All units in close combat fight; this is an exception to the normal turn sequence in that both sides fight, not just the side whose turn it is."
"Close combat is where two units from opposing armies are in base contact with each other."
"If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight in the Assault phase."
I can't find any mention of units that aren't in base contact with an enemy unit being able to fight in close combat.
Don't you think it more likely that you are misinterpreting the test to see if a model is engaged, rather than that everyone everywhere has been playing incorrectly since 7th came out?
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Cal Hoskins wrote:Should we let everyone know that all the units prevented from charging due to Deep Strike, Infiltrate, Scout, firing Heavy Weapons, and whatever else can still get into a combat just by getting close to one? It seems like it could potentially change every game ever played.
Maybe. At the very least, they can all be Charged before they have a chance to Charge, which would involve them in Combat. What you choose to tell your group is up to you. Meta rules are more about having a fun game between people then being literal. I am just literal here because that is the only thing I can specifically state is the same across all of those reading this.
Cal Hoskins wrote:Here's a few rules quotes:
"All units in close combat fight; this is an exception to the normal turn sequence in that both sides fight, not just the side whose turn it is."
"Close combat is where two units from opposing armies are in base contact with each other."
"If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight in the Assault phase."
I can't find any mention of units that aren't in base contact with an enemy unit being able to fight in close combat.
Don't you think it more likely that you are misinterpreting the test to see if a model is engaged, rather than that everyone everywhere has been playing incorrectly since 7th came out?
I have quoted and referenced the rule before, and it is in the same place we have been looking at defining "engaged" this whole thread. Here it is again:
Determine Who Can Fight
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.
A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.
At this point, units are not in consideration, just the models. The models would technically contribute to the fight even if their unit is not locked in combat due to the standards set here. Also keep in mind that this standard applies to the models that ARE locked in to this combat as well. If you have 25 models in a unit over 2" away from any of those in base contact, those models are NOT engaged. Remember, "engaged" and "locked" are NOT presented as being synonymous at any point. But either way at this point, that is another discussion.
For the purposes of this thread's original question, though, it is THIS standard which we are considering when we declare a Multiple Charge. This standard must be possible to be fulfilled at the same time a unit Charges a Primary Target in order to properly declare a Multiple Charge. If your unit cannot bring a Secondary Target's model within 2" of a model they will be in base contact with, it cannot Charge it at the same time. A unit that has its nearest model 20" to a Charged unit could never qualify as such. This makes a conga line Charge as suggested in the Original Post illegal within the base rules.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:I have quoted and referenced the rule before, and it is in the same place we have been looking at defining "engaged" this whole thread. Here it is again:
Determine Who Can Fight
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.
A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.
At this point, units are not in consideration, just the models. The models would technically contribute to the fight even if their unit is not locked in combat due to the standards set here. Also keep in mind that this standard applies to the models that ARE locked in to this combat as well. If you have 25 models in a unit over 2" away from any of those in base contact, those models are NOT engaged. Remember, "engaged" and "locked" are NOT presented as being synonymous at any point. But either way at this point, that is another discussion.
Have I ever implied that "engaged" and "locked" are the same? I do believe that one is required for the other to be true, but they are not the same.
Can we agree that "in the same combat" has an implied "as SOMETHING" at the end of it? You have posited that the SOMETHING is the combat we are currently conducting while I hold that the SOMETHING is the "It" found at the beginning of the sentence.
Charistoph wrote:For the purposes of this thread's original question, though, it is THIS standard which we are considering when we declare a Multiple Charge. This standard must be possible to be fulfilled at the same time a unit Charges a Primary Target in order to properly declare a Multiple Charge. If your unit cannot bring a Secondary Target's model within 2" of a model they will be in base contact with, it cannot Charge it at the same time. A unit that has its nearest model 20" to a Charged unit could never qualify as such. This makes a conga line Charge as suggested in the Original Post illegal within the base rules.
There are several problems with your "standard" here, though. We don't agree on how models are engaged. We don't agree on the length of the "at the same time" interval. And most importantly, we don't even agree that "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." is a rule rather than flavor text.
As far as "at the same time" goes, do you believe it to be a single instant, the time during the movement of a charging model, the time of moving a charging unit, or something else entirely? If anything, I see it as during the charge move of the unit.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Cal Hoskins wrote:Have I ever implied that "engaged" and "locked" are the same? I do believe that one is required for the other to be true, but they are not the same.
In a way. You have implied that they require the same conditions to be fulfilled. Engagement only has any indication that it requires being locked in combat by it being the Initiative Step process. However, that is not concrete evidence of exclusivity, as numerous other rules are listed in similar situations, but still provide usability outside those cases. Look Out Sir rules are one such an example.
Cal Hoskins wrote:Can we agree that "in the same combat" has an implied "as SOMETHING" at the end of it? You have posited that the SOMETHING is the combat we are currently conducting while I hold that the SOMETHING is the "It" found at the beginning of the sentence.
I think that has already been well established. This is where interpretation is largely on the reader to make. They certainly did not make it plain as to which one they meant as they have in other rules.
But even if that was the case, it still only changes things for consideration outside of a Multiple Charge. It still provides the definition of capacity for a Multiple Charge. Anything else requires ignoring too many things to justify it.
Cal Hoskins wrote:There are several problems with your "standard" here, though. We don't agree on how models are engaged. We don't agree on the length of the "at the same time" interval. And most importantly, we don't even agree that "Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." is a rule rather than flavor text.
Except that it is the only thing that qualifies as defining a Secondary Target. It comes right after defining what the Primary Target is. It provides a case of qualifications. The second sentence in that paragraph does not provide any definition or qualifications, just a reminder of the basics of a valid Charge target. So the second sentence could not be it. There is nothing else that could define a Secondary Target at this point.
So, if this is something you don't agree on, what defines the qualifications of a Secondary Target in the rules aside from this sentence?
Cal Hoskins wrote:As far as "at the same time" goes, do you believe it to be a single instant, the time during the movement of a charging model, the time of moving a charging unit, or something else entirely? If anything, I see it as during the charge move of the unit.
It has to be done during the Charge move of the unit. However, even when doing a Charge Move, each and every model is moved one at a time. Unlike in the Shooting Sequence, there is no mention that these models are considered Charging together. Unless you can demonstrate in the rules that you can move two models in such different directions at the same time, your case has no hope.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph wrote:
Cal Hoskins wrote:As far as "at the same time" goes, do you believe it to be a single instant, the time during the movement of a charging model, the time of moving a charging unit, or something else entirely? If anything, I see it as during the charge move of the unit.
It has to be done during the Charge move of the unit. However, even when doing a Charge Move, each and every model is moved one at a time. Unlike in the Shooting Sequence, there is no mention that these models are considered Charging together. Unless you can demonstrate in the rules that you can move two models in such different directions at the same time, your case has no hope.
You keep confusing "model engage" with "unit engage". The former has rules associated with it. The latter has no rules so the dictionary definition is used instead. And when we use the dictionary definition everything works fine in the rules.
OED - engage = enter into conflict or combat with (an enemy)
Let's revisit the rule in question.
Clearly, the BRB is referring to "unit can engage" and not "initial charger model can engage" so Charistoph's argument has no rules support. If the BRB meant "initial charger model can engage" it would have stated as much.
Charistoph needs to start marking his posts as HYWPI since he has veered well off the RAW. You are not allowed to swap "unit" with "model".
Also, I find it wonderfully ironic that he wants to be hyper-literal with the application of "at the same time" but intentionally vague in his smudging of "unit" and "model" together. The rule statement cannot logically be hyper-literal and vague at the same time.
90561
Post by: ninkey
Thank you both for the time you've taken to discuss this.
The resolution my friend and I came to is:
The charging unit has to maintain cohency when charging,
it then has to make base contact with everything in the primary unit
Then the secondary
Then all models that can engage the primary (I. E.within 2" of a model in base contact have to do so),
then any left over models can be used to link the two combats.
In practice it means you can multi charge two units separated by a large distance (more than 8" or so) but you have to greatly outnumber them. (Approx double the number of chargers to defenders but that's just a house rule / guide)
99
Post by: insaniak
deviantduck wrote:
So satisfying that all models in the primary target are engaged, the unit is free to assault a secondary target.
E1C.......................CCC.........................CE2
A model can only move onto a secondary target if it cannot reach base contact with a model from the primary. So in your example here, your model would only be able to move onto E2 if E! is outside his charge range, or if there is no room for him to make base contact.
You're also constrained by the requirement to finish your charge in coherency with an already-moved model. So E1 would have to be unreachable, and E2 close enough that your second charging C would finish his charge within 2" of the first charging C. Automatically Appended Next Post: ninkey wrote: it then has to make base contact with everything in the primary unit
While that's fine for a HIWPI resolution, it's not quite the requirement in the rules. You don't have to base everything in the primary unit before moving onto the secondary, but you can only charge the secondary with models who can't reach base contact with the primary.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Ignore what Charistoph is saying. If multi charges worked like that, they would a) be essentially impossible to pull off, and/or b) allow you to 'charge' models in to combat that otherwise couldn't, and to 'pull' models in to combat that you didn't charge against.
So the rules are:
0* The first charge must be a direct line from the closest model in the charging unit to the closest model in the primary target.
1* If possible, a charging model must end its charge move in unit coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved. If it is not possible for a charging model to move and maintain unit coherency, move it as close as possible to another model in its own unit that has already moved instead. (Errata)
2* If possible, a charging model must move into base contact with an enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with another charging model. If there are no such enemy models in reach, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with a charging model.
3* If a charging model cannot reach any enemy models, it must try to move within 2" horizontally/6" vertcally of one of its own units models that is already in base contact with an enemy. If this is impossible, it must simply stay in unit coherency.
The next sentence implies this is a sequence: you must try to do #1 before doing #2.
Then the additional rules for multi assaults:
* If the initial charger successfully moves into base contact with the primary target, remaining models can charge models belonging to either the primary or secondary target units, as long as they follow the rules for moving charging models.
* A charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.
* Remember that the charging unit is not allowed to break its unit coherency, and this will obviously limit the potential for this kind of charge.
So it is POSSIBLE to conga-line. However, it is quite difficult, and especially difficult the higher charge distance you roll, the more enemy models you are charging.
To help with the conga-line strategy:
* In the movement phase, weight your unit towards the secondary target. Place as few models close to the primary target as possible and get your conga line started.
* You want to roll low for your charge distance. If you have fleet or jump packs, use the re-roll for low distance.
* Clever positioning of the 2nd/3rd/4th chargers can severely restrict the options for subsequent models and thus improve your ability to get in to multi assault. Because you can't move through friendly models, you can position one model so he blocks other models from making B2B, even if they could have made B2B if they'd moved first.
* Likewise, positioning the fewest number of models to engage / be in B2B with the largest number of enemy models allows you to begin your conga line earlier.
* You don't have to move your full charge distance. As long as you can't make BTB with an an enemy model or coherency with a friendly model in BTB, you can finish your move anywhere in coherency: these are the models you need to use for your conga line.
* You really need to manipulate the order that models have to move in. The first charger is determined for you, but after that you can start charging with the furthest away models.
