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.

I'm sorry if this has been beaten to death (I assume it has been), but I couldn't see anything in the Yak FAQ. I played a game a while back where my IG unit was charged by a BT crusader squad. There were other units near, but they were not charged. After breaking my unit and wiping them out, the crusader squad rolled a "1" for their massacre. My opponent promptly consolidated into another squad of mine.

I quickly pointed out that he had to stay an inch away from my units unless they were charged, and that meant he had to say over an inch away, and his roll was exactly one inch. My opponent responded that the rule say that no model may be within an inch, but that it could be exactly an inch away. This being a friendly game, I simply rolled with it and didn't contest it (I was also in a new store while on vacation).

So, I suppose my question is how should this be played in the future? I've always played that you must stay 1.0001 inches away, you must deploy 24.00001 inches away, etc.,, but what is the proper rule?

As a follow up, in my first game of a tournament a month ago, I moved an IG infantry squad up 6" from a 12" deployment zone. On his turn, my opponent moved his shining spears the full 12", and then was in range to charge. I protested, pointing out that there is no way he could be within charge range given 24" seperation. He said that he made his moves legally, and seemingly didn't care that his moves lead to a mathematical impossibility. I allowed the charge, because it left his spears in charge range of my rough riders, so if anything I benefited from his manuever. My question is this: to what extent do you protest impossible first turn charges? What should I have done in that situation?

"Within" is used consistently by GW to mean AT the specified distance or closer. Just like a model is within range to be shot by a lascannon if the distance between its base and the firing model’s base is exactly 48”. It’s not 100% consistent (the one place I’m aware that it’s not used in that sense is in the deployment instructions in the mission rules), but for all other purposes (reference the sections on unit coherency and deploying from vehicles, especially the diagram there), it’s always used that way.

In theory, I agree with the BT move. But, I think it's pretty close to being a sneaky move. But, by the rules, he could be 1 inch away and consolidate 1 inch, and it was all well and good.

For the deployment vs. Eldar, same scenario. Technically, it was fine. I guess next time, move 5.9 inches. I do that and then often at the end of the move, "I'm moving just a hair under 6 inches, and by math, that means I'm out of rapid fire/assault/etc. range in your turn, right?" Since, if he deployed 1/16 inch over the line and moves 1/16 inch more, and assaults 1/16 inch more - that's about .2 inches extra movement and can make a difference.

I covered this in a previous thread on the Kustom Force Field: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/206330.page

dietrich wrote:In theory, I agree with the BT move. But, I think it's pretty close to being a sneaky move. But, by the rules, he could be 1 inch away and consolidate 1 inch, and it was all well and good.

For the deployment vs. Eldar, same scenario. Technically, it was fine. I guess next time, move 5.9 inches. I do that and then often at the end of the move, "I'm moving just a hair under 6 inches, and by math, that means I'm out of rapid fire/assault/etc. range in your turn, right?" Since, if he deployed 1/16 inch over the line and moves 1/16 inch more, and assaults 1/16 inch more - that's about .2 inches extra movement and can make a difference.

I guess that its a different style of play.
I would have just move 5- 5/12 inches
But why stop at 16ths?
there are 32nd's, 64th's.......

1. The BT unit may not be within 1" of any unit they were not assaulting during the original assault move Pg 37, BGB).

2. This means they had to be MORE than 1" away from the second unit. Therefor he could not legally consolidate into the second unit.

Within means base edge to base edge is the specified distance or less.

If its not within, its without... I understand everything defined as within to mean = or less than, and everything else to be greater than.

I'm one for this not being a question of legality in a sense, but of sportsmanship.

Your opponent "Didn't seem to care", which takes a lot of fun out of the game. I believe the opponent should have known that charging on the first turn like that was out of the question, and should have played more conservatively.

In my opinion, I would have pointed out the inconsistency of the play, and offer to allow them to remake their move. If they refused this, I would have given it a 4+, and get into verbal agreement over the rule.

I would hate to lose a game over rules like that, but I wouldn't want rules lawyering to ruin the game either.

BTW, did you stomp him anyway?

Since you are worried about an amount equal to 0.0001 inches I would be inclined to say it is okay what your opponent did.

- G

Well heck, why stop there, hey you're only half an inch out of range, take the shot. Awww, you're almost close enough to the objective, only an inch away, sure, you control it.

Point is, what his opponent did was illegal, he ignored the fact that he cannot be within an inch of models he's not assaulting and then forced the issue to get his way. Over an inch away means you're over an inch away, even if the difference is only "0.0001 inches". Bottom line, his opponent cheated. And I don't condone cheating. Do you?

Don Mondo we only know what were the initial and final conditions. It is possible other events may have occurred during the game that brought the other guard units within less than one inch of the BT Crusader squad prior to the massacre.

- G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Don Mondo we only know what were the initial and final conditions. It is possible other events may have occurred during the game that brought the other guard units within less than one inch of the BT Crusader squad prior to the massacre.

