Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Charistoph wrote:

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

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

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

Sorry, wasn't looking at the colors.

A multiple combat is still one combat though, right?
If blue and green charge red, (and stay 6"+ away from each other) then red is engaged with blue and green at the same time in the same combat. Yes?

insaniak wrote:

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

Uh... yes?

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

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

You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.

I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.

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

So it follows with your logic that the secondary target has to have a model within 2" of the closest model in the primary target to the charging unit for a multi charge to be declared, right?
Because as you must engage that closest model first, and have thus engaged the primary target, and if I want to declare a multi-assault I need to engage the primary and secondary at the same time, ie with the first charging model.
If not, why not?

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

If that is the criteria, then mutliple assaults are impossible. A secondary target can never become engaged until it has been charged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

So it is impossible to ever do two things at the same time, because as soon as you start doing the second thing you are no longer doing the first?

The 'assault' on the primary target is (at least) the entire period of time that models are completing their charge moves.
It begins when you move the first model in to contact with the primary target and ends when the last model has finished moving.

Nothing about moving in to contact with a secondary target stops it being the assault on the primary target because you are still fulfilling all the rules for assault on the primary target. If moving in to contact with a secondary target counts as stopping the primary assault, then not being able to move a model in to BTB with the primary target equally stops the primary assault.

This issue was settled pages ago.

The rule says 'unit engage' and does not give permission to resolve at the level of 'model engage'.

Therefore, "at the same time" can only refer to the completion of the UNIT charge move.


Inserting "initial charger model" into the rules breaks from the RAW and makes Charistoph's argument HYWPI.

 Charistoph wrote:
They are now engaged because you Charged, not because they were close enough to the Primary Assault to be engaged by it..

Yup, that sounds about right.

Trasvi wrote:
A multiple combat is still one combat though, right?
If blue and green charge red, (and stay 6"+ away from each other) then red is engaged with blue and green at the same time in the same combat. Yes?

Yes, but we are considering how one unit Charges two, not two units Charging one, remember.

Trasvi wrote:
You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.

I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.

Already stated how you can do that. The stipulation is that a model is engaged if it is within 2" of a model that is in base contact in this combat. It does not state that a model has to be in a unit locked in this combat. You may not like it. You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.

Trasvi wrote:
So it follows with your logic that the secondary target has to have a model within 2" of the closest model in the primary target to the charging unit for a multi charge to be declared, right?
Because as you must engage that closest model first, and have thus engaged the primary target, and if I want to declare a multi-assault I need to engage the primary and secondary at the same time, ie with the first charging model.
If not, why not?

No, the secondary target does not have to have a model within 2" of the closest model in the Primary Target to the Charging unit. It does have to be within 2" of a model in the Primary Target that the Charging Unit can reach. The Primary Assault is not consumed in the movement of the Initial model, nor have I ever stated such. In fact, I have actually stated it can be the third or fourth model in the Primary Target which can be made in Base Contact.

You are taking the steps in the following procedure to be the standard by which "at the same time" is being determined.

Trasvi wrote:

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

If that is the criteria, then mutliple assaults are impossible. A secondary target can never become engaged until it has been charged.

Incorrect. A model just needs to be within 2" of a model in base contact of the conbat in question. The possibility must exist of being that close.

Remember, the standard for a Secondary Target is not just "who can you reach".

Trasvi wrote:
So it is impossible to ever do two things at the same time, because as soon as you start doing the second thing you are no longer doing the first?

If you do not have permission to do so, it is impossible.

If you are moving a Charging model in to Base Contact with a Primary Target, it cannot be within 1" of an enemy model from another unit, period. So, using the Base Contact condition of engaged would be quite impossible.

Trasvi wrote:
The 'assault' on the primary target is (at least) the entire period of time that models are completing their charge moves.
It begins when you move the first model in to contact with the primary target and ends when the last model has finished moving.

Nothing about moving in to contact with a secondary target stops it being the assault on the primary target because you are still fulfilling all the rules for assault on the primary target. If moving in to contact with a secondary target counts as stopping the primary assault, then not being able to move a model in to BTB with the primary target equally stops the primary assault.