So while your inital setup might look like
X
X ABCD E F HG Y Y Y
X
Your final positioning after the charge might be more like:
X
XCDE B A F HGYYY
X
There's a bit of a guide here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/08/09/launching-a-multi-assault-in-7th-edition/
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Trasvi wrote:Ignore what Charistoph is saying. If multi charges worked like that, they would a) be essentially impossible to pull off, and/or b) allow you to 'charge' models in to combat that otherwise couldn't, and to 'pull' models in to combat that you didn't charge against.
Incorrect. They just wouldn't be able to be conga-lined across the table. Models would not be "pulled in to combat", as they wouldn't be locked in combat unless one of their unit members was in base contact.
In order to pull off a multiple Charge, models in a Secondary Target have to be within 2" of a Primary Target model you can reach. That really isn't that hard to pull off if the two units are that close. The reason for this is because some would try and use that proximity to prevent a normal Charge (you can't get within 1" of a model in a unit you are not Charging). There is no indication of intention to Charge 2 units 20" apart from each other.
Trasvi wrote:So the rules are:
0* The first charge must be a direct line from the closest model in the charging unit to the closest model in the primary target.
And in Line of Sight, all the usual Charge restrictions.
Trasvi wrote:The next sentence implies this is a sequence: you must try to do #1 before doing #2.
Kind of hard to do #2 without doing #1 in most cases as your target should also be in unit coherency for a single target. It is possible they may be out of Coherency due to Shots from the previous Phase or just a very stupid Deployment, but the has a minimal case of encounter.
Not to mention, these 3 last points are not rules for setting up the Charge, but doing the actual move of the Charge.
Trasvi wrote:Then the additional rules for multi assaults:
* If the initial charger successfully moves into base contact with the primary target, remaining models can charge models belonging to either the primary or secondary target units, as long as they follow the rules for moving charging models.
* A charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.
* Remember that the charging unit is not allowed to break its unit coherency, and this will obviously limit the potential for this kind of charge.
Those are the rules for MOVING a Multiple Charge, not all the additional rules for a Multiple Charge. You are ignoring the definitions of the targets for a Multiple Charge. Ignoring those definitions is the same as ignoring the requirements for Declaring a single Charge.
To repeat them:
* Primary Target is the Charging unit's main target. There is little difference of note here.
* A Secondary Target is a target of opportunity that you think you the Charging unit CAN engage AT THE SAME TIME as the Primary Assault.
Notations regarding not being able to charge a unit you cannot reach and see are mentioned, as well as all targets being charged being declared at the same time.
What is "engaging"? Being within 2" of a model in the same combat, not 20".
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote: * A Secondary Target is a target of opportunity that you think you the Charging unit CAN engage AT THE SAME TIME as the Primary Assault.
I'm going to pretend that this is a sentence full of well defined rules that must be strictly adhered to. I think I can charge two targets 6" apart, therefore I can.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Charistoph wrote:[
Trasvi wrote:Then the additional rules for multi assaults:
* If the initial charger successfully moves into base contact with the primary target, remaining models can charge models belonging to either the primary or secondary target units, as long as they follow the rules for moving charging models.
* A charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target.
* Remember that the charging unit is not allowed to break its unit coherency, and this will obviously limit the potential for this kind of charge.
Those are the rules for MOVING a Multiple Charge, not all the additional rules for a Multiple Charge. You are ignoring the definitions of the targets for a Multiple Charge. Ignoring those definitions is the same as ignoring the requirements for Declaring a single Charge.
The primary difficulty of doing what OP wants to do is moving models in such a way so it can be done.
To repeat them:
* Primary Target is the Charging unit's main target. There is little difference of note here.
* A Secondary Target is a target of opportunity that you think you the Charging unit CAN engage AT THE SAME TIME as the Primary Assault.
The second sentence there isn't a rule.
- There is no definition of 'target of opportunity'.
- There is no sequence defining 'at the same time'. You're interpreting it to mean "ONE model from the charging unit must be engaged with a model from both the primary and secondary units at the end of its charge move" but there is nothing to support that extremely narrow interpretation.
-There is no restriction on whether you 'think you can do' impossible things.
- And it seems evident that 'engage' here is being applied as a common language term, not a defined rules term. Even if it were, as others have pointed out, there is a defined concept of models engaging other models but not units engaging other units. Even if you want to apply 'engage at the same time' here as a rules term, why isn't it true that if two separate models from a charging unit are simultaneously engaging a model from each of two target enemy units, that the charging unit isn't engaged with multiple units at the same time?
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Cal Hoskins wrote: Charistoph wrote: * A Secondary Target is a target of opportunity that you think you the Charging unit CAN engage AT THE SAME TIME as the Primary Assault.
I'm going to pretend that this is a sentence full of well defined rules that must be strictly adhered to. I think I can charge two targets 6" apart, therefore I can.
Can you have a second target engagement range when only in base contact with the first?
Trasvi wrote:The primary difficulty of doing what OP wants to do is moving models in such a way so it can be done.
By which we cannot employ the definitions involved.
Trasvi wrote:
To repeat them:
* Primary Target is the Charging unit's main target. There is little difference of note here.
* A Secondary Target is a target of opportunity that you think you the Charging unit CAN engage AT THE SAME TIME as the Primary Assault.
The second sentence there isn't a rule.
Prove it. It provides a definition of what a Secondary Target is just as much the first sentence defines what a Primary Target is. It is as definitive as you can get. If you think a definition does not have the force of a rule, you need to review some things.
Trasvi wrote:- There is no definition of 'target of opportunity'.
There is one, and it is not redefined in the rulebook. The operative noun is "target" which is entirely applicative to something that we are defining as a "Secondary Target". "Of opportunity" is then defined in the following portion of the sentence. In other words, what makes the "opportunity" is "can be engaged at the same time as the Primary Target". This is basic english.
Trasvi wrote:- There is no sequence defining 'at the same time'. You're interpreting it to mean "ONE model from the charging unit must be engaged with a model from both the primary and secondary units at the end of its charge move" but there is nothing to support that extremely narrow interpretation.
"At the same time" is not a sequence? How interesting.
And no, I am not defining it as you say, and if you have actually read what I have written, you would know that. I am defining it as "a model in the Secondary Target must be within 2" of a model in the Primary Target that a model of the Charging Unit CAN become in Base Contact with".
It is using the terms "can" in their proper use, "engage" in the rulebook's definition provided previously in the section, and "at the same time" to mean exactly what it says it means.
Trasvi wrote:-There is no restriction on whether you 'think you can do' impossible things.
What impossible things? "Engage" is defined at this point in the rulebook. What is impossible is to consider one unit "engaged" by the same combat that the nearest friendly model is 20" away. And that is the definition from the rulebook, not mine.
Trasvi wrote:- And it seems evident that 'engage' here is being applied as a common language term, not a defined rules term. Even if it were, as others have pointed out, there is a defined concept of models engaging other models but not units engaging other units.
What tells you "engage" in this instance is a "common language term"? There is absolutely no evidence of this except in your own mind. "Engage" is specifically defined in this same section of the rulebook (i.e. Assault Phase). At no point is it ever stated to be anything different up to, and including, this point.
Trasvi wrote:Even if you want to apply 'engage at the same time' here as a rules term, why isn't it true that if two separate models from a charging unit are simultaneously engaging a model from each of two target enemy units, that the charging unit isn't engaged with multiple units at the same time?
I never stated that. What I have said that if you are Charging one unit, the model 20" away from the Charged unit will not be "engaged" by that Charge. In order to be "engaged", a model has to either be in base contact with a model in that fight, or be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact in that fight.
A model that is within 2" of an enemy model in that fight, and not withing 2" of a friendly model, will not be engaged according to the definition provided.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:Even if you want to apply 'engage at the same time' here as a rules term, why isn't it true that if two separate models from a charging unit are simultaneously engaging a model from each of two target enemy units, that the charging unit isn't engaged with multiple units at the same time?
I never stated that. What I have said that if you are Charging one unit, the model 20" away from the Charged unit will not be "engaged" by that Charge. In order to be "engaged", a model has to either be in base contact with a model in that fight, or be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact in that fight.
A model that is within 2" of an enemy model in that fight, and not withing 2" of a friendly model, will not be engaged according to the definition provided.
Hence the conga line. The first model charges the primary target. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th models move according to the rules for chargers but end their movement in a line towards the secondary target. The 5th model can then make it to BTB with, and thus engage, a model in the secondary target. Multi assault over 20" complete.
Lets focus on this clause then:
"that the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."
You seem to be interpreting this as
"that a single model in the charging unit could possibly end its charge movement simultaneously engaged with a model in both the primary and secondary target"
Whereas everyone else who has ever played 40k interprets this as:
"that, after all legal assault moves are finished, is engaged with at least one model in the charging unit".
Why do you think that the clause implies that both primary and secondary target must be (able to be) engaged by the same model?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If you don't think this, can you explain why you think a conga line doesn't work?
What I mean by 'sequencing' is:
Does 'at the same time' mean 'as part of a single models' charge movement'? (your interpretation)"
Or does it mean 'after all models in the assaulting unit have moved' - or more generally, considering engagement is a status rather than an action, you can be engaged with two units at the same time if, at any point in time, you have the engaged status with both units. Eg "I think I can hold both an apple and an orange at the same time" does not mean I must pick them both up at the same instant.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Isn't this whole argument a moot point now? Unless I've missed it, it looks like there's no mention in the newly published FAQ that you don't have to maintain unit coherency. So, the coherency rules still apply, and this whole argument doesn't matter any more since the coherency rules help put a limit on how far away the secondary target can be (you have to maintain unit coherency with your unit, but if you can't fulfill the requirements of getting into combat with the primary target you could attack a secondary unit while maintaining coherency.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Trasvi wrote: Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:Even if you want to apply 'engage at the same time' here as a rules term, why isn't it true that if two separate models from a charging unit are simultaneously engaging a model from each of two target enemy units, that the charging unit isn't engaged with multiple units at the same time?
I never stated that. What I have said that if you are Charging one unit, the model 20" away from the Charged unit will not be "engaged" by that Charge. In order to be "engaged", a model has to either be in base contact with a model in that fight, or be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact in that fight.
A model that is within 2" of an enemy model in that fight, and not withing 2" of a friendly model, will not be engaged according to the definition provided.
Hence the conga line. The first model charges the primary target. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th models move according to the rules for chargers but end their movement in a line towards the secondary target. The 5th model can then make it to BTB with, and thus engage, a model in the secondary target. Multi assault over 20" complete.
Two problems:
1) Has it been checked to see to see if they can get in to Base Contact with their Primary Target while creating a conga line? Failing that, at least getting as many other Primary Target models engaged?
2) How is the Secondary Target engaged at the same time as the Primary Assault when it is not within 2" of a friendly model in the Primary Assault?
Trasvi wrote:
Lets focus on this clause then:
"that the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault."
You seem to be interpreting this as
"that a single model in the charging unit could possibly end its charge movement simultaneously engaged with a model in both the primary and secondary target"
Whereas everyone else who has ever played 40k interprets this as:
"that, after all legal assault moves are finished, is engaged with at least one model in the charging unit".
Why do you think that the clause implies that both primary and secondary target must be (able to be) engaged by the same model?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If you don't think this, can you explain why you think a conga line doesn't work?
Incorrect. You are applying your definition of "engage" to my case or simply not paying attention to the provided definitions and what I have repeatedly stated. By definition, the only method an enemy model by itself may engage another model is by being in base contact. The other method is the model has to be within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model to be engaged. This other method is not a direct relationship, but a secondary relationship.
