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.

I read over the entries in the BGB, but I am still a little confused about when to use Consolidation and Pile In moves. From what I have read, you make Consolidation moves;

A) only after you either massacre a unit in CC via kills or sweeping advance
B) and/or if the enemy successfully falls back from CC
C) or when the Pile In move would fair to allow a model to engage an enemy as stated, which would instead use the Consolidation move.

Is this right, or are there other instances where you may use a Consolidation move, or do I have it all wrong?
I would imagine you can't use it while locked in combat, or it would allow a way to move out of combat, which is illegal under standard rules.

Also, the Pile In rule seems pretty clear, but I was curious, again, when this would be used. I would imagine by the description that I would be able to be used when;

A) a unit falls back from CC successfully, because the rule states at the end of assault, the unit was locked and is currently not locked and would move 6 inches into the enemy (if they could reach) that retreated because they were involved in the same combat.
B) Also, the third paragraph states that its possible a Pile In move might not be enough to allow a model to get them engaged. Does this mean that they can use the 6 inch Pile In move still, or do they only get the 3 inches do to using only a Consolidation move, or do they get both?

Also a specific situation. An IC is attached to a unit that is charged. The IC was in the rear and is not in BTB contact with any enemy model, so he does not participate in the assault. At the end of the assault phase, does he get the Pile In move or does he Consolidate or what?

And one last random question. Say a unit is charging a unit which is directly behind cover, like barrels or dragon teeth or something. The charging unit moves but is unable to make direct base to base contact with the enemy because the terrain is in the way and the models cannot be placed on top of said terrain. How is this handled via the rules?

GRRRRR DAMN EDITOR

 

Posted By DaBoss on 06/03/2007 12:35 PM
I read over the entries in the BGB, but I am still a little confused about when to use Consolidation and Pile In moves. From what I have read, you make Consolidation moves;

A) only after you either massacre a unit in CC via kills or sweeping advance This is somewhat correct (see below)
B) and/or if the enemy successfully falls back from CC Also Correct.
C) or when the Pile In move would fair to allow a model to engage an enemy as stated, which would instead use the Consolidation move. You may not use a pile-in move to contact a unit that was not involved in the original combat. The only ways to "add" units to a combat are consolidation, and charging. I.E. If you can pile in you can not consolidate, and vice-versa. To further clarify: If the result of a round of cambat leaves both units unengaged, AND the combat was a draw, or the loser passes their morale check, then you pile in. If the result is that you are still engaged after (after a draw or passed morale check) The UN-ENGAGED models pile in, starting with the player whose turn it is. If the result is that no models are in base to base, and the loser falls back, no sweeping advance can be made, and the winner consolidates 3". If this is enough to contact the fleeing unit they must immediately check to regroup, or be wiped out. If they regroup they are then locked once again.                                                               NOTES: A "Massacre" is the ONLY time you roll a D6 for consolidation; at any other time consolidation is 3". Pile ins are NOT made by engaged models, namely those in base contact and any models within 2" of those in base contact.                                                                                                                                     
Is this right, or are there other instances where you may use a Consolidation move, or do I have it all wrong? You may consolidate after regrouping a fleeing unit, or when certain specialt rules give the ability (such as the Hit and run Universal Special Rule).
I would imagine you can't use it while locked in combat, or it would allow a way to move out of combat, which is illegal under standard rules. Correct, see my previous statement about Pile-ins.

