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.

Yeah, people shouldn't confuse the rules for "locked" and "engaged". The former applies to whole units, and is pretty easy to trigger. The latter only applies to models, and only happens at their initiative phase.

Mannahnin wrote:Your read makes the challenge rules nonfunctional. That usually is an indicator that something might be wrong with an interpretation.

And this is exactly my point. If you take the reading on page 64 that unengaged units can't issue or receive a challenge then, using the rules for engaging, your interpretation of challenge rules makes the challenge rules nonfunctional.

I agree that it's something wrong with the interpretation. The interpretation that allows people to stay out of challenges is wrong because it negates all challenges.

I think the better reading would be to change the inclusivity of the parenthesized text. Basically, it says, you can't challenge if A, B (including X). You could read that to be "A, B, and X" (the way you're interpreting it), or you could read it as "A (indluding A in X), and B (including B in X)". If you use that method of reading page 64, then challenges can continue to exist, but nobz can't stay out of a challenge - they have to either accept or decline if issued.

Which even makes sense with RAI as well. Clearly they wanted a warlord to be able to pick out another warlord and get into an epic duel, not for a warlord to desperately search for someone right in front of his face to consider worthy of his attentions.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, people shouldn't confuse the rules for "locked" and "engaged". The former applies to whole units, and is pretty easy to trigger. The latter only applies to models, and only happens at their initiative phase.

Mannahnin wrote:Your read makes the challenge rules nonfunctional. That usually is an indicator that something might be wrong with an interpretation.

And this is exactly my point. If you take the reading on page 64 that unengaged units can't issue or receive a challenge then, using the rules for engaging, your interpretation of challenge rules makes the challenge rules nonfunctional.

But that is clearly what the rule on page 64 is saying, twice even.

"characters that cannot fight or strike blows (including those that are not engaged with an enemy model) can not issue challenges. "

"characters that cannot fight or strike blows (including those that are not engaged with an enemy model) can not accept challenges."

There really is no other way to read it.

It just means there is a chance, during the first turn an assault happens challenges might not be possible. Any following turn the assault continues in greatly increases the chance for challenges to happen.

Exactly. Page 64 is very clear. Sometimes in the first round a given character will be unable to issue or accept a challenge. GW isn't letting challenges be used as a way to give a character free movement from a non-fighting position to a place where he can fight.

I agree with both sides of this argument; Characters cannot issue or accept challenges if they're not engaged, and per the RAW, the only time you can check for "engaged status" is during each model's initiative step. This isn't the first time GW has written a set of rules that simply don't work, for example this debate I (and others) had with Yakface WAY back in 4th edition over invulnerable saves: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/36384.page.

Basically it boiled down to the fact that I. saves were impossible to take (no actual rules for them) even though it was clearly intended that you should be able to.

Back to the topic at hand, we have the same problem here. Clearly challenges are supposed to work but the way the rules read it's impossible to issue or accept one. It's as if the challenge rules were written by someone with only passing familiarity with the (new) definition of engaged.

The key question is, where do we go from here, and how do we resolve this issue?

Lordhat 475367 4756048 5ff7c9d707b29a6d572ec3df08d2bd33.pn wrote:..and per the RAW, the only time you can check for "engaged status" is during each model's initiative step.

Wrong. Page 21 states that "charging units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible..." (emphasis mine). Clearly demonstrating that you check if they are engaged or not. Either the same allowance to check for a condition when you are asked to check for it is made for challenges as it is when charging.

I fail to see any evidence supporting your claim that "RAW says" engaged models are only checked in initiative step, GW didn't use the word "only" you simply added it to try and convince people that your claim was wrote. It's quite stupid to announce something is rules as written when you're adding words to them don't you think?

And if we believe your wrong claims it means units can't charge, units don't stay locked outside of the assault phase and of course the challenge rules are useless. The other possibility is that you're simply wrong for the sake of being obstinate in order to try and preen your ego over how clever you think you are at spotting rules that sont work and everything works just fine.

The key question is, where do we go from here, and how do we resolve this issue?

What we do is ignore people who insist on obviously wrong interpretations that simply dont work. Simples

Let's keep it friendly, okay?

...per the RAW, the only time you can check for "engaged status" is during each model's initiative step.