Prove it. Provide an actual in book standard that Charging another unit is considered at the same time as Charging the first is.

Edit: If you are placing a model in base contact to a Secondary Target, this would be during a Secondary Assault, (to note the difference from a "Primary Assault", a term not used in a normal Charge).

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.

I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.

Already stated how you can do that. The stipulation is that a model is engaged if it is within 2" of a model that is in base contact in this combat. It does not state that a model has to be in a unit locked in this combat. You may not like it. You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.

Charistoph,
You keep confusing 'model engaged' with 'unit engaged'. The rule that you are confused about is talking about 'unit engage' in which the dictionary definition of 'engage' is at play. Therefore, 'at the same time' can only refer to the resolution of the charge move for the collective unit.



The rule simply does not state anything about a model being engaged. You may not like that the rule says "unit can engage". You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.

You need to mark your posts HYWPI, since fudging 'model' with 'unit' is obviously breaking from the rules as written.

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.

I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.

Already stated how you can do that. The stipulation is that a model is engaged if it is within 2" of a model that is in base contact in this combat. It does not state that a model has to be in a unit locked in this combat. You may not like it. You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.

In order to be engaged, a model must be in close combat. The only way to get to close combat is by charging. Its in the linear order of the rules. If you just take that sentence out of context it would agree with your statement.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.

I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.

Already stated how you can do that. The stipulation is that a model is engaged if it is within 2" of a model that is in base contact in this combat. It does not state that a model has to be in a unit locked in this combat. You may not like it. You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.

In order to be engaged, a model must be in close combat. The only way to get to close combat is by charging. Its in the linear order of the rules. If you just take that sentence out of context it would agree with your statement.

Does nobody actually read the points which have been made? Where does it state the model must be in close combat in order to be engaged? The answer is under Determine Who Can Fight in the Fight Close Combat portion of the Assault Phase after the Start of Initiative Step Pile In.

A model is engaged in combat if it is in base contact with one or more enemy models. Okay, that would be in this case, or at least one can assume it is the case here. Nothing actually states it requires to be in close combat, but that IS the only way to get in base contact.

A model is engaged in combat if it is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat. The friendly model is noted here as being the one in the same combat, not the model we are checking to be engaged. If the model we are checking to see if it is engaged is supposed to be locked in combat it wouldn't need the clarifier at the end any more then the first case of engaged, would it?

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
You can't be engaged in a just by being close to a combat. The rule for engaged requires you to already be in the same combat as the models you are checking with.

I honestly have no idea how you get this idea that you somehow engage a unit without charging it.

Already stated how you can do that. The stipulation is that a model is engaged if it is within 2" of a model that is in base contact in this combat. It does not state that a model has to be in a unit locked in this combat. You may not like it. You may not completely agree with it, but that is how it is written.

In order to be engaged, a model must be in close combat. The only way to get to close combat is by charging. Its in the linear order of the rules. If you just take that sentence out of context it would agree with your statement.

Correct.

As you correctly point out, the Fight Sub-Phase is the context of the rule. The units and models participating in the current combat have already been identified and have already been subjected to rules based on that identification (Locked in Combat, pile in, initiative step, etc.). A rule that would redefine what is 'in combat', which Charistoph claims the rule is doing, breaks all the earlier steps.

And this statement proves your point.



In the above rule, "models" refers to models in units that are Locked In Combat and that are part of the combat that is currently being resolved and having completed a pile in move. "Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have completed the piling in move and part of the current combat being resolved.

Charistoph is arguing that "any model" can refer to any friendly model on the battlefield which breaks grammatical agreement, contextual reference, and logically established set relationships with all of the other rules in that section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Does nobody actually read the points which have been made? Where does it state the model must be in close combat in order to be engaged? The answer is under Determine Who Can Fight in the Fight Close Combat portion of the Assault Phase after the Start of Initiative Step Pile In.

A model is engaged in combat if it is in base contact with one or more enemy models. Okay, that would be in this case, or at least one can assume it is the case here. Nothing actually states it requires to be in close combat, but that IS the only way to get in base contact.

