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.

insaniak wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Now that is false, because we have it spelled out in very specific terms, the IC must be in base contact to make attacks. This is because they are telling you how IC's opperate differently then every other unit in the game. Otherwise, why have an entire section dedicated only to IC's? They lump all the other units together, save for psykers, and vehicles.

I have not claimed that the IC doesn't need to be in base contact. I've said exactly the opposite, in fact.

Insaniak please tell us how it is nonsensical if it is laid out in a process? You keep saying that but not explaining how it would be nonsensical!

I already did. At least twice.

The rules that you quoted at the start of the thread state that ICs are treated separately to units they are joined to when resolving attacks, and that this means that they need to be in base contact in order to fight. However, if they are considerd to be still part of the unit right up until you start rolling dice, then treating them as a separate unit for resolving attacks wouldn't mean that they need to be in base contact to attack.

So since that interpretation renders the stated consequences of the rule false, that interpretation must be incorrect.

The only way that the IC would be forced to be in base contact as a result of being treated as a separate unit when resolving attacks is if 'resolving attacks' includes determining who can fight.

See they tell you to treat them as separate single model units, so you cannot allocate wounds to different models, use the IC's WS, or T for the dice rolls.
Note that they are in fact in the same unit, otherwise that would mean the very first sentence in the paragraph would be false as well.... Also, because we have rules that do regulate how IC's interact, they would in fact make sense. The sitution here is you have the general, models must be within 2" of another model in their unit to be engaged, and the specific, IC's must be in B2B to make attacks. How is that nonsensical? It telling you that general models have these rules, and specific models have these rules makes perfect sense!

The part you're missing is that the rule isn't a rule that says that ICs must be in base contact.

It's a rule that tells you that ICs are treated as a separate unit when resolving attacks, and that as a consequence of this they have to be in base contact to attack.


But it can only be a consequence if they are a separate unit when you determine who the IC can attack.

insaniak wrote:
The part you're missing is that the rule isn't a rule that says that ICs must be in base contact.

It's a rule that tells you that ICs are treated as a separate unit when resolving attacks, and that as a consequence of this they have to be in base contact to attack.


But it can only be a consequence if they are a separate unit when you determine who the IC can attack.

Wait so a section detailing how certain models interact with different models are not rules? How does that make sense? I think what you are trying to say is that the rule is that IC's are treated as seperate single model units in assault. But that is not what it says, it only specifically details how and when you treat IC's as separate single model units and that is when attacks are resolved. It also goes on to explain how the IC would then be able to attack, otherwise it would not be able to attack at all and then be nonsensical. You sir are also missing the fact that before you even consider them to be seperate single model units, that they are a part of the unit. That is reinforced in the first sentence. This specific section details, how an IC is able to attack, because it specifically, deals only with IC's. Otherwise they would have left it out...

Soo...If a separate unit is not in base to base whatsoever during an assault, does that mean that unit is not involved in the assault?

IIRC ICs can not join a squad that is locked in combat. Sure, they can get in to b2b and assault the squad.

Also, if a unit makes its assault moves, and fails to get into b2b, doesnt that unit just stay right where it was? For example, the enemy is 7 inches away when you declare your assault, or you roll double 1's for your DT.

So, to further clarify my question, if an OL attached to 20 warriors assaults an enemy, with the OL at the veeeery back, way out of 6 inch range to get into b2b, does that not mean the warriors assault, but the OL doesnt (because its considered a separate unit?)

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Wait so a section detailing how certain models interact with different models are not rules?

Where on earth did you get that from?

I think what you are trying to say is that the rule is that IC's are treated as seperate single model units in assault. But that is not what it says, it only specifically details how and when you treat IC's as separate single model units and that is when attacks are resolved.

Yes, that's exactly my point. 'When attacks are resolved' is not a closely defined period of time. As I said before, you can take it to just mean when you actually roll the dice... but that would mean that when you determine who can fight, the IC is still a part of the unit... which brings us back to that nonsensical statement about them having to be in base contact due to not being part of the unit.

Or you can assume that determining who can fight is part of the process for resolving your attacks, in which case when you determine who can fight the IC is treated as a separate unit... just as the rules say he should be.

It also goes on to explain how the IC would then be able to attack, otherwise it would not be able to attack at all and then be nonsensical.

How are you getting that the IC would not be able to attack?

