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.

Charistoph,

you keep confusing "model engage" with "unit engage" and then insisting on a hyper-literal definition of "at the same time".


If you are deliberately smudge "unit engage" with "model engage" you cannot logically be hyper-literal with regards to "at the same time".


The rule only requires that 'you think' that the 'unit can engage' ('engage' here being the dictionary term) a primary and a secondary target 'at the same time' - which would be on completion of the collective charge move. If you insist that the rule is actually lying to us and instead referring to the first charging model then you are adding to the rules and not following RAW and need to mark your answers HYWPI.

Yeah, the "you think" clause in there certainly makes the whole argument moot anyway.

I think that I can charge two units 20" apart. Therefore I can declare one as the secondary target, regardless of whether I legally can make it in to contact. All it requires is that I think that I can


I also don't agree with Christoph's concept that you can engage a model that is not yet in combat by being in combat with a nearby model from a different unit. If that were true I think there are a ton of rules abuses that have previously not been considered.

A unit of Orks consisting of a Nob, a Boy, and a Warboss want to charge a unit of Space Marine Bikes, and if possible, a Dreadnought. The Nob is about 2" away from the lead Biker and the other Orks are spaced out just under 2" behind each other. The Dreadnought is off to the side of the Ork unit by about 1.5" and is about 2.5" from the Warboss.

The Orks declare the Bikes as their primary target and the Dreadnought as their secondary target. They roll a 3 for their charge range. The Nob moves directly forward into contact with the lead Biker. As the Boy is about 5" away from the closest Bike he cannot make it into contact with the primary target. He also can't make it into contact with the Dreadnought and end up in coherency with the previously moved Nob so he instead ends his move within 2" of the Nob and a little over 1" from the Dreadnought. Now it is time to move the Warboss. He clearly can't make it to the Bikes as he is almost 8" away. He also can't even get within 2" of the Nob and thus Engage the Bikes (though this isn't really important for this example) as he is about 6.5" from the Nob. Instead, he moves into contact with the Dreadnought and into coherency with the Boy.

Now, I'll admit that this is a very contrived example, but I wanted to keep things simple. Using this method an infinitely large unit of conga lined Orks could charge two units infinitely far apart. In this example if the Orks rolled too high for their charge range they would be forced to all charge the Bikes, but if you simply added a huge cluster of Orks to the unit then rolling too high would be eliminated as a problem.

Does anyone besides Charistoph think I'm doing anything incorrectly in this scenario?

Charistoph, where exactly do you think I'm going wrong (assuming you think that)?

Nope, that looks spot on.

Nice models, too

Trasvi wrote:Yeah, the "you think" clause in there certainly makes the whole argument moot anyway.

I think that I can charge two units 20" apart. Therefore I can declare one as the secondary target, regardless of whether I legally can make it in to contact. All it requires is that I think that I can

Sure, if you want to ignore everything after "you think", which means you aren't thinking. It's not if you can reach both units. That is not the question. The question is if the other units are close enough to get caught up in the Combat you are going to be making. That is what "engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" is referring to.

Trasvi wrote:I also don't agree with Christoph's concept that you can engage a model that is not yet in combat by being in combat with a nearby model from a different unit. If that were true I think there are a ton of rules abuses that have previously not been considered.

Can you actually disprove mine without going to RAI? Such as without using, "I don't think engage means the definition provided in the book"? Can you demonstrate how to engage a model you otherwise wouldn't be able to get in to Base Contact with?

Cal Hoskins wrote:The Orks declare the Bikes as their primary target and the Dreadnought as their secondary target.

At this point it is illegal. The Dreadnought cannot be engaged at the same time as you Charge the Bikers. He's over 2" away from the nearest Biker. What the Charge Roll ends up being is irrelevant at this point, you could fail the Charge and not move anything. How close the Dreadnought is to the Orks is irrelevant, as "engage" only cares if they are in base contact or within 2" of a friendly that is. If you roll 12" the Warboss would be able to go the whole way and make it to the Bikers. The Dreadnought not being within 2" of the Biker, does not qualify as being able to be Engaged without someone going in to Base Contact with it. If you are going in to Base Contact with it, you aren't going in to Base Contact with the Biker at the same time.

The check to see if it is possible is similar to when you check to see if you can Charge. Can you see the Secondary Target? Is the Secondary Target in Range? If you Charged your Primary Target, would it be close enough to be considered "engaged"?