A model is engaged in combat if it is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat. The friendly model is noted here as being the one in the same combat, not the model we are checking to be engaged. If the model we are checking to see if it is engaged is supposed to be locked in combat it wouldn't need the clarifier at the end any more then the first case of engaged, would it?

You aren't reading the rule in context. The model has to be a subset of the models that completed pile-in moves which means that they were Locked in Combat and had permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase.

This has been pointed out several times.

LOCKED IN COMBAT


FIGHT SUB-PHASE

1) CHOOSE A COMBAT


2) FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT


a) Initiative Step


b) Start of Initiative Step Pile In


c) Determine Who Can Fight


In the above rules comprising the Fight Sub-Phase, "models" refers to models in units that are Locked In Combat and that are part of the combat (e.g. "this combat") that is currently being resolved. To suggest otherwise is to break grammatically, contextually, and logically from the Fight Sub-Phase rules as they are written.

 Charistoph wrote:

Does nobody actually read the points which have been made? Where does it state the model must be in close combat in order to be engaged? The answer is under Determine Who Can Fight in the Fight Close Combat portion of the Assault Phase after the Start of Initiative Step Pile In.

Actually that is not the answer. Or technically part of the answer.

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

FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT
In close combat, both players’ models fight. Attacks in close combat......

Other than close combat there is no permission for a model outside the unit to make melee attacks. Even some of those in the unit cannot attack if they are not engaged by the rule you keep quoting out of context. By your claim, I can make pile in moves with units near to combat but not in combat. The rules even determine that combats are separate since the active player decides order.

Fragile wrote:


Other than close combat there is no permission for a model outside the unit to make melee attacks. Even some of those in the unit cannot attack if they are not engaged by the rule you keep quoting out of context. By your [Charistoph's] claim, I can make pile in moves with units near to combat but not in combat. The rules even determine that combats are separate since the active player decides order.

Charistoph's claim actually leads to to far worse shenanigans. If rules can be taken out of context and "any models" can refer to any model on the battlefield then all models on the battlefield will be required to make pile-in moves for each combat even if they are not in that particular combat no matter how far away they are from the combat.

This leads us to throw out his line of reasoning with Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Does nobody actually read the points which have been made? Where does it state the model must be in close combat in order to be engaged? The answer is under Determine Who Can Fight in the Fight Close Combat portion of the Assault Phase after the Start of Initiative Step Pile In.

Actually that is not the answer. Or technically part of the answer.

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

FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT
In close combat, both players’ models fight. Attacks in close combat......

Other than close combat there is no permission for a model outside the unit to make melee attacks. Even some of those in the unit cannot attack if they are not engaged by the rule you keep quoting out of context. By your claim, I can make pile in moves with units near to combat but not in combat. The rules even determine that combats are separate since the active player decides order.

Please don't change the goal posts. You said "In order to be engaged, a model must be in close combat". Nothing you presented above addresses that. I was defining "engaged", not "locked in combat".

I then presented a synopsis of the rules, but here's the actual rules quoted.

Determine Who Can Fight
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.

A model is engaged in combat if:
• It is in base contact with one or more enemy models.
• It is within 2" horizontally and/or 6" vertically of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.

I do not see "locked in combat" being stated here, aside from the specific mentions of base contacts.

Being able to lock the unit in close combat is not the requirement for a Secondary Target. In fact, "locked in Combat" is never mentioned in the Multiple Combats > Charge Sub-Phase > Declare Charge > Primary and Secondary Targets paragraphs. What is listed as a requirement for a Secondary Target is "that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault." Being engaged does not require the model to be locked in combat as demonstrated in the quote above, just near a friendly one that is.

Yes, this definition of "engaged" may open the way for shenanigans, but let's face it, in most cases it would be a case of "you probably should have done the Multiple Charge". There are the off cases where a Secondary Target is too far to do a Multiple Charge, or someone just Moving that close to a Combat, but this ruleset is already full of them.

The rule for engaged says "...in the same combat". You cannot be in the same combat as someone if you are not in combat.

Charistoph, your completely failing to read the rule linearly. I defined what Engaged was. However, in order for ANY model to be Engaged, it must also be in close combat as the rules I cited state. I even bolded the parts for you. The only way to get there is through a Charge move. The "Determine who can Fight" is part of the sequence of the Fight Subphase referring to a specific combat. And it mentions clearly that those models must be in that close combat.

