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.

So, I've noticed that the BRB prohibits models from being within 1" of enemy models without being in close combat, but places no restriction on distance between friendly units. So what I'm trying to confirm is that, while characters can't join units properly, is there anything preventing you from throwing a character in the middle of a unit (provided that unit still maintains its coherency)? Like, say I want to make sure that a character will be in a good spot to use heroic intervention regardless of which side a unit is charged from, or ensure that a character is close to the action and in a good spot to attack from, without any possibility of being the closest unit, for shooting purposes (and preventing the enemy from charging the character themselves, as doing so would put them within an inch of another unit).

You can do all of those... But.

Things to remember:
1) the character and the unit he is hiding withing will have issues with moving, while he can be in base contact with friendly models they still cannot mive through eachother unless they have fly.

2) multi-charge with the character and unit as charge targets only require the enemy unit to get into 1" of one of those targets in order to be able to attack either after pile-ins(as long as the models can get within 1" of the second target as well); so there is no real charge protection

3) related to #1 above heroic intervention still requires movement and a path to the enemy unit.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You can do all of those... But.

Things to remember:
1) the character and the unit he is hiding withing will have issues with moving, while he can be in base contact with friendly models they still cannot mive through eachother unless they have fly.

2) multi-charge with the character and unit as charge targets only require the enemy unit to get into 1" of one of those targets in order to be able to attack either after pile-ins(as long as the models can get within 1" of the second target as well); so there is no real charge protection

3) related to #1 above heroic intervention still requires movement and a path to the enemy unit.

#1 isn't an issue for me, nearly every unit in my army has fly, and the particular units I'm thinking of in this case are my scourges and my Autarch w/ wings.

As for the other two issues, I think it would still work for the specific scenario I'm thinking of. In particular, I'm concerned with the turn that the Autarch and Scourges deep strike in, placing them at 9" leaves them unlikely to successfully charge, but puts them at risk of being charged themselves. My thought, based on my reading of the fight phase rules, is that if you place the Autarch ~1" behind the scourges, with the scourges too close together for the enemy unit to get within an inch of him, in order for the enemy unit to successfully charge the Scourges, they would have to move within 3" of the Autarch, without being able to successfully charge the Autarch. Autarch could then make a heroic intervention, striking first because of his banshee mask, but would not be a valid target for the enemy unit, as they had not successfully charged him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm actually not sure where you're getting that if the charging unit ends within 1" of at least one target unit, it can attack any of them, tho. Per RaW, the charging unit can successfully charge as long as it can get within 1" of at least one target unit, but only the units it ends within 1" of were successfully charged and can be attacked in the fight stage.

"To target an enemy unit, the attacking model must either be within 1"of that unit,or within1"of another model from its own unit that is itself within 1" of that enemy unit"

Attacking the unit it could not get within 1" on the charge proper.

My tac marines charge your unit and character: gets within 1" of the unit but cannot get in to the character; character was a charge target and heroically intervenes moving within 1": he an now be attacked(normally as a non-target; intervening characters are immune to attacks).

No idea where you're getting that you can only attack targets you successfully charged

The rules allow you to attack targets you charged. By declaring against the autarch and scourges then the autarch can be attacked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No idea where you're getting that you can only attack targets you successfully charged

The rules allow you to attack targets you charged. By declaring against the autarch and scourges then the autarch can be attacked.

I could just as easily say I have no idea where you're getting that you can attack the Autarch.

The rules tell you to select one or more enemy units as the target of the charge, resolve overwatch, roll for your charge distance, and then make your charge move, if able. The rulebook also says that in the fight step, charging units can only target units they charged this round. The problem is, the book doesn't define what "charged" means, i.e. is it "declare a target of a charge" or is is "successfully resolved a charge and placed the models within 1" of enemy unit"

Based on your interpretation, you would say that it was " declared a target of a charge". But consider this scenario. I have a unit 3.5" away from an enemy unit, I declare a charge against them, but roll snake eyes, leaving me unable to charge far enough.

