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.

Abandon wrote:Yes they would fight but without an assault there is no defenders react, assalting through cover would not matter, etc.

Sure... because without an assault they have no permission to make an assault move in the assault phase in the first place.

You're making assault moves. You don't need a rule that says that you make an assault move by making an assault move.

This rule is necessary to ensure the proper assault sequence occurs and is not bypassed by clever rules lawyers.

There is nothing to lawyer. You declare your assault. You make your assault moves. If you move a model with some action that is not an assault move, you are not making an assault move.

ts crucial that they state that base contact can only be made by assaulting not matter how you look at it. It IMO your reading way to much into it. The rules state:
"model must end its assault move in coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved"
"models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models"
"may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting"
"If possible, the model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model."

Yes, they state all of that. In two separate sections, one of which outlines the basic rules for assaulting, and one which adds the option to assault multiple units when you do so.

Pro-tip: Selectively pulling statements out of context from two distinct sections of the rules and rearranging them to suit your argument makes it look a little odd for you to be accusing those who disagree with you of 'reading too much into it...'

Abandon wrote:In your opinion then, please tell how you are ever going to assault an additional unit without making base contact. Bearing in mind you are not permitted to declare a second assault(silently or otherwise).

Well first the rules specify you MUST declare your assault on the unit you shot at (if you did shoot.
Second the rules give you permission with the word can to assault other units, however you must still follow the rules for moving assaulting models.

insaniak wrote:

Abandon wrote:Yes they would fight but without an assault there is no defenders react, assalting through cover would not matter, etc.

Sure... because without an assault they have no permission to make an assault move in the assault phase in the first place.

You're making assault moves. You don't need a rule that says that you make an assault move by making an assault move.

Your models are allowed to move within an inch of enemy models and are compelled to move into base contact with them. Regardless of all this debating they need to make it clear this is done by assaulting that model and it's unit and no other way.

insaniak wrote:

This rule is necessary to ensure the proper assault sequence occurs and is not bypassed by clever rules lawyers.

There is nothing to lawyer. You declare your assault. You make your assault moves. If you move a model with some action that is not an assault move, you are not making an assault move.

Yes, there would be. Your models are compelled into base contact with 'any enemy model'. If your model makes an assault move into base contact with a model belonging to a unit you did not declae against you could then claim not to be assaulting the unit. Fortunately they have the rule in question to prevent such foolishness.

insaniak wrote:

ts crucial that they state that base contact can only be made by assaulting not matter how you look at it. It IMO your reading way to much into it. The rules state:
"model must end its assault move in coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved"
"models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models"
"may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting"
"If possible, the model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model."

Yes, they state all of that. In two separate sections, one of which outlines the basic rules for assaulting, and one which adds the option to assault multiple units when you do so.

Pro-tip: Selectively pulling statements out of context from two distinct sections of the rules and rearranging them to suit your argument makes it look a little odd for you to be accusing those who disagree with you of 'reading too much into it...'

You still keep saying you get to choose or that it's and an option for you but those words do not appear here. The word 'you' does not appear in the assaulting multiple units section at all. The models get the ability to assault other enemy units and you do not get a choice on that. By this the model is given the abiltiy to make base contact with "any enemy model within reach"(which is why it's worded like that) when it is complelled to do so. And guess what proceeding with an assault is called... Assaulting!

This is a permissive rule system and since you are not given permission to declare or choose a second or multiple assault I believe your assessment here is overly complex and somewhat flawed.

Common Sense Tip: I already said it does not matter what order you put them in. They will still say the same things in another order and as they must all be observed at once it will be no different.

Common Sense Tip: Having there own subheading does not make rules optional


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:

Abandon wrote:In your opinion then, please tell how you are ever going to assault an additional unit without making base contact. Bearing in mind you are not permitted to declare a second assault(silently or otherwise).