 Charistoph wrote:

At this point it is illegal. The Dreadnought cannot be engaged at the same time as you Charge the Bikers. He's over 2" away from the nearest Biker. What the Charge Roll ends up being is irrelevant at this point, you could fail the Charge and not move anything. How close the Dreadnought is to the Orks is irrelevant, as "engage" only cares if they are in base contact or within 2" of a friendly that is. If you roll 12" the Warboss would be able to go the whole way and make it to the Bikers. The Dreadnought not being within 2" of the Biker, does not qualify as being able to be Engaged without someone going in to Base Contact with it. If you are going in to Base Contact with it, you aren't going in to Base Contact with the Biker at the same time.

While I can see where you're getting that from, it's not what the rules actually say. You're adding a timing clause (that the 'same time' means 'when the first model to charge moves into contact') that simply diesn't exist in the rules.

Having the unit engage the secondary target at any point during the resolution of its charge is more than sufficient to satisfy the requirement that they be engaged at the same time as the primary target.

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:Yeah, the "you think" clause in there certainly makes the whole argument moot anyway.

I think that I can charge two units 20" apart. Therefore I can declare one as the secondary target, regardless of whether I legally can make it in to contact. All it requires is that I think that I can

Sure, if you want to ignore everything after "you think", which means you aren't thinking. It's not if you can reach both units. That is not the question. The question is if the other units are close enough to get caught up in the Combat you are going to be making. That is what "engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" is referring to.

If I say "I think I can do that", then I think I can do that. There's no clause in the rules for psychoanalysis to determine the depth of my thought process, nor any clause that says anyone that disagrees with you is categorically not thinking.

Trasvi wrote:I also don't agree with Christoph's concept that you can engage a model that is not yet in combat by being in combat with a nearby model from a different unit. If that were true I think there are a ton of rules abuses that have previously not been considered.

Can you actually disprove mine without going to RAI? Such as without using, "I don't think engage means the definition provided in the book"? Can you demonstrate how to engage a model you otherwise wouldn't be able to get in to Base Contact with?

Trasvi wrote:
But you are going a step further and claiming you can engage models without having a single model in BTB with their unit, so long as you engage a close by enemy unit.

As far as I can see, he's actually correct on that point.

Previous editions required you to be within 2" of a friendly model from the same unit in order to be engaged. 7th ed removed that requirement, and there's no longer anything I can see that actually requires a model to be in base contact in order for the unit to be pulled into the combat.. they need base contact in order to successfully charge. But when it comes time to fight, everyone within 2" fights.

Which is incorrect according to the "in the same combat" clause of engagement. .

That's just referring to the same combat that you're trying to determine if your model is a part of.

 insaniak wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
But you are going a step further and claiming you can engage models without having a single model in BTB with their unit, so long as you engage a close by enemy unit.

As far as I can see, he's actually correct on that point.

Previous editions required you to be within 2" of a friendly model from the same unit in order to be engaged. 7th ed removed that requirement, and there's no longer anything I can see that actually requires a model to be in base contact in order for the unit to be pulled into the combat.. they need base contact in order to successfully charge. But when it comes time to fight, everyone within 2" fights.

I think you are overlooking the fact that a unit has to be Locked In Combat in order to have permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase (so no pile-in, permission to move closer than 1", or allocate wounds to the unit, etc.). Remember, this is a permissive ruleset.

'Who Can Fight' disagrees with you.

There is no requirement to be Locked. Just within 2".

 insaniak wrote:
'Who Can Fight' disagrees with you.

There is no requirement to be Locked. Just within 2".

That rule happens in the context of the Fight Sub-Phase (initiative steps, etc.) . A unit is not allowed to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase unless it is Locked In Combat.



If a unit is not Locked In Combat it is not in any combat and skips the Fight Sub-Phase entirely. A unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.

col_impact wrote:

That rule happens in the context of the Fight Sub-Phase (initiative steps, etc.) . A unit is not allowed to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase unless it is Locked In Combat.

Spoiler:

LOCKED IN COMBAT
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight in the Assault phase.

Your quote doesn't say what you're claiming. It mentions that units locked in combat must fight. It doesn't say that only units locked in combat fight. And we then have your second quote, which tells us that any model within 2"/6" of a friendly model in the combat will also fight.

If a unit is not Locked In Combat it is not in any combat and skips the Fight Sub-Phase entirely.

Why?

A unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.