If I Charge a Land Raider and there is a unit from the same army and faction within 2" of that Land Raider, it could be classified as "engaged", and could be classified as a Secondary Target provided the Charging unit could see it and could Charge around the Land Raider. The same thing in reversal applies. If I can Charge past the Land Raider to that other unit, then the Land Raider would be an equally viable Secondary Target.
A Charging model does not have to reach within 2" of a model in the Secondary Target in order to qualify the Secondary Target. Aside from the basic rules of a Charge (Line of Sight, distance, etc), there only needs to be enough Charging Models to get in to Base Contact with a Primary Target model 2" from a Secondary Target model in order to qualify it as a Secondary Target.
Trasvi wrote:What I mean by 'sequencing' is:
Does 'at the same time' mean 'as part of a single models' charge movement'? (your interpretation)"
Or does it mean 'after all models in the assaulting unit have moved' - or more generally, considering engagement is a status rather than an action, you can be engaged with two units at the same time if, at any point in time, you have the engaged status with both units. Eg "I think I can hold both an apple and an orange at the same time" does not mean I must pick them both up at the same instant.
"At the same time" is not a case of sequencing when performing a check. It means exactly what it states. At no point are we informed to treat all Charging models as moving at the same time, as we are when Shooting Weapon Groups.
I interpret that "engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" to be, "if you were going to Charge a lone unit, the models in these other units would be close enough to be considered Engaged or interfere with you placing your Charging models as they would not be able to get within 1" of them".
I do not interpret "engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" to be, "if you feel like Charging two directions, you can so long as you can be locked in combat with both units when the dust settles".
This is going by the definitions of "engage", "same time", and "primary assault", without any instructions to consider any Charge Movement as happening "at the same time".
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph,
you keep confusing "model engage" with "unit engage" and then insisting on a hyper-literal definition of "at the same time".
If you are deliberately smudge "unit engage" with "model engage" you cannot logically be hyper-literal with regards to "at the same time".
The rule only requires that 'you think' that the 'unit can engage' ('engage' here being the dictionary term) a primary and a secondary target 'at the same time' - which would be on completion of the collective charge move. If you insist that the rule is actually lying to us and instead referring to the first charging model then you are adding to the rules and not following RAW and need to mark your answers HYWPI.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Yeah, the "you think" clause in there certainly makes the whole argument moot anyway.
I think that I can charge two units 20" apart. Therefore I can declare one as the secondary target, regardless of whether I legally can make it in to contact. All it requires is that I think that I can
I also don't agree with Christoph's concept that you can engage a model that is not yet in combat by being in combat with a nearby model from a different unit. If that were true I think there are a ton of rules abuses that have previously not been considered.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
A unit of Orks consisting of a Nob, a Boy, and a Warboss want to charge a unit of Space Marine Bikes, and if possible, a Dreadnought. The Nob is about 2" away from the lead Biker and the other Orks are spaced out just under 2" behind each other. The Dreadnought is off to the side of the Ork unit by about 1.5" and is about 2.5" from the Warboss.
The Orks declare the Bikes as their primary target and the Dreadnought as their secondary target. They roll a 3 for their charge range. The Nob moves directly forward into contact with the lead Biker. As the Boy is about 5" away from the closest Bike he cannot make it into contact with the primary target. He also can't make it into contact with the Dreadnought and end up in coherency with the previously moved Nob so he instead ends his move within 2" of the Nob and a little over 1" from the Dreadnought. Now it is time to move the Warboss. He clearly can't make it to the Bikes as he is almost 8" away. He also can't even get within 2" of the Nob and thus Engage the Bikes (though this isn't really important for this example) as he is about 6.5" from the Nob. Instead, he moves into contact with the Dreadnought and into coherency with the Boy.
Now, I'll admit that this is a very contrived example, but I wanted to keep things simple. Using this method an infinitely large unit of conga lined Orks could charge two units infinitely far apart. In this example if the Orks rolled too high for their charge range they would be forced to all charge the Bikes, but if you simply added a huge cluster of Orks to the unit then rolling too high would be eliminated as a problem.
Does anyone besides Charistoph think I'm doing anything incorrectly in this scenario?
Charistoph, where exactly do you think I'm going wrong (assuming you think that)?
99
Post by: insaniak
Nope, that looks spot on.
Nice models, too 
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Trasvi wrote:Yeah, the "you think" clause in there certainly makes the whole argument moot anyway.
I think that I can charge two units 20" apart. Therefore I can declare one as the secondary target, regardless of whether I legally can make it in to contact. All it requires is that I think that I can
Sure, if you want to ignore everything after "you think", which means you aren't thinking. It's not if you can reach both units. That is not the question. The question is if the other units are close enough to get caught up in the Combat you are going to be making. That is what "engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" is referring to.
Trasvi wrote:I also don't agree with Christoph's concept that you can engage a model that is not yet in combat by being in combat with a nearby model from a different unit. If that were true I think there are a ton of rules abuses that have previously not been considered.
Can you actually disprove mine without going to RAI? Such as without using, "I don't think engage means the definition provided in the book"? Can you demonstrate how to engage a model you otherwise wouldn't be able to get in to Base Contact with?
Cal Hoskins wrote:The Orks declare the Bikes as their primary target and the Dreadnought as their secondary target.
At this point it is illegal. The Dreadnought cannot be engaged at the same time as you Charge the Bikers. He's over 2" away from the nearest Biker. What the Charge Roll ends up being is irrelevant at this point, you could fail the Charge and not move anything. How close the Dreadnought is to the Orks is irrelevant, as "engage" only cares if they are in base contact or within 2" of a friendly that is. If you roll 12" the Warboss would be able to go the whole way and make it to the Bikers. The Dreadnought not being within 2" of the Biker, does not qualify as being able to be Engaged without someone going in to Base Contact with it. If you are going in to Base Contact with it, you aren't going in to Base Contact with the Biker at the same time.
The check to see if it is possible is similar to when you check to see if you can Charge. Can you see the Secondary Target? Is the Secondary Target in Range? If you Charged your Primary Target, would it be close enough to be considered "engaged"?
99
Post by: insaniak
Charistoph wrote:
At this point it is illegal. The Dreadnought cannot be engaged at the same time as you Charge the Bikers. He's over 2" away from the nearest Biker. What the Charge Roll ends up being is irrelevant at this point, you could fail the Charge and not move anything. How close the Dreadnought is to the Orks is irrelevant, as "engage" only cares if they are in base contact or within 2" of a friendly that is. If you roll 12" the Warboss would be able to go the whole way and make it to the Bikers. The Dreadnought not being within 2" of the Biker, does not qualify as being able to be Engaged without someone going in to Base Contact with it. If you are going in to Base Contact with it, you aren't going in to Base Contact with the Biker at the same time.
While I can see where you're getting that from, it's not what the rules actually say. You're adding a timing clause (that the 'same time' means 'when the first model to charge moves into contact') that simply diesn't exist in the rules.
Having the unit engage the secondary target at any point during the resolution of its charge is more than sufficient to satisfy the requirement that they be engaged at the same time as the primary target.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:Yeah, the "you think" clause in there certainly makes the whole argument moot anyway.
I think that I can charge two units 20" apart. Therefore I can declare one as the secondary target, regardless of whether I legally can make it in to contact. All it requires is that I think that I can
Sure, if you want to ignore everything after "you think", which means you aren't thinking. It's not if you can reach both units. That is not the question. The question is if the other units are close enough to get caught up in the Combat you are going to be making. That is what "engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" is referring to.
If I say "I think I can do that", then I think I can do that. There's no clause in the rules for psychoanalysis to determine the depth of my thought process, nor any clause that says anyone that disagrees with you is categorically not thinking.
Trasvi wrote:I also don't agree with Christoph's concept that you can engage a model that is not yet in combat by being in combat with a nearby model from a different unit. If that were true I think there are a ton of rules abuses that have previously not been considered.
Can you actually disprove mine without going to RAI? Such as without using, "I don't think engage means the definition provided in the book"? Can you demonstrate how to engage a model you otherwise wouldn't be able to get in to Base Contact with?
Of course you a model not in BTB can be engaged, if it is near an friendly model that is engaged in the same combat. But you are going a step further and claiming you can engage models without having a single model in BTB with their unit, so long as you engage a close by enemy unit.
Which is incorrect according to the "in the same combat" clause of engagement. You must be in the combat to be engaged.
99
Post by: insaniak
Trasvi wrote: But you are going a step further and claiming you can engage models without having a single model in BTB with their unit, so long as you engage a close by enemy unit.
As far as I can see, he's actually correct on that point.
Previous editions required you to be within 2" of a friendly model from the same unit in order to be engaged. 7th ed removed that requirement, and there's no longer anything I can see that actually requires a model to be in base contact in order for the unit to be pulled into the combat.. they need base contact in order to successfully charge. But when it comes time to fight, everyone within 2" fights.
Which is incorrect according to the "in the same combat" clause of engagement. .
That's just referring to the same combat that you're trying to determine if your model is a part of.
85004
Post by: col_impact
 insaniak wrote:Trasvi wrote: But you are going a step further and claiming you can engage models without having a single model in BTB with their unit, so long as you engage a close by enemy unit.
As far as I can see, he's actually correct on that point.
Previous editions required you to be within 2" of a friendly model from the same unit in order to be engaged. 7th ed removed that requirement, and there's no longer anything I can see that actually requires a model to be in base contact in order for the unit to be pulled into the combat.. they need base contact in order to successfully charge. But when it comes time to fight, everyone within 2" fights.
I think you are overlooking the fact that a unit has to be Locked In Combat in order to have permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase (so no pile-in, permission to move closer than 1", or allocate wounds to the unit, etc.). Remember, this is a permissive ruleset.
99
Post by: insaniak
'Who Can Fight' disagrees with you.
There is no requirement to be Locked. Just within 2".
85004
Post by: col_impact
insaniak wrote:'Who Can Fight' disagrees with you.
There is no requirement to be Locked. Just within 2".
That rule happens in the context of the Fight Sub-Phase (initiative steps, etc.) . A unit is not allowed to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase unless it is Locked In Combat.
If a unit is not Locked In Combat it is not in any combat and skips the Fight Sub-Phase entirely. A unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.
99
Post by: insaniak
col_impact wrote:
That rule happens in the context of the Fight Sub-Phase (initiative steps, etc.) . A unit is not allowed to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase unless it is Locked In Combat.
Your quote doesn't say what you're claiming. It mentions that units locked in combat must fight. It doesn't say that only units locked in combat fight. And we then have your second quote, which tells us that any model within 2"/6" of a friendly model in the combat will also fight.
If a unit is not Locked In Combat it is not in any combat and skips the Fight Sub-Phase entirely.
Why?
A unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.
Except that the rule you quoted quite specifically says that he is in the combat because he has a friendly model nearby who is in base contact in that combat. It doesn't require him to be locked, just nearby.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
insaniak wrote: Charistoph wrote:
At this point it is illegal. The Dreadnought cannot be engaged at the same time as you Charge the Bikers. He's over 2" away from the nearest Biker. What the Charge Roll ends up being is irrelevant at this point, you could fail the Charge and not move anything. How close the Dreadnought is to the Orks is irrelevant, as "engage" only cares if they are in base contact or within 2" of a friendly that is. If you roll 12" the Warboss would be able to go the whole way and make it to the Bikers. The Dreadnought not being within 2" of the Biker, does not qualify as being able to be Engaged without someone going in to Base Contact with it. If you are going in to Base Contact with it, you aren't going in to Base Contact with the Biker at the same time.