Trasvi wrote:The rule for engaged says "...in the same combat". You cannot be in the same combat as someone if you are not in combat.

"...in the same combat" could just as easily mean as the combat you are processing for, especially as the model in question is not first noted as being in combat. It doesn't say, "...in the same combat as the model in question", after all. This last part would be so that two nearby combats may not bring others in to it.

Fragile wrote:Charistoph, your completely failing to read the rule linearly. I defined what Engaged was. However, in order for ANY model to be Engaged, it must also be in close combat as the rules I cited state. I even bolded the parts for you. The only way to get there is through a Charge move. The "Determine who can Fight" is part of the sequence of the Fight Subphase referring to a specific combat. And it mentions clearly that those models must be in that close combat.

"Engaged" does not reference those rules, save by the references to being in base contact. Those rules you quoted which define close combat do not reference "engaged".

In every other instance in the rulebook where a definition is to be completely and only taken in a specific context is when it includes the context in which it is included.

Aside from being placed in the Assault Phase and part of the Fight Sub-phase, does anything in the actual definition require the model to be in close combat (again, aside from the references to base contact)?

From there, consider this concept, if such a consideration was not important, why bother making it part of the definition of the Secondary Target? If all you needed was the ability to reach the Secondary Target, why not just state that outright? Why bother mentioning "Primary Assault" or "engage"?

In addition, while this definition of "engaged" may or may not reach the regular capacities of Combat for yourself, we are looking at what the Charging Unit is capable of doing, not what it has actually done. As I have stated several times now, this consideration for when you are declaring a Charge is so that you can lock any units near to or interspersed with their Primary Target in to the Combat which a single unit Charge would not normally be able to do. At no point is Multiple Charge to be taken as permission to spread your unit across the table in a disorderly fashion (aka conga line), bring in to combat two units on opposite sides of the table, or Charge a separate unit that could Charge yours in the following Turn.

 Charistoph wrote:

"Engaged" does not reference those rules, save by the references to being in base contact. Those rules you quoted which define close combat do not reference "engaged".

They reference that in order for a unit or model to be engaged it must be in that close combat. No other model but those can use any of the subsequent rules which you quote to support your argument.

In every other instance in the rulebook where a definition is to be completely and only taken in a specific context is when it includes the context in which it is included.

Aside from being placed in the Assault Phase and part of the Fight Sub-phase, does anything in the actual definition require the model to be in close combat (again, aside from the references to base contact)?

From there, consider this concept, if such a consideration was not important, why bother making it part of the definition of the Secondary Target? If all you needed was the ability to reach the Secondary Target, why not just state that outright? Why bother mentioning "Primary Assault" or "engage"?

In addition, while this definition of "engaged" may or may not reach the regular capacities of Combat for yourself, we are looking at what the Charging Unit is capable of doing, not what it has actually done. As I have stated several times now, this consideration for when you are declaring a Charge is so that you can lock any units near to or interspersed with their Primary Target in to the Combat which a single unit Charge would not normally be able to do. At no point is Multiple Charge to be taken as permission to spread your unit across the table in a disorderly fashion (aka conga line), bring in to combat two units on opposite sides of the table, or Charge a separate unit that could Charge yours in the following Turn.

You can charge units that are spread out, just not as easily as some make it. Coherency has always been required, but there is no requirement for the secondary target to be any distance from the primary.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

"Engaged" does not reference those rules, save by the references to being in base contact. Those rules you quoted which define close combat do not reference "engaged".

They reference that in order for a unit or model to be engaged it must be in that close combat. No other model but those can use any of the subsequent rules which you quote to support your argument.

No, the rules you quoted did not mention "engaged" (or any of its conjugated forms) at any point in time.

Fragile wrote:

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

FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT
In close combat, both players’ models fight. Attacks in close combat......

See? Nothing about "engaged". Also nothing about "nothing that is not locked in close combat cannot fight" was presented.

The only times the definition of "engaged" even refer to being in combat is by the statements of base contact with enemy models (which is only possible IN combat).