Also, the Pile In rule seems pretty clear, but I was curious, again, when this would be used. I would imagine by the description that I would be able to be used when;

A) a unit falls back from CC successfully, because the rule states at the end of assault, the unit was locked and is currently not locked and would move 6 inches into the enemy (if they could reach) that retreated because they were involved in the same combat. No, when a unit successfully falls back from combat (is not swept and wiped out) you CONSOLIDATE. in this case it would be 3". If the consolidation is enough to cantact the fleeing unit, then that unit must pass a leadership test or be wiped out. If they pass then they are again locked.
B) Also, the third paragraph states that its possible a Pile In move might not be enough to allow a model to get them engaged. Does this mean that they can use the 6 inch Pile In move still, or do they only get the 3 inches do to using only a Consolidation move, or do they get both? This should rarely happen, because BOTH sides must pile in, starting with the player whose turn it is. This means that there is a potential of 12" of mandatory movement to get back into base to base, and "engagement". Sometimes in a combat involving multple units it works out that one unit will end up killing averything in range, and the other friendly units are blocking  them frome re-engaging the enemy unit(s) remaining. When such circumstances occur, then you get the 3" Consolidate, ( NOT the Pile-in) and are no longer engaged.

Also a specific situation. An IC is attached to a unit that is charged. The IC was in the rear and is not in BTB contact with any enemy model, so he does not participate in the assault. At the end of the assault phase, does he get the Pile In move or does he Consolidate or what?  

From The FAQ:

Q. In a combat involving an Independent Character that

has joined a unit (or is with his retinue), once you have

worked out which side has won the fight, how do you

resolve their Morale tests, sweeping advances,

consolidation and piling in?

A. Independent Characters are treated as separate units

when the models’ attacks are resolved (rolling to hit, to

wound, taking saves). Once the result of the combat has

been worked out, and before any Morale tests are taken

by the losing side, Independent Characters become

once again part of the squad they have joined.

And one last random question. Say a unit is charging a unit which is directly behind cover, like barrels or dragon teeth or something. The charging unit moves but is unable to make direct base to base contact with the enemy because the terrain is in the way and the models cannot be placed on top of said terrain. How is this handled via the rules? RAW says the charge fails if you can't make Base to Base contact. Every person I have ever played has been will to fudge this and say "Yeah he's in base." This is especially true with miniatures which might be able to perch on the terrain but are well modeled and or painted. (Nobody likes to see a really well done winiature topple and pissibly break/chip/etc.)

Edit: The WH40K FAQ's can be found here:

http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/errata.htm

Also edited the Pile-in vs. Consolidation answer as I was incorrect. (checked my rulebook when my answer didn't seem right when I re-read my post >.<

Basically the above poster is absolutely correct. the 1d6 ONLY occurs (its not an automatic 6 inches) when you massacre (entirely wipe out the unit you are in CC assault with) a unit. Other than that you Consolidate a fixed 3 inches. If the 6 inch move is enough to get you engaged with another enemy then assault begins anew with that new unit.

Pile in refers to moving your models closer into combat and specifically refers to models needing to be maximally engaged in combat throughout a unit. This brings up the issue of non-engaged but locked models.

Models that are in base to base or within 2inches of a model in base to base are engaged and thus can use their attacks against the opposing unit, models outside of this are considered LOCKED< they contribute no attacks to the assault and when doable much PILE IN to become engaged in combat.

So here is a quick reference sheet for everyone:

Massacre: Only occurs when an enemy unit is entirely wiped out (either via a sweeping advance or decimating the unit in CC) allows a 1d6 move afterwards. This move can be used to engage another opposing force.

Consolidate occurs after the resolution of CC where your models are NO LONGER ENGAGED with an opposing force, but you did not massacre the opposing force. IE if the enemy successfully ran away. I believe this movement can be used to engage another unit in close combat, but I could be wrong about that.

Engaged models are models that are in base to base or within 2" of a base to base model in assault, and thus contribute their full attacks to assault.

Locked models are models are in a unit that is involved in a close combat.

Locked models that are non-engaged are considered to not contribute to close combat with their attacks, however, when doable they must pile in at the end of assault to make them become engaged models.

The mistake I often see is people Pile-In their engaged units to be in BtB.

Erm ya but if everyone can still attack with there full attacks than moving them into base to base will change nothing.

Posted By 5thelement on 06/05/2007 5:11 PM
Erm ya but if everyone can still attack with there full attacks than moving them into base to base will change nothing.