Except that the rule you quoted quite specifically says that he is in the combat because he has a friendly model nearby who is in base contact in that combat. It doesn't require him to be locked, just nearby.

insaniak wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

At this point it is illegal. The Dreadnought cannot be engaged at the same time as you Charge the Bikers. He's over 2" away from the nearest Biker. What the Charge Roll ends up being is irrelevant at this point, you could fail the Charge and not move anything. How close the Dreadnought is to the Orks is irrelevant, as "engage" only cares if they are in base contact or within 2" of a friendly that is. If you roll 12" the Warboss would be able to go the whole way and make it to the Bikers. The Dreadnought not being within 2" of the Biker, does not qualify as being able to be Engaged without someone going in to Base Contact with it. If you are going in to Base Contact with it, you aren't going in to Base Contact with the Biker at the same time.

While I can see where you're getting that from, it's not what the rules actually say. You're adding a timing clause (that the 'same time' means 'when the first model to charge moves into contact') that simply diesn't exist in the rules.

Having the unit engage the secondary target at any point during the resolution of its charge is more than sufficient to satisfy the requirement that they be engaged at the same time as the primary target.

I am not saying that "at the same time" is only referring to "when the first model to charge moves into contact", nor have I ever actually stated as such. I will say that is the earliest point at which the condition of being engaged can be established IS when the Initial Charger is moved. The capacity to engage a Secondary Target can be fulfilled by any of the Charging Models following the Initial. It is this capacity of doing so that we are checking, not simply how many units are in Charge range.

If all that was in consideration was who was in Charge range, it would have been far simpler, easier, and clearer to just simply state that. But that is not what is stated. The Secondary Target must be engaged at the same time as the Assault on the Primary Target. The capacity to do so between two units over 2" apart is a physical impossibility without making it a self-fulfilling condition, i.e. moving two models in wildly different directions at the same time to force a simultaneous base contact.

Trasvi wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:Yeah, the "you think" clause in there certainly makes the whole argument moot anyway.

I think that I can charge two units 20" apart. Therefore I can declare one as the secondary target, regardless of whether I legally can make it in to contact. All it requires is that I think that I can

Sure, if you want to ignore everything after "you think", which means you aren't thinking. It's not if you can reach both units. That is not the question. The question is if the other units are close enough to get caught up in the Combat you are going to be making. That is what "engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" is referring to.

If I say "I think I can do that", then I think I can do that. There's no clause in the rules for psychoanalysis to determine the depth of my thought process, nor any clause that says anyone that disagrees with you is categorically not thinking.

If all that is provided in that statement, you would be correct. However, that is not all that is in that statement. There is more to the sentence after it says "you think". That provides the context to what you are supposed to be thinking. It literally says, "if you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." The underlined part is not psychoanalyzing mumbo jumbo, it is a clause for establishing what opportunity you are to be looking for.

Trasvi wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:I also don't agree with Christoph's concept that you can engage a model that is not yet in combat by being in combat with a nearby model from a different unit. If that were true I think there are a ton of rules abuses that have previously not been considered.

Can you actually disprove mine without going to RAI? Such as without using, "I don't think engage means the definition provided in the book"? Can you demonstrate how to engage a model you otherwise wouldn't be able to get in to Base Contact with?

Of course you a model not in BTB can be engaged, if it is near an friendly model that is engaged in the same combat. But you are going a step further and claiming you can engage models without having a single model in BTB with their unit, so long as you engage a close by enemy unit.

And at the point we are looking at determining if a unit classifies as a Secondary Target, nothing is engaged in combat by the Charging unit. It simply is asking if you can do this.

Trasvi wrote:Which is incorrect according to the "in the same combat" clause of engagement. You must be in the combat to be engaged.

Nothing actually says the model in question to be engaged has to be in the same combat, that is an assumption. The placement of "in the same combat" can just as easily apply to the combat in question.

I will note that I have noted that this is a case of interpretation.

Even if that was the case, how can you possibly fulfill the capacity of fulfilling even this interpretation of connection by two potential targets so far apart? Remember, the unit has to be engaged at the same time as the Primary Assault, i.e. when models are moving on the Primary Target. You are seeing if that Secondary Target is close enough to draw it into the same exact combat as the Primary Target is involved in. Doing a conga line does not do this.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:

That rule happens in the context of the Fight Sub-Phase (initiative steps, etc.) . A unit is not allowed to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase unless it is Locked In Combat.

Spoiler:

LOCKED IN COMBAT
If a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy model (for any reason), then it is locked in combat. Units that are locked in close combat must fight in the Assault phase.

Your quote doesn't say what you're claiming. It mentions that units locked in combat must fight. It doesn't say that only units locked in combat fight. And we then have your second quote, which tells us that any model within 2"/6" of a friendly model in the combat will also fight.

