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.

rigeld2 wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

Specifically to yakface (and anyone else that voted B) how can you read

If both players' Pile In moves combined would be insufficient to bring any combatants back together (that's more than 6" - very unlikely!), the assault comes to an end. All remaining Initiative steps are lost - work out the assault result as described on page 26.

And think that it applies to any initiative step outside the current one? Especially since its under the Start of Initiative Pile In?

Is it because it makes Hammer of Wrath less of a free hit?

The section of the rules is 'the start of the intiative pile-in', but this is the section of rules covering ALL start of initiative pile-in moves (in every initiative step). So if they're going to write a rule governing any or all of the pile-in moves, then this is where they put it.

Now, as to what I read...I read it as very clearly saying:

If both players' Pile In moves combined would be insufficient to bring any combatants back together (that's more than 6" - very unlikely!), the assault comes to an end. All remaining Initiative steps are lost - work out the assault result as described on page 26.

In there, it says (emphasis mine):

If BOTH players moves would be insufficient to bring ANY combatants back together (that's MORE THAN 6" - VERY UNLIKELY)...


The rule shows absoultely no indication of referencing only a single Pile-in move at one Initiative Step. You can tell this for sure because it says that for this to happen, the models would have to be MORE THAN 6" away from each other...not sometimes the models can be within 3" of each other if only one side is making pile-in moves that Intiative step, etc.

That statement about being more than 6", is absolute...it says that the situation is VERY UNLIKELY because the models would have to be more than 6" away from each other in combat for that situation to occur. You must willfully ignore this indication to assume that the rule is applying to only a single Initiative Step Pile-In.


Now, as to the final question of 'why is this rule even in there if you keep making Pile-In moves?'

Just as the rule states...if models are more than 6" apart from each other in combat, then no amount of Pile-Ins at different Initiative steps will get models back into contact with each other. When THIS happens (models are more than 6" away) THEN you stop proceeding making pile-in moves and move onto combat resolution.

I started with B, went to unsure then drifted around a bit. But I think Yak has clearly outlined what I was thinking.

When I read it, the context to me is when both sides have a pile in at I step X, but are unable to make it b2b (Stating to move on to combat resolution rather than leaving people in limbo).

When only 1 side has a I step pile in, applying this sentence no longer makes any sense (nparticular; 'Both', '6 inches')

But yak, you fail to read the very next sentence which gives further context to this situation "All remaining initiative steps are lost..." So we are only talking about the current initiaive step. The "very unlikely" part you key on is only relevant if there are models on both sides that have the same initiative... So yes in that narrow situation where both sides have models with the same initiative value, there will seldom be a gap of >6", but if only one side has models at that initiative, then a >3" gap could easily happen...

Beast wrote:
But yak, you fail to read the very next sentence which gives further context to this situation "All remaining initiative steps are lost..." So we are only talking about the current initiaive step. The "very unlikely" part you key on is only relevant if there are models on both sides that have the same initiative... So yes in that narrow situation where both sides have models with the same initiative value, there will seldom be a gap of >6", but if only one side has models at that initiative, then a >3" gap could easily happen...

It still makes sense all remaining initiative steps are lost when referring to both sides piling in within 1 I step, I believe the whole point of the sentence is stopping people hanging in limbo when they can not reach B2B through pile ins

Beast wrote:
But yak, you fail to read the very next sentence which gives further context to this situation "All remaining initiative steps are lost..." So we are only talking about the current initiaive step. The "very unlikely" part you key on is only relevant if there are models on both sides that have the same initiative... So yes in that narrow situation where both sides have models with the same initiative value, there will seldom be a gap of >6", but if only one side has models at that initiative, then a >3" gap could easily happen...

But the rules don't say that...they say it is very unlikely because the models would have to be more than 6" apart. It does not say IN SOME INSTANCES the models have to be more than 6" apart for this to happen.

And yes, all the remaining Initiative steps are lost if at any point all remaining Pile-in moves will be insufficient to bring any models back into combat with each other...in other words, if the models in combat are ever more than 6" from each other, then you simply skip any remaining Initiative Steps and move onto combat resolution.

Yes, and it is also a parens statement, with no effect on the actual rules. It is a throwaway line, hence the exclamation!