Well first the rules specify you MUST declare your assault on the unit you shot at (if you did shoot.
Second the rules give you permission with the word can to assault other units, however you must still follow the rules for moving assaulting models.

You declare your assault and that gives your models permission to assault the target unit. After the first model does so the Assaulting Mutliple Units rules give the rest of your models(not you) permission to assault other enemy units in reach. It may seem like the same thing but it isn't. You are not given permission to give them permission like in the initial declaration but instead it is granted automaticly.

Abandon wrote:Your models are allowed to move within an inch of enemy models and are compelled to move into base contact with them. Regardless of all this debating they need to make it clear this is done by assaulting that model and it's unit and no other way.

The section detailing assault moves does not need to mention that you can't choose to make some other sort of movement in the assault phase. The fact that it doesn't give you permission to do so is sufficient.

If your model makes an assault move into base contact with a model belonging to a unit you did not declae against you could then claim not to be assaulting the unit.

No, you couldn't... because then you wouldn't be making an assault move, which is the only kind of movement you are given permission to make. And it wouldn't make a difference whether or not you claim to be not assaulting them, as the close combat rules require all models in base contact to fight in close combat.

Fortunately they have the rule in question to prevent such foolishness.

Yes, they have a rule to prevent such foolishness. It's just not the rule you think it is.

You still keep saying you get to choose or that it's and an option for you but those words do not appear here.

Yes, everyone on the other side of the argument keeps saying it's a choice... because that's what the rules say when you read them in the appropriate context rather than plucking specific statements out and rearranging them.

This is a permissive rule system and since you are not given permission to declare or choose a second or multiple assault I believe your assessment here is overly complex and somewhat flawed.

You declare an initial assault.
If models after the first are able to assault models from other units, they can do so.

How, exactly, is that 'overly complex'...?

Common Sense Tip: I already said it does not matter what order you put them in. They will still say the same things in another order and as they must all be observed at once it will be no different.

You did indeed say that. And several people have pointed out why that statement is false.

When you have a section that outlines the basic rules covering a part of the game, and then a separate section dealing with a slightly different situation, pulling rules out of that separate section and trying to apply them to the basic situation most certainly does change things.

Common Sense Tip: Having there own subheading does not make rules optional

Nobody has said that it does.

The rules offering something as an option is what makes them optional.

And again Abandon, you ignore context.

Remaining models CAN (Not Must) assault models belonging to other enemy units.

Mannahnin wrote:You're still disregarding the prohibition on moving into contact with units you're not assaulting. Your interpretation renders this prohibition meaningless, and thus cannot be correct.

A choice has to be made to engage any given unit. Once that choice is made, models in that unit become legal options for the assault moves sequence. But not until the assaulting player makes that choice..

This says it all.

insaniak wrote:Yes, they have a rule to prevent such foolishness. It's just not the rule you think it is.

Point is the rule would not be without meaning as you claimed.

insaniak wrote:You declare an initial assault.
If models after the first are able to assault models from other units, they can do so.

How, exactly, is that 'overly complex'...?

You seemed to be of the opinion that assaulting a unit requires more than the rules permission to assault and an assault move into base contact. So I thought anyways.. was that incorrect? If so I'll retract the statement as we would have the same view on it.

insaniak wrote:

Common Sense Tip: I already said it does not matter what order you put them in. They will still say the same things in another order and as they must all be observed at once it will be no different.

You did indeed say that. And several people have pointed out why that statement is false.

When you have a section that outlines the basic rules covering a part of the game, and then a separate section dealing with a slightly different situation, pulling rules out of that separate section and trying to apply them to the basic situation most certainly does change things..

That section states when it applies right in the beginging "As you move assaulting models, you may find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting."

So when you find other enemy units in reach your models get permission to assault them.

insaniak wrote:

Common Sense Tip: Having there own subheading does not make rules optional

Nobody has said that it does.