The model must already be in the same combat as the friendly model within 2"/6" that is in base to base contact with an enemy model.

 insaniak wrote:

If a unit is not Locked In Combat it is not in any combat and skips the Fight Sub-Phase entirely.

Why?

This is a permissive ruleset. This is the only place in the rules where a unit is granted permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase.

 insaniak wrote:

A unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.

Except that the rule you quoted quite specifically says that he is in the combat because he has a friendly model nearby who is in base contact in that combat. It doesn't require him to be locked, just nearby.

You are overlooking the fact that the model must already be in the same combat as the friendly model who is in base to base contact with an enemy model (who is also in that same combat).

If model A is already in the same combat as a friendly model in base to base combat with an enemy model and within 2"/6" of that friendly then model A is considered engaged. Engaged models must fight.

If model A is already in the same combat as a friendly model in base to base combat with an enemy model BUT NOT within 2"/6" of that friendly then model A is considered unengaged. Unengaged models cannot attack even though they are in the combat.

So once again, a unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.

Charistoph, every time you post I just get more confused.

Can you post a diagram of specifically what condition you think needs to be fulfilled for a multi assault to occur?

 Charistoph wrote:

insaniak wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

At this point it is illegal. The Dreadnought cannot be engaged at the same time as you Charge the Bikers. He's over 2" away from the nearest Biker. What the Charge Roll ends up being is irrelevant at this point, you could fail the Charge and not move anything. How close the Dreadnought is to the Orks is irrelevant, as "engage" only cares if they are in base contact or within 2" of a friendly that is. If you roll 12" the Warboss would be able to go the whole way and make it to the Bikers. The Dreadnought not being within 2" of the Biker, does not qualify as being able to be Engaged without someone going in to Base Contact with it. If you are going in to Base Contact with it, you aren't going in to Base Contact with the Biker at the same time.

While I can see where you're getting that from, it's not what the rules actually say. You're adding a timing clause (that the 'same time' means 'when the first model to charge moves into contact') that simply diesn't exist in the rules.

Having the unit engage the secondary target at any point during the resolution of its charge is more than sufficient to satisfy the requirement that they be engaged at the same time as the primary target.

I am not saying that "at the same time" is only referring to "when the first model to charge moves into contact", nor have I ever actually stated as such. I will say that is the earliest point at which the condition of being engaged can be established IS when the Initial Charger is moved. The capacity to engage a Secondary Target can be fulfilled by any of the Charging Models following the Initial. It is this capacity of doing so that we are checking, not simply how many units are in Charge range.

The rule is not asking you to handle 'engage' at the model level. It is asking for you to handle 'engage' at the unit level (which is the dictionary definition of 'engage' here by the way). 'At the same time' can only refer to when the unit has finished collectively charging. If you try to break apart the unit and sequence it at the model level you are adding to the rules and breaking from the RAW.

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:Which is incorrect according to the "in the same combat" clause of engagement. You must be in the combat to be engaged.

Nothing actually says the model in question to be engaged has to be in the same combat, that is an assumption. The placement of "in the same combat" can just as easily apply to the combat in question.

I will note that I have noted that this is a case of interpretation.

Even if that was the case, how can you possibly fulfill the capacity of fulfilling even this interpretation of connection by two potential targets so far apart? Remember, the unit has to be engaged at the same time as the Primary Assault, i.e. when models are moving on the Primary Target. You are seeing if that Secondary Target is close enough to draw it into the same exact combat as the Primary Target is involved in. Doing a conga line does not do this.

I know you are willing to consider the possibility that "in the same combat" could mean "in the same combat as the model you are checking for engagement" rather than your interpretation of "in the same combat we are currently conducting". Are you willing to admit that "at the same time" might mean something other than "at the moment a charging model ends its movement"? You do see that you are applying your interpretation of "at the same time" rather than some well defined rule of timing, right? "At the same time" does not always mean during a single moment, even within the scope of the 40k rules. For example, this is from the Choose A Combat section of the Assault rules: "There may be several separate assaults being fought at the same time in different parts of the battlefield." Clearly you don't conduct all the combats simultaneously, as you are specifically told to do them sequentially. This "at the same time" merely means during the same sub-phase or possibly phase, both of which could easily by applied to the Secondary Target definition.

col_impact wrote:


The model must already be in the same combat as the friendly model within 2"/6" that is in base to base contact with an enemy model.

So once again, a unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.

It's in the combat the moment you look at the rules for who can fight.