True, moving engaged models usually doesn't alter the combat much, but the fact that you can get more models in BtB (And thereby extend your kill zone) is significant. Especially when one of the units is MUCH larger than the other. Also take into consideration the fact that this is "free movement" of models that are not supposed to be moved, which affects things such as: consolidation, what other units may now be (un)able to charge (due to a "path" opening up from this movement) and LOS restrictions changing artificially.

I do concede the point that this is rarely an issue, but your statement that this "changes nothing" is not accurate.

Posted By coredump on 06/05/2007 4:46 AM

The mistake I often see is people Pile-In their engaged units to be in BtB.

This is not a "mistake". The rules contradict themselves on this matter. The Assault summary at the start of the Assault rules says that you move all models that are not in base contact during Pile-In, and the Pile-in diagram seems to indicate this also.

Since the sentence about only moving non-"engaged" models during Pile-In moves is a direct copy-and-paste from the 3rd edition trial assault rules (when being "engaged" meant the model was in base contact with an enemy) I think the correct way (personally) is to move all models in the locked unit that aren't actually in base contact during pile-in moves.

Based on the YMTC poll I took earlier, an overwhelming majority of the players out there play this way.

 

Posted By yakface on 06/05/2007 10:43 PM

Posted By coredump on 06/05/2007 4:46 AM

The mistake I often see is people Pile-In their engaged units to be in BtB.

This is not a "mistake". The rules contradict themselves on this matter. The Assault summary at the start of the Assault rules says that you move all models that are not in base contact during Pile-In, and the Pile-in diagram seems to indicate this also.

Since the sentence about only moving non-"engaged" models during Pile-In moves is a direct copy-and-paste from the 3rd edition trial assault rules (when being "engaged" meant the model was in base contact with an enemy) I think the correct way (personally) is to move all models in the locked unit that aren't actually in base contact during pile-in moves.

Based on the YMTC poll I took earlier, an overwhelming majority of the players out there play this way.

 

Personally, I don't believe it's a mistake, cut and paste or not. It's written that way twice, once in the text and again below the supporting diagram. Summary's are a quick reference and we then check the full rules for each step for details. Key point is, the actual rules text says that only un-engaged models pile-in, therefor, that's the rule. C'mon Yak, which is more likely to be wrong, the actual rule text or the summary that someone put together after glancing over the text....??

Summaries and full rules are still RULES. Regardless of our own personal feelings about how rules work and which ones take precedence (Diagrams being less important than the actual rules, and those kinds of placements in a rules hierarchy) absent a clear deliniation, the rules receive equal weight regardless of their placement in a summary or in the actual text. As well, rules that take place in the fluff are nevertheless rules. Contradictions occur (Bolt pistol vs bolter DA issue....grumble) but they are equally still rules. In this instance the contradiction results in not that much of an issue, in other situations however it is important.

It is a significant issue. As noted, the assault phase summary and the image shown in the diagram contradict the rule in the main text and the text below the diagram.

In the past, GW have indicated that where the main text and the summary conflict, the main text is what you should go by. They have recently reinforced this (though not explictly restated it) by ruling in the rulebook FAQ that blast templates simply have to be placed with the center over a model, and not actually centered in the model. This supports the rules given in the main text, and overrides the rule as stated in the summary at the back of the book.

Don, I'm on the same page as you. Yak disagrees and we've gone round and round on it before, but with no acrimony.

Posted By Mannahnin on 06/06/2007 1:34 PM
It is a significant issue. As noted, the assault phase summary and the image shown in the diagram contradict the rule in the main text and the text below the diagram.

In the past, GW have indicated that where the main text and the summary conflict, the main text is what you should go by. They have recently reinforced this (though not explictly restated it) by ruling in the rulebook FAQ that blast templates simply have to be placed with the center over a model, and not actually centered in the model. This supports the rules given in the main text, and overrides the rule as stated in the summary at the back of the book.

Don, I'm on the same page as you. Yak disagrees and we've gone round and round on it before, but with no acrimony.