Actually some have. I'm more or less trying to guess by what your statements why you think it's optional. The assulting models are given permission to assault other units when there are other enemies in reach. Nothing optional about that. They are compelled into base contact with any enemy model you have not already made base contact with if at all possible. Nothing optional about that either. Where is this option you keep insisting on?

insaniak wrote:The rules offering something as an option is what makes them optional.

Where is it offered as an option? Your moldels get permission to do something during a compullsory move at which point your options consist of enemy models you can get into contact with.

Tell you what guys if an assaulter is compelled to assault any unit he is within an inch of (and I don't think he is) it is certainly going to make for one hell of a defensive position on an objective.

Imagine, a battered remnant troop unit on the objective, only 2 models left !. Unit of 10 terminators on one side, Dreadnaught on the other , both placed in base contact with the troop unit but also so that they keep the enemy outside the 3" for contest.

Under the logic of mandatory assault an enemy would be compelled to take on the Termi's, the troops and the Dread, rather than assault past them to dislodge the troops from the objective.

Without mandatory assault you can strike at the remains of the troops unit, win the fight and the game

Abandon wrote:Point is the rule would not be without meaning as you claimed.

That's not really a point unless the rule actually means what you are trying to make it mean. Which it doesn't. You're saying that the bucket would be blue if it was blue. It's not.

You seemed to be of the opinion that assaulting a unit requires more than the rules permission to assault and an assault move into base contact. So I thought anyways.. was that incorrect? If so I'll retract the statement as we would have the same view on it.

Yes, that was incorrect.

That section states when it applies right in the beginging "As you move assaulting models, you may find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting."

So when you find other enemy units in reach your models get permission to assault them.

Yes, you have permission to do so. That's the point that has been made right from the start of the thread.

Actually some have.

No, they haven't. If that's the impression you have, then that's something else that you have misunderstood over the course of this discussion.

The assulting models are given permission to assault other units when there are other enemies in reach. Nothing optional about that.

So, if you're given permission to have a cookie, you have to eat it?

They are compelled into base contact with any enemy model you have not already made base contact with if at all possible.

No, they are compelled into base contact with any enemy model from the target unit that is not already in base contact. They also have permission to assault models from other units if possible.

The only reason you think it is not optional is because you are trying to apply a rule that is dealing with charging a single unit to a situation that is different. When you apply the rules in context, you don't have that problem.

I'm with insaniak

"...with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models. ... and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

Makes it pretty obvious to me that they can move within an inch of an enemy model, to run past it for example, but they are specifically denied the ability to move into base contact with it

then

"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units..."

If it turns out they are able to assault an additional unit they CAN nowhere does it say must.

"Assaulting units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of their models as possible" and "If possible, the model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model"

Come from the section on simple assaults and cannot be taken to apply to the later specific case of multiple assaults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How about another extreme cheese case?

If we take it that all models in the assaulting unit must make base contact with any enemy unit if they are able to, even if that entails engaging an otherwise no-assaulted unit, that would mean that a unit deployed in 3 ranks with an enemy unit 4" to the front and another 4" to the left and another 4" to the right would be compelled to have the front rank advance to base contact with the unit in front and, as they can't get into base contact with the unit in front the second and third ranks would be compelled to attack to the flanks, half of each rank going each way and a bit jiggling to make sure they all stay coherent.

This would be a ludicrous situation, a bit of common sense fellas.

insaniak wrote:

You seemed to be of the opinion that assaulting a unit requires more than the rules permission to assault and an assault move into base contact. So I thought anyways.. was that incorrect? If so I'll retract the statement as we would have the same view on it.

Yes, that was incorrect.

Well there it is. The rules give the assaulting models permission to assault models of other units you did not declare against so they are valid targets for any assault move into base contact.
"remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models"

insaniak wrote:

That section states when it applies right in the beginging "As you move assaulting models, you may find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting."

So when you find other enemy units in reach your models get permission to assault them.

Yes, you have permission to do so. That's the point that has been made right from the start of the thread.