The part about the friendly model being in the same combat doesn't mean the model you're checking had to already be considered part of the combat. It just means that you can't declare a model add involved in This combat over here because it's in range of a model in that combat over there .


Whether or not that's how GW intended it to work is, of course, anybody's guess. Once I would have said it was an obvious oversight... But there's been so much silliness in 7th, and so much doubling down on the illogical and downright nonsensical rulings in the FAQ that I honestly can't even guess what GW thought they were doing with this rule.

Cal Hoskins wrote:I know you are willing to consider the possibility that "in the same combat" could mean "in the same combat as the model you are checking for engagement" rather than your interpretation of "in the same combat we are currently conducting". Are you willing to admit that "at the same time" might mean something other than "at the moment a charging model ends its movement"? You do see that you are applying your interpretation of "at the same time" rather than some well defined rule of timing, right? "At the same time" does not always mean during a single moment, even within the scope of the 40k rules. For example, this is from the Choose A Combat section of the Assault rules: "There may be several separate assaults being fought at the same time in different parts of the battlefield." Clearly you don't conduct all the combats simultaneously, as you are specifically told to do them sequentially. This "at the same time" merely means during the same sub-phase or possibly phase, both of which could easily by applied to the Secondary Target definition.

I have explained that several times now. Charging models are not noted as Charging at the same time like shooting Weapon Groups. I am not adding any interpretation of "at the same time" that is not considered standard use nor against any definition in the rulebook, if you are aware of one, please properly reference it for review.

You have to Charge in order to get in to Combat. That the combats themselves are considered "happening at the same time" is meaningless to what happens before the Combat is decided. By applying the standard of "Choose a Combat" you are taking the standard of one sub-phase and applying it to another sub-phase without permission.

Should we then consider all shots fired during a Shooting Phase to be simultaneous just because all shots by a Weapon Group are are considered fired at the same time? That is the equivalent to what you are saying.

Trasvi wrote:Charistoph, every time you post I just get more confused.

Can you post a diagram of specifically what condition you think needs to be fulfilled for a multi assault to occur?

I'll do my best. I am not a graphic design artist. The following pictures have Green and Blue being different units that are part of the same army and Battle Brothers or the same Faction. The Red unit is the Charging Unit considering if it qualifies.

In the first one, the blue unit has a model 1.5" away of a green model (within 2"). So if Red Charges, either Blue or Green could be the Primary while the other is Secondary.

In the second one, the blue unit's model is 6" away from a green model (not within 2"). So, if Red Charges Green, Blue would not be engaged. If Red Charges Blue, Green would not be engaged. This is the case no matter how Red's models move or how close Red's models end up to the unit they did not Charge.

This is what you are to check before declaring a Multiple Charge. The actual results of a Charge Roll are not taken in to account at this time, just the possibilities. For example, if Green was behind an LoS-blocking Wall (as in the third), they would not qualify as a Secondary Target as you could not see them to Charge, even though they are in range to be engaged by Red Charging Blue.

 Charistoph wrote:

In the second one, the blue unit's model is 6" away from a green model (not within 2"). So, if Red Charges Green, Blue would not be engaged. If Red Charges Blue, Green would not be engaged. This is the case no matter how Red's models move or how close Red's models end up to the unit they did not Charge..

This doesn't make any sense. You seem to be saying that green isn't a valid target because they wouldn't be engaged if you don't charge them. Which is circular logic.

They're a valid secondary target, because they are visible and it's possible that red will be able to move models onto them over the course of their charge.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:


The model must already be in the same combat as the friendly model within 2"/6" that is in base to base contact with an enemy model.

So once again, a unit that is not locked in combat cannot have any models 'in the same combat' as a friendly model in a combat, since the unit that is not locked in combat is not in any combat whatsoever.

It's in the combat the moment you look at the rules for who can fight.

The part about the friendly model being in the same combat doesn't mean the model you're checking had to already be considered part of the combat. It just means that you can't declare a model add involved in This combat over here because it's in range of a model in that combat over there .


Whether or not that's how GW intended it to work is, of course, anybody's guess. Once I would have said it was an obvious oversight... But there's been so much silliness in 7th, and so much doubling down on the illogical and downright nonsensical rulings in the FAQ that I honestly can't even guess what GW thought they were doing with this rule.

Incorrect. In the Fight Sub-Phase you are handling one combat at a time and the rules are tracking which combat you are dealing with and which units are in that combat (per Locked In Combat rules).







By the time you get to the Who Can Fight rules, we are dealing with one combat and the units who are 'locked in that combat' and sorting out which models can attack with regards to the units involved in that combat.