You sir are also missing the fact that before you even consider them to be seperate single model units, that they are a part of the unit.

Er... no, I'm getting that just fine. It's solely responsible for my claim that only treating the actual dice rolling as the 'resolving attacks' period causes an issue with the rules...

insaniak wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Wait so a section detailing how certain models interact with different models are not rules?

Where on earth did you get that from?

I think what you are trying to say is that the rule is that IC's are treated as seperate single model units in assault. But that is not what it says, it only specifically details how and when you treat IC's as separate single model units and that is when attacks are resolved.

Yes, that's exactly my point. 'When attacks are resolved' is not a closely defined period of time. As I said before, you can take it to just mean when you actually roll the dice... but that would mean that when you determine who can fight, the IC is still a part of the unit... which brings us back to that nonsensical statement about them having to be in base contact due to not being part of the unit.

Or you can assume that determining who can fight is part of the process for resolving your attacks, in which case when you determine who can fight the IC is treated as a separate unit... just as the rules say he should be.

It also goes on to explain how the IC would then be able to attack, otherwise it would not be able to attack at all and then be nonsensical.

How are you getting that the IC would not be able to attack?

You sir are also missing the fact that before you even consider them to be seperate single model units, that they are a part of the unit.

Er... no, I'm getting that just fine. It's solely responsible for my claim that only treating the actual dice rolling as the 'resolving attacks' period causes an issue with the rules...

I was confused by your statement and responded with what I was thinking....bit late for me sorry!

Here is the problem with you assertation. Initiative steps are when attacks are resolved and that is closely defined. I am saying that if there was not a section in the BRB detailing how IC's attacked then there would be no way for them to attack otherwise. Hence the IC rules section.

If there wss no section detailing how ICs attacked, they would attack just like any other single model unit of the same Type... which is what happens now. All the IC rules do is tell you how to treat an IC who is joined to another unit.

And the initiative steps are indeed a part of the process of resolving attacks. But so is determining who can fight... for the reasons I have already explained.

I may be wrong but this is how I always saw it.

I always read the line about resolving attacks as being down to treating an IC and a unit he is attached to as seperate when the other guy is allocating attacks and wounds.

If I have an IC in the middle of a blob of models within 2" of a model in b2b with another unit, does the IC not get to make attacks?
Edit: my bad, it says he doesn't in the brb. You may not believe it but it has never come up that I didn't have my IC's at the front of the pile.

No, he doesn't. He has to be in base contact to attack.

Hmm. I did a lot of reading, and found something interesting.

There is no rule that stops an IC from being his own unit. The only rule that could be construed to say so would be the assault rules for ICs, but it merely says he is a part of the unit. It says he is a unit, and part of a unit. There is nothing, however, that revokes his "unithood." Therefore an IC can be allocated attacks in combat REGARDLESS of whether or not he's considered a unit "when attacks are resolved." Because he was, in fact, a separate unit within the unit when the assault started.

So Insaniak's position is correct, even assuming the rules work the way Kapatalist says they do.

Also, for the sake of the children, can we now agree not to revoke anyone's unit?

PS: When reading the IC rules, I found the most hilarious thing. Turns out that an IC that is also a monstrous creature can be fired at separate from whatever unit he has joined.

I think you have misunderstood the topic

In what way? Because any assault including an IC is inherently a multiple combat, you must follow the rules for multiple combats regardless. That's my point.

So are you saying that the IC section of the rules is meaningless?

Not at all. The rules for shooting still apply. The rules for assault still apply (although they include slightly confusing/redundant language, assuming you take Kapitalist's position). All of the other rules having to do with ICs still apply. My interpretation does not conflict with any of them.

liturgies of blood wrote:So are you saying that the IC section of the rules is meaningless?

I love it when people come in late, but don't read the thread

IC rules reinforce the status of the IC being same unit for shooting/powers purposes but different for assault. That's more or less it.

I love when people don't understand context.
When I said the rules of IC's in a thread about cc, I meant the rules of IC's in CC.
I did read the thread, your ability to jump to conclusions if it could be applied to track and field bring home gold to the USA in the olympics.

IC rules don't reinfoce they state that an IC is the same unit for shooting and taking shooting.

Kitzz wrote:Not at all. The rules for shooting still apply. The rules for assault still apply (although they include slightly confusing/redundant language, assuming you take Kapitalist's position). All of the other rules having to do with ICs still apply. My interpretation does not conflict with any of them.