I disagree. I believe what you are reading as a restrictive definition is instead a non-exclusive listing, intended as a reminder that the status of being engaged can change during the combat from initiative step to initiative step. Page 21 tells us that models can and do become engaged as they move into an assault, and the section you are referencing tells us that we need to check the engaged status at each initiative step, to confirm which models can still attack.

Since you agree you check models are engaged when they charge, how can you claim you suddenly don't know if models are engaged or not when attempting to declare challenges?

It's either you check for engaged models outside the initiative step or you don't, any claim allowing one but not the other is an inconsistent and hypocritical reading of the rules, and thus flawed.

According to the Character rule on Pg. 63, Characters are compelled to move as close to BtB as possible during their Pile-In moves. This means that if your unit is 4" inches away from the unit you are charging, and you roll an 8 for your charge roll, then there is a good chance your Character can and MUST move into BtB contact (depending on how many models are in the unit of course, and how spread out the models in the unit being charged are).

Conversely, keeping a Character in the back of your unit, it is possible to protect them from a challenge if they receive the charge, however the above scenario may still occur where the charging unit is able to move around the charged unit (given a large enough charge roll) and engage the character anyway.

Either way, if after the charge move... before any pile-ins happen... a Character is not in BtB or within 2" of a model that is within BtB, he can neither accept nor issue challenges.

Edit: Deleted by User.

Characters that are not engaged cannot strike blows anyway. There is only 2 situations where playing not according to RAW would benefit :
1- You have a beefy character and you want to get into challenge to enable him to attack when he otherwise cannot.
2- You have a beefy character and you want to kill your opponent character. He is not engaged but you are. But your opponent will most likely deny the challenge making it a moot point.

Thus, just play by RAW and issue/accept challenges right before I10.

Put simply, Aileros is correct in his interpretation, however, that is not the intended effect of the rule, so while it is RAW, if you play like that you're and idjit. Games Workshop simply doesn't write rules that can be interpreted or nit picked to the same extent as a legal document. If you choose to do so there are simply so many holes that you would never have a game, or even if you did it wouldn't be easily recognisable as warhammer except for the models.

For example, there is only two cases in which a vehicle is removed as a casualty, there for you can almost never score vps for destroying them, and they can't give first blood, but if you play like this then you've pretty much broken the game.

Just issue a challenge in the second round of combat if some cheesy player keeps his nob back so far as not to be engaged at the start. Challenges can be issued at the start of each assault phase

 Mannahnin wrote:
Let's keep it friendly, okay?

...per the RAW, the only time you can check for "engaged status" is during each model's initiative step.

I disagree. I believe what you are reading as a restrictive definition is instead a non-exclusive listing, intended as a reminder that the status of being engaged can change during the combat from initiative step to initiative step. Page 21 tells us that models can and do become engaged as they move into an assault, and the section you are referencing tells us that we need to check the engaged status at each initiative step, to confirm which models can still attack.

If you look up "Engaged" in the table of contents, it does not mention Pg. 21, instead it tells you to look at pg. 23. If you look up "Engaged" in the index, it does not mention Pg. 21, instead it tells you to look at pg. 23. Pg 21 mentions engaged, but the implication there, is contradicted by the definition on pg 23. Most of us know what engaged means from 4th and 5th edition, but according to 6th,

A model is engaged in combat, and must fight if:
. During its Initiative step, it is in base contact with one or
more enemv models.
. During its Initiative stepr it is within 2" of a friendly
model in base contact with one or more enemy models in
the same combat.

This is the only time and place that the term engaged is defined. The Game summary (pg. 429)references pg.23:

Starting at Initiative step 10, count down through the
steps towards 1 until you reach an lnitiative value that
one or more participants not involved in a challenge
have (see page22).

All models with this Initiative value now Pile In (see page 23).

All engaged models (see page 23) with this Initiative now get to
make a number of Attacks equal to their Attacks characteristic
plus any bonus Attacks they are entitled to (see page 24).

Amusingly enough the very last sentence on pg. 429 mentions unengaged units consolidating and references pg. 27; Pg. 27 specifies:

Consolidation
At the end of a combat, if a unit's opponents are all either
destroyed or falling back or the end of combat Pile In was
insuffi.cient, so that the units are no longer locked in combat
with each other, they may Consolidate. Consolidating models
move up to D6" in any direction as the sudden victory may
leave the warriors raring to storm onwards or flat-footed and
dumbfounded, according to the vagaries of fate.

Emphasis mine.