The only possible way of interpreting the last sentence is that the model you are checking, the friendly model, and the enemy model(s) are all in the same combat which we are currently resolving in the Fight Sub-Phase. You break with grammar, logic, and context if you interpret it some other way.

Further, you also put the rules in an absurd state where pile-in moves break and models can be assaulted and shot at by other units along with other shenanigans. Lines of reasoning that put the rules in an absurd state can safely be discarded. If we don't discard absurd lines of reasoning then I should point out that units on the side of the battlefield (in reserves or removed from play) can technically shoot at units on the battlefield. Also, I can technically start the game with the models in a unit out of coherency. Etcetera. Keep in mind that I am not arguing here some RAI line of argumentation but rather showing you a Reductio Ad Absurdum line of argumentation which is a well-known and established logical way of arriving at rational conclusions.

So do we accept your interpretation that breaks with grammar, logic, context, and sends the game play into absurd lines of play or do we accept my interpretation that fits grammatically, logically, contextually, and leads to plausible and reasonable lines of play?

col_impact wrote:


The only possible way of interpreting the last sentence is that the model you are checking, the friendly model, and the enemy model(s) are all in the same combat which we are currently resolving in the Fight Sub-Phase.

Well, that's rather obviously not true, or this discussion wouldn't have happened...

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:


The only possible way of interpreting the last sentence is that the model you are checking, the friendly model, and the enemy model(s) are all in the same combat which we are currently resolving in the Fight Sub-Phase.

Well, that's rather obviously not true, or this discussion wouldn't have happened...

As stated above, your interpretation breaks with grammar, context, and logic, and leads to absurd lines of play.

So I guess I will ammend my statement.



I can't prevent people from pursuing unreasonable lines of interpretation. Keep in mind I am not calling you personally unreasonable, only that your interpretation which takes the statement in isolation is a problematic method of interpretation that ultimately leads to unreasonable conclusions and is to be discarded in favor of a interpretation that attends to grammar, context, and logic and which leads to reasonable conclusions.

col_impact wrote:


As stated above, your interpretation breaks with grammar, context, and logic, and leads to absurd lines of play..

And as should be apparent by this point, I disagree on at least the first three points.

For what it's worth, my initial reaction was the same as yours - it's absurd that a unit would fight in the combat without first being locked. But when I stopped and actually had another look at the current rules, it became apparent that, whether intentionally or not, that's what the rules now appear to be saying. here previous editions made it clear that a unit had to be locked to be included in the combat, there is simply no such requirement any more.

The fact that this leads to absurdity doesn't make it a wrong reading of the rule as it is written... it just means that either the rule is bad, or the rule is badly written. And given how much absurdity there is in the current rules, it's difficult to make a judgement call on which of those options is more likely.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:


As stated above, your interpretation breaks with grammar, context, and logic, and leads to absurd lines of play..

And as should be apparent by this point, I disagree on at least the first three points.

For what it's worth, my initial reaction was the same as yours - it's absurd that a unit would fight in the combat without first being locked. But when I stopped and actually had another look at the current rules, it became apparent that, whether intentionally or not, that's what the rules now appear to be saying. here previous editions made it clear that a unit had to be locked to be included in the combat, there is simply no such requirement any more.

The fact that this leads to absurdity doesn't make it a wrong reading of the rule as it is written... it just means that either the rule is bad, or the rule is badly written. And given how much absurdity there is in the current rules, it's difficult to make a judgement call on which of those options is more likely.

You can disagree but you argument breaks with grammar, the context of the surrounding rules, and the logic that would discard silly results.

1) 'In the same combat' refers to the model under consideration, the friendly model within 2'/6', and the enemy model(s) in base contact with friendly model. You have to at least accept this interpretation as a valid alternate interpretation to your own.

2) The units and models participating in the current combat have already been identified and have already been subjected to rules based on that identification (Locked in Combat, pile in, initiative step, etc.). A rule that would redefine what is 'in combat', which you claim the rule is doing, breaks all the earlier steps.



In the above rule, "models" refers to models in units that are Locked In Combat and that are part of the combat that is currently being resolved and having completed a pile in move. "Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have completed the piling in move. You are arguing that "any model" can refer to any friendly model on the battlefield which breaks grammatical agreement, contextual reference, and logically established set relationships.

3) What you take as a rule that pulls a model that has not been considered part of the current the combat into the combat can be easily explained as rule that rather describes which models in the units that are in the current combat can actually attack as opposed to not attack.

