Switch Theme:

When assaulting; does the target get to choose which unit to overwatch?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 DeathReaper wrote:
So you are ignoring this: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."(23)



Because at the time that you are moving your charging models, that statement is not relevant.


If we're just going to lift rules out of context to satisfy an argument, why not just take '...enemies are locked in combat' to mean that your opponent's models can never move, ever, other than to pile in, because they're always locked in combat?

So nobody can move, nobody can shoot, nobody can ever fall back, and we're all just standing around looking at a bunch of models on a table. Woot.


I mean, seriously guys, RAW is awesome and all, but when we get to a point where we are deliberately taking rules out of context in order to break the game, that's no longer RAW. That's just a pointless waste of everyone's time.





 
   
Made in us
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna





 insaniak wrote:
 Idolator wrote:
Ok, there are no written words to that effect. You have stated that plainly. I get it. There is no RAW to substantiate this point. Great!

There is a very large difference between 'The rules don't use these specific words' and 'There is no RAW to support that point'.

The rules as written support the argument that units are not locked until the 'Fight' sub-phase by not pointing out that units are locked until you get to the 'Fight' sub-phase section of the rules.


Yes, there is a difference between specific words and "there is no RAW to support that point". It's a fair point.

However, That is a Rule as Intended argument or a Rule as Implied argument, not a Rule as Written argument.
I see your argument that "locked in combat" is only applied once you are in the "fight" sub-phase is based solely on the placement of the rule within the section "Fight Sub-phase" . I do get where you are coming from, but the Rule as Written makes no such claims that this only applies in the fight sub-phase. It is a bolded rule that stands on it's own. You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made, I contend that the writers intended for "locked in combat" to be applied only after the charging unit has finished it's assault move (otherwise it seriously breaks other rules, movement, coherency, etc.) and there's a third, hard and fast, RAW argument that states that once the first model makes contact, the unit is locked and can move no farther.

I don't believe that the placement of a rule dictates the only time that it comes into effect . If so, there are many instances where taking saves is mentioned in various game mechanics but conspicuously absent in the "Explodes" entry in the vehicle damage chart. It doesn't say to resolve as shooting or any other mechanic or even how to determine cover. Using the logic described any wounds caused to surrounding units, by an exploding vehicle cannot be saved. This is not to drag a different topic into this thread, it is merely a way to describe one of my my reasons for my point.

Meks is da best! Dey makes go fasta and mo dakka!  
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 insaniak wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
So you are ignoring this: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."(23)



Because at the time that you are moving your charging models, that statement is not relevant.


I do not see how it is not relevant.

Are you suggesting that the rule is not in effect at all times when a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy?

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 insaniak wrote:
 Idolator wrote:
Ok, there are no written words to that effect. You have stated that plainly. I get it. There is no RAW to substantiate this point. Great!

There is a very large difference between 'The rules don't use these specific words' and 'There is no RAW to support that point'.

The rules as written support the argument that units are not locked until the 'Fight' sub-phase by not pointing out that units are locked until you get to the 'Fight' sub-phase section of the rules.


Which has nothing to do with what locked is. Where is the rule that you cannot move through friendly units ?

Once a unit makes BTB contact with the charge move, that unit is locked by definition. Once you charge with a second unit, Overwatch rules check for Locked, which you are. The assault phase is specifically sequential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
So you are ignoring this: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."(23)



Because at the time that you are moving your charging models, that statement is not relevant.


I do not see how it is not relevant.

Are you suggesting that the rule is not in effect at all times when a unit has one or more models in base contact with an enemy?


Not when your trying to interrupt a specific legal action to try to declare that action illegal. You have permission to make a charge move. You are told all the models must move. You are told how to place them in BTB contact with the enemy. Nowhere in that sequence is the "check for locked". The unit has already taken its action, when you are moving the models, the unit is not moving, it already has once it rolled charge range and succeeded. Placing the models in their specific locations is completely irrelevant to whether the unit can move.

And you still have not addressed your locked rule vs fall back moves.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 07:09:32


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Idolator wrote:
Yes, there is a difference between specific words and "there is no RAW to support that point". It's a fair point.

However, That is a Rule as Intended argument or a Rule as Implied argument, not a Rule as Written argument.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

If a rule is imposed at a specific point in the turn, assuming that this rule applies at that specific point in the turn is not an argument of intent. It's taking the rule as presented in the book.


The intent argument is the one that says that you should ignore that placement of the rule and assume that it is supposed to always apply, as I already mentioned.



You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made,

No, I don't. As I made very clear in my first post in this thread.


Using the logic described any wounds caused to surrounding units, by an exploding vehicle cannot be saved.

The fact that the rules aren't clear on whether or not a model gets a save in certain situations in no way affects whether or not the specific placement of a rule affects when that rule applies.