Per your definition, I'm still going to get to attack them, because "any unit that charged or has models within 1" of any enemy unit can be chosen to fight in the Fight phase", they'll go first, because "all units that charged this phase fight first", and they'll get to pile in 3", to put then within an inch, even though they failed their charge roll

It could have been written a touch better, but the below is the reason why:

The
first model you move must finish within 1" of an enemy
model from one of the target units. No models in the
charging unit can move within 1" of an enemy unit that
was not a target of its charge. If this is impossible, the
charge fails and no models in the charging unit move
this phase.

The above creates a very obvious Boolean; and by informing us how to determine if a Charge failed it also allows us to make a safe assumption on what a 'successful' charge is.
In this case, we have succeeded Charged all the targets as soon as that First Model is Moved within 1 inch of any targeted Unit.

The only reason I think it could have been written better is just preference; one should always inform us what happens when we succeed and when we fail at a Boolean. Even if the successful or fail state is just stating 'you have succeed / failed,' in a Rule based system those sort of things sometimes makes a difference. This is the sort of situation where it could also make a very big difference, in quite a few ways that I am having a hard time deciding which one would have been better from the clearly superior choices. In any case, we would have had a 'success' tag that we could have used in the next Phase to better refine which Units could have been selected and restrict whom they could attack.

 JinxDragon wrote:
It could have been written a touch better, but the below is the reason why:
The
first model you move must finish within 1" of an enemy
model from one of the target units. No models in the
charging unit can move within 1" of an enemy unit that
was not a target of its charge. If this is impossible, the
charge fails and no models in the charging unit move
this phase.

The above creates a very obvious Boolean; and by informing us how to determine if a Charge failed it also allows us to make a safe assumption on what a 'successful' charge is.
In this case, we have succeeded Charged all the targets as soon as that First Model is Moved within 1 inch of any targeted Unit.

It does not "create an obvious Boolean" in the slightest, nor is it a "safe assumption". You are assuming it creates a dichotomy of "failed to charge any unit/successfully charged all units", when all we are given is the failure side of the equation. It could literally just as likely be "failed to charge any unit/successfully charged at least one unit"

I can say so because of simple Logic:-
If I have not failed, then I have succeeded.
If I have not succeeded, then I have failed.

Unless you want to state moving the First Model into 1 inch of an enemy is failure, and I can not actually move said Unit at all?

Added:
No, I can't seem to let this drop, really... we are informed that we fail: if this is impossible
Was it possible for me to move the First model into 1 inch of an enemy model from one of the target units?

Yes or No

From the Designer's Commentary, emphasis added:

Q: If a unit piles in or consolidates into a unit it didn’t declare a charge against in the preceding Charge phase, does that unit get to fire Overwatch?

A: No.

Remember though that units that charged can only make close combat attacks against units that they declared the charge against, even if pile-in moves, etc. bring them within 1" of a different unit.

Not "that they successfully charged", but "that they declared the charge against".

 JinxDragon wrote:
I can say so because of simple Logic:-
If I have not failed, then I have succeeded.
If I have not succeeded, then I have failed.

Unless you want to state moving the First Model into 1 inch of an enemy is failure, and I can not actually move said Unit at all?

Added:
No, I can't seem to let this drop, really... we are informed that we fail: if this is impossible
Was it possible for me to move the First model into 1 inch of an enemy model from one of the target units?

Yes or No

The problem is that you are taking the "simple logic" of, as you say "if I have not failed, I gave succeeded/If I have not succeeded Í have failed" and then losing that logic by applying an assumption of what you are failing/succeeding at that you cannot actually logically infer from what is written.

To borrow your formatting:

If I have not succeeded in placing a model within 1" of at least one target unit, I have failed at charging at least one target unit.
If I have not failed to place a model within 1" of at least one target unit, I have succeeded at charging all target units

This does not follow logically, because you have conveniently changed the parameters in the success and failure. The first one is in agreement "at least one unit/at least one unit". The second is not. "At least one unit/all units". Without more information, this conclusion cannot logically be drawn . We do not know if the success with one unit translates to success with all.

My version:

If I have not succeeded in placing a model within 1" of at least target unit, I have failed at charging at least one target unit.
If I have not failed to place a model within 1" of at least one target unit, I have succeeded at charging at least one target unit

This follows. The parameters for success and failure remain consistent. "At least one unit", all around. It is certainly possible that GW intended that a success at charging one target unit meant a success at charging all, but without them saying so, that cannot possibly, logically be inferred from what is written.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
From the Designer's Commentary, emphasis added:

Q: If a unit piles in or consolidates into a unit it didn’t declare a charge against in the preceding Charge phase, does that unit get to fire Overwatch?