But it does, simply because it says in the IC & assaults section that they are part of the unit. You at that point are using selective reading and disregarding a certain section. Also, there is something I just saw in the BRB, models in b2b are considered 'lock in combat', which means those models must attack that unit, when attacks are made! So at this point when you go to make attacks and allocate them this allows IC's to work as they tell you they do and makes it so they are also part of th unit at the begining of combat and treated as separate single model units when attacks are resolved in the initiative step.

Also insaniak, I do not believe that who can fight, and the initiative steps are considered the same "phase". They to me are two separate phases, and while one affects the other, they are still thier own separate things. Seeings how they have two separate section in the brb, and at the start of an assault you check who is engaged, and at the start of the initiative step (I10) are two completely different times.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Also insaniak, I do not believe that who can fight, and the initiative steps are considered the same "phase". They to me are two separate phases, and while one affects the other, they are still thier own separate things. Seeings how they have two separate section in the brb, and at the start of an assault you check who is engaged, and at the start of the initiative step (I10) are two completely different times.

Then the statement in the rulebook that ICs need to be in base contact to attack is an incorrect conclusion, as they do not, in fact, need to be in base contact.


That's where your interpretation leads, and it's clearly not where the rules intend you to go. This is one of those very rare situations where we have an unclear rule (the reference to 'when attacks are resolved, with no clearly defined timeframe) that is immediately followed by a statement as to the writer's intent (that treating them as a separate unit for resolving attacks should result in the IC having to be in base contact to assault).

If you choose to not include determining who can fight as part of the process of resolving attacks, you are either ignoring that very clearly stated intent, or creating an additional rule that creates a lop-sided situation where a model within 2" of an IC can attack while the IC can't when their positions are reversed.

Assuming that determining who can fight is a part of the process of resolving attacks resolves both of those issues, and leaves the rules working as per the stated intent.

lol No one answered my question! Lol.

It got a little buried. There are a bunch of different questions in your post, though.

You are correct in that units need to be engaged in order to attack.

You are also correct in that units that can't make it into base contact don't make assault moves. That doesn't apply to IC's though, as at the point that assault moves are made they are still a part of the unit they are joined to. So long as the squad makes it into combat, the IC will tag along. He has to, since at that point he is forbidden from leaving them.

.

insaniak wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Also insaniak, I do not believe that who can fight, and the initiative steps are considered the same "phase". They to me are two separate phases, and while one affects the other, they are still thier own separate things. Seeings how they have two separate section in the brb, and at the start of an assault you check who is engaged, and at the start of the initiative step (I10) are two completely different times.

Then the statement in the rulebook that ICs need to be in base contact to attack is an incorrect conclusion, as they do not, in fact, need to be in base contact.


That's where your interpretation leads, and it's clearly not where the rules intend you to go. This is one of those very rare situations where we have an unclear rule (the reference to 'when attacks are resolved, with no clearly defined timeframe) that is immediately followed by a statement as to the writer's intent (that treating them as a separate unit for resolving attacks should result in the IC having to be in base contact to assault).

If you choose to not include determining who can fight as part of the process of resolving attacks, you are either ignoring that very clearly stated intent, or creating an additional rule that creates a lop-sided situation where a model within 2" of an IC can attack while the IC can't when their positions are reversed.

Assuming that determining who can fight is a part of the process of resolving attacks resolves both of those issues, and leaves the rules working as per the stated intent.

could it be that the are telling you that is how IC's in fact act without it being a conclusion? Is there a chance that you are reading it as a bi-product, instead of a declarative statement? If you assume it is a conclusion then you are dismissing other important features without a framework with which to do so. They tell you specifically how things work in a rule book. The reason they have IC's and assaults section in the BRB is so they can tell you how they work differently from normal units. I am not saying that IC's can attack without being in b2b. I am saying that IC's work as part of the unit, for determining who is engaged. As far as resolving attacks, you can only ever resolve melee attacks in very specific instances. 1 in assaults during initiative steps, or 2 DOG. Since this specifically deals exclusively with IC's and assault we can disregard DOG. So how is it that you assume that determining who is engaged, and following initiative order are the same step. When you have to do one before you may start the other?