You are told this is a single init step pile in that you are completing. You are told any model at that I, from both sides, gets to pile in.

You are not told this applies to ALL I steps, ever.

 yakface wrote:
And yes, all the remaining Initiative steps are lost if at any point all remaining Pile-in moves will be insufficient to bring any models back into combat with each other...in other words, if the models in combat are ever more than 6" from each other, then you simply skip any remaining Initiative Steps and move onto combat resolution.

But that doesn't make any sense... because you determine if a model is too far away to get into base contact at their initiative step, when you move them 3". So the initiative step being lost is the initiative step you are currently in the middle of... So despite those initiative steps being lost, your interpretation would still require you to move the models... meaning that those initiative steps aren't lost at all.

Yak, I think you're way off base on this one.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Yak, I think you're way off base on this one.

I wouldnt say that. RAW currently doesnt follow his ideas, but it could well be RAI. GW is never the clearest on their rules wording.

Well this is a RAW discussion.

If you want a RAI argument, try this.
I hit so hard and fast that I kill a swathe of your men and open up a gap, you take time to react and charge the distance then I hit first again as I have much greater reaction time.

So in the game, I hammer of wraith your squad, kill enough at the front to create a 6.1" gap, at I4 I cannot make it and you hit at I3. We move the squads together and then next player turn they continue the fight.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well this is a RAW discussion.

If you want a RAI argument, try this.
I hit so hard and fast that I kill a swathe of your men and open up a gap, you take time to react and charge the distance then I hit first again as I have much greater reaction time.

So in the game, I hammer of wraith your squad, kill enough at the front to create a 6.1" gap, at I4 I cannot make it and you hit at I3. We move the squads together and then next player turn they continue the fight.

Correction. You make a 3.1" gap.

Yes sorry, 3.1 inches.

This is not a RAI argument, this is me reading the rules as written and coming to a different conclusion than you. And apparently roughly 40% of other people are coming to a similar conclusion, so please do not try to pretend that this is crystal clear, when it isn't.

There is NOTHING in that statement which says it applies exclusively to a single Initiative step Pile-in, and there are several elements that absolutely suggest that they're talking about Pile-In moves in general.

But before I go on, you have to consider that this is a rule that was clearly pulled from the existing 5th edition rules and then slightly modified for 6th edition. So in 5th edition this rule said:

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

See the similarities? This was a general rule that covered pile-in moves from both sides couldn't bring any models back together again, the combat ended.

This has CLEARLY been ported into 6th edition and is now being misinterpreted (by apparently) the majority of players into saying that if at ANY TIME a pile-in move doesn't result in some models being engaged then suddenly models that have yet to strike and that CLEARLY are within pile-in distance of the opponent are denied their chance to attack.

If anybody honestly thinks that if GW were ever to FAQ this issue they would come down and rule that because one I5 model happens to be included in a unit, and that I5 model doesn't even kill anyone (just fails to reach anyone with their Pile-In), suddenly this means that an entire unit is denied their chance to attack...well, then I say you're insane.

The RAW do not support that this restriction is for a single Pile In move. It is written so that both players' Pile-In moves from ANY combatants are taken into consideration. Only if the models in combat are more than 6" apart does this rule take effect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, and it is also a parens statement, with no effect on the actual rules. It is a throwaway line, hence the exclamation!

You are told this is a single init step pile in that you are completing. You are told any model at that I, from both sides, gets to pile in.

You are not told this applies to ALL I steps, ever.

It is not a throw-away statement...it is clarification to get the point across to what they mean. The way you guys are claiming the rule reads, it is not very unlikely at all. It is actually quite common if you have models with differing Initiative values mixed in a unit.

So that parenthetical information by its very nature there to help inform you about what the rules means, yet you're willfully saying that it is completely irrelevant and ignoring it.

insaniak wrote:But that doesn't make any sense... because you determine if a model is too far away to get into base contact at their initiative step, when you move them 3". So the initiative step being lost is the initiative step you are currently in the middle of... So despite those initiative steps being lost, your interpretation would still require you to move the models... meaning that those initiative steps aren't lost at all.

This isn't the only place where GW expects you to essentially 'plan ahead' with the moves to see what will happen. The exact same thing is true with charges through difficult terrain. You have to roughly plan out which models will have to charge where to decide if your unit is going to be moving through DT, even though technically speaking you only really know where the models are moving when you move them.

So the exact same is true here too. If you look and see that no remaining models which have yet to strike can possibly reach each other with their combination of Pile In moves, then you don't bother piling in any of those models and you go straight to combat resolution. It is completely do-able (I've been playing that way without issue, so trust me when I say that it can be done with a high degree of precision).

 yakface wrote:
This is not a RAI argument, this is me reading the rules as written and coming to a different conclusion than you. And apparently roughly 40% of other people are coming to a similar conclusion, so please do not try to pretend that this is crystal clear, when it isn't.

Don't you think saying 40% agree on the RAW is an unfair statement when you specifically notated on that poll that it was a HYWPI poll, and NOT a RAW poll? In huge red letters, at that. This thread was started seperately, specifically to discuss the RAW side because of the fact that you made it so clear that your thread/poll wasn't about RAW.

I'm not arguing RAI here Yak, and as far as whether they intended to have it that way is anyone's guess. But currently, RAW indicates that it ends on the current initiative step, if both players models that move on that step are not sufficient to bring them in base contact with an enemy.

This makes initiative make more of a difference, and makes it important in tactical awareness, as demonstrated by the multiple examples shown by both you and I.

 yakface wrote:
If anybody honestly thinks that if GW were ever to FAQ this issue they would come down and rule that because one I5 model happens to be included in a unit, and that I5 model doesn't even kill anyone (just fails to reach anyone with their Pile-In), suddenly this means that an entire unit is denied their chance to attack...well, then I say you're insane.

For your I5 model to halt the combat, it's not just down to him not reaching the combat. It's him not reaching the combat and nobody else being in base contact. And given that we have had editions in the past where models didn't get to fight if they found themselves out of base contact when it came to their turn to fight, and that situation isn't really going to come up that frequently, I don't think it's that crazy at all.


And as an aside, even if I did agree that the RAW here makes no sense gameplay-wise, given some of the rulings we've seen so far for 6th edition (battlements work how now?) I've given up trying to predict where GW will rule for the result that makes sense or just ask the work experience kid.

The RAW do not support that this restriction is for a single Pile In move. It is written so that both players' Pile-In moves from ANY combatants are taken into consideration. Only if the models in combat are more than 6" apart does this rule take effect.

It really isn't. The entire section is written about dealing with each Initiative step one at a time. When you read that part about both sides being able to reach the combat in that context, it can also only be referring to the current initiative step.

Whether or not that's what they intended, I have no idea. But it's how I read it, and it's a cleaner way to play, even if it doesn't make as much sense realistically... There are plenty of rules in 6th that are there for gameplay rather than for real-world sense.

 insaniak wrote:

Whether or not that's what they intended, I have no idea. But it's how I read it, and it's a cleaner way to play, even if it doesn't make as much sense realistically... There are plenty of rules in 6th that are there for gameplay rather than for real-world sense.

I agree, and gameplay-wise, it adds tactical elements to assaults, and more value to high initiative units and your awareness of initiative as a player. More tactical depth = better imo.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 yakface wrote:
This is not a RAI argument, this is me reading the rules as written and coming to a different conclusion than you. And apparently roughly 40% of other people are coming to a similar conclusion, so please do not try to pretend that this is crystal clear, when it isn't.

Don't you think saying 40% agree on the RAW is an unfair statement when you specifically notated on that poll that it was a HYWPI poll, and NOT a RAW poll? In huge red letters, at that. This thread was started seperately, specifically to discuss the RAW side because of the fact that you made it so clear that your thread/poll wasn't about RAW.

I'm not arguing RAI here Yak, and as far as whether they intended to have it that way is anyone's guess. But currently, RAW indicates that it ends on the current initiative step, if both players models that move on that step are not sufficient to bring them in base contact with an enemy.

This makes initiative make more of a difference, and makes it important in tactical awareness, as demonstrated by the multiple examples shown by both you and I.

Betray, where bolded and highlighted you've agreed with Yak.