While I can see where you're getting that from, it's not what the rules actually say. You're adding a timing clause (that the 'same time' means 'when the first model to charge moves into contact') that simply diesn't exist in the rules.
Having the unit engage the secondary target at any point during the resolution of its charge is more than sufficient to satisfy the requirement that they be engaged at the same time as the primary target.
I am not saying that "at the same time" is only referring to "when the first model to charge moves into contact", nor have I ever actually stated as such. I will say that is the earliest point at which the condition of being engaged can be established IS when the Initial Charger is moved. The capacity to engage a Secondary Target can be fulfilled by any of the Charging Models following the Initial. It is this capacity of doing so that we are checking, not simply how many units are in Charge range.
If all that was in consideration was who was in Charge range, it would have been far simpler, easier, and clearer to just simply state that. But that is not what is stated. The Secondary Target must be engaged at the same time as the Assault on the Primary Target. The capacity to do so between two units over 2" apart is a physical impossibility without making it a self-fulfilling condition, i.e. moving two models in wildly different directions at the same time to force a simultaneous base contact.
Trasvi wrote: Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:Yeah, the "you think" clause in there certainly makes the whole argument moot anyway.
I think that I can charge two units 20" apart. Therefore I can declare one as the secondary target, regardless of whether I legally can make it in to contact. All it requires is that I think that I can
Sure, if you want to ignore everything after "you think", which means you aren't thinking. It's not if you can reach both units. That is not the question. The question is if the other units are close enough to get caught up in the Combat you are going to be making. That is what "engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" is referring to.
If I say "I think I can do that", then I think I can do that. There's no clause in the rules for psychoanalysis to determine the depth of my thought process, nor any clause that says anyone that disagrees with you is categorically not thinking.
If all that is provided in that statement, you would be correct. However, that is not all that is in that statement. There is more to the sentence after it says "you think". That provides the context to what you are supposed to be thinking. It literally says, " if you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." The underlined part is not psychoanalyzing mumbo jumbo, it is a clause for establishing what opportunity you are to be looking for.
Trasvi wrote:Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:I also don't agree with Christoph's concept that you can engage a model that is not yet in combat by being in combat with a nearby model from a different unit. If that were true I think there are a ton of rules abuses that have previously not been considered.
Can you actually disprove mine without going to RAI? Such as without using, "I don't think engage means the definition provided in the book"? Can you demonstrate how to engage a model you otherwise wouldn't be able to get in to Base Contact with?
Of course you a model not in BTB can be engaged, if it is near an friendly model that is engaged in the same combat. But you are going a step further and claiming you can engage models without having a single model in BTB with their unit, so long as you engage a close by enemy unit.
And at the point we are looking at determining if a unit classifies as a Secondary Target, nothing is engaged in combat by the Charging unit. It simply is asking if you can do this.
Trasvi wrote:Which is incorrect according to the "in the same combat" clause of engagement. You must be in the combat to be engaged.
Nothing actually says the model in question to be engaged has to be in the same combat, that is an assumption. The placement of "in the same combat" can just as easily apply to the combat in question.
I will note that I have noted that this is a case of interpretation.
Even if that was the case, how can you possibly fulfill the capacity of fulfilling even this interpretation of connection by two potential targets so far apart? Remember, the unit has to be engaged at the same time as the Primary Assault, i.e. when models are moving on the Primary Target. You are seeing if that Secondary Target is close enough to draw it into the same exact combat as the Primary Target is involved in. Doing a conga line does not do this.
85004
Post by: col_impact
insaniak wrote:col_impact wrote:
That rule happens in the context of the Fight Sub-Phase (initiative steps, etc.) . A unit is not allowed to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase unless it is Locked In Combat.
Your quote doesn't say what you're claiming. It mentions that units locked in combat must fight. It doesn't say that only units locked in combat fight. And we then have your second quote, which tells us that any model within 2"/6" of a friendly model in the combat will also fight.
The model must already be in the same combat as the friendly model within 2"/6" that is in base to base contact with an enemy model.
insaniak wrote:
If a unit is not Locked In Combat it is not in any combat and skips the Fight Sub-Phase entirely.
Why?
This is a permissive ruleset. This is the only place in the rules where a unit is granted permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase.
insaniak wrote:
A unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.
Except that the rule you quoted quite specifically says that he is in the combat because he has a friendly model nearby who is in base contact in that combat. It doesn't require him to be locked, just nearby.
You are overlooking the fact that the model must already be in the same combat as the friendly model who is in base to base contact with an enemy model (who is also in that same combat).
If model A is already in the same combat as a friendly model in base to base combat with an enemy model and within 2"/6" of that friendly then model A is considered engaged. Engaged models must fight.
If model A is already in the same combat as a friendly model in base to base combat with an enemy model BUT NOT within 2"/6" of that friendly then model A is considered unengaged. Unengaged models cannot attack even though they are in the combat.
So once again, a unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Charistoph, every time you post I just get more confused.
Can you post a diagram of specifically what condition you think needs to be fulfilled for a multi assault to occur?
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph wrote:insaniak wrote: Charistoph wrote:
At this point it is illegal. The Dreadnought cannot be engaged at the same time as you Charge the Bikers. He's over 2" away from the nearest Biker. What the Charge Roll ends up being is irrelevant at this point, you could fail the Charge and not move anything. How close the Dreadnought is to the Orks is irrelevant, as "engage" only cares if they are in base contact or within 2" of a friendly that is. If you roll 12" the Warboss would be able to go the whole way and make it to the Bikers. The Dreadnought not being within 2" of the Biker, does not qualify as being able to be Engaged without someone going in to Base Contact with it. If you are going in to Base Contact with it, you aren't going in to Base Contact with the Biker at the same time.
While I can see where you're getting that from, it's not what the rules actually say. You're adding a timing clause (that the 'same time' means 'when the first model to charge moves into contact') that simply diesn't exist in the rules.
Having the unit engage the secondary target at any point during the resolution of its charge is more than sufficient to satisfy the requirement that they be engaged at the same time as the primary target.
I am not saying that "at the same time" is only referring to "when the first model to charge moves into contact", nor have I ever actually stated as such. I will say that is the earliest point at which the condition of being engaged can be established IS when the Initial Charger is moved. The capacity to engage a Secondary Target can be fulfilled by any of the Charging Models following the Initial. It is this capacity of doing so that we are checking, not simply how many units are in Charge range.
The rule is not asking you to handle 'engage' at the model level. It is asking for you to handle 'engage' at the unit level (which is the dictionary definition of 'engage' here by the way). 'At the same time' can only refer to when the unit has finished collectively charging. If you try to break apart the unit and sequence it at the model level you are adding to the rules and breaking from the RAW.
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:Which is incorrect according to the "in the same combat" clause of engagement. You must be in the combat to be engaged.
Nothing actually says the model in question to be engaged has to be in the same combat, that is an assumption. The placement of "in the same combat" can just as easily apply to the combat in question.
I will note that I have noted that this is a case of interpretation.
Even if that was the case, how can you possibly fulfill the capacity of fulfilling even this interpretation of connection by two potential targets so far apart? Remember, the unit has to be engaged at the same time as the Primary Assault, i.e. when models are moving on the Primary Target. You are seeing if that Secondary Target is close enough to draw it into the same exact combat as the Primary Target is involved in. Doing a conga line does not do this.
I know you are willing to consider the possibility that "in the same combat" could mean "in the same combat as the model you are checking for engagement" rather than your interpretation of "in the same combat we are currently conducting". Are you willing to admit that "at the same time" might mean something other than "at the moment a charging model ends its movement"? You do see that you are applying your interpretation of "at the same time" rather than some well defined rule of timing, right? "At the same time" does not always mean during a single moment, even within the scope of the 40k rules. For example, this is from the Choose A Combat section of the Assault rules: "There may be several separate assaults being fought at the same time in different parts of the battlefield." Clearly you don't conduct all the combats simultaneously, as you are specifically told to do them sequentially. This "at the same time" merely means during the same sub-phase or possibly phase, both of which could easily by applied to the Secondary Target definition.
99
Post by: insaniak
col_impact wrote:
The model must already be in the same combat as the friendly model within 2"/6" that is in base to base contact with an enemy model.
So once again, a unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.
It's in the combat the moment you look at the rules for who can fight.
The part about the friendly model being in the same combat doesn't mean the model you're checking had to already be considered part of the combat. It just means that you can't declare a model add involved in This combat over here because it's in range of a model in that combat over there .
Whether or not that's how GW intended it to work is, of course, anybody's guess. Once I would have said it was an obvious oversight... But there's been so much silliness in 7th, and so much doubling down on the illogical and downright nonsensical rulings in the FAQ that I honestly can't even guess what GW thought they were doing with this rule.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Cal Hoskins wrote:I know you are willing to consider the possibility that "in the same combat" could mean "in the same combat as the model you are checking for engagement" rather than your interpretation of "in the same combat we are currently conducting". Are you willing to admit that "at the same time" might mean something other than "at the moment a charging model ends its movement"? You do see that you are applying your interpretation of "at the same time" rather than some well defined rule of timing, right? "At the same time" does not always mean during a single moment, even within the scope of the 40k rules. For example, this is from the Choose A Combat section of the Assault rules: "There may be several separate assaults being fought at the same time in different parts of the battlefield." Clearly you don't conduct all the combats simultaneously, as you are specifically told to do them sequentially. This "at the same time" merely means during the same sub-phase or possibly phase, both of which could easily by applied to the Secondary Target definition.
I have explained that several times now. Charging models are not noted as Charging at the same time like shooting Weapon Groups. I am not adding any interpretation of "at the same time" that is not considered standard use nor against any definition in the rulebook, if you are aware of one, please properly reference it for review.
You have to Charge in order to get in to Combat. That the combats themselves are considered "happening at the same time" is meaningless to what happens before the Combat is decided. By applying the standard of "Choose a Combat" you are taking the standard of one sub-phase and applying it to another sub-phase without permission.
Should we then consider all shots fired during a Shooting Phase to be simultaneous just because all shots by a Weapon Group are are considered fired at the same time? That is the equivalent to what you are saying.
Trasvi wrote:Charistoph, every time you post I just get more confused.
Can you post a diagram of specifically what condition you think needs to be fulfilled for a multi assault to occur?
I'll do my best. I am not a graphic design artist. The following pictures have Green and Blue being different units that are part of the same army and Battle Brothers or the same Faction. The Red unit is the Charging Unit considering if it qualifies.
In the first one, the blue unit has a model 1.5" away of a green model (within 2"). So if Red Charges, either Blue or Green could be the Primary while the other is Secondary.
In the second one, the blue unit's model is 6" away from a green model (not within 2"). So, if Red Charges Green, Blue would not be engaged. If Red Charges Blue, Green would not be engaged. This is the case no matter how Red's models move or how close Red's models end up to the unit they did not Charge.
This is what you are to check before declaring a Multiple Charge. The actual results of a Charge Roll are not taken in to account at this time, just the possibilities. For example, if Green was behind an LoS-blocking Wall (as in the third), they would not qualify as a Secondary Target as you could not see them to Charge, even though they are in range to be engaged by Red Charging Blue.