A: No.

Remember though that units that charged can only make close combat attacks against units that they declared the charge against, even if pile-in moves, etc. bring them within 1" of a different unit.

Not "that they successfully charged", but "that they declared the charge against".

Now that I can readily accept

I know I am not going to get through to you on this matter, you literally had to have the Author underline their intent when answering a completely unrelated question before you would accept it, but I do want another shot at this:


Please take note that the instructions provided all focus on a single Model when we determine the Fail state of the charge.

It was that one fact that changed my view on this Rule; the only way to determine if a charge is successful comes from the movement of that one Model, a single point in the timeline that is either yes or no when it is made. This is also the problem with your counter-argument, for it is actually you creating additional requirements when when you demand additional Model in the Unit must also do something in order to determine the failure state. If the Authors required a Model from the Charging Unit end within 1 inch of all Targeted Units, then they would have been able to provide us instructions on what to do if that was not possible. Instead, they focused on getting a Single Model in an inch of any Targeted Unit to determine of the charge was... well 'not a failure.' Oh, and please also note that they informed us what to do when it is a failure - No Model may move at all.

That is also the second problem as your interpretation:-
I am able to say 'you charged most of your Targets, but not All... ensure every single Model in the Charging Unit is put back where it came from as that charge failed.'

Closing:
This is a terrible written clause in a sequence that could have also been better, calling it a 'non-fail' instead of a success should say enough if my distaste, but the Authors didn't screw up... technically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to take a moment to pat AnFéasógMór on the back for finding an unforeseen consequence:
Any unit that charged or has models within 1" of an
enemy unit can be chosen to fight in the Fight phase.

They really should have had the word 'successfully' before the charged, maybe ignored the clause entirely as the Successful charges would be within 1 inch anyway, extended the current fail state to include the next phase, or something else to remove the fact the unit did charge in order to have failed at doing so. Now common sense informs us this was likely unintentional, and maybe they never realized what a 3 inch Pile In move meant in relation to a minimal 2 Inch Charge, but what ever caused the mistake it has happened. By not stating that a failed charge stops being a charge, the Unit still charged and that is obviously important in the Fighting Phase. They might have lost half their men to some bizarre rain of over-watch death ensuring the rest kissed the dirt as soon as they got to the top of the trench, but they did still charge....

Any case, that interaction is definitely going into the book to laugh at.
I was going to say my opponent can exploit it i they want, but I wound not have them roll for a charge that close in the first place.


Added -
I remembered why I concluded the 'Charged Units this Turn' clause existed, because of Characters.
It is entirely possible, and maybe a better tactical decision, to select the Unit a Character is 'with' to swing first. Any casualties that are caused could then be manipulated to remove the Character from the fight before he has even swung a blow, and then the counter-attack can Step in and swing back without worrying about the attacks that Character made. This could have been common enough the Authors encountered it, decided it was a ridiculous outcome and ensured we could select the Character to Pile in and Attack like intended. Unfortunately, in fixing a problem....

The image is pretty stupid too:-
Character charges first, and gets within combat range by the skin of her teeth
Rest of Unit catch up as they roll better and overtake
In the confusion, they kill the one enemy standing near the Character
Character decides to stop moving completely and watch the enemy counter-attack
Even kind enough not to even swing back when they stab her in the face a few time and take her down....

 JinxDragon wrote:
I know I am not going to get through to you on this matter, you literally had to have the Author underline their intent when answering a completely unrelated question before you would accept it, but I do want another shot at this:

Mate, if you wanna try to sit here and be condescending, I will be glad to sit here and rip you a new one, because your logic isn't half as sound as you think it is, and you're smoking some dank ganja if you think what the designer wrote in their FAQ in any way supports your position.

I'm willing to accept the designer's commentary that Ghaz posted (and which Ghaz added the underlining to, not the author) as evidence that a unit can attack a unit they declared a charge against (if the possibility arises), regardless of whether they succeeded, because RaW it says that, not because it in anyway supports your poorly reasoned argument. Because even if I could (and very well might) argue that it wasn't their intent to allow a unit to attack any unit they declared a charge against, even if they failed in the charge, and that this was likely an oversight, the rules, as they are written in the FAQ, say they can attack units they targeted in the charge, with no further qualifiers, and RaW (in general, but in this forum in particular) is the defining standard for interpreting rules.