 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Fragile wrote:
Where is the rule that you cannot move through friendly units ?
You can move through friendly units if there is room between the bases. you can not move trough friendly models though.

"Models falling back from a combat can freely mo\re through all enemy models that were involved in that combat (they have already missed the chance to catch them) This is an exception to the normal rules for moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model." (30, Emphasis mine)

Page 30 says that "a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model."

and Page 85 in the Tank Shock rules has a reminder.

"Remember, though, that friendly models still cannot be moved through, so the Tank's movement will be stopped if any friendly models are in the way."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 15:14:07


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




DR, you completely missed the point of that question, and it wasn't directed at you.

Care to come back to your debate?
   
Made in us
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna





 insaniak wrote:


If a rule is imposed at a specific point in the turn, assuming that this rule applies at that specific point in the turn is not an argument of intent. It's taking the rule as presented in the book.


The intent argument is the one that says that you should ignore that placement of the rule and assume that it is supposed to always apply, as I already mentioned.



You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made,

No, I don't. As I made very clear in my first post in this thread.


Using the logic described any wounds caused to surrounding units, by an exploding vehicle cannot be saved.

The fact that the rules aren't clear on whether or not a model gets a save in certain situations in no way affects whether or not the specific placement of a rule affects when that rule applies.


Wait....WHAT!?! Do you realize that these are two contradictory statements. Does anyone else? Honestly, Does anyone else?

Meks is da best! Dey makes go fasta and mo dakka!  
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Fragile wrote:
DR, you completely missed the point of that question, and it wasn't directed at you.

Care to come back to your debate?

I was simply answering your question.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 DeathReaper wrote:
Fragile wrote:
DR, you completely missed the point of that question, and it wasn't directed at you.

Care to come back to your debate?

I was simply answering your question.


And using Insaniak's logic, you can move through friendly units in the movement phase, because that rule is not applied until you reach further pages in the book, right?

   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Fragile wrote:
And using Insaniak's logic, you can move through friendly units in the movement phase, because that rule is not applied until you reach further pages in the book, right?

Until it was added to the rulebook FAQ, that was indeed the case. It was a fairly large and well-discussed hole in the rules when 6th edition was first released.

The FAQ 'clarifies' that you can't move through friendly models.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The rules in the book state that as DR quoted the pages. They just did not put it in the movement section.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Yes, that was the problem. The rules listed an exception to a normal rule that didn't actually exist until it was 'clarified' into existence in the FAQ.

 
   
Made in us
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna





 insaniak wrote:
 Idolator wrote:
Yes, there is a difference between specific words and "there is no RAW to support that point". It's a fair point.

However, That is a Rule as Intended argument or a Rule as Implied argument, not a Rule as Written argument.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

If a rule is imposed at a specific point in the turn, assuming that this rule applies at that specific point in the turn is not an argument of intent. It's taking the rule as presented in the book.


The intent argument is the one that says that you should ignore that placement of the rule and assume that it is supposed to always apply, as I already mentioned.



You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made,

No, I don't. As I made very clear in my first post in this thread.


Using the logic described any wounds caused to surrounding units, by an exploding vehicle cannot be saved.

The fact that the rules aren't clear on whether or not a model gets a save in certain situations in no way affects whether or not the specific placement of a rule affects when that rule applies.


Ok, Let me get this straight. Here's the relevant point that you made in your first post in this thread.

What there is, is a sequence that breaks the assault phase down into separate sub-phases. The rules for the sub-phase in which you move your charging models makes no reference to considering the unit locked in combat, or the models engaged, in that sub-phase. It's not until you get to the 'Fight' subphase that they tell you how to figure that out.

You are contending that you are not considered "locked in combat" until you have reached the fight sub-phase due to the listed order of operations described in the book, and that it is not required to have passed the "pile in" step to be considered "locked in combat" even though that goes against the listed order of operations described in the book. I just want to be clear here, it's hard for me to pick a place to stand when you're in both places.

If a rule is imposed at a specific point in the turn, assuming that this rule applies at that specific point in the turn is not an argument of intent. It's taking the rule as presented in the book.


If you are "assuming", then what is it that you are assuming? Are you assuming how they intended it to go? If not, then what?

What criteria are used to determine if a rule is determined to be imposed at a specific point. Is it the placement in the book? It's placement in a sub heading? Does it have to be specifically spelled out that this is the order that you use?

Assumptions, inferences and implications would all fall under the heading of "Deriving the Intent".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 20:50:04


Meks is da best! Dey makes go fasta and mo dakka!  
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Idolator wrote:
You are contending that you are not considered "locked in combat" until you have reached the fight sub-phase due to the listed order of operations described in the book, and that it is not required to have passed the "pile in" step to be considered "locked in combat" even though that goes against the listed order of operations described in the book. I just want to be clear here, it's hard for me to pick a place to stand when you're in both places.