Fragile wrote:
You can charge units that are spread out, just not as easily as some make it. Coherency has always been required, but there is no requirement for the secondary target to be any distance from the primary.

The requirement for "able to engage at the same time as the Primary Assault" indicates otherwise. Charging a spread out unit is not the same as Charging two units, nor is it the same as Charging two units a gravgun shot apart.

In order to be engaged, you must be in the close combat. All in the rules you cited. And your confusing unit being able to engage with model being able to engage.

Fragile wrote:
In order to be engaged, you must be in the close combat. All in the rules you cited. And your confusing unit being able to engage with model being able to engage.

You are not explaining your reason. You are just saying I am wrong. Break it down. Where in the definition of "engage" does it state the model must be in close combat for all cases?

You have provided with the definition of close combat, but that is not addressing the definition of "engage". Focus on that.

Charistoph,

Let's focus on the first sentence of the Determine Who Can Fight rule . . .



In the above rule, "models" refers to models in units that are Locked In Combat and that are part of the combat that is currently being resolved and having completed a pile in move. "Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have completed the piling in move.

This is easily proven by simply reading the rules of the Fight Sub-Phase.

LOCKED IN COMBAT


FIGHT SUB-PHASE

1) CHOOSE A COMBAT


2) FIGHT CLOSE COMBAT


a) Initiative Step


b) Start of Initiative Step Pile In


c) Determine Who Can Fight


You are arguing that "any model" can refer to any friendly model on the battlefield which breaks grammatical agreement, contextual reference, and logically established set relationships.

However, simply reading the rules proves that "any models" is a subset of those models that have Piled In and those models that have Piled In must be part of 'this combat' - ie the current combat the active player has chosen to resolve. Further, the rule that determines what units take part in a combat is the Locked in Combat rule. Any models that are not part of units that are not Locked in Combat do not have permission to participate in the Fight Sub-Phase.

A model that is not Locked in Combat cannot perform a Pile In move and this precludes it from consideration for the Determine Who Can Fight rule per the written words of the Determine Who Can Fight rule.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:
In order to be engaged, you must be in the close combat. All in the rules you cited. And your confusing unit being able to engage with model being able to engage.

You are not explaining your reason. You are just saying I am wrong. Break it down. Where in the definition of "engage" does it state the model must be in close combat for all cases?

You have provided with the definition of close combat, but that is not addressing the definition of "engage". Focus on that.

Honestly I have, but your not seeming to understand. So lets try this a different way Let me ask you this. Can a Wraithknight move up to within 1" of an enemy unit, shoot another unit and then stomp the unit 1" away? If not, why not?

Fragile wrote:
Honestly I have, but your not seeming to understand. So lets try this a different way Let me ask you this. Can a Wraithknight move up to within 1" of an enemy unit, shoot another unit and then stomp the unit 1" away? If not, why not?

No, you have not. You have not made the proper in-game connection between being "locked in combat" and "engaged" at all. In fact, you have ignored the definition of "engaged" for the last few posts. I have been doing that for you.

To answer your scenario, no, he cannot, and your scenario is a very bad example of trying to counter my case and evidences how much you clearly do not understand it.

1) It is not locked in combat. It is not a unit in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot.

2) It is not engaged in combat. It is not in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot, NOR is it within 2" of another combat, much less a friendly model in that combat.

Fragile wrote:


Can a Wraithknight move up to within 2" of a friendly model in b2b with an enemy unit in combat, shoot another unit and then stomp the enemy unit? If not, why not?

FTFY.

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:The rule for engaged says "...in the same combat". You cannot be in the same combat as someone if you are not in combat.

"...in the same combat" could just as easily mean as the combat you are processing for, especially as the model in question is not first noted as being in combat. It doesn't say, "...in the same combat as the model in question", after all. This last part would be so that two nearby combats may not bring others in to it.

If you think that it doesn't say "...in the same combat as the model in question" it likewise doesn't say "...in the same combat as you are processing for"

I think the much more natural and grammatically correct way of reading the sentence as the former rather than the latter. The latter would be suggested if the verbiage was "a model is engaged in A combat" or "in THAT combat". "In the same combat" suggests the friendly model must be in the same combat as the model you ate checking for.