Your problem is that you can't accept that someone might disagree with your interpretation, because you believe that your interpretation is RaW and indisputable. It isn't. It is pure RoI. You believe, based on your interpretation of the pass/fail dynamic of the charge (which you incorrectly assume to be the only possible interpretation, despite having had it clearly explained to you why it is not), that the authors intended a particular meaning. That ain't rule as written, Hoss. I accepted Ghaz' post but not yours because Ghaz actually provided an unambiguous permission in a rule clarification by a game designer.

Please take note that the instructions provided all focus on a single Model when we determine the Fail state of the charge.

It was that one fact that changed my view on this Rule; the only way to determine if a charge is successful comes from the movement of that one Model, a single point in the timeline that is either yes or no when it is made. This is also the problem with your counter-argument, for it is actually you creating additional requirements when when you demand additional Model in the Unit must also do something in order to determine the failure state. If the Authors required a Model from the Charging Unit end within 1 inch of all Targeted Units, then they would have been able to provide us instructions on what to do if that was not possible. Instead, they focused on getting a Single Model in an inch of any Targeted Unit to determine of the charge was... well 'not a failure.' Oh, and please also note that they informed us what to do when it is a failure - No Model may move at all.

And the problem with your argument here is that it's complete nonsense. For one thing, I never said there was any requirement for any other model in the charging unit to do literally anything. For another, it is perfectly possible to say "you can target multiple units, but you have to get into combat with at least one of them or else the charge fails" without saying "if you succeed at at least one charge, you succeed at them all". Telling you you have to succeed at at least one charge to succeed at all doesn't automatically mean that succeeding at one means you succeed at all, it means exactly what it says, anything further would have to be stated. Allowing you to hedge your bets isn't inherently some magical permission to assume winning one bet wins all. I mean, do you go to the roulette tables, $1 on black, $1000 on 00, and then when it lands on black argue with the pit boss that you're entitled to $35,000?

That is also the second problem as your interpretation:-
I am able to say 'you charged most of your Targets, but not All... ensure every single Model in the Charging Unit is put back where it came from as that charge failed.'

This literally follows not at all from what I said, but nice try.

Closing:
This is a terrible written clause in a sequence that could have also been better, calling it a 'non-fail' instead of a success should say enough if my distaste, but the Authors didn't screw up... technically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to take a moment to pat AnFéasógMór on the back for finding an unforeseen consequence:
Any unit that charged or has models within 1" of an
enemy unit can be chosen to fight in the Fight phase.

They really should have had the word 'successfully' before the charged, maybe ignored the clause entirely as the Successful charges would be within 1 inch anyway, extended the current fail state to include the next phase, or something else to remove the fact the unit did charge in order to have failed at doing so. Now common sense informs us this was likely unintentional, and maybe they never realized what a 3 inch Pile In move meant in relation to a minimal 2 Inch Charge, but what ever caused the mistake it has happened. By not stating that a failed charge stops being a charge, the Unit still charged and that is obviously important in the Fighting Phase. They might have lost half their men to some bizarre rain of over-watch death ensuring the rest kissed the dirt as soon as they got to the top of the trench, but they did still charge....

It's actually absolutely fascinating how you can see where the designer's might have intended in a narrative sense "well, they can get an attack in, because their charge was repulsed, but they managed to slog into the fray anyway" in regards to a silly loophole in the rules that only actually exists if we accept your argument as correct, that was pointed out to highlight the speciousness if your claim, but somehow your ability to see where the rules might represent something narrative doesn't extend far enough to consider, oh, I dunno "you boldly tried to charge through the nearer enemy's line to attack the unit behind as well. You couldn't break through to the farther unit, but you still managed to engage the closer unit in melee", vis-a-vis where your interpretation that they could only have intended you to either completely fail or completely succeed at charging multiple units is wrong. Just so, so fascinating to witness.

I will apologize for being condensing, love spell checker so leaving at that, because I was trying not to respond emotionally;
Within your double-negatives was the accusation that I had changed the Rules, something I take personally when I dissect a Rule to this degree, and tried to keep from my response but clearly failed.