Taking this into account (and using the actual edition appropriate definition) Pg. 21 reads like this:

If you follow this sequence, you will end up with all the
models in the charging unit in unit coherency, having
engaged (During its Initiative step, it is in base contact with one or
more enemv models, or During its Initiative stepr it is within 2" of a friendly
model in base contact with one or more enemy models in
the same combat.) as many enemy models as possible with as many
charging models as possible.

Indeed, following the assault rules will result in the maximum number of engaged models, on each and every initiative step. If you can show in the RAW where engaged is defined outside of an initiative step, then Challenges can work, otherwise they simply don't. Checking for engaged at the beginning of combat is a convenient (and logical) house rule to make the Challenge rule work, but it's still a house rule.





.

Where else do you think they would refer someone to for all those definitions? Probably the place in the book they defined it. And you will notice they dont typically define things in more than one place.

Fragile wrote:
Where else do you think they would refer someone to for all those definitions? Probably the place in the book they defined it. And you will notice they dont typically define things in more than one place.

Unfortunately, the definition has inextricably linked the initiative step to the engaged "status".

I truly believe that GW meant to define engaged as it has always been since the TAR in 3rd, and then link the "must fight" clause to engaged and initiative steps, but in editing they decided to collapse it together. And it would have worked too, if it weren't for that pesky challenge rule!

 Lordhat wrote:

Unfortunately, the definition has inextricably linked the initiative step to the engaged "status".

I truly believe that GW meant to define engaged as it has always been since the TAR in 3rd, and then link the "must fight" clause to engaged and initiative steps, but in editing they decided to collapse it together. And it would have worked too, if it weren't for that pesky challenge rule!

Wrong. Page 21 states that "charging units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible..." (emphasis mine). Clearly demonstrating that you check if they are engaged or not. Either the same allowance to check for a condition when you are asked to check for it is made for challenges as it is when charging.

The fact you consistently ignore these other references to check for engaged models does not mean you are right. Either you agree that you check for models being engaged when they charge, ie; outside the initiative steps or you are claiming assault doesn't work at all and you can be safely ignored because you would be obviously wrong.

 Hymirl wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

Unfortunately, the definition has inextricably linked the initiative step to the engaged "status".

I truly believe that GW meant to define engaged as it has always been since the TAR in 3rd, and then link the "must fight" clause to engaged and initiative steps, but in editing they decided to collapse it together. And it would have worked too, if it weren't for that pesky challenge rule!

Wrong. Page 21 states that "charging units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible..." (emphasis mine). Clearly demonstrating that you check if they are engaged or not. Either the same allowance to check for a condition when you are asked to check for it is made for challenges as it is when charging.

The fact you consistently ignore these other references to check for engaged models does not mean you are right. Either you agree that you check for models being engaged when they charge, ie; outside the initiative steps or you are claiming assault doesn't work at all and you can be safely ignored because you would be obviously wrong.

I refer you to this part of my previous post:

 Lordhat wrote:

Taking this into account (and using the actual edition appropriate definition) Pg. 21 reads like this:

If you follow this sequence, you will end up with all the
models in the charging unit in unit coherency, having
engaged (During its Initiative step, it is in base contact with one or
more enemv models, or During its Initiative stepr it is within 2" of a friendly
model in base contact with one or more enemy models in
the same combat.) as many enemy models as possible with as many
charging models as possible.

Indeed, following the assault rules will result in the maximum number of engaged models, on each and every initiative step. If you can show in the RAW where engaged is defined outside of an initiative step, then Challenges can work, otherwise they simply don't. Checking for engaged at the beginning of combat is a convenient (and logical) house rule to make the Challenge rule work, but it's still a house rule.

No chance. We are discussing the rules in the book. Not your made up fairy tale edited version.

Again, you are accepting that models can be (in a position to be) engaged when charging but not when working out challenges.

Your arguement is inconsistent, thus flawed and therefore wrong. Your refusal to deal with this inconsistency is proof enough that you cannot deal with this inconsistency and no amount of self quoting will help you with that.

You're done.

Forging a Narrative: this is a running theme in 6th ed correct.

Wouldn't it make more sense that int he first round of combat as marines shoot down Ork Boyz left and right they overhear an ork suddenly blurt of "MAKE WAY FOR DA BOSS A GIT!" in the swirling melee... Moments later a ork is flung over the head of a 11 foot tall monsterosity wielding a power klaw and a mean glare. No sooner than he begins to intimidate the marines does the Leader of the Tactical Squad draw his sword and shout at the top of his Lungs

"GREENSKIN, LEARN WHAT IS IT TO FACE THE A TRUE VETERAN OF THE ASTARTES!" He suddenly steps foreward as suddenly the orks stop and begin to laugh looking to one another as though he must be joking. The Nob with his grimace turns to a smile ...

"Ur Just Lucky des gitz don't kno a fing or two bout KRUMPING WAAAAGH!" He suddenly lunges forward as the combat whips back into it's frenzy!

I honestly don't see the problem here and the previous people disagreeing with you OP make more sense of how the intention of the game and even the written were to conclude the concept as working.

basically once charges start if character's aren't in 2 inches they just aren't around to hear a challenge... simple as that.

 Hymirl wrote:
No chance. We are discussing the rules in the book. Not your made up fairy tale edited version.

Again, you are accepting that models can be (in a position to be) engaged when charging but not when working out challenges.

"In a position to be", is not "is".

Your arguement is inconsistent, thus flawed and therefore wrong. Your refusal to deal with this inconsistency is proof enough that you cannot deal with this inconsistency and no amount of self quoting will help you with that.

You're done.

And where is engaged defined outside of individual initiative steps? I honestly don't see any inconsistencies in my argument. I also submit that I didn't edit anything besides not copy pasting entire pages of the RB, and once inserting an unedited definition into a passage ( itself not edited at all). The self quote was to make sure you had actually read the post quoted (sometimes posts get lost in the shuffle).

All in all, I agree that with ignoring a simple segment of the single, two part definition of the term engaged, the Challenge rule works just fine, and I would be completely happy to play it that way. However it's another case of GW writing sloppy rules.

Also, I seem to detect a bit of hostility in your post. Not trying to induce anger, just trying to clear this up. If I'm reading nonexistent emotions into your text, my apologies.

Where is wounding defined? Ah, in shooting. I guess we cant wound in assaults or anywhere else because its only defined in shooting. Where an item is defined is not an indicator that that is the only place it is used. It is defined in the area where GW determined it made the most sense.

Fragile wrote:
Where is wounding defined? Ah, in shooting. I guess we cant wound in assaults or anywhere else because its only defined in shooting. Where an item is defined is not an indicator that that is the only place it is used. It is defined in the area where GW determined it made the most sense.

Did you even READ the assault rules for wounding before you typed this? Hint: the rules for wounding ARE defined in the section for assaults. Regardless, if there were only one method listed to determine if a hit caused a wound, and that method was: "A hit causes a wound if: During the movement phase the roll equals the number on the chart.", then the only roll that would matter would be the one made during the movement phase.

If parameters are given to determine a state or outcome, and no exceptions are listed, then when determining that state or outcome you cannot ignore the given parameters.

One of the parameters given, and given more than once without exception, to determine engagement is "During the model's initiative step."

I think one thing you may be missing, LordHat, is that the section of the rules does not say the following: Models are considered to be engaged if, and only if blah blah blah

The statements you are quoting are not exclusive. There are other portions of the rules that mention engaged models outside of your quotes. Portions you seem to ignore and toss away in order to support your argument. There is nothing preventing both interpretations from being true, since the rules you are quoting are not exclusive.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
I think one thing you may be missing, LordHat, is that the section of the rules does not say the following: Models are considered to be engaged if, and only if blah blah blah

The statements you are quoting are not exclusive. There are other portions of the rules that mention engaged models outside of your quotes. Portions you seem to ignore and toss away in order to support your argument. There is nothing preventing both interpretations from being true, since the rules you are quoting are not exclusive.

If they are not exclusive then a model does not have to be in base contact with an enemy model, or within 2" of a friendly model that's in base contact with an enemy model to be engaged; All three conditions are given equal weight in the rules. If you can ignore one condition you can ignore the others as well.

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:I honestly don't see the problem here and the previous people disagreeing with you OP make more sense of how the intention of the game and even the written were to conclude the concept as working.

It's what I really don't get, though, RAI.

In the rules, if your character accepts a challenge, he can move as many inches as required to actually make it into the challenge (and move other minis out of the way if needs be). He has infinite movement to get into an epic, narrative battle once he accepts the challenge, but he can't actually accept the challenge if he's just out of arms reach? Makes no sense.