Actually, it's the summary vs the diagram and main text (read the text under the diagram...... :> ) And yes, they have stated that if a summary disagrees with the main entry, use the main entry

Don, the text under the diagram agrees with the main text, but the actual picture of the models moving in appears to show Engaged models moving into base contact.

One could interpret that centered on the model means having the center of the template on the model, in which case the diagram and the text don't contradict. As far as how pile in moves work I've never had anyone play it any way but moving everything not in base to base, into base to base, so it's the de facto rule.

Actually rules that take place in FLUFF are not rules.
I have always moved into base to base but if one ruling outways the other i would surly change the way i do it now. It would infact make berzerkers and other such units much less affective in cc.

It has always been move them into base to base im not saying that makes it correct but it does make it likely.

I cant help but believe that you move into base to base and than pile in behind/around with anything else. Ive never been stopped or questioned in multiple tournaments for it.

I've always played move them into base to base as well. I guess the extra inch or two might help me? Of course it goes both ways...if my opponent piles in his models to BtB, he may gain an extra inch or two. When it comes down to it, who cares, as long as you're both playing the same way.

Posted By don_mondo on 06/07/2007 7:11 AM


Actually, it's the summary vs the diagram and main text (read the text under the diagram...... :> ) And yes, they have stated that if a summary disagrees with the main entry, use the main entry

Actually, they've said to follow the main rules in certain cases where the main rules have been correct and the summary has been incorrect.

There is no blanket statement saying that the summary is always incorrect and the main text is always correct when the two contradict each other.

In this particular case we have some extenuating circumstances:

#1: The vast majority of players out there play that you move all models not in base contact.

#2: There is a possible justification for the faulty wording in the main text; that being that it is a direct paste from the trial assault rules which used the word "engaged" as meaning 'in base contact with the enemy'.



So until a FAQ ruling is made on the subject, I will continue to play the game as if the main text is in error and the summary/diagram is correct.

I think yak is right ! 

Apart from the arguments already mentioned, we can also consider that models engaged but not in btb benefit from the freedom to allocate their attacks to units as described on p.45.  This is a (valuable !) "freedom of movement" that only results from the inability to move in btb contact during the charge.  The pile-in moves correct that "anomaly".  Note that this may not be a blessing : by having less models engaged but not in btb actually reduces your ability to allocate attacks according to the situation...

I think yak is right when he says there is some confusion in the BGB between "engaged" and "in base-to-base contact".  Just look at p37 (charging).  That's why the vast majority pile in all models not in btb : they assume a clear hierarchy of models in CC :

1. btb   2. engaged   3. locked but not engaged

The rules for charging and for piling in indicate that all models in CC should "rush" to the top of this hierarchy ("no holding back",  etc...), so an engaged model should go btb if he can...

Of course I agree that that is not what is written in the body of the rules.  But since there is a contradiction between the "main body rule", the assault summary and the diagram, I think it is perfectly legitimate to find the solution by looking at the intent.  That's where the "hierarchy principle" I mention above can help us out.

Posted By Mannahnin on 06/07/2007 10:18 AM
Don, the text under the diagram agrees with the main text, but the actual picture of the models moving in appears to show Engaged models moving into base contact.

Appears to, but without a scale bar we don't know. So I have to assume that the picture is showing what the text says and that those models are not engaged.

What can I say, everyone is of course free to play it as they wish. How a majority of players do it is irrelevant. I remember when a majority of players played ATSKNF wrong (early 3rd) with me disagreeing based on how I was reading the rule. Then suddenly GW FAQed/clarified it and everyone had to switch to the way I played it........ Anyways, both the main rule text AND the diagram say "unengaged" with ONLY the summary saying otherwise. Two vs one. So unless they FAQ it otherwise, I will insist that only unengaged models can pile in, cause that's what it says in the rules.

Posted By yakface on 06/07/2007 3:10 PM

Posted By don_mondo on 06/07/2007 7:11 AM


Actually, it's the summary vs the diagram and main text (read the text under the diagram...... :> ) And yes, they have stated that if a summary disagrees with the main entry, use the main entry

Actually, they've said to follow the main rules in certain cases where the main rules have been correct and the summary has been incorrect.