As for not accepting a disagreement that made me laugh. Not only do I love taking a broken argument and playing devils advocate even if I don't believe it myself, lets me see things from different angles, but I have regularly changed my position on many things within this very forum itself. I am not going to expect you to go through my posting history before making such accusations, but I view myself as one of the more flexible Rule Lawyer types on this board. It actually is easier to sway my opinion within in this edition because the Authors have made sure that 'intent' has some sort of clout when it comes to arguing Rules, where previous editions could only function on pure 'as written' and the one 'intent' rule was so poorly done... damn you Matt Ward, yes it was one of his. So I actually think determining why a Rule was written is just as important as how it was written, I can be easily swayed on a good 'intent' argument alone.

I was not swayed by the argument the Authors wanted the 'charged' status removed, without informing us of this fact, given it would involve completely re-writing what they have provided to us.
It was also the fact questions where being raised in the first place, the Authors intent was to make the system a bit more simple and 'reading between the lines' to this extent was not simple
Of course, simply repeating 'Your point is nonsense' as you are clearly fond of doing hasn't helped our case any either... more so as the intent was clearly against you.

Hell, I'm actually of the conclusion that it is you who would not accept the possibility of error unless the Developers themselves come down and tell you themselves... no one else you will ever listen to. There was multiple arguments put forth, with people such as myself agreeing with you that the entire thing is poorly written and needs to be better addressed, but you are still countering that everyone else' argument was wrong. The only thing that clearly stopped you from thinking you had the secret 'interpretation' was the Authors. The fact that I did call you out on that was the reason why you called be condensation, still going to let spell check do that, after all....

So sure, feel free to state my logic is flawed but I can still point to this as instructions on how to determine a 'Failed Charge:'
After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each
model in the charging unit can move up to this number
of inches – this is their charge distance this turn. The
first model you move must finish within 1" of an enemy
model from one of the target units. No models in the
charging unit can move within 1" of an enemy unit that
was not a target of its charge. If this is impossible, the
charge fails and no models in the charging unit move
this phase. Once you’ve moved all the models in the
charging unit, choose another eligible unit and repeat
the above procedure until all eligible units that you want
to make charge moves have done so. No unit can be
selected to charge more than once in each Charge phase.

Have I failed to "Charge the Target Unit" simply because one Unit is within X and one is outside of X?
Not if that First Model is moved within Range of a Targeted Unit, as that does not trigger the only fail state we are informed of!

Besides, as I love intent, for those who are even bothering to read past this point:-
They clearly have a whole bunch of additional Rules for Characters, there is even one designed for the defending team by allowing their Characters to move the Model into combat during the Charge Phase. The reason for these Rules even existing is so damn obvious to anyone going from previous editions - they are to replace the previous Rules that allowed the Independent Character to become part of the Unit. Simply because the Authors decided the only thing they could do was get rid of Independent Characters entirely, and man was the Independent Character Rule interactions a mess, but they didn't want to completely expose the Character to 'being just another Unit' either. They still intend for the Character to function "more-or-less" joined to other Units... they never intended to get rid of Independent Character, just the broken Rule interactions surrounding it. Make it far more simple, no more interacting Rules, and everything is sort of the same...

So the inclusion of selecting 'Charged Units' may very well be the Attackers version of 'Heroic Intervention' because I can not fathom any other reason for the Authors adding that problematic clause.
Solely exists to make it harder for an opponent to use clever casualties to screw over Single Model Units, like Characters, but could have an unintended consequence.


PS:-
Why do you think the things I point to as 'possible oversights' mean 'Working as Intended?'

AnFéasógMór wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No idea where you're getting that you can only attack targets you successfully charged

The rules allow you to attack targets you charged. By declaring against the autarch and scourges then the autarch can be attacked.

I could just as easily say I have no idea where you're getting that you can attack the Autarch.

The rules tell you to select one or more enemy units as the target of the charge, resolve overwatch, roll for your charge distance, and then make your charge move, if able. The rulebook also says that in the fight step, charging units can only target units they charged this round. The problem is, the book doesn't define what "charged" means, i.e. is it "declare a target of a charge" or is is "successfully resolved a charge and placed the models within 1" of enemy unit"

Based on your interpretation, you would say that it was " declared a target of a charge". But consider this scenario. I have a unit 3.5" away from an enemy unit, I declare a charge against them, but roll snake eyes, leaving me unable to charge far enough.