 Nem wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 yakface wrote:
This is not a RAI argument, this is me reading the rules as written and coming to a different conclusion than you. And apparently roughly 40% of other people are coming to a similar conclusion, so please do not try to pretend that this is crystal clear, when it isn't.

Don't you think saying 40% agree on the RAW is an unfair statement when you specifically notated on that poll that it was a HYWPI poll, and NOT a RAW poll? In huge red letters, at that. This thread was started seperately, specifically to discuss the RAW side because of the fact that you made it so clear that your thread/poll wasn't about RAW.

I'm not arguing RAI here Yak, and as far as whether they intended to have it that way is anyone's guess. But currently, RAW indicates that it ends on the current initiative step, if both players models that move on that step are not sufficient to bring them in base contact with an enemy.

This makes initiative make more of a difference, and makes it important in tactical awareness, as demonstrated by the multiple examples shown by both you and I.

Betray, where bolded and highlighted you've agreed with Yak.

No, because he's assuming that doesn't apply, and that it goes to the next initiative if that doesn't result in base contact, but the rules very clearly state that it doesn't, and that further initiative steps are lost. For this to happen, only 1 of the 2 players has to have a model move during an initiative step(That is the requirement to not skip the step). If the requirements are met to resolve the initiative step instead of skipping it(at least 1 player has a model that acts on that init), then you resolve the initiative step as per outlined. In the case where only 1 of the 2 players has a model on that init, once that player has moved, all players who have models at that step have done so, and base contact has still not been established, therefore further init steps are lost, and you proceed to the combat resolution steps.

I feel the Both is being ignored, if only 1 player piles in at this step, this is not both players, it is one player and this sentence should not be applied. We have the bracketed

(that's more than 6" - very unlikely!)

Solidifying that 'both' in this context means 'both' and not either/or
Yak has shown the context to be correct in his interpretation including the ''remaining initiative steps are lost'' without ignoring any words.

The sentence is not clear.

Looking at both interpretations;


Interpretation A
At an initiative step
The assault is over and all remaining initiative steps are lost if;
A player's pile in move would be insufficient to bring them into base to base contact


Interpretation B
At an initiative step
The assault is over and all remaining initiative steps are lost if;
Both player's pile in moves would be insufficient to bring them into base to base contact.


There is nothing suggesting that if only one side piles in at this initiative step, this sentence should be applied, everything points towards the sentence existing to conclude combat where neither side could ever make it into combat

Yak - it is indeed a clarification, hence throw away. It does not alter the rules, but adds meaning. You are claiming it alters the rules because the rules are written as a SINGLE I step pile in being performed, yet you are now saying this must be *all* I steps being considered. Which is a change of context and thus rules.

I have already, a couple of times now, explained what the reminder text is doing - that if you are both 5.9" apart, with I4 on each side to piile in, that just because the player whose turn it is moved and did not get to base doesnt mean the other player doesnt also get to move. Being more than 6" apart when you both have I4 troops left IS very unlikely.

Please do not claim your other poll as having anything to do with how clear the rules are, as you stated plainly it was NOT A RAW THREAD. THIS thread is about the RAW, and so far you have yet to cite a single actual rule, and not a parens statement, that supports your claim that the rule talking about a single I step pile in is actually talking about ALL I steps, and your claim that you have explained the "all further I steps are los" still doesnt alter that you moved models at each stage, performing a pile in, meaning they WERE NOT lost - you performed an action during the I step. Only the *attacks* were lost - except you are not told to only lose attaacks, but the WHOLE I step, which includes Pile in

You are making a flawed argument, as has been consistently shown, and I believe you are way off the mark with this one.

 Nem wrote:
I feel the Both is being ignored, if only 1 player piles in at this step, this is not both players, it is one player and this sentence should not be applied.

Well, yes... if only one player has models with the current initiative, why would both players be piling in?


If both players' pile ins at the current initiative were insufficient to get any models into base contact, the combat ends. If one player didn't have any models with that initiative, then he doesn't make a pile in at that step... in which case his pile in moves were insufficient to get models into base contact.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yak - it is indeed a clarification, hence throw away. It does not alter the rules, but adds meaning. You are claiming it alters the rules because the rules are written as a SINGLE I step pile in being performed, yet you are now saying this must be *all* I steps being considered. Which is a change of context and thus rules.