No, actually, they've said that if the summary and the text disagree, go with the text................ Or more correctly, assume the text is correct and the summary is incorrect unless they FAQ otherwise.

That is actually pretty standard for any game system with extensive rules.

Posted By don_mondo on 06/08/2007 7:08 AM
What can I say, everyone is of course free to play it as they wish. How a majority of players do it is irrelevant. I remember when a majority of players played ATSKNF wrong (early 3rd) with me disagreeing based on how I was reading the rule. Then suddenly GW FAQed/clarified it and everyone had to switch to the way I played it........ Anyways, both the main rule text AND the diagram say "unengaged" with ONLY the summary saying otherwise. Two vs one. So unless they FAQ it otherwise, I will insist that only unengaged models can pile in, cause that's what it says in the rules.

In close combat, players must remove casualties while maintaing unit coherency, which means the diagram does indeed show models that are engaged making pile-in moves, no matter what the text below it actually says.

Also, how the majority of people play an issue does matter when the rule contradicts itself in different places in the rulebook. At that point players/judges are clearly going to have to make a judgement call and once that happens a whole lot of personal opinion on how things 'should be played' comes to the fore.

When it comes to the officiality of summaries vs. rules text I will say again: There has never been an official blanket statement from GW to always trust the rules text over the summary, just paricular cases where the summaries have been incorrect.

We are talking about a situation where some 85% of the people polled play the game one way. . .so with the rules contradicting themselves why would you set yourself up for arguments when there simply isn't a need?

 

 

 

Posted By yakface on 06/08/2007 6:41 PM

Posted By don_mondo on 06/08/2007 7:08 AM
What can I say, everyone is of course free to play it as they wish. How a majority of players do it is irrelevant. I remember when a majority of players played ATSKNF wrong (early 3rd) with me disagreeing based on how I was reading the rule. Then suddenly GW FAQed/clarified it and everyone had to switch to the way I played it........ Anyways, both the main rule text AND the diagram say "unengaged" with ONLY the summary saying otherwise. Two vs one. So unless they FAQ it otherwise, I will insist that only unengaged models can pile in, cause that's what it says in the rules.

1. In close combat, players must remove casualties while maintaing unit coherency, which means the diagram does indeed show models that are engaged making pile-in moves, no matter what the text below it actually says.

2. Also, how the majority of people play an issue does matter when the rule contradicts itself in different places in the rulebook. At that point players/judges are clearly going to have to make a judgement call and once that happens a whole lot of personal opinion on how things 'should be played' comes to the fore.

3. When it comes to the officiality of summaries vs. rules text I will say again: There has never been an official blanket statement from GW to always trust the rules text over the summary, just paricular cases where the summaries have been incorrect.

4. We are talking about a situation where some 85% of the people polled play the game one way. . .so with the rules contradicting themselves why would you set yourself up for arguments when there simply isn't a need?

 

 

 

1. Ummm, don't see any measurements or anything about models having been removed as casualties, so not sure how you can be so absolute regarding what the picture shows. Regardless, the text DOES say unengaged....

2. If the majority are wrong, no, it doesn't matter. If a tourney judge has to answer the question he SHOULD answer per the rules. And what do the actual rules say... Unengaged. So here's a heads up, if you're planning on coming to the Baltimore Games Day tourney, you already know the head judge's answer. Which will probably carry over to the Baltimore GT....................

 
3. Sigh... And in every one of those instances what did they say? Use the rules, not the summary. Or can you find one that went the other way?

4. Well, I'm just silly that way. When someone asks a question, I'll answer with the actual rules. Now there are occasions where I do prefer to play it differently than written. And in those cases, I'll answser with the rules, and then state my preference (As I did in one of your polls, IIRC). But I do not say that the rule is wrong, unless I've got something in writing or a conversation with the designers regarding intent or somesuch. But tell you what, I'll see if I can corner the UK guests in a couple weeks and ask them what they actually intended. Fair?