3
99
Post by: insaniak
Charistoph wrote:
In the second one, the blue unit's model is 6" away from a green model (not within 2"). So, if Red Charges Green, Blue would not be engaged. If Red Charges Blue, Green would not be engaged. This is the case no matter how Red's models move or how close Red's models end up to the unit they did not Charge..
This doesn't make any sense. You seem to be saying that green isn't a valid target because they wouldn't be engaged if you don't charge them. Which is circular logic.
They're a valid secondary target, because they are visible and it's possible that red will be able to move models onto them over the course of their charge.
85004
Post by: col_impact
insaniak wrote:col_impact wrote:
The model must already be in the same combat as the friendly model within 2"/6" that is in base to base contact with an enemy model.
So once again, a unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.
It's in the combat the moment you look at the rules for who can fight.
The part about the friendly model being in the same combat doesn't mean the model you're checking had to already be considered part of the combat. It just means that you can't declare a model add involved in This combat over here because it's in range of a model in that combat over there .
Whether or not that's how GW intended it to work is, of course, anybody's guess. Once I would have said it was an obvious oversight... But there's been so much silliness in 7th, and so much doubling down on the illogical and downright nonsensical rulings in the FAQ that I honestly can't even guess what GW thought they were doing with this rule.
Incorrect. In the Fight Sub-Phase you are handling one combat at a time and the rules are tracking which combat you are dealing with and which units are in that combat (per Locked In Combat rules).
By the time you get to the Who Can Fight rules, we are dealing with one combat and the units who are 'locked in that combat' and sorting out which models can attack with regards to the units involved in that combat.
The only possible way of interpreting the last sentence is that the model you are checking, the friendly model, and the enemy model(s) are all in the same combat which we are currently resolving in the Fight Sub-Phase. You break with grammar, logic, and context if you interpret it some other way.
Further, you also put the rules in an absurd state where pile-in moves break and models can be assaulted and shot at by other units along with other shenanigans. Lines of reasoning that put the rules in an absurd state can safely be discarded. If we don't discard absurd lines of reasoning then I should point out that units on the side of the battlefield (in reserves or removed from play) can technically shoot at units on the battlefield. Also, I can technically start the game with the models in a unit out of coherency. Etcetera. Keep in mind that I am not arguing here some RAI line of argumentation but rather showing you a Reductio Ad Absurdum line of argumentation which is a well-known and established logical way of arriving at rational conclusions.
So do we accept your interpretation that breaks with grammar, logic, context, and sends the game play into absurd lines of play or do we accept my interpretation that fits grammatically, logically, contextually, and leads to plausible and reasonable lines of play?
99
Post by: insaniak
col_impact wrote:
The only possible way of interpreting the last sentence is that the model you are checking, the friendly model, and the enemy model(s) are all in the same combat which we are currently resolving in the Fight Sub-Phase.
Well, that's rather obviously not true, or this discussion wouldn't have happened...
85004
Post by: col_impact
insaniak wrote:col_impact wrote:
The only possible way of interpreting the last sentence is that the model you are checking, the friendly model, and the enemy model(s) are all in the same combat which we are currently resolving in the Fight Sub-Phase.
Well, that's rather obviously not true, or this discussion wouldn't have happened...
As stated above, your interpretation breaks with grammar, context, and logic, and leads to absurd lines of play.
So I guess I will ammend my statement.
I can't prevent people from pursuing unreasonable lines of interpretation. Keep in mind I am not calling you personally unreasonable, only that your interpretation which takes the statement in isolation is a problematic method of interpretation that ultimately leads to unreasonable conclusions and is to be discarded in favor of a interpretation that attends to grammar, context, and logic and which leads to reasonable conclusions.
99
Post by: insaniak
col_impact wrote:
As stated above, your interpretation breaks with grammar, context, and logic, and leads to absurd lines of play..
And as should be apparent by this point, I disagree on at least the first three points.
For what it's worth, my initial reaction was the same as yours - it's absurd that a unit would fight in the combat without first being locked. But when I stopped and actually had another look at the current rules, it became apparent that, whether intentionally or not, that's what the rules now appear to be saying. here previous editions made it clear that a unit had to be locked to be included in the combat, there is simply no such requirement any more.
The fact that this leads to absurdity doesn't make it a wrong reading of the rule as it is written... it just means that either the rule is bad, or the rule is badly written. And given how much absurdity there is in the current rules, it's difficult to make a judgement call on which of those options is more likely.
85004
Post by: col_impact
insaniak wrote:col_impact wrote:
As stated above, your interpretation breaks with grammar, context, and logic, and leads to absurd lines of play..
And as should be apparent by this point, I disagree on at least the first three points.
For what it's worth, my initial reaction was the same as yours - it's absurd that a unit would fight in the combat without first being locked. But when I stopped and actually had another look at the current rules, it became apparent that, whether intentionally or not, that's what the rules now appear to be saying. here previous editions made it clear that a unit had to be locked to be included in the combat, there is simply no such requirement any more.
The fact that this leads to absurdity doesn't make it a wrong reading of the rule as it is written... it just means that either the rule is bad, or the rule is badly written. And given how much absurdity there is in the current rules, it's difficult to make a judgement call on which of those options is more likely.
You can disagree but you argument breaks with grammar, the context of the surrounding rules, and the logic that would discard silly results.
1) 'In the same combat' refers to the model under consideration, the friendly model within 2'/6', and the enemy model(s) in base contact with friendly model. You have to at least accept this interpretation as a valid alternate interpretation to your own.
2) The units and models participating in the current combat have already been identified and have already been subjected to rules based on that identification (Locked in Combat, pile in, initiative step, etc.). A rule that would redefine what is 'in combat', which you claim the rule is doing, breaks all the earlier steps.
In the above rule, "models" refers to models in units that are Locked In Combat and that are part of the combat that is currently being resolved and having completed a pile in move. "Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have completed the piling in move. You are arguing that "any model" can refer to any friendly model on the battlefield which breaks grammatical agreement, contextual reference, and logically established set relationships.
3) What you take as a rule that pulls a model that has not been considered part of the current the combat into the combat can be easily explained as rule that rather describes which models in the units that are in the current combat can actually attack as opposed to not attack.
Compare these two versions of the rule:
You seem to be arguing that "in combat" after "engaged" has the power to pull a model previously identified and contextually considered NOT part of the combat IN to the current combat. A prepositional phrase is not an explicit rules statement so you are reading into the statement and making rules out of prepositions alone. "Engaged in combat" is merely a designation that a model in a unit in the current combat can attack (as opposed to "unengaged" models which cannot attack) and most importantly you cannot discount this interpretation.
My argument holds up 100% to the highest level of scrutiny and presents zero problems. Your argument has grammatical shortcomings, breaks with the context of the other rules, and logically leads to 'silly' lines of play ('silly' is by your own admission).
You haven't been able to show any problems with my interpretation whereas I have shown grammatical, contextual, and logical shortcoming in your interpretation, and most prominently that your interpretation leads to 'silliness'. So we pick the interpretation that is problem free and isn't 'silly'. Reductio ad absurdum. This isn't a matter of agree to disagree, but a matter of throw away the 'silly.'
95922
Post by: Charistoph
insaniak wrote: Charistoph wrote:
In the second one, the blue unit's model is 6" away from a green model (not within 2"). So, if Red Charges Green, Blue would not be engaged. If Red Charges Blue, Green would not be engaged. This is the case no matter how Red's models move or how close Red's models end up to the unit they did not Charge..
This doesn't make any sense. You seem to be saying that green isn't a valid target because they wouldn't be engaged if you don't charge them. Which is circular logic.
They're a valid secondary target, because they are visible and it's possible that red will be able to move models onto them over the course of their charge.
No, it is circular logic to say you can Charge the Green at the same time as Blue just because you can reach them and thus have the unit engaged.. That is not the conditions for a Secondary Target. They would only be in that same combat because the Charging unit went to them. A self-fulfilling condition, and one that would not be possible "at the same time".
A valid Secondary Target is a target you can engage at the same time as the Primary Assault. Being 6" away from each other, one cannot be engaged by a combat the other is involved in at the same time, period. If Red Charged Blue, Green is not close enough to be engaged by Red's Combat with Blue. If Red Charged Green, Blue is not close enough to be engaged by Red's Combat with Blue. Therefore, this makes picture 2 an invalid candidate for a Multiple Charge by Red. If you cannot engage at the same time as the Primary Assault, it does not qualify any more than if the Charging Unit couldn't see the potential Secondary Target or it was completely outside of Charge Range.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Christoph:
If green and red charge opposite ends of blue, are they now in the same combat according to yoy, or are there two separate combats occurring?
99
Post by: insaniak
Charistoph wrote: They would only be in that same combat because the Charging unit went to them.
Uh... yes?
Isn't that kind of the point of charging them?
102783
Post by: Cal Hoskins
Charistoph wrote:Cal Hoskins wrote:I know you are willing to consider the possibility that "in the same combat" could mean "in the same combat as the model you are checking for engagement" rather than your interpretation of "in the same combat we are currently conducting". Are you willing to admit that "at the same time" might mean something other than "at the moment a charging model ends its movement"? You do see that you are applying your interpretation of "at the same time" rather than some well defined rule of timing, right? "At the same time" does not always mean during a single moment, even within the scope of the 40k rules. For example, this is from the Choose A Combat section of the Assault rules: "There may be several separate assaults being fought at the same time in different parts of the battlefield." Clearly you don't conduct all the combats simultaneously, as you are specifically told to do them sequentially. This "at the same time" merely means during the same sub-phase or possibly phase, both of which could easily by applied to the Secondary Target definition.
I have explained that several times now. Charging models are not noted as Charging at the same time like shooting Weapon Groups. I am not adding any interpretation of "at the same time" that is not considered standard use nor against any definition in the rulebook, if you are aware of one, please properly reference it for review.
You have to Charge in order to get in to Combat. That the combats themselves are considered "happening at the same time" is meaningless to what happens before the Combat is decided. By applying the standard of "Choose a Combat" you are taking the standard of one sub-phase and applying it to another sub-phase without permission.
Should we then consider all shots fired during a Shooting Phase to be simultaneous just because all shots by a Weapon Group are are considered fired at the same time? That is the equivalent to what you are saying.
My point was that "at the same time" does not always mean "at the same moment" (in fact, I don't think it ever actually means that anywhere in the BRB), sometimes it means "during the same period of time". We are never really told which they mean in any specific case. We just sort of have to figure it out. For the Choosing A Combat "at the same time" it could mean any of the following:
"during the same sub-phase"
"during the same phase"
"during the same turn"
We don't actually know which of those it means, but it doesn't matter, it clearly doesn't mean "at the same moment" as other rules contradict that theory. As for the case of Shooting weapons "at the same time", even then there is actually a sequence during that "same time" period as wounds are applied one by one so they clearly aren't all worked out "at the same moment". I propose that "at the same time" for Shooting means "before firing weapons of another type" rather than "at the same moment". In the case of testing for engagement you have decided that "at the same time" means "at the moment any charging model ends its move", but how do you know that is the correct interpretation?
Let's look at a couple other uses of "at the same time" in the rules.
"The unit and the Independent Character(s) can, in a later Movement phase, disembark together as a single unit. Alternatively, they can separate by either the unit or the Independent character(s) disembarking while the others remain on board. They can even separate by disembarking at the same time, so long as they end their moves more than 2" away f rom each other."