As far as me saying that IC's can attack without being in b2b I would like to see that. I believe that is what you are thinking I am trying to go to. In fact I am saying, and am backed by RAW, that IC's are a part of the unit they assault with, up until you allocate attacks. Which in clearly stated during initiative steps. Saying that it is an unclear statement when you have exaclty the opposite situation staring you in the face is dumbfounding to me.... You say there is intent, I say RAW says differently, are we discussing RAW or RAI?

I dont know if its just me, but i feel this whole thread has confused things...

What I (and my opponents also do, furthermore, they let me do this) do from a PLAYING standpoint (not going off of RAW, RAI but what actually goes on in the game.

Declare an assault.
Move as many of my units as possible into b2b with the opposing unit.
Defenders react (Pile ins etc)
Determine who can assault what, when.
If my IC is not in b2b with the opponent, he can neither assault, nor be assaulted. This, to me, means i can not allocate wounds to him, nor can he cause wounds on the enemy.
If my IC is in b2b with the enemy, they must choose to attack my IC, not attack my IC and my IC has to choose who to attack (if there are multiple enemies in b2b. From here, i measure who is in 2 inches to assault, and then roll my attacks, with the IC separately, and all the different units in the assault separately...as determined by Initiative order...

What am i missing that is wrong here?

Kaptialist, if you refuse to read my argument, then please don't respond to it.

I never said the IC wasn't part of the unit. What I am saying is that he is a unit within another unit. Again, using that interpretation, your position is still incorrect.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:could it be that the are telling you that is how IC's in fact act without it being a conclusion?

Not the way it is written, no.

"...and it means that they have to be in base contact with the enemy to be able to attack."

The 'and it means' at the start of that statement makes it a conclusion. As I said before, it's not a rule in its own right... it's a side effect of the rle that is stated drectly before it. IC's must be in base contact to attack because they are treated as a separate unit when attacks are resolved.

So how is it that you assume that determining who is engaged, and following initiative order are the same step. When you have to do one before you may start the other?

I have to sand down the wall before I can apply paint to it. Two separate steps, one of which has to be completed before I can start the other... but both a part of the process of painting the wall.

Likewise, I have to determine who can fight before I can make my attack rolls. Two separate steps, but both a part of the process of resolving attacks.

As far as me saying that IC's can attack without being in b2b I would like to see that. I believe that is what you are thinking I am trying to go to.

No, I'm saying it's the unintended side effect of your interpretation of the rules. If you discount determining who can fight from the process of resolving attacks, there is nothing stopping an IC from attacking just by being within 2" of a squad member who is in base contact. Which the IC section is telling us is not the intended outcome of the rules.

In fact I am saying, and am backed by RAW, that IC's are a part of the unit they assault with, up until you allocate attacks.

I'm saying exactly the same thing. The difference is simply that you're choosing to not include the part of the process that allows the rule to function as intended.

You say there is intent, I say RAW says differently, are we discussing RAW or RAI?

Both. The RAW is unclear (due to there being no specific stated definition of exactly which parts of the close combat process are included in 'resolving attacks') but we have a statement of intention that tells us what the outcome of the RAW is supposed to be.

My interpretation fits that stated intention. Yours doesn't.

Basimpo wrote:I dont know if its just me, but i feel this whole thread has confused things...

What I (and my opponents also do, furthermore, they let me do this) do from a PLAYING standpoint (not going off of RAW, RAI but what actually goes on in the game.

1.Declare an assault.
2. Move as many of my units as possible into b2b with the opposing unit.
3. Defenders react (Pile ins etc)
4. Determine who can assault what, when.
5. If my IC is not in b2b with the opponent, he can neither assault, nor be assaulted. This, to me, means i can not allocate wounds to him, nor can he cause wounds on the enemy.
6. If my IC is in b2b with the enemy, they must choose to attack my IC, not attack my IC and my IC has to choose who to attack (if there are multiple enemies in b2b.
7. From here, i measure who is in 2 inches to assault, and then roll my attacks, with the IC separately, and all the different units in the assault separately...as determined by Initiative order...

What am i missing that is wrong here?

Only thing I can see is that in step 6, your opponent may have no choice in who they're going to attack, If the enemy model is in btb with your IC and nothing else, it must attack the IC. Also, in 7, enemy models within 2" but in btb with only one unit must attack the unit they are in btb with.