I have already, a couple of times now, explained what the reminder text is doing - that if you are both 5.9" apart, with I4 on each side to piile in, that just because the player whose turn it is moved and did not get to base doesnt mean the other player doesnt also get to move. Being more than 6" apart when you both have I4 troops left IS very unlikely.

Please do not claim your other poll as having anything to do with how clear the rules are, as you stated plainly it was NOT A RAW THREAD. THIS thread is about the RAW, and so far you have yet to cite a single actual rule, and not a parens statement, that supports your claim that the rule talking about a single I step pile in is actually talking about ALL I steps, and your claim that you have explained the "all further I steps are los" still doesnt alter that you moved models at each stage, performing a pile in, meaning they WERE NOT lost - you performed an action during the I step. Only the *attacks* were lost - except you are not told to only lose attaacks, but the WHOLE I step, which includes Pile in

You are making a flawed argument, as has been consistently shown, and I believe you are way off the mark with this one.

As I always say, RAW is a myth because it is only as true as you can get other people to agree with you. The more clear a rule is, the more likely people will be able to agree what the 'RAW' say.

People do not willingly choose to not follow clear rules, ever. Anytime you have a situation where 40% is playing one way and 60% is playing another, then you have a situation where the rules are not clear, period.

My position that I'm defending is what I believe the rules as written say.

Your position is not the 'RAW' because the rules as written are not clear. If they said something like:

"If both players' Pile In moves in any given Initiative Step would be insufficient to bring any combatants back together, then the assault comes to an end..."


If the rules actually said that, then your position would clearly be the RAW. Unfortunately, the way the rule is written it can just as easily be interpreted as referring to ALL potential Pile-In moves remaining, not just those in any given Initiative Step.

And given that in can be interpreted either way, then all of a sudden the explanation text in the parenthesis becomes important, because it DOES GIVE US CLARIFICATION about what the rule is trying to accomplish.

It specifically says that it is VERY UNLIKELY for this to happen because its only going to happen when models are more than 6" away from each other. I understand why you want to ignore this text and pretend like it doesn't exist, because it does not support your position.

So yes, reading the rule without the parenthetical material can still be interpreted 'by the RAW' the way I'm saying. And then when you actually consider the parenthetical text, it becomes clear that the interpretation that I am claiming is actually the correct one.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I agree, and gameplay-wise, it adds tactical elements to assaults, and more value to high initiative units and your awareness of initiative as a player. More tactical depth = better imo.

I does not add tactical elements to an assault. It randomly penalizes units for including a small number of high Initiative models in it.

I have shown you what the version of the rule in 5th edition was, and how it was very clearly ported over from that rulebook (using the same expression in the parenthetical text, even). So this is NOT some sort of secret easter egg designed to randomly shut down combats in the middle of them. It is just a rule copy-pasted from 5th edition and then updated in a way that is ambiguous enough that most people are (apparently) playing it wrong.

And RAI is a myth because nobody here is the design team and have no idea what they wanted and what their motivations were while writing the rules.

RAW is what we see on the page in front of us, when a rule isn't clear we have to go by consensus to ensure that we have as little variance between how it is played in my store and your store and tournaments. The only reason we have to go with consensus is that words can have different meanings, language is mutable and there are many various forms of English out there especially the US, Australia and New Zealand.

In this case there isn't consensus but a majority play the rule as myself NOS, Rigeld, insaniak etc read it, so we need a new poll to show how you read the rule because RAI, RAW and HIWPI are 3 very different things.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
RAW is what we see on the page in front of us, when a rule isn't clear we have to go by consensus to ensure that we have as little variance between how it is played in my store and your store and tournaments.

We do...?

Why?

Yakface - yet another absolute that is wrong.

The change to Out of Range is absolutely clear, yet people are choosing to not play it that way.

Additionally, do not misrepresent my argument. I have not "ignored" the parens statement - I have explained what it shows, which is that when you are dealing with an I step, one persons IX move not reaching base does not mean the other persons IX move cant also reach base.

It can only be interpreted, as a whole, as meaning *all* I steps if you ignore the context the entire paragraph is written in - which only talks about a given I step. That is it.