You can read my post above - there is a way to read page 64 that both accepts the literal words printed AND allows challenges to exist at all. There IS a solution that preserves RAW. It just doesn't involve being able to hide from a challenge (which was never intended), and that doesnt' shut down all challenge rules altogether.

 Lordhat wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:
I think one thing you may be missing, LordHat, is that the section of the rules does not say the following: Models are considered to be engaged if, and only if blah blah blah

The statements you are quoting are not exclusive. There are other portions of the rules that mention engaged models outside of your quotes. Portions you seem to ignore and toss away in order to support your argument. There is nothing preventing both interpretations from being true, since the rules you are quoting are not exclusive.

If they are not exclusive then a model does not have to be in base contact with an enemy model, or within 2" of a friendly model that's in base contact with an enemy model to be engaged; All three conditions are given equal weight in the rules. If you can ignore one condition you can ignore the others as well.

This would be true, except other mentions for defining enagagement also include the base contact and 2" conditions. What this essentially equats to is this:

Start of Fight-Sub Phase : Any character that is engaged (defined as BtB or within 2" of friendly model in BtB) may accept or issue challenges
Initiative Steps: At beginning of each inititative step, check to see if models in that step are engaged (same definition as above), those that are can and must fight.

This is RAW. You can't just ignore the use of the word engage in the description of the Charge move simply because the index doesn't reference it.

 Lordhat wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Where is wounding defined? Ah, in shooting. I guess we cant wound in assaults or anywhere else because its only defined in shooting. Where an item is defined is not an indicator that that is the only place it is used. It is defined in the area where GW determined it made the most sense.

Did you even READ the assault rules for wounding before you typed this? Hint: the rules for wounding ARE defined in the section for assaults. Regardless, if there were only one method listed to determine if a hit caused a wound, and that method was: "A hit causes a wound if: During the movement phase the roll equals the number on the chart.", then the only roll that would matter would be the one made during the movement phase.

If parameters are given to determine a state or outcome, and no exceptions are listed, then when determining that state or outcome you cannot ignore the given parameters.

One of the parameters given, and given more than once without exception, to determine engagement is "During the model's initiative step."

Why can't you just accept you're wrong about this and we can all move on.

You keep quoting that line, but you keep missing the titles
"who can fight?
a model is engaged and must fight if:

We also look at pg 21 and the charge move and see that when charging you have to move into B2B, or try to move within 2" of a model that is in B2b. And we see "moving charging models" "must attempt to ENGAGE as many opposing models" and in the last paragraph doing this ensures as many models are ENGAGED as possible.

CLEARLY PG 21 IS TELLING US WHAT ENGAGED MEANS, AND YOU HAVE TO ENGAGE AS MANY MODELS AS POSSIBLE WHEN YOU DO YOUR CHARGE MOVE. engaged = B2B or within 2" of a model in B2B.

so one last try, you engage in your charge move, you can then issue challenges as long as you meet the criteria on pg 64. then you start the fight sub phases.
And yes if you are not engaged you can not issue or accept challenges as clearly spelled out on pg 64, which is clearly the RAI and RAW.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
This would be true, except other mentions for defining enagagement also include the base contact and 2" conditions.

Where are these other places that the term engaged is defined? Pg. numbers please.

Start of Fight-Sub Phase : Any character that is engaged (defined as BtB or within 2" of friendly model in BtB) ....

Again, where is this magical place that leaves out initiative steps in the definition for engagement?

This is RAW. You can't just ignore the use of the word engage in the description of the Charge move simply because the index doesn't reference it.

I'm not ignoring it. At all. For the third time:

Lordhat wrote:
Taking this into account (and using the actual edition appropriate definition) Pg. 21 reads like this:

If you follow this sequence, you will end up with all the
models in the charging unit in unit coherency, having
engaged (During its Initiative step, it is in base contact with one or
more enemv models, or During its Initiative stepr it is within 2" of a friendly
model in base contact with one or more enemy models in
the same combat.) as many enemy models as possible with as many
charging models as possible.

Indeed, following the assault rules will result in the maximum number of engaged models, on each and every initiative step. If you can show in the RAW where engaged is defined outside of an initiative step, then Challenges can work, otherwise they simply don't. Checking for engaged at the beginning of combat is a convenient (and logical) house rule to make the Challenge rule work, but it's still a house rule.

And again I'm not saying don't use the challenge rules; they were obviously intended to be used. I'm just pointing out that as the rules are currently written, they don't work. But we're all intelligent people, we can find a way.