It does not sat 'you can' it says the assaulting 'models can'. Basicley this means they are automatically granted the status of assaulting them with or without your permission. They can. They are able. They are permitted. They are clear for landing in base contact with any enemy model in reach. Where does it say your allowed to deny them this permission?

insaniak wrote:

The assulting models are given permission to assault other units when there are other enemies in reach. Nothing optional about that.

So, if you're given permission to have a cookie, you have to eat it?

If I wanted to obey the rule and there was a mandatory requirement stating that if possible, I must eat a cookie and there were no other cookies available then yes I would have to eat the cookie.

insaniak wrote:

They are compelled into base contact with any enemy model you have not already made base contact with if at all possible.

No, they are compelled into base contact with any enemy model from the target unit that is not already in base contact. They also have permission to assault models from other units if possible.

Why are you adding words that aren't there? from the target unit is not in there. If you going to judge by context why not the obvious as well? The words "any enemy model" are not used when a specific units models are meant. "Assaulting units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of their models as possible – no holding back!"<<<Context

insaniak wrote:The only reason you think it is not optional is because you are trying to apply a rule that is dealing with charging a single unit to a situation that is different. When you apply the rules in context, you don't have that problem.

Why do you keep insisting that the rules for moving assaulting models are for assaulting a single unit only? What I know what you'll say... Because of the context right? Well that subheading mentions the target unit only once and that is to say the first model must make base contact with them in a very specific way. After that it says "any enemy model" for the rest and well... what context are you speaking of? In any case these happen to be the only rules for moving assaulting models. After it is explained, they add some additional rules for situations where there's more than one unit in reach.

The Assaulting Multiple Units subheading does not say (optional) next to it. It do applies whenever you "find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting" and it gives the assaulting models permission to assault those units models as well just like they got permission to assault the target unit when you declared the assault. All I'm saying is there is no viable reason to ignore any enemy models within reach when moving assaulting models.>

Abandon wrote:
Why do you keep insisting that the rules for moving assaulting models are for assaulting a single unit only? What I know what you'll say... Because of the context right? Well that subheading mentions the target unit only once and that is to say the first model must make base contact with them in a very specific way. After that it says "any enemy model" for the rest and well... what context are you speaking of? In any case these happen to be the only rules for moving assaulting models. After it is explained, they add some additional rules for situations where there's more than one unit in reach.

The Assaulting Multiple Units subheading does not say (optional) next to it. It do applies whenever you "find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting" and it gives the assaulting models permission to assault those units models as well just like they got permission to assault the target unit when you declared the assault. All I'm saying is there is no viable reason to ignore any enemy models within reach when moving assaulting models.>

First off, let me say that the Assault rules are not properly written. In some parts they act as if you should know exactly what you're going to have to assault ahead of time (the assaulting through terrain rules), but in the actual 'move assaulting units' rules as Insaniak points out the common interpretation is that you don't follow the multiple assault rules until you actually initiate contact with a second or subsequent unit by moving an assaulting model into contact with that new unit.

I think you have a valid interpretation of the rules here personally, but it is quite uncommon as you can see in this poll I ran on the topic (it is essentially 'choice B' in the poll...not exactly, but close enough that I think the same people who voted for that interpretation would vote for yours):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/344366.page#2407802


What Insaniak is saying, is that if you took out the rules for 'Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units' out of the rulebook completely, the rules you'd have left would be for assaulting a single enemy unit...the one you declared the assault against (and the one you fired at, if applicable). So the 'basic' rules for moving assaulting models only gives you permission to assault that single unit.

Then the rules for assaulting multiple enemy units gives you the chance to assault more than that specified unit, but it is not written in a mandatory fashion like the basic assaulting rules are. Instead, it says that remaining models 'can assault models belonging to other enemy units'.

So as the basic assaulting rules only give permission to assault the declared target and the multiple assault rules only give the option to assault another unit, there is nothing there that explicitly says that you ever have to assault a second (or third, etc) enemy unit.