Evidently most other people also finds this the more natural reading, and it also precludes the obviously wrong activities whereby that allow you to get a unit in to combat without charging simply by moving it close to a friendly model in combat

Trasvi wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:The rule for engaged says "...in the same combat". You cannot be in the same combat as someone if you are not in combat.

"...in the same combat" could just as easily mean as the combat you are processing for, especially as the model in question is not first noted as being in combat. It doesn't say, "...in the same combat as the model in question", after all. This last part would be so that two nearby combats may not bring others in to it.

If you think that it doesn't say "...in the same combat as the model in question" it likewise doesn't say "...in the same combat as you are processing for"

I think the much more natural and grammatically correct way of reading the sentence as the former rather than the latter. The latter would be suggested if the verbiage was "a model is engaged in A combat" or "in THAT combat". "In the same combat" suggests the friendly model must be in the same combat as the model you ate checking for.

Evidently most other people also finds this the more natural reading, and it also precludes the obviously wrong activities whereby that allow you to get a unit in to combat without charging simply by moving it close to a friendly model in combat

Not necessarily when we consider the context that we are looking at "engaged" is being used to determine, i.e. "who can fight" in an Initiative Step.

We do not care if a model is near a model in base contact with another fight when we are trying to determine who can strike blows for the combat we are referencing. Being "engaged" is determined on a Combat by Combat basis and a model by model basis.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Honestly I have, but your not seeming to understand. So lets try this a different way Let me ask you this. Can a Wraithknight move up to within 1" of an enemy unit, shoot another unit and then stomp the unit 1" away? If not, why not?

No, you have not. You have not made the proper in-game connection between being "locked in combat" and "engaged" at all. In fact, you have ignored the definition of "engaged" for the last few posts. I have been doing that for you.

Because your definition of engaged is irrelevant until a model is in close combat as referenced by the rules that I cited. The ones you fail to understand.

To answer your scenario, no, he cannot, and your scenario is a very bad example of trying to counter my case and evidences how much you clearly do not understand it.

I understand, you do not. You asked for me to break it down, so here are the baby steps for you

1) It is not locked in combat. It is not a unit in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot.

2) It is not engaged in combat. It is not in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot, NOR is it within 2" of another combat, much less a friendly model in that combat.

If the WK moved within 1" of a friendly model in btb close combat with another unit, can he stomp?

 Charistoph wrote:

Not necessarily when we consider the context that we are looking at "engaged" is being used to determine, i.e. "who can fight" in an Initiative Step.

We do not care if a model is near a model in base contact with another fight when we are trying to determine who can strike blows for the combat we are referencing. Being "engaged" is determined on a Combat by Combat basis and a model by model basis.

As pointed out several times . . .

per the Determine Who Can Fight rule, a model can only be engaged if it is a subset of the models that went through a Pile In move. In order to Pile In a model must be in "this combat". And, in order to be in "this combat" the model must be in a unit that is Locked in Combat in "this combat".

See my post above for the complete rules citation that proves your argument dead wrong.

As Fragile noted, you are failing to read the rule linearly in its context.

 Charistoph wrote:


We do not care if a model is near a model in base contact with another fight when we are trying to determine who can strike blows for the combat we are referencing. Being "engaged" is determined on a Combat by Combat basis and a model by model basis.

Please cite the rules for the bolded part.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Honestly I have, but your not seeming to understand. So lets try this a different way Let me ask you this. Can a Wraithknight move up to within 1" of an enemy unit, shoot another unit and then stomp the unit 1" away? If not, why not?

No, you have not. You have not made the proper in-game connection between being "locked in combat" and "engaged" at all. In fact, you have ignored the definition of "engaged" for the last few posts. I have been doing that for you.

Because your definition of engaged is irrelevant until a model is in close combat as referenced by the rules that I cited. The ones you fail to understand.

Why? You have yet to make that connection.

Engaged has two conditions:
1) Be in Base Contact with an opponent's model. Okay, you have to be in Combat in order to do this.
2) Be within 2" of a friendly model that is in Base Contact with an opponent's model. You do not have to be in Combat in order to do this.

