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.

Tomorrow I have a game against a necron player and I would like to clarify a situation beforehand.

- one of my units charges one of his
- pile in, make all the attacks

What happens next? The reanimation protocols or my consolidation?

Since both things seem to happen at the same time I am inclined to think that currents player turn would choose the order. If my turn then I would consolidate, if his, then problably he would choose to RP.

Problematic is clear, I want to know if I could block his RP if when consolidating I encircle his unit.

I will refer you to this long thread on the subject of Reanimation Protocols timing: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/797374.page

The more common answer is Pile-In, Attack, Reanimation Protocols, Consolidate, but it is not a full on consensus answer.

Personally, I would side with the order presented by Alextroy.
As much as I love anything that grants additional tactics....

GW really needs to clarify this stuff soon, because RP and where and how it fits into the phase both with and without comparison to other rules has become a constant argument on this thread for the last month or so.

The best answer anyone can truly give you at this point is to look over the arguments on the various threads here, make your own conclusion based on the evidence and facts given, then discuss it with your fellow player(s) before the game to make sure you are on the same page. If you can't come to an agreement on it, then you'll just have to decide if you are willing to accept their interpretation for games with them or decline to play with them until GW officially sorts it out, if they ever do.

I would more lean towards DAkka YMDC has found an easily exploitable loophole, and the usual suspects are getting into semantics debates about rediculously complex non-issues. The argument that there is inherently a game inbalance requiring a FAQ is somewhat hasty, and more than not, likely to result in GW further adding to the mess by needlessly complicating it further.

I'll take a 50/50 roll off with an opponent before I'll ask GW to make a ruling involving specific word usage, which they have clearly shown a lack of understanding towards.

I appreciate your answers. Topic seems to be controversial so I will lean towards my oppnent version whatever it is until a consensus is reached.

Cheers