Posted By don_mondo on 06/08/2007 7:34 PM

1. Ummm, don't see any measurements or anything about models having been removed as casualties, so not sure how you can be so absolute regarding what the picture shows.

In close combat, you ALWAYS have to maintain coherency.  You have to maintain coherency when charging in.  You always have to maintain coherency when removing casaulties.

 

The only way they wouldn't have been in coherency is if they were charged while out of coherency, but the diagram clearly shows the assault marines moving and not the guardians, thus it was the Assault Marine's turn (As the player who's turn it is piles in first)

Posted By don_mondo on 06/08/2007 7:34 PM

1. Ummm, don't see any measurements or anything about models having been removed as casualties, so not sure how you can be so absolute regarding what the picture shows. Regardless, the text DOES say unengaged....

2. If the majority are wrong, no, it doesn't matter. If a tourney judge has to answer the question he SHOULD answer per the rules. And what do the actual rules say... Unengaged. So here's a heads up, if you're planning on coming to the Baltimore Games Day tourney, you already know the head judge's answer. Which will probably carry over to the Baltimore GT....................

 
3. Sigh... And in every one of those instances what did they say? Use the rules, not the summary. Or can you find one that went the other way?

4. Well, I'm just silly that way. When someone asks a question, I'll answer with the actual rules. Now there are occasions where I do prefer to play it differently than written. And in those cases, I'll answser with the rules, and then state my preference (As I did in one of your polls, IIRC). But I do not say that the rule is wrong, unless I've got something in writing or a conversation with the designers regarding intent or somesuch. But tell you what, I'll see if I can corner the UK guests in a couple weeks and ask them what they actually intended. Fair?

1) As Skyth already said. Models must charge in coherency and models must be removed as casualties to maintain coherency. That means the marines in the diagram must be within 2" of their friends in base contact which means they must be already engaged.

2) No, one place the rules say one thing, another place the rules say something else. You making references like you are following the rules and I am not when this is simply not the case. We are both following the rules which is exactly the problem. When taking everything into account, the rules are ambiguous, period. Because the rules are ambiguous how the vast majority of people play absolutely does matter, because if you have two equal options of an ambiguous rule and 85% of the players play the situation one way, which way is a tournament judge going to rule?

3) In every one of those instances the summary has contained a very easy to spot typo. We're talking about things like vehicles with incorrect armor facings. Here we're talking about a fundamental game design issue with a highly plausible reason for the inconsistency ( the previous version of the text had a different meaning of the word "engaged" ) so in this case I truly believe there is just as much chance the main rules text contains the tyop as there is for the summary.

4) And it sounds like we're the same. I play by the rules too and if I deviate I make sure it is known that it is just my personal opinion. However (as I've stated numerous times) this is a case where the rules are clearly ambiguous so there is no clear way to play by the RAW. I think it is a great idea to ask a designer about their intent but what would really be awesome would be if you can pressure them to include it in the rulebook FAQ either way they answer!

 

Oh, believe me, I intend to ask about the possibility of extended FAQs/Errattas on a variety of items.

Good luck; it's been done for years, and they say they'll get on it, and nothing ever happens.

Posted By yakface on 06/08/2007 8:41 PM

3) In every one of those instances the summary has contained a very easy to spot typo. We're talking about things like vehicles with incorrect armor facings.

Not exclusively, we're also talking about the recent FAQ on blast template placement, which resolved two contradictory instructions in the main text and the quick reference.

Posted By Mannahnin on 06/10/2007 2:17 PM

Not exclusively, we're also talking about the recent FAQ on blast template placement, which resolved two contradictory instructions in the main text and the quick reference.

You're right, of course. However, ultimately they could rule 99 times that the main text is correct and the summary is incorrect but this could easily be the 1 time that the opposite is true. We just won't know until they finally get around to FAQing the issue.