Compare these two versions of the rule:





You seem to be arguing that "in combat" after "engaged" has the power to pull a model previously identified and contextually considered NOT part of the combat IN to the current combat. A prepositional phrase is not an explicit rules statement so you are reading into the statement and making rules out of prepositions alone. "Engaged in combat" is merely a designation that a model in a unit in the current combat can attack (as opposed to "unengaged" models which cannot attack) and most importantly you cannot discount this interpretation.

My argument holds up 100% to the highest level of scrutiny and presents zero problems. Your argument has grammatical shortcomings, breaks with the context of the other rules, and logically leads to 'silly' lines of play ('silly' is by your own admission).

You haven't been able to show any problems with my interpretation whereas I have shown grammatical, contextual, and logical shortcoming in your interpretation, and most prominently that your interpretation leads to 'silliness'. So we pick the interpretation that is problem free and isn't 'silly'. Reductio ad absurdum. This isn't a matter of agree to disagree, but a matter of throw away the 'silly.'

 insaniak wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

In the second one, the blue unit's model is 6" away from a green model (not within 2"). So, if Red Charges Green, Blue would not be engaged. If Red Charges Blue, Green would not be engaged. This is the case no matter how Red's models move or how close Red's models end up to the unit they did not Charge..

This doesn't make any sense. You seem to be saying that green isn't a valid target because they wouldn't be engaged if you don't charge them. Which is circular logic.

They're a valid secondary target, because they are visible and it's possible that red will be able to move models onto them over the course of their charge.

No, it is circular logic to say you can Charge the Green at the same time as Blue just because you can reach them and thus have the unit engaged.. That is not the conditions for a Secondary Target. They would only be in that same combat because the Charging unit went to them. A self-fulfilling condition, and one that would not be possible "at the same time".

A valid Secondary Target is a target you can engage at the same time as the Primary Assault. Being 6" away from each other, one cannot be engaged by a combat the other is involved in at the same time, period. If Red Charged Blue, Green is not close enough to be engaged by Red's Combat with Blue. If Red Charged Green, Blue is not close enough to be engaged by Red's Combat with Blue. Therefore, this makes picture 2 an invalid candidate for a Multiple Charge by Red. If you cannot engage at the same time as the Primary Assault, it does not qualify any more than if the Charging Unit couldn't see the potential Secondary Target or it was completely outside of Charge Range.

Christoph:
If green and red charge opposite ends of blue, are they now in the same combat according to yoy, or are there two separate combats occurring?

 Charistoph wrote:
They would only be in that same combat because the Charging unit went to them.

Uh... yes?

Isn't that kind of the point of charging them?

 Charistoph wrote:

Cal Hoskins wrote:I know you are willing to consider the possibility that "in the same combat" could mean "in the same combat as the model you are checking for engagement" rather than your interpretation of "in the same combat we are currently conducting". Are you willing to admit that "at the same time" might mean something other than "at the moment a charging model ends its movement"? You do see that you are applying your interpretation of "at the same time" rather than some well defined rule of timing, right? "At the same time" does not always mean during a single moment, even within the scope of the 40k rules. For example, this is from the Choose A Combat section of the Assault rules: "There may be several separate assaults being fought at the same time in different parts of the battlefield." Clearly you don't conduct all the combats simultaneously, as you are specifically told to do them sequentially. This "at the same time" merely means during the same sub-phase or possibly phase, both of which could easily by applied to the Secondary Target definition.

I have explained that several times now. Charging models are not noted as Charging at the same time like shooting Weapon Groups. I am not adding any interpretation of "at the same time" that is not considered standard use nor against any definition in the rulebook, if you are aware of one, please properly reference it for review.

You have to Charge in order to get in to Combat. That the combats themselves are considered "happening at the same time" is meaningless to what happens before the Combat is decided. By applying the standard of "Choose a Combat" you are taking the standard of one sub-phase and applying it to another sub-phase without permission.

Should we then consider all shots fired during a Shooting Phase to be simultaneous just because all shots by a Weapon Group are are considered fired at the same time? That is the equivalent to what you are saying.

My point was that "at the same time" does not always mean "at the same moment" (in fact, I don't think it ever actually means that anywhere in the BRB), sometimes it means "during the same period of time". We are never really told which they mean in any specific case. We just sort of have to figure it out. For the Choosing A Combat "at the same time" it could mean any of the following:

"during the same sub-phase"
"during the same phase"
"during the same turn"

We don't actually know which of those it means, but it doesn't matter, it clearly doesn't mean "at the same moment" as other rules contradict that theory. As for the case of Shooting weapons "at the same time", even then there is actually a sequence during that "same time" period as wounds are applied one by one so they clearly aren't all worked out "at the same moment". I propose that "at the same time" for Shooting means "before firing weapons of another type" rather than "at the same moment". In the case of testing for engagement you have decided that "at the same time" means "at the moment any charging model ends its move", but how do you know that is the correct interpretation?