Do you actually have to place the entire unit and the IC on the table "at the same moment" or do you merely need to do both during the same phase one right after the other?
"If, when it is a character’s turn to make a Pile In move, other friendly models are Piling In at the same time, the character must move to get into base contact with an enemy as soon as it is able."
I don't know about you, but if I tried to Pile In with a huge unit all "at the same moment" I'd probably make a mess of it. I do it a model at a time until they've all moved.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Trasvi wrote:Christoph:
If green and red charge opposite ends of blue, are they now in the same combat according to yoy, or are there two separate combats occurring?
How can Green Charge Blue if they are in the same army? This isn't Warmachine.
If Blue Charged Red, and then Green Charged Red, it would be a Multiple Combat, but not a Multiple Charge, as Green cannot Charge Blue.
insaniak wrote: Charistoph wrote: They would only be in that same combat because the Charging unit went to them.
Uh... yes?
Isn't that kind of the point of charging them?
I was point out a case of Circular Reasoning that you accused me of. You are looking at the end results while ignoring several things in between. They are now engaged because you Charged, not because they were close enough to the Primary Assault to be engaged by it.
Cal Hoskins wrote:My point was that "at the same time" does not always mean "at the same moment" (in fact, I don't think it ever actually means that anywhere in the BRB), sometimes it means "during the same period of time". We are never really told which they mean in any specific case. We just sort of have to figure it out. For the Choosing A Combat "at the same time" it could mean any of the following:
"during the same sub-phase"
"during the same phase"
"during the same turn"
"During the same sub-phase" would not entirely qualify without further context.
"During the same phase" would not qualify without further context, and I can't think of a single instance where this actually applies.
"During the same turn" never applies in the rulebook, as there is no way you would ever be considered as moving, Shooting, Charging, and Fighting all "at the same time".
"During the same period of time as the primary assault", are you doing an assault on the Primary Target when moving against another unit? No, you are not. You are doing an assault on a different unit.
Cal Hoskins wrote:We don't actually know which of those it means, but it doesn't matter, it clearly doesn't mean "at the same moment" as other rules contradict that theory. As for the case of Shooting weapons "at the same time", even then there is actually a sequence during that "same time" period as wounds are applied one by one so they clearly aren't all worked out "at the same moment". I propose that "at the same time" for Shooting means "before firing weapons of another type" rather than "at the same moment". In the case of testing for engagement you have decided that "at the same time" means "at the moment any charging model ends its move", but how do you know that is the correct interpretation?
You are welcome to think that, but then Wound Allocation wouldn't work. The first model to take a Wound would not be removed because it is all "happening at the same time". The firing happens at the same time, but Wound Allocation is noted as being a sequential sequence which cannot occur.
Cal Hoskins wrote:Let's look at a couple other uses of "at the same time" in the rules.
"The unit and the Independent Character(s) can, in a later Movement phase, disembark together as a single unit. Alternatively, they can separate by either the unit or the Independent character(s) disembarking while the others remain on board. They can even separate by disembarking at the same time, so long as they end their moves more than 2" away f rom each other."
Do you actually have to place the entire unit and the IC on the table "at the same moment" or do you merely need to do both during the same phase one right after the other?
"If, when it is a character’s turn to make a Pile In move, other friendly models are Piling In at the same time, the character must move to get into base contact with an enemy as soon as it is able."
I don't know about you, but if I tried to Pile In with a huge unit all "at the same moment" I'd probably make a mess of it. I do it a model at a time until they've all moved.
That is why the addition of "as the Primary Assault" is being used. "At the same time they disembark" indicates the period of time that the unit is disembarking. Pile Ins are done during an Initiative Step and an entire process, i.e. "a period of time". The "period of time" noted for "at the same time" for a Secondary Target is 'the Primary Assault", in other words, the combat with the Primary Target.
If you were only going to be Charging the Primary Target, would a unit 6" away from the Primary Target possibly be engaged? The answer is no.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:Christoph:
If green and red charge opposite ends of blue, are they now in the same combat according to yoy, or are there two separate combats occurring?
How can Green Charge Blue if they are in the same army? This isn't Warmachine.
If Blue Charged Red, and then Green Charged Red, it would be a Multiple Combat, but not a Multiple Charge, as Green cannot Charge Blue.
Sorry, wasn't looking at the colors.
A multiple combat is still one combat though, right?
If blue and green charge red, (and stay 6"+ away from each other) then red is engaged with blue and green at the same time in the same combat. Yes?
insaniak wrote: Charistoph wrote: They would only be in that same combat because the Charging unit went to them.
Uh... yes?
Isn't that kind of the point of charging them?
I was point out a case of Circular Reasoning that you accused me of. You are looking at the end results while ignoring several things in between. They are now engaged because you Charged, not because they were close enough to the Primary Assault to be engaged by it.
You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.
I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.
That is why the addition of "as the Primary Assault" is being used. "At the same time they disembark" indicates the period of time that the unit is disembarking. Pile Ins are done during an Initiative Step and an entire process, i.e. "a period of time". The "period of time" noted for "at the same time" for a Secondary Target is 'the Primary Assault", in other words, the combat with the Primary Target.
So it follows with your logic that the secondary target has to have a model within 2" of the closest model in the primary target to the charging unit for a multi charge to be declared, right?
Because as you must engage that closest model first, and have thus engaged the primary target, and if I want to declare a multi-assault I need to engage the primary and secondary at the same time, ie with the first charging model.
If not, why not?
If you were only going to be Charging the Primary Target, would a unit 6" away from the Primary Target possibly be engaged? The answer is no.
If that is the criteria, then mutliple assaults are impossible. A secondary target can never become engaged until it has been charged. Automatically Appended Next Post: "During the same period of time as the primary assault", are you doing an assault on the Primary Target when moving against another unit? No, you are not. You are doing an assault on a different unit.
So it is impossible to ever do two things at the same time, because as soon as you start doing the second thing you are no longer doing the first?
The 'assault' on the primary target is (at least) the entire period of time that models are completing their charge moves.
It begins when you move the first model in to contact with the primary target and ends when the last model has finished moving.
Nothing about moving in to contact with a secondary target stops it being the assault on the primary target because you are still fulfilling all the rules for assault on the primary target. If moving in to contact with a secondary target counts as stopping the primary assault, then not being able to move a model in to BTB with the primary target equally stops the primary assault.
85004
Post by: col_impact
This issue was settled pages ago.
The rule says 'unit engage' and does not give permission to resolve at the level of 'model engage'.
Therefore, "at the same time" can only refer to the completion of the UNIT charge move.
Inserting "initial charger model" into the rules breaks from the RAW and makes Charistoph's argument HYWPI.
99
Post by: insaniak
Charistoph wrote: They are now engaged because you Charged, not because they were close enough to the Primary Assault to be engaged by it..
Yup, that sounds about right.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Trasvi wrote:A multiple combat is still one combat though, right?
If blue and green charge red, (and stay 6"+ away from each other) then red is engaged with blue and green at the same time in the same combat. Yes?
Yes, but we are considering how one unit Charges two, not two units Charging one, remember.
Trasvi wrote:You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.
I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.
Already stated how you can do that. The stipulation is that a model is engaged if it is within 2" of a model that is in base contact in this combat. It does not state that a model has to be in a unit locked in this combat. You may not like it. You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.
Trasvi wrote:So it follows with your logic that the secondary target has to have a model within 2" of the closest model in the primary target to the charging unit for a multi charge to be declared, right?
Because as you must engage that closest model first, and have thus engaged the primary target, and if I want to declare a multi-assault I need to engage the primary and secondary at the same time, ie with the first charging model.
If not, why not?
No, the secondary target does not have to have a model within 2" of the closest model in the Primary Target to the Charging unit. It does have to be within 2" of a model in the Primary Target that the Charging Unit can reach. The Primary Assault is not consumed in the movement of the Initial model, nor have I ever stated such. In fact, I have actually stated it can be the third or fourth model in the Primary Target which can be made in Base Contact.
You are taking the steps in the following procedure to be the standard by which "at the same time" is being determined.
Trasvi wrote:If you were only going to be Charging the Primary Target, would a unit 6" away from the Primary Target possibly be engaged? The answer is no.
If that is the criteria, then mutliple assaults are impossible. A secondary target can never become engaged until it has been charged.
Incorrect. A model just needs to be within 2" of a model in base contact of the conbat in question. The possibility must exist of being that close.
Remember, the standard for a Secondary Target is not just "who can you reach".
Trasvi wrote:So it is impossible to ever do two things at the same time, because as soon as you start doing the second thing you are no longer doing the first?
If you do not have permission to do so, it is impossible.
If you are moving a Charging model in to Base Contact with a Primary Target, it cannot be within 1" of an enemy model from another unit, period. So, using the Base Contact condition of engaged would be quite impossible.
Trasvi wrote:The 'assault' on the primary target is (at least) the entire period of time that models are completing their charge moves.
It begins when you move the first model in to contact with the primary target and ends when the last model has finished moving.
Nothing about moving in to contact with a secondary target stops it being the assault on the primary target because you are still fulfilling all the rules for assault on the primary target. If moving in to contact with a secondary target counts as stopping the primary assault, then not being able to move a model in to BTB with the primary target equally stops the primary assault.
Prove it. Provide an actual in book standard that Charging another unit is considered at the same time as Charging the first is.
Edit: If you are placing a model in base contact to a Secondary Target, this would be during a Secondary Assault, (to note the difference from a "Primary Assault", a term not used in a normal Charge).
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph wrote:
Trasvi wrote:You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.
I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.
Already stated how you can do that. The stipulation is that a model is engaged if it is within 2" of a model that is in base contact in this combat. It does not state that a model has to be in a unit locked in this combat. You may not like it. You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.
Charistoph,
You keep confusing 'model engaged' with 'unit engaged'. The rule that you are confused about is talking about 'unit engage' in which the dictionary definition of 'engage' is at play. Therefore, 'at the same time' can only refer to the resolution of the charge move for the collective unit.
The rule simply does not state anything about a model being engaged. You may not like that the rule says "unit can engage". You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.
You need to mark your posts HYWPI, since fudging 'model' with 'unit' is obviously breaking from the rules as written.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.
I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.
Already stated how you can do that. The stipulation is that a model is engaged if it is within 2" of a model that is in base contact in this combat. It does not state that a model has to be in a unit locked in this combat. You may not like it. You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.
In order to be engaged, a model must be in close combat. The only way to get to close combat is by charging. Its in the linear order of the rules. If you just take that sentence out of context it would agree with your statement.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Fragile wrote: Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.
I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.
Already stated how you can do that. The stipulation is that a model is engaged if it is within 2" of a model that is in base contact in this combat. It does not state that a model has to be in a unit locked in this combat. You may not like it. You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.
In order to be engaged, a model must be in close combat. The only way to get to close combat is by charging. Its in the linear order of the rules. If you just take that sentence out of context it would agree with your statement.
Does nobody actually read the points which have been made? Where does it state the model must be in close combat in order to be engaged? The answer is under Determine Who Can Fight in the Fight Close Combat portion of the Assault Phase after the Start of Initiative Step Pile In.
A model is engaged in combat if it is in base contact with one or more enemy models. Okay, that would be in this case, or at least one can assume it is the case here. Nothing actually states it requires to be in close combat, but that IS the only way to get in base contact.