- G

There are no conditions I'm aware of that would allow that to occur. Enlighten me if you can think of some. But based on the OPs original post, the BT player cheated by ignoring the rule that he cannot move within an inch of a model he's not assaulting. Bottom line, if you roll a 1 for your Massacre result, you are NOT going to be able to contact another enemy unit because you are not allowed to be close enough to do so.

Consider this... there are certain conditions that allow one unit to move to within one inch or less than an enemy unit. The most obvious case is when you assault a vehicle. If the vehicle is undamaged the charging enemy unit is not locked and will remain in base contact with the vehicle after the assault. Also whenever there exists a state such that a measurement is very close my position is to give it to my opponent. It is certainly possible some models could accidentally be moved closer than one inch during the course of a game. IMO it is not worth making a big deal out of and start asking people if they cheat. FJO

- G

there are also cases of Human error, You could have simply moved up to rapid fire and ended nearby an assault and then that close combat ended with a 1" massacre into your unit. Now is it your opponent cheating or you happen by accident to have given your opponent that advantage? Most of the time we dont measure precisely and there could be fractions of an inch over or under.

You cant count out incompetence on the victim's end by accidentally moving too close.

But in those cases of human error, you can still correct it. If it comes up in our games we go, "wait, that should never have happened because it was illegal." and we rearrange to the point where it would have been legal. There are going to be times when players together make innocent mistakes, but one side still shouldn't get an advantage because of it.

I would say in that case you are 1" away and for instance if you had a gun that fired 1" you could shoot it 1" and hit the squad.

This would be opposed to deployment where if you are 24" away and you have a gun that fires 24" you are just outside of its range.

Tacobake wrote:I would say in that case you are 1" away and for instance if you had a gun that fired 1" you could shoot it 1" and hit the squad.

This would be opposed to deployment where if you are 24" away and you have a gun that fires 24" you are just outside of its range.

Thanks for the replies. It seems that debate is more mixed on this then I thought.

To answer a few questions:

In the BT scenario, I had two squads nearly side by side. He charged one, massacred, rolled a 1, and consolidated. I protested, he said something, there were like 6 dudes from his gaming club and I was from out of state. I didn't argue because I will never play that guy again and while I wanted to win, I didn't want to ruin a fun game with an argument when my opponet probably wasn't being malicious. True, that consolidate basicaly won the game for him, but I figured nothing would be gained by causing a scene. The real question is why the giant crusader squad with chaplain didn't just assualt both squads to begin with. (i.e., even if he didn't consolidate, I would have won because he made an error, not because I played well.)

As for the eldar game, I lost, but not because of the first turn charge. Oddly enough, that probably kept me in the game. I lost because it was take and hold, and he had a falcon left alive that tank shocked me off the objective.... haha!

Tacobake wrote:I would say in that case you are 1" away and for instance if you had a gun that fired 1" you could shoot it 1" and hit the squad.

This would be opposed to deployment where if you are 24" away and you have a gun that fires 24" you are just outside of its range.

This is where I get confused. The rules say you cannot be within an inch of the enemy model. I read that as "you may not be 1" or close to the enemy" while some people read that as "you cannot be closer then exaclty one inch away." the reason this I think my version makes more sense is that what purpose is there to a rule that allows you to be exactly an inch away, but no closer?

Polonius wrote:

Tacobake wrote:I would say in that case you are 1" away and for instance if you had a gun that fired 1" you could shoot it 1" and hit the squad.

This would be opposed to deployment where if you are 24" away and you have a gun that fires 24" you are just outside of its range.

This is where I get confused. The rules say you cannot be within an inch of the enemy model. I read that as "you may not be 1" or close to the enemy" while some people read that as "you cannot be closer then exaclty one inch away." the reason this I think my version makes more sense is that what purpose is there to a rule that allows you to be exactly an inch away, but no closer?

If you're asking (whcih would be why you posted in the first place), and if I was having a dispute about this at a tournament or even a friendly game, I would say that 'within' an inch means just that. Inside of one inch. This would be different from deployment.

Now in this case I can see what might have happened. Say you charge one squad, this could put you < 1" away from another squad. That's an example of when it is easy to consolidate 1" to hit another squad. Since the BT player moved there in his assault phase I don't see why there would be a problem with him being say > 1/2" and < 1" away from another squad.

As for the purpose of the rule, THAT I can answer, it's to differentiate between the assault and movement phase. In order to get to base to base you have to declare a charge in some way. Deep striking etc always puts you at 1" away. Why 1" they could have just easily picked 1/2" or whatever but 1" it is.

It really does depend on the wording of the rule. If you say you cannot be within 1" then you can be at exactly one inch and not be within. Does "within 1 inch" mean <1 or <=1? That is the question.

As the OP says, the consolidation did create the same effect as if the opponent had split the charge among the two units. In that case it's a moot argument since the end result was the same.

