Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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