A model is engaged in combat if it is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat. The friendly model is noted here as being the one in the same combat, not the model we are checking to be engaged. If the model we are checking to see if it is engaged is supposed to be locked in combat it wouldn't need the clarifier at the end any more then the first case of engaged, would it?
85004
Post by: col_impact
Fragile wrote: Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.
I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.
Already stated how you can do that. The stipulation is that a model is engaged if it is within 2" of a model that is in base contact in this combat. It does not state that a model has to be in a unit locked in this combat. You may not like it. You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.
In order to be engaged, a model must be in close combat. The only way to get to close combat is by charging. Its in the linear order of the rules. If you just take that sentence out of context it would agree with your statement.
Correct.
As you correctly point out, the Fight Sub-Phase is the context of the rule. The units and models participating in the current combat have already been identified and have already been subjected to rules based on that identification (Locked in Combat, pile in, initiative step, etc.). A rule that would redefine what is 'in combat', which Charistoph claims the rule is doing, breaks all the earlier steps.
And this statement proves your point.
In the above rule, "models" refers to models in units that are Locked In Combat and that are part of the combat that is currently being resolved and having completed a pile in move. "Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have completed the piling in move and part of the current combat being resolved.
Charistoph is arguing that "any model" can refer to any friendly model on the battlefield which breaks grammatical agreement, contextual reference, and logically established set relationships with all of the other rules in that section.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote:
Does nobody actually read the points which have been made? Where does it state the model must be in close combat in order to be engaged? The answer is under Determine Who Can Fight in the Fight Close Combat portion of the Assault Phase after the Start of Initiative Step Pile In.
A model is engaged in combat if it is in base contact with one or more enemy models. Okay, that would be in this case, or at least one can assume it is the case here. Nothing actually states it requires to be in close combat, but that IS the only way to get in base contact.
A model is engaged in combat if it is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat. The friendly model is noted here as being the one in the same combat, not the model we are checking to be engaged. If the model we are checking to see if it is engaged is supposed to be locked in combat it wouldn't need the clarifier at the end any more then the first case of engaged, would it?
You aren't reading the rule in context. The model has to be a subset of the models that completed pile-in moves which means that they were Locked in Combat and had permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase.
This has been pointed out several times.
LOCKED IN COMBAT
FIGHT SUB-PHASE
1) CHOOSE A COMBAT
2) FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT
a) Initiative Step
b) Start of Initiative Step Pile In
c) Determine Who Can Fight
In the above rules comprising the Fight Sub-Phase, "models" refers to models in units that are Locked In Combat and that are part of the combat (e.g. "this combat") that is currently being resolved. To suggest otherwise is to break grammatically, contextually, and logically from the Fight Sub-Phase rules as they are written.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Charistoph wrote:
Does nobody actually read the points which have been made? Where does it state the model must be in close combat in order to be engaged? The answer is under Determine Who Can Fight in the Fight Close Combat portion of the Assault Phase after the Start of Initiative Step Pile In.
Actually that is not the answer. Or technically part of the answer.
LOCKED IN COMBAT
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight in the Assault phase.
FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT
In close combat, both players’ models fight. Attacks in close combat......
Other than close combat there is no permission for a model outside the unit to make melee attacks. Even some of those in the unit cannot attack if they are not engaged by the rule you keep quoting out of context. By your claim, I can make pile in moves with units near to combat but not in combat. The rules even determine that combats are separate since the active player decides order.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Fragile wrote:
Other than close combat there is no permission for a model outside the unit to make melee attacks. Even some of those in the unit cannot attack if they are not engaged by the rule you keep quoting out of context. By your [Charistoph's] claim, I can make pile in moves with units near to combat but not in combat. The rules even determine that combats are separate since the active player decides order.
Charistoph's claim actually leads to to far worse shenanigans. If rules can be taken out of context and "any models" can refer to any model on the battlefield then all models on the battlefield will be required to make pile-in moves for each combat even if they are not in that particular combat no matter how far away they are from the combat.
This leads us to throw out his line of reasoning with Reductio Ad Absurdum.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Fragile wrote: Charistoph wrote:
Does nobody actually read the points which have been made? Where does it state the model must be in close combat in order to be engaged? The answer is under Determine Who Can Fight in the Fight Close Combat portion of the Assault Phase after the Start of Initiative Step Pile In.
Actually that is not the answer. Or technically part of the answer.
LOCKED IN COMBAT
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight in the Assault phase.
FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT
In close combat, both players’ models fight. Attacks in close combat......
Other than close combat there is no permission for a model outside the unit to make melee attacks. Even some of those in the unit cannot attack if they are not engaged by the rule you keep quoting out of context. By your claim, I can make pile in moves with units near to combat but not in combat. The rules even determine that combats are separate since the active player decides order.
Please don't change the goal posts. You said " In order to be engaged, a model must be in close combat". Nothing you presented above addresses that. I was defining "engaged", not "locked in combat".
I then presented a synopsis of the rules, but here's the actual rules quoted.
Determine Who Can Fight
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.
A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.
I do not see "locked in combat" being stated here, aside from the specific mentions of base contacts.
Being able to lock the unit in close combat is not the requirement for a Secondary Target. In fact, "locked in Combat" is never mentioned in the Multiple Combats > Charge Sub-Phase > Declare Charge > Primary and Secondary Targets paragraphs. What is listed as a requirement for a Secondary Target is " that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." Being engaged does not require the model to be locked in combat as demonstrated in the quote above, just near a friendly one that is.
Yes, this definition of "engaged" may open the way for shenanigans, but let's face it, in most cases it would be a case of "you probably should have done the Multiple Charge". There are the off cases where a Secondary Target is too far to do a Multiple Charge, or someone just Moving that close to a Combat, but this ruleset is already full of them.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
The rule for engaged says "...in the same combat". You cannot be in the same combat as someone if you are not in combat.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Charistoph, your completely failing to read the rule linearly. I defined what Engaged was. However, in order for ANY model to be Engaged, it must also be in close combat as the rules I cited state. I even bolded the parts for you. The only way to get there is through a Charge move. The "Determine who can Fight" is part of the sequence of the Fight Subphase referring to a specific combat. And it mentions clearly that those models must be in that close combat.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Trasvi wrote:The rule for engaged says "...in the same combat". You cannot be in the same combat as someone if you are not in combat.
"...in the same combat" could just as easily mean as the combat you are processing for, especially as the model in question is not first noted as being in combat. It doesn't say, "...in the same combat as the model in question", after all. This last part would be so that two nearby combats may not bring others in to it.
Fragile wrote:Charistoph, your completely failing to read the rule linearly. I defined what Engaged was. However, in order for ANY model to be Engaged, it must also be in close combat as the rules I cited state. I even bolded the parts for you. The only way to get there is through a Charge move. The "Determine who can Fight" is part of the sequence of the Fight Subphase referring to a specific combat. And it mentions clearly that those models must be in that close combat.
"Engaged" does not reference those rules, save by the references to being in base contact. Those rules you quoted which define close combat do not reference "engaged".
In every other instance in the rulebook where a definition is to be completely and only taken in a specific context is when it includes the context in which it is included.
Aside from being placed in the Assault Phase and part of the Fight Sub-phase, does anything in the actual definition require the model to be in close combat (again, aside from the references to base contact)?
From there, consider this concept, if such a consideration was not important, why bother making it part of the definition of the Secondary Target? If all you needed was the ability to reach the Secondary Target, why not just state that outright? Why bother mentioning "Primary Assault" or "engage"?
In addition, while this definition of "engaged" may or may not reach the regular capacities of Combat for yourself, we are looking at what the Charging Unit is capable of doing, not what it has actually done. As I have stated several times now, this consideration for when you are declaring a Charge is so that you can lock any units near to or interspersed with their Primary Target in to the Combat which a single unit Charge would not normally be able to do. At no point is Multiple Charge to be taken as permission to spread your unit across the table in a disorderly fashion (aka conga line), bring in to combat two units on opposite sides of the table, or Charge a separate unit that could Charge yours in the following Turn.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Charistoph wrote:
"Engaged" does not reference those rules, save by the references to being in base contact. Those rules you quoted which define close combat do not reference "engaged".
They reference that in order for a unit or model to be engaged it must be in that close combat. No other model but those can use any of the subsequent rules which you quote to support your argument.
In every other instance in the rulebook where a definition is to be completely and only taken in a specific context is when it includes the context in which it is included.
Aside from being placed in the Assault Phase and part of the Fight Sub-phase, does anything in the actual definition require the model to be in close combat (again, aside from the references to base contact)?
From there, consider this concept, if such a consideration was not important, why bother making it part of the definition of the Secondary Target? If all you needed was the ability to reach the Secondary Target, why not just state that outright? Why bother mentioning "Primary Assault" or "engage"?
In addition, while this definition of "engaged" may or may not reach the regular capacities of Combat for yourself, we are looking at what the Charging Unit is capable of doing, not what it has actually done. As I have stated several times now, this consideration for when you are declaring a Charge is so that you can lock any units near to or interspersed with their Primary Target in to the Combat which a single unit Charge would not normally be able to do. At no point is Multiple Charge to be taken as permission to spread your unit across the table in a disorderly fashion (aka conga line), bring in to combat two units on opposite sides of the table, or Charge a separate unit that could Charge yours in the following Turn.
You can charge units that are spread out, just not as easily as some make it. Coherency has always been required, but there is no requirement for the secondary target to be any distance from the primary.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Fragile wrote: Charistoph wrote:
"Engaged" does not reference those rules, save by the references to being in base contact. Those rules you quoted which define close combat do not reference "engaged".
They reference that in order for a unit or model to be engaged it must be in that close combat. No other model but those can use any of the subsequent rules which you quote to support your argument.
No, the rules you quoted did not mention "engaged" (or any of its conjugated forms) at any point in time.
Fragile wrote:LOCKED IN COMBAT
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight in the Assault phase.
FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT
In close combat, both players’ models fight. Attacks in close combat......
See? Nothing about "engaged". Also nothing about "nothing that is not locked in close combat cannot fight" was presented.
The only times the definition of "engaged" even refer to being in combat is by the statements of base contact with enemy models (which is only possible IN combat).
Fragile wrote:You can charge units that are spread out, just not as easily as some make it. Coherency has always been required, but there is no requirement for the secondary target to be any distance from the primary.
The requirement for "able to engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" indicates otherwise. Charging a spread out unit is not the same as Charging two units, nor is it the same as Charging two units a gravgun shot apart.
61964
Post by: Fragile
In order to be engaged, you must be in the close combat. All in the rules you cited. And your confusing unit being able to engage with model being able to engage.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Fragile wrote:In order to be engaged, you must be in the close combat. All in the rules you cited. And your confusing unit being able to engage with model being able to engage.
You are not explaining your reason. You are just saying I am wrong. Break it down. Where in the definition of "engage" does it state the model must be in close combat for all cases?
You have provided with the definition of close combat, but that is not addressing the definition of "engage". Focus on that.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph,
Let's focus on the first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule . . .
In the above rule, "models" refers to models in units that are Locked In Combat and that are part of the combat that is currently being resolved and having completed a pile in move. "Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have completed the piling in move.
This is easily proven by simply reading the rules of the Fight Sub-Phase.
