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.)

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 >.<

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.

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....??

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.

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.

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?

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?

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)

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!

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.