Per your definition, I'm still going to get to attack them, because "any unit that charged or has models within 1" of any enemy unit can be chosen to fight in the Fight phase", they'll go first, because "all units that charged this phase fight first", and they'll get to pile in 3", to put then within an inch, even though they failed their charge roll

You don't get to pile in if you failed your charge AFAIK.

I've slept on it and decided to simply walk away from this discussion, but I did want to leave some parting words to those lurkers who might be reading still:
I am not the one using a close-minded interpenetration of a single word (charged) in order to create swaths of unwritten Restrictions that I can use to prevent my opponent from attacking.
All I did was point out that the Written Rule has us determine the Failure state of a charge via the placement of the first charging Model....

 JinxDragon wrote:
I've slept on it and decided to simply walk away from this discussion, but I did want to leave some parting words to those lurkers who might be reading still:
I am not the one using a close-minded interpenetration of a single word (charged) in order to create swaths of unwritten Restrictions that I can use to prevent my opponent from attacking.
All I did was point out that the Written Rule has us determine the Failure state of a charge via the placement of the first charging Model....

Totally! Except for, y'know, the exact opposite, because you are literally the only one creating a closed-minded interpretation of a single word (well, two words, succeed and fail) to create rules that suit you.

I never said that there was only one possible definition to charging. In fact, if you bothered to read what I said, I explicitly state that it is unclear whether "charged" means "declared a charge" or "successfully resolved a charge move".

The rulebook also says that in the fight step, charging units can only target units they charged this round. The problem is, the book doesn't define what "charged" means, i.e. is it "declare a target of a charge" or is is "successfully resolved a charge and placed the models within 1" of enemy unit"

I also never stated that your interpretation of "if you get within 1 of any target unit, you succeed at charging them all wasn't a perfectly possible interpretation of how charge success/failure worked, or that it was not possible that that was the intent of the way the rule was written. I pointed out (with numerous, detailed explanations as to why), that your logic was deeply flawed in believing that that was the only interpretation that was logically possibly. Not that your interpretation wasn't possible, but that it was not an assumption you could inherently make, and it certainly was not the only assumption you can make, that you were trying to push what amounts to a HYWPI (which there's nothing wrong with) off as gospel, with only shaky reasoning to back it up.

your interpretation of the pass/fail dynamic of the charge (which you incorrectly assume to be the only possible interpretation)

The problem is that you are taking the "simple logic" of, as you say "if I have not failed, I gave succeeded/If I have not succeeded Í have failed" and then losing that logic by applying an assumption of what you are failing/succeeding at that you cannot actually logically infer from what is written.

To borrow your formatting:

If I have not succeeded in placing a model within 1" of at least one target unit, I have failed at charging at least one target unit.
If I have not failed to place a model within 1" of at least one target unit, I have succeeded at charging all target units

This does not follow logically, because you have conveniently changed the parameters in the success and failure. The first one is in agreement "at least one unit/at least one unit". The second is not. "At least one unit/all units". Without more information, this conclusion cannot logically be drawn . We do not know if the success with one unit translates to success with all.

My version:

If I have not succeeded in placing a model within 1" of at least target unit, I have failed at charging at least one target unit.
If I have not failed to place a model within 1" of at least one target unit, I have succeeded at charging at least one target unit

it is perfectly possible to say "you can target multiple units, but you have to get into combat with at least one of them or else the charge fails" without saying "if you succeed at at least one charge, you succeed at them all". Telling you you have to succeed at at least one charge to succeed at all doesn't automatically mean that succeeding at one means you succeed at all, it means exactly what it says, anything further would have to be stated.

The problem here isn't that I'm closed-mindedly unwilling to accept your interpretation as a possibility. I've never said anything of the sort. The problem is that you are closed-mindedly unwilling to consider that your interpretation isn't faultless, unassailable, golden unicorn crap, and that somebody might be able to poke a hole in something you believe isn't open for interpretation

And the problem with trying to misrepresent what somebody is saying when it's literally right there, publicly viewable, is that it's literally right there, publicly viewable

Buh-bye