If the rules for assaulting multiple enemy units instead said:

'Then remaining models must assault models belonging to other enemy units, following the rules for for moving assaulting models.'


Then you would be totally correct and the popular sentiment of most gamers would be on your side. But unfortunately it doesn't say that so must people completely disagree with you.

The choice to assault a second unit is a voluntary choice. Once you engage that second unit, you then have to start moving models in against that second unit following the normal rules, but until you choose to move that first model into contact with the new unit, then the rules only give you permission to assault the unit you declared the assault against.

Abandon wrote:Well there it is. The rules give the assaulting models permission to assault models of other units you did not declare against so they are valid targets for any assault move into base contact.

They are valid targets if you choose to include them in the assault.

If you don't, then the rule stating that you can't move into base contact with models that you are not assaulting applies.

It does not sat 'you can' it says the assaulting 'models can'.

Of course it does. Unless I've had quite a bit too much bourbon, I very rarely jump onto the table and attack my opponent's models myself. I leave that to my models.

Basicley this means they are automatically granted the status of assaulting them with or without your permission. They can. They are able. They are permitted. They are clear for landing in base contact with any enemy model in reach. ...

...so long as they have decided to assault them.

Where does it say your allowed to deny them this permission?

Models are specifically forbidden from moving into base contact with models from an enemy unit that they are not assaulting.

We already covered the fact that this rule would be meaningless if your interpretation is correct. Ignoring that won't make it go away.

If I wanted to obey the rule and there was a mandatory requirement stating that if possible, I must eat a cookie and there were no other cookies available then yes I would have to eat the cookie.

...unless the rule requiring you to eat that particular cookie was presented as an option, and you were strictly forbidden from eating that cookie unless you take that option...

Why are you adding words that aren't there? from the target unit is not in there. If you going to judge by context why not the obvious as well?

I am judging by the obvious context. That's the whole point.

To go over it all one more time:

The basic assault rules are written in such a way as to be quite clear that they are dealing with assaults involving a single unit attacking a single unit. This is clear because they require you to declare your assault against a single unit, and strictly forbid you from moving into contact with a unit you are not assaulting.

So within that context, any rule in that section that refers to moving into contact with enemy models is talking about that single unit vs single unit assault.

Next, we are presented with a separate section that adds in the option to assault multiple units. This modifies the basic rules slightly, by allowing you to assault other units if they are in range. There is nothing in there, however, that over-rides the rule that you can not move into base contact with a unit that you are not assaulting. So in that context, you can assault other units, but you are not automatically assaulting them simply because they happen to be in range. You have to decide to assault them, because it is the actual decision to assault them that renders them a valid target for your models to move into contact with.

You can't just ignore those rules that don't suit your argument, nor can you take rules out of context and expect them to still mean anything.

Why do you keep insisting that the rules for moving assaulting models are for assaulting a single unit only?

Because they are.

Seriously, go have another read of the section. It specifically deals with choosing a single assault target and moving into base contact with them.

What I know what you'll say... Because of the context right?

No, you have that backwards. The context is what tells us that when they refer to enemy models in that section they are referring to enemy models from the target unit.

The bit that tells us that you declare your assault against a single enemy unit is what tells us that the section is dealing with assaulting a single enemy unit.

The assaulting player is never given permission to choose or declare an assault on an additional unit. If the line "may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting" meant the player must choose or declare on the unit to be 'assaulting' it then they would never be able to assault additional units because the rules for doing so state they must "keep following the rules for moving assaulting models". As you said, the assaulting multiple units rules do not overrule the rules for moving which makes multiple assaults impossible by your thinking.

These rules are not optional. One rule says if possible, I must eat a cookie and another rule says while I'm trying to eat cookies I may find there are other cookies in reach that do not belong to me. If so I can eat those cookies as long as I keep following the rules for consuming cookies. Wait, did you say theres a consuming cookies rule that says I can't eat other peoples cookies? Now I'm confused and hungry.