I say that the specific part about IC's needing to be in B2B is preventing them from just being 2" from someone in base contact prevents that. How is that a side effect when we both agree that that is how it works? We both think that IC's have to be in base, because it is spelled out in the IC section. I am confused how that is a bi-product of my interpretation when you are thinking of what I am trying to say. That is what you think I am trying to say, and have never once said could or would happen.

I am simply saying that when you determine who is engaged, IC's are a part of the unit. When attacks are being allocated and rolled, they are then treated as single model units. Then after attacks are resolved they are again treated as part of the unit.

I also would like to know Insaniak do you consider pile-in moves and consolidation moves as part of that process?

So...everyones in agreement with what everyone else is saying, and so far everything seems more fuddled than what we began with...I fail to see how this benefits anyone?

Not to sound inflammatory towards the OP, but, he seemed to post something, and then severely disagree with everyone. Now the end result seems to be that everyone was actually in agreement in the first place...

I just want to point out that anyone who is trying to claim that an IC is part of the unit when determining which models are engaged, there is a fundamental flaw with that reasoning:

If you assume that the IC is still part of the unit when seeing which models are engaged with whom, that would mean that when the IC then suddenly becomes a separate unit after that determination has already been met that this new IC unit would not be engaged with anybody.

So in essence you're saying that an IC would never be able to attack or be attacked back because at the time engagement is checked nobody is locked with the IC unit since at the time that unit doesn't exist.

As obviously this is false based on the examples presented in the rules we can clearly gather that the IC does indeed count as being a separate unit at the time engagement is checked for.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:I say that the specific part about IC's needing to be in B2B is preventing them from just being 2" from someone in base contact prevents that.

There is no specific part about the IC's needing to be in Base contact. Just the part that explains that they have to be as a result of them counting as a separate unit for resolving attacks.

That is what makes it a side effect.

The rules don't say 'ICs have to be in base contact in order to assault.' It's not a rule in its own right... it's an explanation that the IC has to be in base contact because he is a separate unit for resolving attacks.

That's what you keep missing. The part about ICs needing to be in base contact is a stated side effect, not a requirement.

How is that a side effect when we both agree that that is how it works? We both think that IC's have to be in base, because it is spelled out in the IC section. I am confused how that is a bi-product of my interpretation when you are thinking of what I am trying to say. That is what you think I am trying to say, and have never once said could or would happen.

The reason that we disagree is that your interpretation results in squad members being able to attack through being within 2" of the IC, and because regardless of what you keep claiming the rules say, your interpretation also results in the IC not having to be in base contact.

Not because you say that's how it works, but because that is how it works if we follow your interpretation. It's the end result of treating what is actually written on the page as meaning what you claim it means.

I am simply saying that when you determine who is engaged, IC's are a part of the unit. When attacks are being allocated and rolled, they are then treated as single model units. Then after attacks are resolved they are again treated as part of the unit.

Yes, I get that. And I'm pointing out that this results in the IC not needing to be in base contact, because when you determine whether or not he is engaged, he just has to be within 2" of a squad mate.

Which we both agree isn't how the rules are supposed to work. You can't have it both ways...

I also would like to know Insaniak do you consider pile-in moves and consolidation moves as part of that process?

Since they happen after determining assault results, the answer would clearly be no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basimpo wrote:So...everyones in agreement with what everyone else is saying,

Er... no?

Not even close.

There are two different interpretations here. The OP's version allows friendly models within 2" of an IC to fight as if they are engaged, and he thinks it requires the IC to be in base contact in order to attack when in actual fact it does nothing of the sort.

The other interpretation is that the IC is treated as a separate unit from the time when you determine who can fight, in which case the IC needs to be in base contact as the rules state is supposed to happen, and his squad members likewise need to be in base contact or within 2" of a squadmate other than the IC.

The latter is backed up by what is actually written in the rules. The former is the result of misreading the IC section, and taking a stated consequence of a rule as a rule in its own right.

Insaniak the reason why I asked that question is because those actions are done at then end of combat or after all attacks have been resolved. I point this out because, checking who is engaged is done at the start of the combat and would leave an inconsistency in your assertation that it is a phase with multiple things happening. just like after you paint the wall you need to let them dry...

Also, it does say that they have to be in base contact to be able to attack. Not be a part of the assault but specfically attack. So it does stand alone. And also means he has to be in base in order to attack....

I have still yet to see anyone address the treat=is question I posed and Yakface I will answer your statement in a bit I have some reading to do!