My personal take is that "within 1 inch" means less than, not less than or equal to.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Consider this... there are certain conditions that allow one unit to move to within one inch or less than an enemy unit. The most obvious case is when you assault a vehicle. If the vehicle is undamaged the charging enemy unit is not locked and will remain in base contact with the vehicle after the assault. Also whenever there exists a state such that a measurement is very close my position is to give it to my opponent. It is certainly possible some models could accidentally be moved closer than one inch during the course of a game. IMO it is not worth making a big deal out of and start asking people if they cheat. FJO

- G

Sure, I'll give an opponent that fraction of an inch.... when he can legally make that particular move!! So no 24.0001 first turn charges, no 1.001 consolidations, etc etc. In this case, there was no legal way for it to occur. And regarding the vehicle, Wow, moving within an inch of a unit you're assaulting, doesn't break the rules, does it? In other words, that does NOT address the question at hand and so is irrelevant. Now, can you show me something that allows you to move within an inch of a unit you are NOT assaulting? Which is what the BT player supposedly did....?? Didn't think so.......FYI, the studio recommends that after you attack it, you move to just over an inch away once the attacks are resolved.

The Green Git wrote:It really does depend on the wording of the rule. If you say you cannot be within 1" then you can be at exactly one inch and not be within. Does "within 1 inch" mean <1 or <=1? That is the question.

As the OP says, the consolidation did create the same effect as if the opponent had split the charge among the two units. In that case it's a moot argument since the end result was the same.

My personal take is that "within 1 inch" means less than, not less than or equal to.

Sorry, but your personal take is wrong. This is clearly defined in the rulebook, if base edge to base edge is less than or equal to 1", you are within an inch. And you cannot be within an inch of a unit you are not assaulting. There are examples all throughout the rulebook showing that base edge to base edge at whatever distance equals "within" that distance.

within = within or equal to, e.g. a weapon is within range if the target is the maximum distance away or less. A lasconnon doesn't fire 47.0000000001 inches, it fires 48"

also consider the reasoning behind the rules. May not be within an inch unless assulting = squads are clealry separated, and 1 will always = a fail. this is consistant with the rest of the rules. If you can be within an inch and not assult then what would the point of rolling the dice be? Why not just move. The BT rolled the dice and so obviously saw a reason to therefore on declaring he can reach with the minimum possible I'd say he was cheating.

Set up distances are designed to prevent first turn charges except in very rare cicumstances. Hence such close set up in apocalypse - partly to give assult units a chance to engage before a big plate shaped green thing drops on thieir heads and blows them away. If first turn charges were possible then why would you bother playing with guns?

That's what i think anyway.

no 24.0001 first turn charges, no 1.001...

Don Mondo you tell me how to measure 0.001 to 0.0001 on a table and I will be impressed... otherwise I will just continue to consider you the jackass you have always been around here.

- G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

no 24.0001 first turn charges, no 1.001...

Don Mondo you tell me how to measure 0.001 to 0.0001 on a table and I will be impressed... otherwise I will just continue to consider you the jackass you have always been around here.

- G

Well, if necessary, you get out your micrometer and magnification loupe, put it on a light table, and measure it. Or these days, let the computer do it for you, hard part is clicking on the right spots, but that's what magnification is for. Many are able measure to that degree in their line of work. Mine is Imagery Analyst.

Point is, you don't need to be able to measure it to know that it's illegal. And if it's illegal and you KNOW it's illegal, then it's cheating, pure and simple.

So Don you are saying you think people should be able to measure within 0.0001 inches under live game conditions? Maybe the interpretation of one inch for this particular rule is cut and dry but there are many other cases when it is not but can have a huge impact. If someone told me that they can measure to within 0.0001 inches on the gaming table I would laugh in their face.

- G

Green Blow Fly wrote:So Don you are saying you think people should be able to measure within 0.0001 inches under live game conditions? Maybe the interpretation of one inch for this particular rule is cut and dry but there are many other cases when it is not but can have a huge impact. If someone told me that they can measure to within 0.0001 inches on the gaming table I would laugh in their face.

- G

Nope, that's your hangup. All I am saying is that if it's a physical impossibility under the rules, then I don't even have to measure because it's illegal. And since you cannot move within an inch of a model you are not assaulting, then if you roll a 1 on a Massacre result, you are unable to contact any enemy models since you must be, by the rules, over an inch away, no matter how small that bit over an inch is.

In this case you don't have to measure anything at all. The rules forbid someone being within 1" of the unit. Therefore - no matter where they actually were - it was impossible within the game for them to be within 1". Thus a 1" consolidate move would not bring them into base contact.

The measurements aren't needed because the internal reality of the game makes the situation impossible. This is much like an opponent who tells you that you are outside of rapid fire range - but he then moves 6" and assaults 6" and claims that he can reach you. By definition both situations can't be true.

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant that there are other rules cases where it might be impossible to measure one inch exactly. In this particular case I agree that it is very clear that going by this situation you know that the other BT units could not have been less than an inch away. However as has been pointed out there is always the possibility of human error, which does not necessarily mean that anyone cheated. However the best course of action would be to point that no unit could be within less of an inch.

- G