Seriously, the line "may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting" cannot be forbidding contact for all units you did not declare against or the whole assaulting multiple units section would be canceled by it.

Perhaps we should just roll for it?

yakface wrote:
Then the rules for assaulting multiple enemy units gives you the chance to assault more than that specified unit, but it is not written in a mandatory fashion like the basic assaulting rules are. Instead, it says that remaining models 'can assault models belonging to other enemy units'.

So as the basic assaulting rules only give permission to assault the declared target and the multiple assault rules only give the option to assault another unit, there is nothing there that explicitly says that you ever have to assault a second (or third, etc) enemy unit.

Yes the rules in that section are permissive not compulsory except that they say you "keep following the rules for moving assaulting models" which are nothing if not mandatory. Since the rules come up when you "find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting" it seems the two should be considered as working together instead of as seperate rule sets and a more streamlined view allowing both to be in effect should be given priority.

yakface wrote:
I think you have a valid interpretation of the rules here personally, but it is quite uncommon as you can see in this poll I ran on the topic (it is essentially 'choice B' in the poll...not exactly, but close enough that I think the same people who voted for that interpretation would vote for yours):

I realized early into the thread that no one was going to change there minds about this so I've actually just been waiting for someone to openly admit that my ideas here are perfectly reasonable even though it's not the way it's actually played. Thank you yakface for your comments that now allow me to stop posting on this topic... and get on with my life.

To everyone who insisted I was wrong: The admin says my view makes sense

TY all, goodnight

So no roll then ?

Abandon wrote:I realized early into the thread that no one was going to change there minds about this so I've actually just been waiting for someone to openly admit that my ideas here are perfectly reasonable even though it's not the way it's actually played. Thank you yakface for your comments that now allow me to stop posting on this topic... and get on with my life.

To everyone who insisted I was wrong: The admin says my view makes sense

TY all, goodnight

So the whole point of this discussion was nothing more than to stroke your ego? Just to hear "you're right" from someone? Wow. Issues, party of one, your table is ready...

Magpie wrote:So no roll then ?

Not in a rules debate. Rolling off does not solve the problem in YMDC.

Abandon wrote:I realized early into the thread that no one was going to change there minds about this so I've actually just been waiting for someone to openly admit that my ideas here are perfectly reasonable even though it's not the way it's actually played. Thank you yakface for your comments that now allow me to stop posting on this topic... and get on with my life.

To everyone who insisted I was wrong: The admin says my view makes sense

TY all, goodnight

One guy out of 50 say you make sense? you may want to evaluate the thread a little better.

The admin that said your view makes sense, that holds no more weight than any other random poster on these boards saying that your view makes sense.

In all reality your view is incorrect.

Lord_Mortis wrote:

Abandon wrote:I realized early into the thread that no one was going to change there minds about this so I've actually just been waiting for someone to openly admit that my ideas here are perfectly reasonable even though it's not the way it's actually played. Thank you yakface for your comments that now allow me to stop posting on this topic... and get on with my life.

To everyone who insisted I was wrong: The admin says my view makes sense

TY all, goodnight

So the whole point of this discussion was nothing more than to stroke your ego? Just to hear "you're right" from someone? Wow. Issues, party of one, your table is ready...

More like I was wondering if anyone was willing to break out of the standard mold of how things are done to see the logic of what I was saying. I made my point, got to interact with some bright minded individuals and had a good debate about some rules that looked questionable to me. No offense intended in my bit of humor at the end I really did apreciate all the responces as they got me to think about things I had not considered and tried to return the favor for you all. So really, thank you all.

Abandon wrote:
More like I was wondering if anyone was willing to break out of the standard mold of how things are done to see the logic of what I was saying.

Logic which was incorrect.
I can see how you though that, but it does not make that reading a correct one.