LOCKED IN COMBAT
FIGHT SUB-PHASE
1) CHOOSE A COMBAT
2) FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT
a) Initiative Step
b) Start of Initiative Step Pile In
c) Determine Who Can Fight
You are arguing that "any model" can refer to any friendly model on the battlefield which breaks grammatical agreement, contextual reference, and logically established set relationships.
However, simply reading the rules proves that "any models" is a subset of those models that have Piled In and those models that have Piled In must be part of 'this combat' - ie the current combat the active player has chosen to resolve. Further, the rule that determines what units take part in a combat is the Locked in Combat rule. Any models that are not part of units that are not Locked in Combat do not have permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase.
A model that is not Locked in Combat cannot perform a Pile In move and this precludes it from consideration for the Determine Who Can Fight rule per the written words of the Determine Who Can Fight rule.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Charistoph wrote:Fragile wrote:In order to be engaged, you must be in the close combat. All in the rules you cited. And your confusing unit being able to engage with model being able to engage.
You are not explaining your reason. You are just saying I am wrong. Break it down. Where in the definition of "engage" does it state the model must be in close combat for all cases?
You have provided with the definition of close combat, but that is not addressing the definition of "engage". Focus on that.
Honestly I have, but your not seeming to understand. So lets try this a different way Let me ask you this. Can a Wraithknight move up to within 1" of an enemy unit, shoot another unit and then stomp the unit 1" away? If not, why not?
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Fragile wrote:Honestly I have, but your not seeming to understand. So lets try this a different way Let me ask you this. Can a Wraithknight move up to within 1" of an enemy unit, shoot another unit and then stomp the unit 1" away? If not, why not?
No, you have not. You have not made the proper in-game connection between being "locked in combat" and "engaged" at all. In fact, you have ignored the definition of "engaged" for the last few posts. I have been doing that for you.
To answer your scenario, no, he cannot, and your scenario is a very bad example of trying to counter my case and evidences how much you clearly do not understand it.
1) It is not locked in combat. It is not a unit in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot.
2) It is not engaged in combat. It is not in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot, NOR is it within 2" of another combat, much less a friendly model in that combat.
85004
Post by: col_impact
Fragile wrote:
Can a Wraithknight move up to within 2" of a friendly model in b2b with an enemy unit in combat, shoot another unit and then stomp the enemy unit? If not, why not?
FTFY.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:The rule for engaged says "...in the same combat". You cannot be in the same combat as someone if you are not in combat.
"...in the same combat" could just as easily mean as the combat you are processing for, especially as the model in question is not first noted as being in combat. It doesn't say, "...in the same combat as the model in question", after all. This last part would be so that two nearby combats may not bring others in to it.
If you think that it doesn't say "...in the same combat as the model in question" it likewise doesn't say "...in the same combat as you are processing for"
I think the much more natural and grammatically correct way of reading the sentence as the former rather than the latter. The latter would be suggested if the verbiage was "a model is engaged in A combat" or "in THAT combat". "In the same combat" suggests the friendly model must be in the same combat as the model you ate checking for.
Evidently most other people also finds this the more natural reading, and it also precludes the obviously wrong activities whereby that allow you to get a unit in to combat without charging simply by moving it close to a friendly model in combat
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Trasvi wrote: Charistoph wrote:Trasvi wrote:The rule for engaged says "...in the same combat". You cannot be in the same combat as someone if you are not in combat.
"...in the same combat" could just as easily mean as the combat you are processing for, especially as the model in question is not first noted as being in combat. It doesn't say, "...in the same combat as the model in question", after all. This last part would be so that two nearby combats may not bring others in to it.
If you think that it doesn't say "...in the same combat as the model in question" it likewise doesn't say "...in the same combat as you are processing for"
I think the much more natural and grammatically correct way of reading the sentence as the former rather than the latter. The latter would be suggested if the verbiage was "a model is engaged in A combat" or "in THAT combat". "In the same combat" suggests the friendly model must be in the same combat as the model you ate checking for.
Evidently most other people also finds this the more natural reading, and it also precludes the obviously wrong activities whereby that allow you to get a unit in to combat without charging simply by moving it close to a friendly model in combat
Not necessarily when we consider the context that we are looking at "engaged" is being used to determine, i.e. "who can fight" in an Initiative Step.
We do not care if a model is near a model in base contact with another fight when we are trying to determine who can strike blows for the combat we are referencing. Being "engaged" is determined on a Combat by Combat basis and a model by model basis.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Charistoph wrote:Fragile wrote:Honestly I have, but your not seeming to understand. So lets try this a different way Let me ask you this. Can a Wraithknight move up to within 1" of an enemy unit, shoot another unit and then stomp the unit 1" away? If not, why not?
No, you have not. You have not made the proper in-game connection between being "locked in combat" and "engaged" at all. In fact, you have ignored the definition of "engaged" for the last few posts. I have been doing that for you.
Because your definition of engaged is irrelevant until a model is in close combat as referenced by the rules that I cited. The ones you fail to understand.
To answer your scenario, no, he cannot, and your scenario is a very bad example of trying to counter my case and evidences how much you clearly do not understand it.
I understand, you do not. You asked for me to break it down, so here are the baby steps for you
1) It is not locked in combat. It is not a unit in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot.
2) It is not engaged in combat. It is not in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot, NOR is it within 2" of another combat, much less a friendly model in that combat.
If the WK moved within 1" of a friendly model in btb close combat with another unit, can he stomp?
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph wrote:
Not necessarily when we consider the context that we are looking at "engaged" is being used to determine, i.e. "who can fight" in an Initiative Step.
We do not care if a model is near a model in base contact with another fight when we are trying to determine who can strike blows for the combat we are referencing. Being "engaged" is determined on a Combat by Combat basis and a model by model basis.
As pointed out several times . . .
per the Determine Who Can Fight rule, a model can only be engaged if it is a subset of the models that went through a Pile In move. In order to Pile In a model must be in "this combat". And, in order to be in "this combat" the model must be in a unit that is Locked in Combat in "this combat".
See my post above for the complete rules citation that proves your argument dead wrong.
As Fragile noted, you are failing to read the rule linearly in its context.
61964
Post by: Fragile
Charistoph wrote:
We do not care if a model is near a model in base contact with another fight when we are trying to determine who can strike blows for the combat we are referencing. Being "engaged" is determined on a Combat by Combat basis and a model by model basis.
Please cite the rules for the bolded part.
95922
Post by: Charistoph
Fragile wrote: Charistoph wrote:Fragile wrote:Honestly I have, but your not seeming to understand. So lets try this a different way Let me ask you this. Can a Wraithknight move up to within 1" of an enemy unit, shoot another unit and then stomp the unit 1" away? If not, why not?
No, you have not. You have not made the proper in-game connection between being "locked in combat" and "engaged" at all. In fact, you have ignored the definition of "engaged" for the last few posts. I have been doing that for you.
Because your definition of engaged is irrelevant until a model is in close combat as referenced by the rules that I cited. The ones you fail to understand.
Why? You have yet to make that connection.
Engaged has two conditions:
1) Be in Base Contact with an opponent's model. Okay, you have to be in Combat in order to do this.
2) Be within 2" of a friendly model that is in Base Contact with an opponent's model. You do not have to be in Combat in order to do this.
To further put this in context of the thread, this second condition is the only method available when you are Charging a Primary Target as you cannot get in to Base Contact with a Secondary Target model while getting in to Base Contact with a Primary Target model during a Charge move.
Fragile wrote:To answer your scenario, no, he cannot, and your scenario is a very bad example of trying to counter my case and evidences how much you clearly do not understand it.
I understand, you do not. You asked for me to break it down, so here are the baby steps for you
I think you posted before you completed this...
Fragile wrote:1) It is not locked in combat. It is not a unit in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot.
2) It is not engaged in combat. It is not in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot, NOR is it within 2" of another combat, much less a friendly model in that combat.
If the WK moved within 1" of a friendly model in btb close combat with another unit, can he stomp?
By the actual definition of Engaged, yes.
Fragile wrote: Charistoph wrote:
We do not care if a model is near a model in base contact with another fight when we are trying to determine who can strike blows for the combat we are referencing. Being "engaged" is determined on a Combat by Combat basis and a model by model basis.
Please cite the rules for the bolded part.
Already have.
Determine Who Can Fight
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.
A model is engaged in combat if:
85004
Post by: col_impact
Charistoph wrote:
2) Be within 2" of a friendly model that is in Base Contact with an opponent's model. You do not have to be in Combat in order to do this.
Incorrect. The model must be in the combat that we are currently resolving.
You keep ignoring the first part of the Determine Who Can Fight Rule and the surrounding context of the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase.
"Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have Piled In which requires that the model be from a unit that is Locked in Combat with regards to "this combat" (i.e the current combat the Fight Sub-Phase is resolving).
Per the Determine Who Can Fight rule, a model can only be engaged if it is a subset of the models that went through a Pile In move. In order to Pile In a model must be in "this combat". And, in order to be in "this combat" the model must be in a unit that is Locked in Combat in "this combat".
For a more complete context of the rules of the Fight Sub-Phase see this post . . . http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/707846.page#9046090
105443
Post by: doctortom
col_impact wrote: Charistoph wrote:
2) Be within 2" of a friendly model that is in Base Contact with an opponent's model. You do not have to be in Combat in order to do this.
Incorrect. The model must be in the combat that we are currently resolving.
You keep ignoring the first part of the Determine Who Can Fight Rule.
"Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have Piled In which requires that the model be from a unit that is Locked in Combat with regards to "this combat" (i.e the current combat the Fight Sub-Phase is resolving).
Per the Determine Who Can Fight rule, a model can only be engaged if it is a subset of the models that went through a Pile In move. In order to Pile In a model must be in "this combat". And, in order to be in "this combat" the model must be in a unit that is Locked in Combat in "this combat".
For a more complete context of the rules of the Fight Sub-Phase see this post . . . http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/707846.page#9046090
Quoted so Charistoph can see what you're arguing here (he's got you on ignore so he wouldn't see this normally)
I think you've got the quotation here about piling in that raises some questions as to how things should be handled. According to Charistoph, you can have a model in the second unit engaged in the combat without having anybody from the charging unit in base contact with that second unit. Start of Initiative Step Pile In it states:
"At the start of each Initiative step, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step, that isn't already in base contact with an enemy model, must make a Pile In move." (page 48)
Charistoph, would you say that members of the secondary target unit get to make a pile in move even if they have nobody in base contact with the charging unit, if there was at least one model in the unit that was within 2" of the primary unit being charged? If you are treating the unit as being in the combat and being engaged, it would seem that you'd have to allow for that unit to Pile In. I don't know anybody who would actually allow this, however. Actually, given what the wording is there, there's as valid an argument for saying any unit friendly to the unit being charged that has a model within 2" of the primary target would get to pile in, whether or not they were declared a primary or secondary target of the charge. This seems madness, so there must be something else applying that is not accounted for merely with the discussion of piling in and what models count as engaged. This would have to be that the rules are only dealing with models in units that are in the combat, and the only way to tell what units are in the combat is by going with the definition of a unit being locked in combat - i.e. there has to be base contact involved between the opposing sides, before any pile in move is made.
99
Post by: insaniak
I think this has gone around in circles for long enough, particularly since it has somewhat veered off the original topic.
Moving on.
|
|
