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.

Here is one for you:

If both units’ pile-in moves combined (that’s more than 12" – very unlikely!) would be insufficient to bring the combatants back together, the assault comes to an end and both sides may make consolidation moves instead, as described below.

Is "instead" referring to the pile-in move or the close combat?

Or to put it another way does the unit get a pile-in move + a consolidate or just consolidate?

Thanks!

Well, you can only determine wether the cc continues after the pile-in moves have been made.

So the "instead" cannot refer to the pile-in move. We cannot undo the pile-in move. So the "instead" must refer to the cc.

Thanks for the reply!

Actually I think the pile-in move is what determines if the combat continues. So one way of interpretation is that you get pile-in moves and if that gets you locked in combat you move the models (similar to assault move) but if not you consolidate instead.

Also, undoing moves has precedence. If for instance the last model in a unit that is assaulting has to cross difficult terrain the a test is forced and the whole move has to be redone.

Steelmage99 wrote:Well, you can only determine wether the cc continues after the pile-in moves have been made.

So the "instead" cannot refer to the pile-in move. We cannot undo the pile-in move. So the "instead" must refer to the cc.

I disagree, Given the grammatical tense used in the phrase "If both units' pile-in moves combined would be insufficient to bring the combatants back together" I believe that the only reasonable way to read the rule is that the consolidation moves are made in lieu of the pile-ins, I admit this seems contradictory to some of the earlier statements in that rule section but it is how the rules appear to be written, I would pick the two closest models from opposing sides and measure between them before moving anything and if it were > 12" not make pile-ins and instead consolidate.

I'll agree with the alcoholic organ. The instead means one or the other, not both. It's easy enough to measure 12" between the two closest models before moving anything to see if they can reach each other.

I can't even think of when this could happen... but yea Makes sense. However the player who has priority moves his models first.