I'm not in 'both places'. You have misunderstood my point.

I'm saying you are considered locked and engaged at the points in the sequence where the rules establish these things.


If you are "assuming", then what is it that you are assuming? Are you assuming how they intended it to go? If not, then what?

It seems the vast majority of your issues here stem from taking individual words or phrases out of context.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 insaniak wrote:


I'm saying you are considered locked and engaged at the points in the sequence where the rules establish these things.


.


Which would be when the charging unit makes BTB contact.

Edit: Or actually in your sequence of events, when the second unit is told to check for Locked to fire Overwatch.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 23:40:59


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Fragile wrote:
Which would be when the charging unit makes BTB contact.

Where in the rules for the charge sub-phase do they establish that moving into base contact counts them as locked?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 23:46:10


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




In order to fire Overwatch on the second unit, the firing unit must check for being locked in combat per the Overwatch rules.

Locked in combat is defined at being in BTB with an enemy model.

Therefore you cannot fire at the second unit since you are told to check for locked before firing overwatch.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Fragile wrote:
In order to fire Overwatch on the second unit, the firing unit must check for being locked in combat per the Overwatch rules.

Locked in combat is defined at being in BTB with an enemy model.

Therefore you cannot fire at the second unit since you are told to check for locked before firing overwatch.

Assuming that the Overwatch rules actually specify that (don't have the book on me, so I'll take your word for it) then that works for me.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Well, two ways. First Overwatch is made like a normal shooting attack which cannot be done while locked and secondly

Overwatch Restrictions
It's worth pointing out that units that are locked in close combat cannot fire Overwatch


pg 21. So you have to check for Locked.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





I have to ask, for those arguing that the first model in an assault that reaches b2b effectively locks the unit and thus no other models may move, do you actually play this way? Or has all of this just turned into argument for argument's sake?
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

citadel wrote:
I have to ask, for those arguing that the first model in an assault that reaches b2b effectively locks the unit and thus no other models may move, do you actually play this way? Or has all of this just turned into argument for argument's sake?

That argument was presented as a counter to the claim that the rule stating that a unit is locked if it is in base contact will apply out of sequence. So no, people don't play that way - that argument was supplied as a reason to not play that way.

 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord





Eureka California

When how RAW works is not made clear then determining RAW becomes a matter of interpretation. The one with the least amount of assumption that does not break rules and does not render any text meaningless is generally the correct answer. One usually cannot avoid all assumption in such a case as this particularly to determine intent where context is unclear. As I have pointed out any charge move that leaves the unit out of coherency is illegal an as such you would be rendering the 2d6 charge range meaningless if only the initial charger can be moved as it would have to stay in coherency with the rest of the unit. This interpretation cannot be correct. It is in fact the cause of the debate not the answer and advocating it as correct is advocating a broken rule system. Refusing to see things any other way is counter productive to finding a reasonable interpretation of the rules and has no place in constructive debate.

Saying the rest of the charge move cannot take place because on model is now in b2b with an enemy is akin to saying a model that Vector Strikes cannot shoot in the shooting phase because it says it counts as having fired one weapon so it counts as having already made its shooting attack... That could be true except it renders the text about firing additional weapons that turn meaningless and is therefore not correct. Just like reducing charge range to 2 (maintaining coherency)inches is not correct. The whole unit needs to move 2d6 in any correct interpretation regarding moving charging models as they are very particular about how this goes. If you are presenting a view of the rules that does not include this you are either stating that RAW is broken and there is no way to proceed by the rules or just cluttering a thread with meaningless theorycrafting that leads nowhere productive.

That people(myself, rigeld, insanik, etc.) have come up with working interpretations containing little assumption and observance of all the rules means it is not 'broken'. Refusing to see that this is the case seems like pure obstinacy. Yes there is some assumption in each but not unreasonably so and all rules are followed within the theory so unless someone has a better working assessment of RAW that should be the end of that.

DeathReaper wrote:
 Abandon wrote:
Unit moves, as far as I can tell, are a single mechanic (though they have sub-mechanics within them) and you have not shown any reason to stop it mid-effect and reevaluate it's legality.

So you are ignoring this: "Units that have one or more models in base contact with enemies are locked in combat."(23)

Why?


I didn't ignore that rule. Please read the whole post before responding and perhaps you would care to explain the problems with your view on RAW before questioning others.

-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




citadel wrote:
I have to ask, for those arguing that the first model in an assault that reaches b2b effectively locks the unit and thus no other models may move, do you actually play this way? Or has all of this just turned into argument for argument's sake?


You will find the majority of these arguments in YMDC are not how people play. It is simply an exercise in debate within RAW.