Let's look at a couple other uses of "at the same time" in the rules.

"The unit and the Independent Character(s) can, in a later Movement phase, disembark together as a single unit. Alternatively, they can separate by either the unit or the Independent character(s) disembarking while the others remain on board. They can even separate by disembarking at the same time, so long as they end their moves more than 2" away f rom each other."

Do you actually have to place the entire unit and the IC on the table "at the same moment" or do you merely need to do both during the same phase one right after the other?

"If, when it is a character’s turn to make a Pile In move, other friendly models are Piling In at the same time, the character must move to get into base contact with an enemy as soon as it is able."

I don't know about you, but if I tried to Pile In with a huge unit all "at the same moment" I'd probably make a mess of it. I do it a model at a time until they've all moved.

Trasvi wrote:Christoph:
If green and red charge opposite ends of blue, are they now in the same combat according to yoy, or are there two separate combats occurring?

How can Green Charge Blue if they are in the same army? This isn't Warmachine.

If Blue Charged Red, and then Green Charged Red, it would be a Multiple Combat, but not a Multiple Charge, as Green cannot Charge Blue.

insaniak wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
They would only be in that same combat because the Charging unit went to them.

Uh... yes?

Isn't that kind of the point of charging them?

I was point out a case of Circular Reasoning that you accused me of. You are looking at the end results while ignoring several things in between. They are now engaged because you Charged, not because they were close enough to the Primary Assault to be engaged by it.

Cal Hoskins wrote:My point was that "at the same time" does not always mean "at the same moment" (in fact, I don't think it ever actually means that anywhere in the BRB), sometimes it means "during the same period of time". We are never really told which they mean in any specific case. We just sort of have to figure it out. For the Choosing A Combat "at the same time" it could mean any of the following:

"during the same sub-phase"
"during the same phase"
"during the same turn"

"During the same sub-phase" would not entirely qualify without further context.

"During the same phase" would not qualify without further context, and I can't think of a single instance where this actually applies.

"During the same turn" never applies in the rulebook, as there is no way you would ever be considered as moving, Shooting, Charging, and Fighting all "at the same time".

"During the same period of time as the primary assault", are you doing an assault on the Primary Target when moving against another unit? No, you are not. You are doing an assault on a different unit.

Cal Hoskins wrote:We don't actually know which of those it means, but it doesn't matter, it clearly doesn't mean "at the same moment" as other rules contradict that theory. As for the case of Shooting weapons "at the same time", even then there is actually a sequence during that "same time" period as wounds are applied one by one so they clearly aren't all worked out "at the same moment". I propose that "at the same time" for Shooting means "before firing weapons of another type" rather than "at the same moment". In the case of testing for engagement you have decided that "at the same time" means "at the moment any charging model ends its move", but how do you know that is the correct interpretation?

You are welcome to think that, but then Wound Allocation wouldn't work. The first model to take a Wound would not be removed because it is all "happening at the same time". The firing happens at the same time, but Wound Allocation is noted as being a sequential sequence which cannot occur.

Cal Hoskins wrote:Let's look at a couple other uses of "at the same time" in the rules.

"The unit and the Independent Character(s) can, in a later Movement phase, disembark together as a single unit. Alternatively, they can separate by either the unit or the Independent character(s) disembarking while the others remain on board. They can even separate by disembarking at the same time, so long as they end their moves more than 2" away f rom each other."

Do you actually have to place the entire unit and the IC on the table "at the same moment" or do you merely need to do both during the same phase one right after the other?

"If, when it is a character’s turn to make a Pile In move, other friendly models are Piling In at the same time, the character must move to get into base contact with an enemy as soon as it is able."

I don't know about you, but if I tried to Pile In with a huge unit all "at the same moment" I'd probably make a mess of it. I do it a model at a time until they've all moved.

That is why the addition of "as the Primary Assault" is being used. "At the same time they disembark" indicates the period of time that the unit is disembarking. Pile Ins are done during an Initiative Step and an entire process, i.e. "a period of time". The "period of time" noted for "at the same time" for a Secondary Target is 'the Primary Assault", in other words, the combat with the Primary Target.

If you were only going to be Charging the Primary Target, would a unit 6" away from the Primary Target possibly be engaged? The answer is no.