To further put this in context of the thread, this second condition is the only method available when you are Charging a Primary Target as you cannot get in to Base Contact with a Secondary Target model while getting in to Base Contact with a Primary Target model during a Charge move.

Fragile wrote:

To answer your scenario, no, he cannot, and your scenario is a very bad example of trying to counter my case and evidences how much you clearly do not understand it.

I understand, you do not. You asked for me to break it down, so here are the baby steps for you

I think you posted before you completed this...

Fragile wrote:

1) It is not locked in combat. It is not a unit in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot.

2) It is not engaged in combat. It is not in base contact with an enemy unit as evidenced by its ability to shoot, NOR is it within 2" of another combat, much less a friendly model in that combat.

If the WK moved within 1" of a friendly model in btb close combat with another unit, can he stomp?

By the actual definition of Engaged, yes.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


We do not care if a model is near a model in base contact with another fight when we are trying to determine who can strike blows for the combat we are referencing. Being "engaged" is determined on a Combat by Combat basis and a model by model basis.

Please cite the rules for the bolded part.

Already have.

Determine Who Can Fight
After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.

A model is engaged in combat if:

 Charistoph wrote:

2) Be within 2" of a friendly model that is in Base Contact with an opponent's model. You do not have to be in Combat in order to do this.

Incorrect. The model must be in the combat that we are currently resolving.

You keep ignoring the first part of the Determine Who Can Fight Rule and the surrounding context of the rules for the Fight Sub-Phase.



"Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have Piled In which requires that the model be from a unit that is Locked in Combat with regards to "this combat" (i.e the current combat the Fight Sub-Phase is resolving).

Per the Determine Who Can Fight rule, a model can only be engaged if it is a subset of the models that went through a Pile In move. In order to Pile In a model must be in "this combat". And, in order to be in "this combat" the model must be in a unit that is Locked in Combat in "this combat".

For a more complete context of the rules of the Fight Sub-Phase see this post . . . http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/707846.page#9046090

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

2) Be within 2" of a friendly model that is in Base Contact with an opponent's model. You do not have to be in Combat in order to do this.

Incorrect. The model must be in the combat that we are currently resolving.

You keep ignoring the first part of the Determine Who Can Fight Rule.

Spoiler:

After models have Piled In, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step and who is engaged with an enemy model must fight.

"Any model" is grammatically, contextually, and logically a subset of the models that have Piled In which requires that the model be from a unit that is Locked in Combat with regards to "this combat" (i.e the current combat the Fight Sub-Phase is resolving).

Per the Determine Who Can Fight rule, a model can only be engaged if it is a subset of the models that went through a Pile In move. In order to Pile In a model must be in "this combat". And, in order to be in "this combat" the model must be in a unit that is Locked in Combat in "this combat".

For a more complete context of the rules of the Fight Sub-Phase see this post . . . http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/707846.page#9046090

Quoted so Charistoph can see what you're arguing here (he's got you on ignore so he wouldn't see this normally)

I think you've got the quotation here about piling in that raises some questions as to how things should be handled. According to Charistoph, you can have a model in the second unit engaged in the combat without having anybody from the charging unit in base contact with that second unit. Start of Initiative Step Pile In it states:

"At the start of each Initiative step, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step, that isn't already in base contact with an enemy model, must make a Pile In move." (page 48)

Charistoph, would you say that members of the secondary target unit get to make a pile in move even if they have nobody in base contact with the charging unit, if there was at least one model in the unit that was within 2" of the primary unit being charged? If you are treating the unit as being in the combat and being engaged, it would seem that you'd have to allow for that unit to Pile In. I don't know anybody who would actually allow this, however. Actually, given what the wording is there, there's as valid an argument for saying any unit friendly to the unit being charged that has a model within 2" of the primary target would get to pile in, whether or not they were declared a primary or secondary target of the charge. This seems madness, so there must be something else applying that is not accounted for merely with the discussion of piling in and what models count as engaged. This would have to be that the rules are only dealing with models in units that are in the combat, and the only way to tell what units are in the combat is by going with the definition of a unit being locked in combat - i.e. there has to be base contact involved between the opposing sides, before any pile in move is made.