You are trying to complete actions at lower I steps - moving models to try to reach base - when explicitly prohibited from doing so. this CANNOT be rules as written.

 yakface wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I agree, and gameplay-wise, it adds tactical elements to assaults, and more value to high initiative units and your awareness of initiative as a player. More tactical depth = better imo.

I does not add tactical elements to an assault. It randomly penalizes units for including a small number of high Initiative models in it.

That's your opinion. I've already stated mine, and made it very clear that it was just that, an opinion.

 insaniak wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
RAW is what we see on the page in front of us, when a rule isn't clear we have to go by consensus to ensure that we have as little variance between how it is played in my store and your store and tournaments.

We do...?

Why?

Well that wasn't put as best I could. The reason you go with consensus or at least a majority view is that nobody is right 100% of the time and one person deciding that a rule says X because a minority of people agree is a bad way to run a club or tournament. Especially when it isn't a case of ambiguous RAW. Having the same interpretation of the rules across national tournaments is a good thing as it leads to less people getting screwed over due to local "house rules" on things like this.

I was talking from a TO kind of perspective, it's better for the players to have everything in line with other tournaments in the area. How else do things like the INAT FAQ come together if not by consensus of many voices and opinions? How we get to consensus is a very difficult thing and it is either by agreeing to disagree and polling on it or by arguing the sides and convincing people of what the rules are.

Ideally the rules should be the exact same from Nottingham to New Delhi and a player could walk in off the street anywhere knowing the rules, fairly well and have a game with little or no issues.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:


Sorry for the rant. I just see this as a fundamental issue where RAW and RAI are quite arguably the same, and any discussion to change that seems highly unfavorable to finesse armies.

I use a similar tactic to the one you described in an opposite manner

When my Death company leap out of their Land Raider, I deploy them in a chevron, with fists in the rear, close to the door.

The front 3 guys are usually around 7" away, the back ones are usually about 11" away.

I use the pile-in to keep my fists out of combat, let my ablative (I4) guys die off, then I can use my 3" pile-in to effectively pick-and-choose my B2B combats.

It's kinda the opposite of finesse, but it works very well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Well that wasn't put as best I could. The reason you go with consensus or at least a majority view is that nobody is right 100% of the time and one person deciding that a rule says X because a minority of people agree is a bad way to run a club or tournament. Especially when it isn't a case of ambiguous RAW. Having the same interpretation of the rules across national tournaments is a good thing as it leads to less people getting screwed over due to local "house rules" on things like this.

I think a simple way to say this would be:

Because this is a game where everyone realistically just wants to roll sixes and win, we make standardised rulings/interpretations that make the process of resolving these odd rules queries much more fluid a process.

In my tournaments/games, I have a look at a few things (if I'm a 3rd party)

What does the rulebook say?
If it's ambiguous, I ask the players what their interpretation is and I compare it to my own.
If one of them shares my interpretation (without having heard my interpretation), I say "I think it's played how he wants it to be played" and side with him
If neither of them shares my interpretation, I say D6. 1,2,3 it's his way, 4+ its yours.

I must admit, this way has worked very well for me in the past. I've never had a player feel disgruntled when they came to me specifically for rules queries.

The best way to resolve rules queries is quickly.

I think Yak has a very good points.

Of all the times I've read this line I've missed a very important word here and I think many others have also. Noticed it while reading Yaks post. I'll over emphasize it.

"If both players' Pile In moves combined would be insufficient to bring any combatants back together (that's more than 6" - very unlikely!), the assault comes to an end. All remaining Initiative steps are lost - work out the assault result as described on page 26." Page 23
The use of this word indicates this rule is asserted before you even pile-in on that initiative step as soon as the units are found to be more than 6 inches from each other, all the remaining initiative steps are lost including the active one.

So at initiative step X your closest models are 6.1 inches away, you realize your combined pile-in moves will not bring you into base contact, the assault ends. Period. You don't make the pile-in move on that initiative step, the assault is over and you go to work it out per page 26.(the section extends through page 27)

If no one falls back you eventually get to end of combat pile-in which refers you back to page 23 where you already know that the pile-in moves will not make base contact(this move might be made still though I'm not sure). You end with no enemies in base contact and both players consolidate.