This argument comes up a bit. Most likely its from the change from 5th edition declaring all the charges at once, to 6th's consecutive charges.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





@fragile @insaniak I figured. I've enjoyed the read and the ideas that many users put forth. Looks like GW should hire some dakka subscribers to proof-check their rulebooks : p

thanks for the earnest response
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord





Eureka California

citadel wrote:
@fragile @insaniak I figured. I've enjoyed the read and the ideas that many users put forth. Looks like GW should hire some dakka subscribers to proof-check their rulebooks : p

thanks for the earnest response


They should just write how they want things to go and send it over to the MTG judges to write the actual rules for them IMO

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/18 03:44:28


-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change. 
   
Made in us
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna





 insaniak wrote:
 Idolator wrote:
You are contending that you are not considered "locked in combat" until you have reached the fight sub-phase due to the listed order of operations described in the book, and that it is not required to have passed the "pile in" step to be considered "locked in combat" even though that goes against the listed order of operations described in the book. I just want to be clear here, it's hard for me to pick a place to stand when you're in both places.

I'm not in 'both places'. You have misunderstood my point.

I'm saying you are considered locked and engaged at the points in the sequence where the rules establish these things.


If you are "assuming", then what is it that you are assuming? Are you assuming how they intended it to go? If not, then what?

It seems the vast majority of your issues here stem from taking individual words or phrases out of context.


Now, you're projecting.

I clearly take all of your statements as a whole, you can tell because I point out the the incongruous nature of your statements. I don't cut and post, creating out of context portions to attack without the support of the the rest of your statements. I use the statements in their entirety and either try to sum them up or ask for clarification. I also restate my points instead of references to "earlier".

You have made many seemingly contradictory statements. Here are a few. You're red, I'm yellow.

If a rule is imposed at a specific point in the turn, assuming that this rule applies at that specific point in the turn is not an argument of intent. It's taking the rule as presented in the book.


The intent argument is the one that says that you should ignore that placement of the rule and assume that it is supposed to always apply, as I already mentioned.



You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made,

No, I don't. As I made very clear in my first post in this thread.

This was the statement that you made first. It is the relevant portion, but not it is the entire relative portion.

What there is, is a sequence that breaks the assault phase down into separate sub-phases. The rules for the sub-phase in which you move your charging models makes no reference to considering the unit locked in combat, or the models engaged, in that sub-phase. It's not until you get to the 'Fight' subphase that they tell you how to figure that out.

So, it is established that you believe that "locked in combat" does not occur until the fight sub phase based on the order of operation listed in the rules. Is this a correct statement?

Then there was this bit.

You contend that the writers intended for the "Locked in combat" rule to only be applied after pile-in moves are made,

No, I don't. As I made very clear in my first post in this thread.

Now there is the rub, the order of operations listed in the rules, clearly place "locked in combat" after "pile in moves" are made.

You have stated that the order of operations determine when you are considered locked in combat and have denied that that the order of operations determines when you are locked in combat. It's all right there.

That would be both sides of the argument. I'm honestly trying to figure out where you're coming from. You've both agreed and disagreed with my point.

Which is: the order of operation is not the indicator for when units are considered locked in combat. Units are considered locked in combat after the first assaulting unit is in base contact. which prevents the assaulted unit from conducting any actions.


Edit: I know that I put it twice. That's on purpose to represent the incongruous, circular nature of the statements.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/18 04:58:43


Meks is da best! Dey makes go fasta and mo dakka!  
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Idolator wrote:
You have stated that the order of operations determine when you are considered locked in combat and have denied that that the order of operations determines when you are locked in combat. It's all right there.

No, I stated that the order of operations determines when you are considered locked in combat and also stated that I don't think that this was the intention of the writer.


There is no contradiction there. I disagreed with your statement that I was arguing that the writer intended for the order of operations to determine when you are considered locked because I don't believe that was the writer's intention. My argument was an interpretation of RAW, not intention.

 
   
Made in us
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna





 insaniak wrote:
 Idolator wrote:
You have stated that the order of operations determine when you are considered locked in combat and have denied that that the order of operations determines when you are locked in combat. It's all right there.

No, I stated that the order of operations determines when you are considered locked in combat and also stated that I don't think that this was the intention of the writer.


There is no contradiction there. I disagreed with your statement that I was arguing that the writer intended for the order of operations to determine when you are considered locked because I don't believe that was the writer's intention. My argument was an interpretation of RAW, not intention.


Ok, just so that I'm clear. You were not stating that the writer INTENDED for "locked in combat" to only be in effect after "pile in moves" are made,but that the Rules as Written require that "locked in combat" is only in effect after "pile in moves" are made.

Meks is da best! Dey makes go fasta and mo dakka!  
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Yes, that's what I was saying.

Again, I made that exceedingly clear by pointing out in my first post in this thread that I didn't think the RAW was what the writer intended.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/18 06:00:35


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: