Assault Move Question

[Crit_confirm]

I recently played a game and had a question come up about assault moves. My opponent was assaulting my marines with Fenrisian Wolves. Picture 1 is before the assault move. Pictures 2 and 3 are what we argued about as being the correct manner to assault. If anyone could shed some light on this, I would appreciate it.

1 Before Assault move
http://i52.tinypic.com/2z8zwol.jpg
2 First option
http://i54.tinypic.com/10xzh2p.jpg
3 Second option
http://i52.tinypic.com/25twavq.jpg

[musical-fool]

Hi!

now guessing that all the Wolves were in the same unit, then in that case the assault movement should start by moving the nearest wolf to a Marine into base contact.

Then the rest of the pack/squad/unit has 6" to move towards the enemy. (unless this differs for Wolves as they may not count as infantry).

I believe that these 6" are not impeded by terrain like the sprint movements or consolidation movements at the end of an assault for me it would be No 2, First option IF the wolves were all part of the same unit.

IF they weren't then the wolves behind the terrain could take a terrain test and then assault at initiate 1 or if the distances are ok then go around the terrain as the marine unit would have to move 6" towards the melee anyway.

I hope this is clear...I'm doubting that now...:confused:

[DrWobbles]

Option 1 is the way to go. you must assault directly towards enemy and cannot move around the difficult terrain. if any assaulting unit will pass through difficult terrain the whole unit has to make the test and strikes ay initiative 1.

Also, the wolves are beasts and have a 12'' assault move.

[Crit_confirm]

The fact that the first wolf had to assault in a straight line was a point that we both agreed upon. However, my opponent believed that the rest of the squad did not have to assault in a straight line, and were free to move around the terrain, avoiding a terrain check and avoiding striking at initiative 1. I have always played that all the assaulting models move in a straight line to get into base contact. We looked in the BRB for clarification, and I could not find evidence to support my case - the assault move rule is worded so that only the first model in an assaulting unit has to move in a straight line to the nearest enemy model. Does anyone have a page number in the BRB to support option 1?

[Christian]

Does anyone have a page number in the BRB to support option 1?

Its on page 34 and 36:


The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy (going around impassable terrain, friendly and enemy models in units not beeing assaulted). Move the model into contact [...] using the shortest possible route

and


If, [...] any model in an assaulting unit will have to go through cover or dangerous terrain as part of its assault move, the unit must take the relevant terrain test before moving.
If this is the case all models strike at initiative 1.

Christian

[Crit_confirm]

I feel like people aren't understanding what I don't understand.


The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy (going around impassable terrain, friendly and enemy models in units not beeing assaulted). Move the model into contact [...] using the shortest possible route

This refers to the first model you move, not the entire squad. My opponent moved the first wolf in a straight line, then the rest of the large moved around the end of the terrain, avoids a terrain check. It seemed pretty shady to me.


If, [...] any model in an assaulting unit will have to go through cover or dangerous terrain as part of its assault move, the unit must take the relevant terrain test before moving.

I believe that the BRB does not specify that the rest of the squad must assault in a straight line, just that they must move into base contact if able.

I was pretty surprised when I actually read the assault move section. Like I said, I had always played that the entire squad assaults in a straight line.

[RealGenius]

I have always played that all the assaulting models move in a straight line to get into base contact. We looked in the BRB for clarification, and I could not find evidence to support my case - the assault move rule is worded so that only the first model in an assaulting unit has to move in a straight line to the nearest enemy model. Does anyone have a page number in the BRB to support option 1?

There is none.

You only have to move the first model in that manner. The rest of the wolves can move on whatever path they choose, as long as they are in coherency and try to get into base-to-base or 2" of a friendly model in base to base.

[DarkLink]

I feel like people aren't understanding what I don't understand.



This refers to the first model you move, not the entire squad. My opponent moved the first wolf in a straight line, then the rest of the large moved around the end of the terrain, avoids a terrain check. It seemed pretty shady to me.



I believe that the BRB does not specify that the rest of the squad must assault in a straight line, just that they must move into base contact if able.

I was pretty surprised when I actually read the assault move section. Like I said, I had always played that the entire squad assaults in a straight line.

The rulebook does specify that all models in the squad must attempt to move into B2B if they can, even if that forces them through difficult terrain. I'm just too lazy to find where it says it;).

[RealGenius]

The rulebook does specify that all models in the squad must attempt to move into B2B if they can, even if that forces them through difficult terrain. I'm just too lazy to find where it says it;).

I don't think it does. Assault move says the "most important" rule is that you maintain coherency. The rest is "if possible".

But if you find it, by all means, enlighten us.

[celldwellwer]

the anser is on page 34 main rule book under moving assaulting models " move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model being in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possibile route. "

[DarkLink]

I don't think it does. Assault move says the "most important" rule is that you maintain coherency. The rest is "if possible".

But if you find it, by all means, enlighten us.

You're misunderstanding either my post, the rules, or both.

You are correct that the most important rule is to maintain coherency. If you have to choose between getting into B2B or maintaining coherency, then you pick coherency.

However, presuming that there are no coherency issues then you must attempt to get into B2B. There are things that can prevent you from doing this (such as being too far away to reach an enemy model, or if that move would take you out of coherency).

The point is, though, if one of your models is within 6" of an enemy models when you're assaulting, you must try and move into B2B contact even if that means taking a difficult terrain test. The underlined part is what is specifically relevant to this question.


And of course, now that I feel like quoting the BRB I don't have access to it:rolleyes:

[Tynskel]

the relevant pages have been quoted, and you are correct.

If there's a chance you will go through Difficult Terrain, the entire unit must make the check, whether the first model may or may not go through the difficult terrain. This is due you *must* try to engage in B2B. The overall result is that the models have to be in coherency.

The if the squadron is a 'mixed' squad, all models move at the slowest rate. So wargear wolves move at 6"

[Crit_confirm]

There seems to be a lot of confusion in general on this subject from everyone :)

[lowdog]

Everyone is in agreement that the first model has to take the shortest, directest route possible. If that requires going through difficult terrain so be it. We can all agree on that, so let's stop bringing it up.

The question is that when the first model DOES NOT have to go through difficult terrain, do subsequent models have to take the straight line or can they wrap around terrain to follow the straight line path the FIRST model took.

If the first model moves 2" in a straight line over open ground and gets in contact, and the rest of the squad can all wrap around a terrain piece and still make it into combat (like wolves with their 12" assault move), can they do so?

The OP and other people are asking bc so far all the rules quotes have only referenced the FIRST model, not subsequent models, and that's what the question is regarding.

[Culven]

The OP and other people are asking bc so far all the rules quotes have only referenced the FIRST model, not subsequent models, and that's what the question is regarding.
Not so. The rules quoted have also referred to subsequently moved models. This is where the "must move so that they end their assault move in coherency with a previously moved model" rule comes in. There are also other items in this section of the rulebook which state that the assaulting models must attempt to make it into base contact with the enemy by the shortest route possible, not necessarily by a straight line, but Difficult Terrain will not cause models to have to go around. So, the correct scenario would be that the subsequently moved Wolves must try going through the Area Terrain (which I assume was classified as Difficult Terrain or this wouldn't be an issue).

[aztex3400]

OK here is what was ruled by darkwyn at wargames con. I play "nids so this issue comes up alot.
All models in th unit must move by the shortest route possible to get into base contact. So essentially this means a strait line. If anyone in the unit hits terrain then the whole mess rolls and strikes at Init. 1. Now the order in which you move the models is up to you, if you happen to block the way then they stop and avoid the whole terrain test, since they can't move through models.

BTW option one is correct

[DarkLink]

Only the very first model is required to "use the shortest route possible". The rest of the models move as normal, with restrictions such as "must try to get into B2B" and "must maintain coherency".



The question is that when the first model DOES NOT have to go through difficult terrain, do subsequent models have to take the straight line or can they wrap around terrain to follow the straight line path the FIRST model took.

You can attempt to dodge around difficult terrain. But if you can't make it around and still get into B2B, then you must go through the terrain and thus take the test.

[Crit_confirm]

You can attempt to dodge around difficult terrain. But if you can't make it around and still get into B2B, then you must go through the terrain and thus take the test.

I think this is the correct answer. The model closest to the enemy unit you are charging must move in a straight line to the nearest enemy model. The rest of the models MUST attempt to move into base contact as well, which would dictate them moving their full assault move and across terrain if that could bring them into base contact. If they cannot make it into base contact, they simply must remain in coherency.

[RealGenius]

I think this is the correct answer. The model closest to the enemy unit you are charging must move in a straight line to the nearest enemy model. The rest of the models MUST attempt to move into base contact as well, which would dictate them moving their full assault move and across terrain if that could bring them into base contact.

But then what if you are moving your last model and are forced to roll difficult terrain? And roll double 1s. Do you move them all back? This would likely result in getting far fewer models into combat, which is the opposite of the stated intent of the rule. And moving a bunch of units and then having a rule change the move and having to move them all back is a terrible rules mechanic.

I'd also refer people to the section on Moving Through Difficult Terrain (pg 14): "If a unit starts outside difficult terrain, the player must declare if he wants to move his unit to try to enter the difficult terrain as part of the move. If he chooses not to, the unit moves as normal buy may not enter difficult terrain."

Unless you move that first assault model and declare (and roll for) moving through difficult terrain, you move the rest of your assaulting models to avoid entering the difficult terrain.

You do not move models across the area terrain, because you are not allowed to (unless you declared that first). Then you resolve the rest of the assault restrictions as normal: b2b, etc.

[RealGenius]

And of course, now that I feel like quoting the BRB I don't have access to it:rolleyes:

I hate it when that happens.

That's why I memorized it. ;)

[chazhick]

It looks like we all agree that the first model must move straight. I believe that all subsequent models can move on any path that they want as long as they can get into B2B combat when possible. If you have a model that can get to B2B but you don't want to move him over terrain so that you won’t trigger the terrain test then that is illegal. If you move over the terrain and you do not roll high enough to make the assault then all the models would be moved out of assault.

[DarkLink]

But then what if you are moving your last model and are forced to roll difficult terrain? And roll double 1s. Do you move them all back?

Yeah, they probably should have thought this rule through a little bit more. GW's not very good at writing rules that don't run into problems like this when you get nitpicky. But ultimately, yes, techincally if the last model will have to hit terrain and then rolls double 1s, you move all your models back.

I'll note that the stated intent of the rule is, as I would phrase it, is to get as many models in B2B as possible presuming they can make it into assault at all. If they can't get into assault due to a difficult terrain test, then tough luck:(.


It looks like we all agree that the first model must move straight. I believe that all subsequent models can move on any path that they want as long as they can get into B2B combat when possible. If you have a model that can get to B2B but you don't want to move him over terrain so that you won’t trigger the terrain test then that is illegal. If you move over the terrain and you do not roll high enough to make the assault then all the models would be moved out of assault.

Basically it gets laid out like this in the BRB:

1. The assaulting model that is closest to the enemy unit moves first, in the shortest path possible. If they go through terrain, they must pass the requisite test. If they fail the difficult terrain test, or are too far away to reach the enemy, the assault fails.

2. Move each subsequent model in the assaulting squad one by one. You must a) maintain coherency no matter what and b) get as many models in B2B as physically possible, so long as you maintain coherency etc.

3. Profit

If any of the models hit difficult/dangerous terrain, then you have to take the appropriate test.

[Christian]

2. Move each subsequent model in the assaulting squad one by one. You must a) maintain coherency no matter what and b) get as many models in B2B as physically possible, so long as you maintain coherency etc.
.

Of course the movement from every model must be 6 inches or less. I see a lot of players making their first model move 6 inches and pile in the rest (despite the range) before you acctually should.

[Culven]

But then what if you are moving your last model and are forced to roll difficult terrain? And roll double 1s. Do you move them all back?
Yes. This is why it may be advisable to roll the Difficult Terrain test if there is even the possibility of models needing to go through the Difficult Terrain.

I'd also refer people to the section on Moving Through Difficult Terrain (pg 14): "If a unit starts outside difficult terrain, the player must declare if he wants to move his unit to try to enter the difficult terrain as part of the move. If he chooses not to, the unit moves as normal buy may not enter difficult terrain."
Unless you move that first assault model and declare (and roll for) moving through difficult terrain, you move the rest of your assaulting models to avoid entering the difficult terrain.
You do not move models across the area terrain, because you are not allowed to (unless you declared that first). Then you resolve the rest of the assault restrictions as normal: b2b, etc.
You are citing Movement Phase rules, in which the player has more control of the unit. In the Assault Phase, there are rules which dictate how the unit moves.

[RealGenius]

You are citing Movement Phase rules, in which the player has more control of the unit. In the Assault Phase, there are rules which dictate how the unit moves.

Yeah, it is the rules in the movement phase that dictate movement in the Assault phase. BRB 34: "Moving Assaulting Models: All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in the Movement phase, with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models."

Unless the first (closest) model has to go through difficult terrain or you specifically declare you are moving through difficult terrain, you must avoid going through difficult terrain in your assault movement.

There's not even a conflict between the rules. If possible move into base-to-base. Since you can't move through difficult terrain unless you declare it (movement rules), you have to avoid going through it and it might not be possible to get into b2b.

[RealGenius]

If any of the models hit difficult/dangerous terrain, then you have to take the appropriate test.

You're right until that last part-- if you didn't declare and roll for difficult terrain, you are prohibited from entering it.

GW isn't that bad-- there are no "move backs". People just are forgetting that the Movement rules also apply and that Assault movement follows Movement rules, with additional specific restrictions with a very well spelled out intent. Why would you ever do a move back, since that is against the intent of the rule?

[DarkLink]

You're right until that last part-- if you didn't declare and roll for difficult terrain, you are prohibited from entering it.


Because you must attempt to move into B2B, you cannot not declare that you will be entering difficult terrain if that's what it takes to get into B2B. Normally you would get that choice, but the assault phase rules dictate that you must choose to go into difficult terrain if that's what it takes to get into B2B.

[Mr. Black]

This seems to always cause confusion in people, but as people have listed above, it's a simple order of operation:

1. Move closest model into B2B with opponent.
2. Rest of unit is free to move, as they wish, into the fight, as long as each move is either A. moving you into B2B with an unengaged enemy or, failing that B. moving you into the 2 inch combat range, of course while maintaining coherency.

Should ANY, be it the first or last model, pass into Terrain, the ENTIRE UNIT suffers the ill effects, so, as mentioned above, it is best to roll Difficult Terrain in any situation that may come up.

In the example the topic creator posted the second scenario is illegal due to rule 2 listed, you cannot pile your unit onto a single model just to avoid terrain if you can make it to unengaged enemies.

[Sam]

Rules for moving assaulting models (not the closest one, the rest of them):
1. You must maintain unit coherency (labeled as the most important restriction).
2. You must move into base contact with any enemy model within range that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model.
3. If there are no enemy models in range that fall under #2, you must move into base contact with an enemy model that is in base contact with an assaulting model.
4. If there are no enemy models in range, you must move within 2" of an assaulting model that is in base contact with the enemy.
5. If #2, #3, and #4 are all not possible, you must simply maintain coherency, as per #1.

BRB, page 34, "Moving Assaulting Models"

The assault rules are actually very specific and very strict, people just tend to ignore them.

Edit: Also note the same restrictions apply for "Defenders React" so good news for 'Nids with Lash Whips.

[Tynskel]

Rules for moving assaulting models (not the closest one, the rest of them):
1. You must maintain unit coherency (labeled as the most important restriction).
2. You must move into base contact with any enemy model within range that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model.
3. If there are no enemy models in range that fall under #2, you must move into base contact with an enemy model that is in base contact with an assaulting model.
4. If there are no enemy models in range, you must move within 2" of an assaulting model that is in base contact with the enemy.
5. If #2, #3, and #4 are all not possible, you must simply maintain coherency, as per #1.

BRB, page 34, "Moving Assaulting Models"

The assault rules are actually very specific and very strict, people just tend to ignore them.

Edit: Also note the same restrictions apply for "Defenders React" so good news for 'Nids with Lash Whips.

I agree--- for some reason people translate lots and lots of rules to being not very strict--- but these rules explicitly lay down what you can and cannot do with your models--- they do not state you can do 'whatever' as long as you get to B2B, or other nonsense.

[miggles]

I don't think it does. Assault move says the "most important" rule is that you maintain coherency. The rest is "if possible".

But if you find it, by all means, enlighten us.


Option 1 is correct.

you follow assault rules so.

closest model goes towards closest enemy in a straight line.

The other models must try to reach base to base with unegaged enemy models if possible.... so you measure 12 inches (since they are beasts) to the next enemy model not engaged and if he is able to reach you must roll a DT test)

The fact that you have to stay in coherancy with models already moved has no bearing since you would be able to move a wolf into base to base with another enemy and still stay in coherency if you make your 12 inch DT roll.

[Flammenwerfer13]

I feel like people aren't understanding what I don't understand.



This refers to the first model you move, not the entire squad. My opponent moved the first wolf in a straight line, then the rest of the large moved around the end of the terrain, avoids a terrain check. It seemed pretty shady to me.



I believe that the BRB does not specify that the rest of the squad must assault in a straight line, just that they must move into base contact if able.

I was pretty surprised when I actually read the assault move section. Like I said, I had always played that the entire squad assaults in a straight line.

Techincally your opponent is right, but he must still move the rest of the squad their max distance if he is going to avoid the terrain. You can use this to your advantage by positioning troops in such a way that he could lose attacks from models being outside of the 2 inch range for engage models. Its a double edge sword. Now if he does choose to move through terrain then yes he needs a difficult terrain test.

[Culven]

Techincally your opponent is right, but he must still move the rest of the squad their max distance if he is going to avoid the terrain. You can use this to your advantage by positioning troops in such a way that he could lose attacks from models being outside of the 2 inch range for engage models. Its a double edge sword. Now if he does choose to move through terrain then yes he needs a difficult terrain test.
Can you please cite the bit in the Assault Rules which allows a player to choose to go around Difficult Terrain? Your comment seems to be based upon the assumption that a player has a choice, but the Assault Rules only provide a choice for the order in which they are moved (after the first). The Assault Rules could actually force a unit to attempt to go through the Difficult Terrain, regardless of what the player wants.

[Mal]

Don't you just love ambigious rules....

[Calypso2ts]

Techincally your opponent is right, but he must still move the rest of the squad their max distance if he is going to avoid the terrain. You can use this to your advantage by positioning troops in such a way that he could lose attacks from models being outside of the 2 inch range for engage models. Its a double edge sword. Now if he does choose to move through terrain then yes he needs a difficult terrain test.

The opponent was not correct. If his charge move through terrain could have put him in b2b with an unengaged model, then he would have needed to move through terrain or at least attempted to do so. Otherwise he is not following all the rules of assault moves - to elect to not attempt a move into b2b it must not be possible to do so and the only way to know that is by rolling terrain, after which he must use the result.

[Culven]

Don't you just love ambigious rules....
What is ambiguous about the Assault rules? They may be someone cumbersome and annoying when it is found that the Unit must take a Difficult Terrain test after they begin moving for the Assault, but I don't see how they are ambiguous.

[Mal]

Because they don't spell it out clearly, the rules shouldn't require the players to have to think into them too deeply in order to determine what they mean. The rule book is chock full of poorly worded rules.

[Tynskel]

Because they don't spell it out clearly, the rules shouldn't require the players to have to think into them too deeply in order to determine what they mean. The rule book is chock full of poorly worded rules.

But they do spell it out clearly.
That's what I don't understand is how people cannot read that. It is just 2 pages away! If you go through Difficult Terrain, you gotta take the test.

[Mal]

Im not disagreeing, I know how to do assaults, but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of rules in the book that are very ambigious... and that gives rise to these discussions... the vast majority of which occur when people don't read all the rules...

But that doesn't change the fact that the rule book is in general, very poorly worded.

[Bda_Gamer]

But that doesn't change the fact that the rule book is in general, very poorly worded.
On this I will disagree, but you raised the main argument which make both sides valid

people don't read all the rules...
People tend to be very selective in what rules they read and choose to understand. the Rules are to be taken as a whole. Much like a novel, you don't know the story until the last page, and sometimes have to refer to previous chapters to understand what happened.

To get back to the OP, option#1 is correct. Option#2 is shady, but could be allowed iF it applied to both parties.

[Flammenwerfer13]

The opponent was not correct. If his charge move through terrain could have put him in b2b with an unengaged model, then he would have needed to move through terrain or at least attempted to do so. Otherwise he is not following all the rules of assault moves - to elect to not attempt a move into b2b it must not be possible to do so and the only way to know that is by rolling terrain, after which he must use the result.

This is the very problem, the rules are vague enough that you can imply either your idea of mine and still be technically right. You have to attempt to get into contact not required too.

and i quote:
page 34 BRB
Moving Assaulting Units
"All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as in the Movement phase, with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models"

"Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected move be closet to the enemy (going around impassable terrain, friendly models and enemy models in units not being assaulted). Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route."

The only model that matters is the first model. If it HAS to go through difficult terrain then the unit has to take a difficult terrain. If the first model doesn't then how you move the unit is up to you. If your first model is not going through difficult terrain then you most attempt to still get into base contact using the normal movement rules moving ALL your units to maintain coherency and being as close to the enemy as possible.

As I've stated this could be a double edge sword, by either your opponent positioning units so that you lose units that are with in 2" to add their attacks or you keep certain independent characters safe by keeping your opponent from being able to engage them.

[DarkLink]

This is the very problem, the rules are vague enough that you can imply either your idea of mine and still be technically right. You have to attempt to get into contact not required too.

You can try and get into combat, and fail (by failing the difficult terrain test), but you must try.

[Calypso2ts]

I agree that the only model that has to move in a straight line is the first model. The problem is that if a model has (say) 3" of difficult terrain between it and an unengaged model, if it cannot make it 6" around the terrain to reach the model it has to ATTEMPT to go through the terrain. It cannot just pile into an engaged model or move within 2" of one in base. The first criteria has to be impossible to move onto the second (move into base with an already engaged model) or the third (move within 2" of an engaged model).

It, therefore, compels you to roll for terrain in that case. There is no option to go around if going around your full assault distance would not put you in base contact with an unengaged model.

Edit: The rules for assault are not ambiguous, they are very explicit. The practical issue that makes applying them difficult is the move itself is predicated on an assumption of assault distance which may not be correct. What MAY need to be done is for the assault to be attempted, if DT is rolled the models are replaced and moved again following the maximum distance allowed by terrain. It is an iterative process at times (unfortunately). This may mean the rules are difficult to apply, but it in no way shape or form makes them ambiguous.

[Tynskel]

You can try and get into combat, and fail (by failing the difficult terrain test), but you must try.

I love the use of Color!

I find it funny that people think the rules are vague. It is quite clear, you must try to get into base to base contact! And two pages later, if you have to go through terrain, you must take the difficult terrain test.

Then in the movement section, all models must move at the maximum same speed or less.


Seemmmmmmmms pretty clear to me!

[DarkLink]

I love the use of Color!


Thank you, I try :takesabow:

If only we had a function to make it flash like a neon sign, then I'd've used it too:rolleyes:

[isotope99]

Rulebook quote:
p36 Remember that assaulting models must try and engage as many enemies as possible - no holding back to avoid the test!

Assaulting through difficult terrain still one of my least favourite rules in the book.:(

[Flammenwerfer13]

You can try and get into combat, and fail (by failing the difficult terrain test), but you must try.

The only model that matters in determining difficult terrain is the first (closest) model. After that you follow the normal movement rules. If the straightest line to the enemy for the first model is through diffcult terrain then you roll for the test. If not then you choice to rule for the test or you can attempt to go around it but you must move your models as close as possible in an attempt to get them as close as possible.

The reason I say ambiguous is that the rules do expand past the first model insomuch that you must either move in the a straight line or not (which would dictate whether you have to take a difficult terrain test after the first model). All it states is that you follow normal movement rules which implies to me I can choose not to go through difficult terrain if the first model doesn't force me too.

[Tynskel]

The only model that matters in determining difficult terrain is the first (closest) model. After that you follow the normal movement rules. If the straightest line to the enemy for the first model is through diffcult terrain then you roll for the test. If not then you choice to rule for the test or you can attempt to go around it but you must move your models as close as possible in an attempt to get them as close as possible.

The reason I say ambiguous is that the rules do expand past the first model insomuch that you must either move in the a straight line or not (which would dictate whether you have to take a difficult terrain test after the first model). All it states is that you follow normal movement rules which implies to me I can choose not to go through difficult terrain if the first model doesn't force me too.

if you skip the rule two pages later, you would be correct. However, the rule the rules two pages later in combination with the rest of the assault moves are what are important:

You must get into B2B contact with unengaged models. You must take a difficult terrain test if ONE models goes through difficult terrain.

If you have to go through difficult terrain to satisfy reaching B2B, then you need to take a difficult terrain test. It doesn't matter if the first model can reach without going through difficult terrain. What matters is what the entire unit is doing. All models in the unit must move no more than the maximum movement rate.

[Bean]

The rules as they exist are basically non-functional.

If the first assaulting model makes it in and a later model provokes a difficult terrain test which produces a result which is lower than the distance the first model moved, you're forced to break the rules one way or another: either move the first model back (not allowed) or leave it where it is, in which case it has moved further than its new maximum distance (also not allowed).

You can't look at it as if all the models are moving simultaneously (which would be required to argue that the first model hasn't actually moved by the point the later model moves and isn't actually being moved "back") since the rules for assaults clearly tell us to make the moves in sequence.

Basically, in order to avoid this problem, you'd have to figure out whether any of the models will be forced to move through difficult terrain by the assaulting rules before moving any of them--which is also illegal, since it requires you to pre-measure.

No matter how you look at it, the rules require revision. Saying that the rules require you to do it one way is simply wrong, unless you're saying that the rules require you to stop playing the game every time this situation comes up--because the game can't actually be continued without breaking the rules once it has.

Since the rules have to be changed, this is actually a pretty silly argument. Neither position is right, but either could be perfectly valid after the sort of house rule which is necessary for the game to function.

[Mal]

Actually its not premeasuring once you've declared... once a decleration is made then you are required to make that move or attempt to.

Same with shooting, pre-measuring only occurs if you measure before declaring your action.

A failed assault is an assault you've declared but for one reason or another were unable to make it into combat... but you still had to declare it before measuring or moving anything.

[Bean]

The declaration, "these guys are assaulting those guys" doesn't give you license to measure anything--only actually moving the assaulting models gives you license to measure anything, and then the only distance you're actually allowed to measure is the distance each model moves.

So, no. That's actually just wrong, Mal.

[Tynskel]

Actually its not premeasuring once you've declared... once a decleration is made then you are required to make that move or attempt to.

Same with shooting, pre-measuring only occurs if you measure before declaring your action.

A failed assault is an assault you've declared but for one reason or another were unable to make it into combat... but you still had to declare it before measuring or moving anything.

Yeah, Bean, Mal has it right--- you declare the assault and start checking distances. The way the assault rules are written is fine.

The first model you move has to be the closest to the enemy, and you move it to contact the closest enemy model of the declared assault. The only way to be positively sure about this is by checking the distance of the models, and you will know then if you will be headed through difficult terrain. This doesn't override the difficult terrain check on page 36 in any way. You could easily measure out other models before you move them.

And, another thing---- where in the rulebook does it say you move a model, realize you made a mistake, and then cannot move it back? I don't remember that rule anywhere.

You have made a mistake! You are screwed! That model, even though legally cannot move out of coherency, has now moved out of coherency and cannot go back!

[Bean]

You can't move a model unless the rules say you can. The rules don't give you license to move a model which has already made its legal movement just because another model in the same unit makes a difficult terrain test. There aren't any rules preventing it, there just aren't any rules allowing--and there have to be rules which allow it in order for it to be legal.

Regardless of when and what you measure during the assault move, there's no getting around this fact: moving the model back is not allowed. Thus, your proposal must be wrong.



About the measuring thing, I think you're right--you do have to see which model is closest, so you do have to measure all of those distances before moving anything.

This doesn't, however, tell you whether you have to go through difficult terrain--all you're measuring is the straight-line distance between the models, which will never demonstrate whether the model could make contact along a curve around the terrain, instead.

Since, as was pointed out earlier, you do actually have to declare that the unit is going to move through difficult terrain before moving any of them, and there's no way to demonstrate that a model has to move through difficult terrain in order to contact an enemy, there's no way to force an opponent to make this declaration before moving.

So, really, that's two critical flaws in your position.

But I am sorry, Mal. I was totally wrong on that particular issue, and you are right.

[SeattleDV8]

You can't move a model unless the rules say you can. The rules don't give you license to move a model which has already made its legal movement just because another model in the same unit makes a difficult terrain test. There aren't any rules preventing it, there just aren't any rules allowing--and there have to be rules which allow it in order for it to be legal.

Regardless of when and what you measure during the assault move, there's no getting around this fact: moving the model back is not allowed. Thus, your proposal must be wrong.



BRB pg. 34 "All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as the movement phase....."
BRB pg.11 "It is perfectly fine to measure a unit's move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else...."
As long as it is still the unit's assault move you may move models from that unit back.

[Tynskel]

You can't move a model unless the rules say you can. The rules don't give you license to move a model which has already made its legal movement just because another model in the same unit makes a difficult terrain test. There aren't any rules preventing it, there just aren't any rules allowing--and there have to be rules which allow it in order for it to be legal.

Regardless of when and what you measure during the assault move, there's no getting around this fact: moving the model back is not allowed. Thus, your proposal must be wrong.



About the measuring thing, I think you're right--you do have to see which model is closest, so you do have to measure all of those distances before moving anything.

This doesn't, however, tell you whether you have to go through difficult terrain--all you're measuring is the straight-line distance between the models, which will never demonstrate whether the model could make contact along a curve around the terrain, instead.

Since, as was pointed out earlier, you do actually have to declare that the unit is going to move through difficult terrain before moving any of them, and there's no way to demonstrate that a model has to move through difficult terrain in order to contact an enemy, there's no way to force an opponent to make this declaration before moving.

So, really, that's two critical flaws in your position.

But I am sorry, Mal. I was totally wrong on that particular issue, and you are right.

If you are measuring the distances, and you are then following the subsequent rules, you'll know whether your unit will be moving through difficult terrain or not. Your models MUST get into in B2B with unengaged models if possible! A good chunk of the time, that is shortest route possible. If not, you'll still know whether your unit is moving into the terrain or not.

Your other point about not 'forcing' your opponent to take a difficult terrain check is basically in void--- because you declare the assault move, but you don't have to declare the difficult terrain move, yet. ie, this doesn't follow exactly the same rules in the movement phase. However, before you do actually move the models, you are supposed to declare the difficult terrain test. If not, you should be demonstrating to your opponent why you will not have to take the test--- and even if you fail at that, you can take your move back and make the test.

It WOULD be easier to just take the test in the first place. If you are worried about cheating cheaters, then ask your opponent to place markers down where their models used to be before they start moving them.

Either way, your opponent will have to take a difficult terrain test if that is required for them to follow all the relevant rules. This is fine, and still completely follows the rulebook, and doesn't contradict any of the rules. If you roll the check or not, the closest model has to move first.

My personal opinion, if you are ever at doubt, you should take the check. If your opponent is being a redonkulous @$$hole, then why R you playing with them? And if your answer is that they are at a tournament, that doesn't give them license to be a Git. Every tournament I have been to doesn't like Gits. They kick 'em out. Even at 'Ard Boyz, because 'Ard Boyz rules do state, don't be a Git.

[Bean]

BRB pg. 34 "All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as the movement phase....."
BRB pg.11 "It is perfectly fine to measure a unit's move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else...."
As long as it is still the unit's assault move you may move models from that unit back.

Alright, that's a fair point. I'll concede on that one, too.




If you are measuring the distances, and you are then following the subsequent rules, you'll know whether your unit will be moving through difficult terrain or not. Your models MUST get into in B2B with unengaged models if possible! A good chunk of the time, that is shortest route possible. If not, you'll still know whether your unit is moving into the terrain or not.



Not really. You'll know what the shortest distance is between each of your models and each model in the unit being assaulted, and you'll know whether each of those distances is measured through terrain or not, but those measurements will never demonstrate that any of those models couldn't possibly reach base-to-base with another model without passing through difficult terrain. For that, you'd have to actually measure the curving paths around the terrain, and that's still not allowed.

While it's certainly reasonable to say that you can be pretty sure that a unit will have to go through difficult terrain, it would be just as reasonable to say that you can be pretty sure that one model in the assaulting unit is the closest to the target unit without measuring at all--and you've already asserted that "the only way to be positively sure about this is by checking the distance of the models." Well, that's true, but it's also true that the only way to be positively sure that I have to move through difficult terrain is to actually measure the paths I'd have to take around the difficult terrain, and that's not allowed.

You can't insist on one level of certainty when doing so supports your position, but then allow for a much lesser level or certainty when it does not.



Your other point about not 'forcing' your opponent to take a difficult terrain check is basically in void--- because you declare the assault move, but you don't have to declare the difficult terrain move, yet. ie, this doesn't follow exactly the same rules in the movement phase. However, before you do actually move the models, you are supposed to declare the difficult terrain test. If not, you should be demonstrating to your opponent why you will not have to take the test--- and even if you fail at that, you can take your move back and make the test.


The line in the rules which states that the assault move does, indeed, follow the rules for moving in the movement phase has been repeated several times, now. Care to let me know why you think that the assault move is somehow exempt from that particular rule?

Further, if it's not exempt, why would I have to demonstrate that I don't have to move through difficult terrain? I'm not obligated to do that. The choice is mine unless you demonstrate that the rules obligate me to decide in one particular way--which you can't do unless you make measurements that aren't allowed.



It WOULD be easier to just take the test in the first place. If you are worried about cheating cheaters, then ask your opponent to place markers down where their models used to be before they start moving them.

Either way, your opponent will have to take a difficult terrain test if that is required for them to follow all the relevant rules. This is fine, and still completely follows the rulebook, and doesn't contradict any of the rules. If you roll the check or not, the closest model has to move first.


But they can opt to make their movement in a way in which they will never have to take the test--also by following all the rules and regardless of the relative positions of all the relevant models except the first one to move and the one to which that one moves.

Simply, I declare my assault. As per the movement rules, I declare whether my unit is moving through difficult terrain for that assault movement. I declare that they are not. I move my first model, as per the assault rules. Then I move the rest of my models as per the assault rules, only, by this point, they are banned from entering difficult terrain thanks to my prior decision.

I do not have to go back and re-make that decision if I later find out that some of my models can't make it into contact. I am not forced to make that decision the other way, because there is no way to demonstrate (without cheating) that any of my models that could have ended up based had I declared the other way will fail to end up based when I declare it the way I do.




My personal opinion, if you are ever at doubt, you should take the check. If your opponent is being a redonkulous @$$hole, then why R you playing with them? And if your answer is that they are at a tournament, that doesn't give them license to be a Git. Every tournament I have been to doesn't like Gits. They kick 'em out. Even at 'Ard Boyz, because 'Ard Boyz rules do state, don't be a Git.

And my opinion is that you can simply opt to make the entire movement while avoiding the difficult terrain test altogether, as long as that shortest-distance path between the first model and the enemy model closest to it doesn't take it through terrain. This remains entirely legal, as I demonstrated above, and it seems like a much more reasonable option than forcing your opponent to take the test any time the unit happens to be near a tree.

Often, opting not to take the test makes it far more likely that the assault will succeed--thus actually following the stated intent of the assault movement rules--to get as many models into the fight as possible--much better than an "interpretation" which forces you to take terrain tests you could have avoided. Since you can't actually make all of the measurements necessary to say which route is more likely to put the most models in combat, the assaulting player basically just has to decide what he or she thinks is the best route--and nothing in the rules forces anyone to decide one particular way or the other.



edit:

Actually, if I can change my decision regarding moving through difficult terrain after moving my models, then I can change it back to not moving through difficult terrain if I roll a terrain test which results in fewer models being in combat than if I'd moved without it. After all, the rules for moving assaulting models also state that: "Assaulting units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of their models as possible."

It's easy to imagine a situation in which I'd be breaking this rule if I didn't go back, change my terrain decision, and make the assault move without taking the difficult terrain test.

Personally, it seems like you shouldn't be able to go back and change that decision regarding moving through terrain--we wouldn't want someone rolling a test, getting a bad result, then changing his mind about rolling the test altogether. Yet asserting that you can go back and decide to roll the test after opting not to and moving your models while asserting that you can't go back and decide not to take the test after doing so would be an unacceptable double standard.

Unfortunately, the rules don't really tell us whether the rule on page 11 about changing your mind regarding movement allow for you to change your mind about difficult terrain tests.

Whichever way you cut it, though, I'm never going to be forced to end up with fewer engaged models after opting not to move through terrain and moving my models.

[Tynskel]

you cannot opt to move in a way to avoid the test. If your models never cross difficult terrain, they don't take the test. If they do, they have too. There is no inbetween.

The reason it is not an option is due to following all the rules for assault.

Also, your method of measuring is making the assumption that you manage to always pick the closest model to the closest model, however, in practice, you will be measuring multiple things at once, and it will be clear that you will or will not have to take the terrain check.

[Bean]

I can say, at the beginning of my assault move, "my models are not going to move into difficult terrain." In fact, I am required to either do this or say, "my models are going to move into difficult terrain." If I do the former, my models may not move into difficult terrain. They will never become obligated to do so, because they have already been prevented from doing so.

Thus, I won't have to take the difficult terrain test.

Now, why can't I do this? The rules say I can. In fact, the rules say that this is a decision I am required to make, and they never tell me that I must choose a particular option.

[Mal]

You may declare your models are not going to move through terrain all you like... if that first model must then you must.

If you take a terrain test but then don't move through terrain your still limited by the maximum distance you rolled for the test.
You don't actually have to enter terrain to have you movement limited by it.

So with this in mind I fail to see the issue.

Here is a step by stem process:

Declare your going to assault, what unit is charging and who they are charging.
Move the closest model into base contact using the shortest possible route, if this takes you through difficult terrain then roll to see the distance travelled.
You may now measure to see if the rest of the unit can get into contact before actually moving the models, if they cannot get into base contact but may be able to by going through DT then you may opt to take a DT test (providing you didn't already take one ofc).
If the DT test roll is bad and you can't reach combat then you must move towards the unit by the result on the DT test even if this means you do not actually enter terrain.
Now your opponent moves 6" into combat with you.

[Tynskel]

I can say, at the beginning of my assault move, "my models are not going to move into difficult terrain." In fact, I am required to either do this or say, "my models are going to move into difficult terrain." If I do the former, my models may not move into difficult terrain. They will never become obligated to do so, because they have already been prevented from doing so.

Thus, I won't have to take the difficult terrain test.

Now, why can't I do this? The rules say I can. In fact, the rules say that this is a decision I am required to make, and they never tell me that I must choose a particular option.

You can declare this all you want, however, the rules for assault moves are slightly different that movement rules. If your unit MUST move through difficult terrain to reach B2B with an unengaged enemy model, then the unit MUST take a difficult terrain check.
Unlike the regular movement rules, you are restricted in your options.

Mal, that is incorrect--- you don't get a choice if your any models in your unit will go through difficult terrain to reach an enemy. You must take the test, and all models in the unit move the same rate. That's why there's a blurb on failed difficult terrain rolls. This isn't contradictory rules, as SeattleDV8 pointed out that your first model will just be placed back where it had started, and can attempt to move the amount by the difficult terrain check. At which point, if it fails to make it, the assault has failed.

[Bean]

Sure, if, somehow, my model was required to move through difficult terrain, the unit would have to take a difficult terrain test.

But, if I declare that my unit will not be moving through difficult terrain, none of its models will ever*, under any circumstances be required to move through difficult terrain. Why? Because the rules for difficult terrain on page 14 specifically prohibit them from doing so. Nothing in the assault rules nullifies, replaces, trumps, or contradicts this.

So, in that hypothetical scenario, sure. But, that hypothetical scenario will never occur, so it doesn't matter.


*during the course of that particular assault move, anyway

[Mal]

T, thats why I added in the bit about their movement being limited by DT even if they don't actually enter it...

Once that test is taken then your movement is limited regardless of where you move.

bean, if you declare your unit will not pass through DT but the closest route for the closest mini takes you through DT thrn your out of luck because the rules say you must.

[Calypso2ts]

But, if I declare that my unit will not be moving through difficult terrain, none of its models will ever*, under any circumstances be required to move through difficult terrain. Why? Because the rules for difficult terrain on page 14 specifically prohibit them from doing so. Nothing in the assault rules nullifies, replaces, trumps, or contradicts this.


This is how you can selectively apply the rules to reach the assault conclusion you desire rather than the appropriate conclusion that you maybe compelled to take the DT test. I can declare that my models are out of LOS, but that doesn't make it the case.

[Bean]

T, thats why I added in the bit about their movement being limited by DT even if they don't actually enter it...

Once that test is taken then your movement is limited regardless of where you move.

bean, if you declare your unit will not pass through DT but the closest route for the closest mini takes you through DT thrn your out of luck because the rules say you must.

Yes. Difficult terrain can affect a unit's movement even if the unit doesn't actually enter the terrain. But, in the case I described above, it won't. After declaring that the unit won't enter difficult terrain, they won't be obligated to take the test by the difficult terrain rules--and they won't enter difficult terrain, so they won't be obligated to take the difficult terrain test by the rules for moving assaulting units. If they don't take the test, the difficult terrain won't limit their movement, and it's easy to prevent them from taking the test.

Further, the rules do say I must take the shortest path between the first model to move (the one closest to an enemy model) and the enemy model to which it is closest. It doesn't, however, say that I have to take a straight line, or that I can't ignore other rules which restrict that model's movement when determining what path is the shortest. In this case, once my model has been prevented from moving through difficult terrain, I simply find the shortest path which is legal--i.e. which goes around the difficult terrain--and take that.

This rule doesn't allow me to break other rules. It just forces me to take the shortest legal path, and it's easy to make it so that the shortest legal path can't possibly take my model through difficult terrain, simply by making a decision which makes it illegal for my model to move through difficult terrain.




This is how you can selectively apply the rules to reach the assault conclusion you desire rather than the appropriate conclusion that you maybe compelled to take the DT test. I can declare that my models are out of LOS, but that doesn't make it the case.

I'm not selectively applying the rules. Did you actually read the rule on page 14? It says,

"If a unit starts its move outside difficult terrain, the player must declare if he wants his unit to try to enter the difficult terrain as part of their move. If he chooses not to, the unit moves as normal but may not enter difficult terrain."

It's very plain, simple, and straightforward. It applies to the situation in question. Before moving any of my assaulting models, I must declare whether they will try to enter difficult terrain. If I declare that they will not, this rule prevents them from doing so.

The assault rules don't force me to declare that I will. They don't override or ignore this rule. They don't conflict with this rule, and they even tell you that this rule (along with all of the other rules used in the movement phase, except the 1" rule) applies to assault moves.

I would be cheating if I did not make this decision. Once I make it, if I decide not to have my unit try to enter the terrain, I would be cheating if I moved them in such a way as to make them enter the terrain. The rules for moving assaulting models neither force nor allow me to cheat in either of these ways.

Next time, read the rules before telling me that I'm applying them selectively. This situation is nothing like your line-of-sight example, and my position is supported by the rules in its entirety.

[Calypso2ts]

I guess the rules governing movement in general are more specific than the rules governing movement in the assault phase as laid out in a step by step process for the assault phase.

If that is your claim, then your conclusion is correct. I, however, think that rules specifically dictating how models are compelled to move in the assault phase are more specific than a rule governing general movement.

[Ferro]

[the] rules specifically dictating how models are compelled to move in the assault phase are more specific than a rule governing general movement.

this.

Bean, you've got a firm and correct grasp of the DT rules for the movement phase. I beg you to review the specific sequence of model moving required by the Assault Moves rules. The movements of the first several models are severely limited, since you are compelled to make base contact with a new model if it's within your normal assault distance. If a single model is compelled to move through terrain/cover, then the entire unit must test, and the entire assault may fail. After all models which can reach base contact have been moved, then you have much greater freedom in how the remaining models close the distance.

[DarkLink]

Right, movement in the assault phase is a specific, special case of normal movement, in which you MUST do everything in your power to get all your models into b2b contact with the enemy.

Edit:
Now that I look at it, must is kinda a funny word. Reminds me of musty closet, or musty jacket, or something

[Tynskel]

Sure, if, somehow, my model was required to move through difficult terrain, the unit would have to take a difficult terrain test.

But, if I declare that my unit will not be moving through difficult terrain, none of its models will ever*, under any circumstances be required to move through difficult terrain. Why? Because the rules for difficult terrain on page 14 specifically prohibit them from doing so. Nothing in the assault rules nullifies, replaces, trumps, or contradicts this.

So, in that hypothetical scenario, sure. But, that hypothetical scenario will never occur, so it doesn't matter.


*during the course of that particular assault move, anyway

No, that is not true. The rule on p. 34 and 36 override the normal difficult terrain rules. 1) the unit must move into B2B with unengaged models, 2) the must take a difficult terrain check if anyone model has to go through difficult terrain to make it to the enemy model.

You do not get a choice! The Assault Move rules are completely restrictive. This is a compulsory move, and the only choice you get is whether you or not you want to make it. However, unlike a normal move, once you have declared the movement, you get no choice in how to move your models. They MUST move into B2B, the MUST move through difficult terrain if that will allow them to get closer. They MUST all take the difficult terrain test.

Another thing that is unique to assault moves. If you fail the assault move, whether by simply not being close enough, or due to not enough movement because of difficult terrain, you cannot move your models at all. (a normal difficult terrain test move can always in any direction--- you are moving by choice). You do not get to choose to assault a different unit.

[Tynskel]

Right, movement in the assault phase is a specific, special case of normal movement, in which you MUST do everything in your power to get all your models into b2b contact with the enemy.

Edit:
Now that I look at it, must is kinda a funny word. Reminds me of musty closet, or musty jacket, or something

I have been on the forums too much, and my eyesight has gone bad.

I don't know if I can see the 'must' yet--- can you make it any bigger?

[Bean]

I guess the rules governing movement in general are more specific than the rules governing movement in the assault phase as laid out in a step by step process for the assault phase.

If that is your claim, then your conclusion is correct. I, however, think that rules specifically dictating how models are compelled to move in the assault phase are more specific than a rule governing general movement.

Why does it matter which is more general? The rules don't conflict.

The rules on which you guys are relying are these:

"If possible, the model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model." (page 34)

and

"If, following the rules for moving assaulting models (see page 34), any model in an assaulting unit will have to go through difficult or dangerous terrain as part of its assault move, the unit must take the relevant terrain test before moving." (page 36)

If I follow the rule on page 14 and declare that my unit will not attempt to enter difficult terrain, any movements that might take any of its models through difficult terrain become illegal. They become impossible. Thus, they are not required by the rules on page 34, and thus the rule on page 36 will not come into effect.

The rules on page 14 don't conflict with the rules on page 34 and 36. They don't tell you to resolve a situation one way while those other rules tells you to resolve the same situation another way. They apply to a situation which arises prior to situations to which the rules on page 34 and 36 apply, and they potentially alter the situation such that the type of situation to which the rule on page 36 applies simply won't come up.

That's not a contradiction--it doesn't create a situation where we need to see which rule has precedence. It is one rule that allows for a decision that prevents the situation in which another rule applies from occurring.

What you're saying is equivalent, logically, to me saying, "deciding not to include bike infantry in your army is illegal, because there are rules for how bike infantry work and you wouldn't be using those rules if you don't include bike infantry."

Clearly, you can make decisions which prevent certain rules from coming up. The decision you must make according to the rules on page 14 is capable of preventing the rules on page 36 from coming up--just as you can prevent them from coming up by simply never choosing to assault or getting close enough to enemy units to allow them to assault you.



this.

Bean, you've got a firm and correct grasp of the DT rules for the movement phase. I beg you to review the specific sequence of model moving required by the Assault Moves rules. The movements of the first several models are severely limited, since you are compelled to make base contact with a new model if it's within your normal assault distance. If a single model is compelled to move through terrain/cover, then the entire unit must test, and the entire assault may fail. After all models which can reach base contact have been moved, then you have much greater freedom in how the remaining models close the distance.

You are not compelled to make base contact with a new model "if it's in your normal assault distance." You're compelled to make base contact with a new model if it's possible. Plenty of prior decisions can render such a thing impossible, and those decisions include deciding not to have your unit move through difficult terrain while assaulting.




Right, movement in the assault phase is a specific, special case of normal movement, in which you MUST do everything in your power to get all your models into b2b contact with the enemy.


True. Unfortunately, nothing in your power can make your models move through difficult terrain after you decide not to let them do so--and that decision comes prior to the rules which force you to do everything in your power to get all your models into base contact with the enemy. When you make it, you are under no such obligation. That obligation only arises after you start moving models beyond the first--which is clearly after you've decide whether they're going to go through difficult terrain or not.

Using funny fonts doesn't make you any less wrong.



No, that is not true. The rule on p. 34 and 36 override the normal difficult terrain rules. 1) the unit must move into B2B with unengaged models, 2) the must take a difficult terrain check if anyone model has to go through difficult terrain to make it to the enemy model.

You do not get a choice! The Assault Move rules are completely restrictive. This is a compulsory move, and the only choice you get is whether you or not you want to make it. However, unlike a normal move, once you have declared the movement, you get no choice in how to move your models. They MUST move into B2B, the MUST move through difficult terrain if that will allow them to get closer. They MUST all take the difficult terrain test.


You do get a choice. The rules which restrict the movement of your assaulting models only take effect when you actually start moving those models, and the rule you're hung up on--the one I quoted earlier--doesn't come into play until you start moving models beyond the first. This happens well after you've made the decision regarding whether the unit will move through difficult terrain, and, as such, those rules have no bearing on that decision.

Once you've made the decision, movement through terrain becomes impossible for those models. When a rule says, "if possible" it doesn't mean, "if possible, presuming they could do things they cannot," it means, "if possible, presuming they can only do things they can actually do"--which, for those models, does not include moving through difficult terrain.

[Tynskel]

I told you--- you don't get to make the decision--- the rules restrict your decision. If you declare assault you



MUST


try to get into B2B contact with unengaged models. p.36 then states that any model that goes through difficult terrain to do so means the unit


MUST

take a difficult terrain check. SeattleDV8 stated earlier, you can always take the models back to where they started.


What you are failing to understand is that the regular movement rules allow you to move either or when it comes to difficult terrain. The assault rules are a specific ruling: you must follow the prescribed rules for moving your unit. You do not get a choice how the models move.



Your comment about 'if possible'. If possible means if you have enough movement to do so. It doesn't mean you get a choice about going through difficult terrain. The first model that moves doesn't get a choice how to move toward the enemy models---- that model


MUST


move closest to closest. There is no choice about the difficult terrain. If the straight line path is through difficult terrain, you take the test.

There is no choice!

[Billyjoeray]

I told you--- you don't get to make the decision--- the rules restrict your decision. If you declare assault you



MUST


try to get into B2B contact with unengaged models. p.36 then states that any model that goes through difficult terrain to do so means the unit


MUST

take a difficult terrain check. SeattleDV8 stated earlier, you can always take the models back to where they started.


What you are failing to understand is that the regular movement rules allow you to move either or when it comes to difficult terrain. The assault rules are a specific ruling: you must follow the prescribed rules for moving your unit. You do not get a choice how the models move.



Your comment about 'if possible'. If possible means if you have enough movement to do so. It doesn't mean you get a choice about going through difficult terrain. The first model that moves doesn't get a choice how to move toward the enemy models---- that model


MUST


move closest to closest. There is no choice about the difficult terrain. If the straight line path is through difficult terrain, you take the test.

There is no choice!

You're right. The only exception that I can think of is if you were to have a model that would have to move through difficult waaaaaaay in the back of something that wouldn't be within 6 inches of an unengaged enemy model. Then that model can move however it wants and it wouldn't have to roll for difficult.
Also, it's worth noting that you don't have to move to in the straight line path by the way. IF you can move your models around the difficult terrain within the allotted 6 inches and still engage all models that could do so in B2B without getting into difficult terrain, then you do not have to test. That would be a rare and trivial example though because if you are that close, testing for difficult probably wouldn't matter as much anyway.

[Mal]

The closest model must move the shortest distance to base contact with the enemy... the shortest distance between any 2 points is always a stright line.

[DarkLink]

I have been on the forums too much, and my eyesight has gone bad.

I don't know if I can see the 'must' yet--- can you make it any bigger?

I'll see what I can do;)

[Bean]

You can write the word "must" all you want, Tynskel. I've already demonstrated why you're wrong, and re-stating your error won't help your position.

The rule from which you're getting the word "must" starts to apply well after the rule which forces you to make a decision regarding moving through difficult terrain. You must make the decision. At the point at which you must make the decision, the rule saying you must try to base new models does not apply. Later, when that rule does apply, it is too late to negate the consequences of the decision.

I've written all of that out, before. It is correct. It is relevant. It demonstrates the veracity of my position beyond any reasonable standard, and you have yet to address it in any way. All you do is keep repeating the same inane refrain over and over again as if your dogmatic mantra would somehow be convincing despite its irrelevance. Frankly, I expected better from you.

But, hey. When I started posting in this thread, I clearly didn't know what the rules are. So, I'm glad I participated. Now, I know what the rules are. I know that you are wrong and your opponents are right. I've made it clear why that is the case, and done so several times in several different ways. Frankly, that's all I was here to do.

So, I think I'm done. Stick to your ridiculous mantra all you want. You're just making yourself look foolish.

[DarkLink]

Actually, there's a pretty glaring flaw in your argument, Bean.

So we might have to go into difficult terrain. We normally can choose whether or not we will roll for difficult terrain. In normal movement, we make that choice, and go from there.

However, while moving assaulting models, the "if possible" comes into play. If it is possible to reach enemy models by going through terrain, you must do so.



Let's say the two units are lined up 2" away from each other. Most of the squad being assaulted is in cover, so in order to get as many assaulting models into b2b as possible we would have to move through cover.

So, if possible, we must take the option that gets the most models in b2b. We have two options.
Option A: We decide to move into cover. This means all the assaulting models will get into b2b.
Option B: We decide not to move into cover. This means there will be assaulting models that are not in b2b.

Now, by the assault rules that you're trying to dodge, we must pick the option that gets as many models in b2b as possible. Because it is possible to get more models into b2b via option A, we must pick option A and thus take a difficult terrain test. We do not have a choice in this, because the assault rules explicitly remove our ability to chose in this case.

From there, your argument falls apart.



Plus, there's the whole specific > general rule thing. Movement rules are general, assault movement rules are specific. Thus, assault movement rules trump.

So unless you can find a better argument to back up your claim... well, checkmate.

[Tynskel]

You can write the word "must" all you want, Tynskel. I've already demonstrated why you're wrong, and re-stating your error won't help your position.

The rule from which you're getting the word "must" starts to apply well after the rule which forces you to make a decision regarding moving through difficult terrain. You must make the decision. At the point at which you must make the decision, the rule saying you must try to base new models does not apply. Later, when that rule does apply, it is too late to negate the consequences of the decision.

I've written all of that out, before. It is correct. It is relevant. It demonstrates the veracity of my position beyond any reasonable standard, and you have yet to address it in any way. All you do is keep repeating the same inane refrain over and over again as if your dogmatic mantra would somehow be convincing despite its irrelevance. Frankly, I expected better from you.

But, hey. When I started posting in this thread, I clearly didn't know what the rules are. So, I'm glad I participated. Now, I know what the rules are. I know that you are wrong and your opponents are right. I've made it clear why that is the case, and done so several times in several different ways. Frankly, that's all I was here to do.

So, I think I'm done. Stick to your ridiculous mantra all you want. You're just making yourself look foolish.

Bwah Bwah Bawha Bwa Bwah Bwaha.

*Now* I look foolish.

However, that does nothing to debunk what I have said earlier. I have demonstrated in the rules on page 34 and 36 that the player charging does not get a choice. You must fulfill the all of the conditions for those rules before you can do anything *you* want to do with the models. The problem is that difficult terrain is wrapped up in those conditionals, and therefore is higher in the 'hierarchy' before you can choose to do what you want to do with your models. Assault moves are a type of compulsory movement, and the player, unfortunately, is limited to only getting to choose between a compulsory move, or no move at all.

Have you considered the 'opposite' scenario? If you, the player had complete control over your models during assault, you *could* choose to only move through 'difficult terrain', even if avoiding difficult terrain would allow you to reach more models. There would be situations where this would grant the assaulting player an advantage. For example, the enemy models with the 'power weapons are too far away, even with the 6" follow up move, to reach your models, if you could restrict your movement. However, the rules won't let you do that either. You can only attempt to reach as many models as possible (and be within coherency, ect).

You simply do not get to choose.

[BalaMatt]

Hi guys, I'm a long time lurker and player.

I've gone back to the original post and have read a significant portion of the posts and viewpoints.


Here is in the way that my club and I play it following our own internal discussions.
Please reply specifically to our interpretation. Also if you dispute it, please identify which rule you feel we are not obeying.

We would move the closest wolf as per the widely agreed method (while marking it's position in case we need to retract it) . We would then move the most distant wolf and attempt to achieve contact with enemy while maintaining coherency. If this is successful, it is almost always true that all wolves will be able to achieve contact and coherency. We then proceed without requiring difficult terrain rules. If the most distant wolf (which is moved second) cannot reach (or another odd terrain feature makes it likely to inhibit contact and coherency of the squad) then we go to the difficult terrain option. This way we have to "un-move" two models at most prior to moving as per the difficult terrain move.

so.... if you don't agree, what rule are we breaking?

thanks

[DarkLink]

so.... if you don't agree, what rule are we breaking?


Well, the assault rules don't require you to move your models in any particular order (after moving the closest guy first, of course), so moving the furthest guy is your prerogative.


But the rules do clearly state that if any member of the unit triggers difficult terrain at any point of the movement, the whole unit takes the test. This is clearly stated. The argument has been over whether or not you can voluntarily stay out of terrain in order to avoid the test.


Playing by houserules meant to make things easier is fine, though, so don't worry about it a whole lot.

[Sam]

"Remember that assaulting models must try to engage as many enemies as possible - no holding back to avoid the test!" -BRB, page 36, under the heading ASSAULTING THROUGH COVER

You can have your models move in whatever crazy random pattern you want, provided you follow the rules for moving assaulting models. The rules for moving assaulting models state that you must attempt to move assaulting models into base-to-base with enemy models if possible. They also state that you cannot hold back to avoid a difficult terrain test. IF you can get all models that could POSSIBLY have made it into base contact with the enemy by moving through difficult terrain into base-to-base without going through difficult terrain, then and only then can you go around to avoid the test.

[BalaMatt]

"Remember that assaulting models must try to engage as many enemies as possible - no holding back to avoid the test!" -BRB, page 36, under the heading ASSAULTING THROUGH COVER

You can have your models move in whatever crazy random pattern you want, provided you follow the rules for moving assaulting models. The rules for moving assaulting models state that you must attempt to move assaulting models into base-to-base with enemy models if possible. They also state that you cannot hold back to avoid a difficult terrain test. IF you can get all models that could POSSIBLY have made it into base contact with the enemy by moving through difficult terrain into base-to-base without going through difficult terrain, then and only then can you go around to avoid the test.

This is exactly the way I see it!

[DarkLink]

And the last part of that quote "and no holding back to avoid the test", is another nail in the coffin to the argument that you can choose not to enter difficult terrain.

[Bean]

And the last part of that quote "and no holding back to avoid the test", is another nail in the coffin to the argument that you can choose not to enter difficult terrain.

Or it would be, if following the rule which prohibits your models from moving through difficult terrain after choosing not to have the unit try to enter difficult terrain were "holding back."

Of course, it's not. Often, choosing to refrain from trying to move through difficult terrain actually significantly increases the probability of getting models into contact, and increases the expected return in terms of models in contact. So, again, you actually have nothing that supports your position, at all. The rules tell us how to handle this situation in very clear and simple terms. That you continue to scrounge around for rules you can twist to serve your bizarre agenda is yet another indication of how weak your position is.

[BalaMatt]

And the last part of that quote "and no holding back to avoid the test", is another nail in the coffin to the argument that you can choose not to enter difficult terrain.

If you were to include the whole sentence it would make it clear that "no holding back" is in the context of maximising number of models that engage the enemy. It does not indicate a removal of choice about your route.

Your interpretation has a big flipside.

Imagine a pair of barrels (GW standard issue, you know the type) was between two opposing units. Now imagine that an assaulting models direct line of assault intersected the barrels (difficult terrain), but he could easily reach opponents by going around.

By your interpretation, the entire squad is now subject to difficult terrain test etc. Is this the case?

If this is not the case, please specify how the rules support your interpretation for this scenario. Basically how is it different to the OP example?

[SeattleDV8]

Or it would be, if following the rule which prohibits your models from moving through difficult terrain after choosing not to have the unit try to enter difficult terrain were "holding back."

Of course, it's not. Often, choosing to refrain from trying to move through difficult terrain actually significantly increases the probability of getting models into contact, and increases the expected return in terms of models in contact. So, again, you actually have nothing that supports your position, at all. The rules tell us how to handle this situation in very clear and simple terms. That you continue to scrounge around for rules you can twist to serve your bizarre agenda is yet another indication of how weak your position is.

Your whole argument is flawed.
First you are trying to use a general rule , the movement rules, to over turn a specific rule set , the assault movement rules.
Yes they do share certain things except where the assault are more specific.
Specific trumps general.
The Idea that refraining from moving though cover will always , or even sometimes increase the probability of getting the models into BTB is a silly point.
If you could then the difficult terrain roll is not needed, BUT if you cannot then you must take the test.
Just because you try not to does not mean you may be forced to.

[Sam]

If you were to include the whole sentence it would make it clear that "no holding back" is in the context of maximising number of models that engage the enemy. It does not indicate a removal of choice about your route.

Your interpretation has a big flipside.

Imagine a pair of barrels (GW standard issue, you know the type) was between two opposing units. Now imagine that an assaulting models direct line of assault intersected the barrels (difficult terrain), but he could easily reach opponents by going around.

By your interpretation, the entire squad is now subject to difficult terrain test etc. Is this the case?

If this is not the case, please specify how the rules support your interpretation for this scenario. Basically how is it different to the OP example?

No one is saying that you must take a difficult terrain test simply because there is terrain in between the two units. We are saying that you must take a test if going around said terrain would violate the rules for moving assaulting models, most notably maximizing the number of models in base-to-base contact. If you can get just as many models into base-to-base when going around terrain and you could possibly get into base-to-base by going through terrain, then of course you do not have to take the test.

[BalaMatt]

No one is saying that you must take a difficult terrain test simply because there is terrain in between the two units. We are saying that you must take a test if going around said terrain would violate the rules for moving assaulting models, most notably maximizing the number of models in base-to-base contact. If you can get just as many models into base-to-base when going around terrain and you could possibly get into base-to-base by going through terrain, then of course you do not have to take the test.



I agree. I was responding to a quote from a member who was suggesting otherwise. That is why I quoted his post, to make it clear to whom I was responding.

So basically, yes the poster I quoted said that you do not have a choice.

[DarkLink]

Deciding whether or not to enter difficult terrain directly pertains to how many models will get into b2b, thus the "no holding back" applies. If you can get more models into b2b by going through difficult terrain, then you may not hold back.

And, as mentioned several places earlier in the thread, there are more reasons why you can't choose not to enter terrain.



By your interpretation, the entire squad is now subject to difficult terrain test etc. Is this the case?

Yes.



If this is not the case, please specify how the rules support your interpretation for this scenario. Basically how is it different to the OP example?

That's what this whole thread has been about.

[BalaMatt]

Deciding whether or not to enter difficult terrain directly pertains to how many models will get into b2b, thus the "no holding back" applies. If you can get more models into b2b by going through difficult terrain, then you may not hold back.

And, as mentioned several places earlier in the thread, there are more reasons why you can't choose not to enter terrain.

In your first sentence you suggest that you can not avoid difficult terrain if it has the potential to increase your engagement with the enemy. Right?


Then in your post #88, you quoted my example in post #84. In doing so you indicated that you must enter difficult terrain despite the potential to achieve full engagement while otherwise legally moving around the barrels.

This is a contradiction.

Have you changed your mind or has there been some form of miscommunication?

I sincerely don't understand the difference in your assessments. Is there a rule I'm missing?

thanks

[DarkLink]

Have you changed your mind or has there been some form of miscommunication?

thanks

Here's a summary of my position:

1. If there's no difficult terrain, or you can fully engage without entering difficult terrain, then you don't have to worry about it (aside from the very first model, anyways)

2. If you can't fully engage without entering difficult terrain, but can get more models into b2b by going through difficult terrain, then you must attempt to go through difficult terrain.

3. If you can't fully engage, but going through difficult terrain will not get more models into b2b, then you don't have to worry about it.


Basically, if at any point you can get more models into b2b than you currently can by taking a difficult terrain test, then you must. If you can get everyone that can reach b2b into b2b without the difficult terrain test, then you're golden.

[Bean]

So, how can you ever know whether going through difficult terrain will result in more models getting into base-to-base? You won't know that until after you take the test, and some test results potentially reduce the number of models that get into base-to-base quite rapidly.

Given that, under what circumstances can you actually claim that the rule you're quoting forces you to do anything?

[Calypso2ts]

The requirement is not t succeed in getting the most models into b2b, it is to 'attempt' to get the most models into b2b. It is obvious most of the time when a DT check will potentially increase the models in b2b, when it isn't figure out a way to resolve it or become cleverer at math.

[DarkLink]

Bingo. You must attempt to get as many models into b2b as possible. A difficult terrain test can cause you to fail, but you must still try.

[Bean]

Bingo. You must attempt to get as many models into b2b as possible. A difficult terrain test can cause you to fail, but you must still try.

And I maintain that trying to get the most models in base to base will often quite clearly involve choosing not to go through difficult terrain.

If I need a six on my difficult terrain roll in order to get any models in to base to base at all, I can choose to refrain from going through difficult terrain and, quite accurately, say that I was trying to get as many models into base-to-base as possible. In fact, I would say that I was trying harder to do so than a person who opted for that 25/36 chance of failing to get any models in at all.

Opting to take a difficult terrain test in that circumstance isn't trying to end up with the most models in base to base--refraining from doing so is.

[Calypso2ts]

Sorry it does not say 'maximize the expected value of the number of models in b2b contact' it says attempt to get the most in b2b contact. The soldiers are charging, they aren't worried about that swamp in front of them at the moment, they are too busy being heroic (or stupid)

[Bean]

Sorry it does not say 'maximize the expected value of the number of models in b2b contact' it says attempt to get the most in b2b contact. The soldiers are charging, they aren't worried about that swamp in front of them at the moment, they are too busy being heroic (or stupid)

Maximizing the expected value of the number of models in b2b is the same thing as attempting to get the most models into b2b contact as long as there's a random event which affects the number of models that get into contact.

[SeattleDV8]

Maximizing the expected value of the number of models in b2b is the same thing as attempting to get the most models into b2b contact as long as there's a random event which affects the number of models that get into contact.

Not at all. Nothing in the rules state that.
It is only the maximiun number of models that can possibly get to BTB contact that matters.
If you can get the max models into BTB contact without going though terrain then you do not have to roll for it.
BUT if the max number of models you can get into BTB contact is greater if you go though difficult terrain then you have to roll for it.
It does not matter what you end up with, only that the maximiun number could be larger.

[Calypso2ts]

Maximizing the expected value of the number of models in b2b is the same thing as attempting to get the most models into b2b contact as long as there's a random event which affects the number of models that get into contact.

No, it is not even close to being the same thing. The expected value is essentially a probabilistically weighted mean. It is in no way representative of getting the most models into assault for a single assault, it is representative of the decision that will yield the best result over MULTIPLE assaults. The rules do not say 'maximize the number of models you get into assault over all assaults performed in your gaming time' They refer to a single event, the maximum of which may or may not require terrain.

[Bean]

Not at all. Nothing in the rules state that.
It is only the maximiun number of models that can possibly get to BTB contact that matters.
If you can get the max models into BTB contact without going though terrain then you do not have to roll for it.
BUT if the max number of models you can get into BTB contact is greater if you go though difficult terrain then you have to roll for it.
It does not matter what you end up with, only that the maximiun number could be larger.

No, as long as the maximum number could also be smaller, then the rules don't actually force you to take the test.



Also, note that the rule on page 36, "Remember that assaulting models must engage as many enemies as possible--no holding back to avoid the test!" Doesn't actually tell you that you have to try to get as many of your models into base-to-base contact as possible. What it tells you that you have to to is very specific: engage as many enemy models as possible. So, in applying this rule, only enemy models are counted, and you're counting engaged models--not based model. A model is engaged if it's in base contact with an enemy or within 2" of a model in the same unit that's in base contact with the enemy.

This doesn't really address the issue directly, but, if this is the rule you've been relying on to push your point, you've all been misrepresenting it pretty seriously.


The other two rules which seem to support your position are:

"If possible, the model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model.
If there are no such models in reach, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with an assaulting model." (page 34, bullet points)

and

"Assaulting units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of their models as possible--no holding back!" (page 34, top of paragraph 3)

I've addressed the first--these two rules don't actually matter, since they don't kick in until after you've decided whether your models are going to enter difficult terrain or not.

The second is similar to the first in that it doesn't actually count based models--it counts engaged models, which is fairly different. Even if you're right about the larger issue (and I still don't think you are) the requirements are much, much less strict than you're making them out to be. A model within 2" of a model in base to base contact with an enemy counts the same as a model actually in base-to-base with an enemy.


So, we can continue to argue what constitutes "trying to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of their models as possible" and whether this requirement forces your hand regarding the decision to enter difficult terrain, but it would be best if you folks were to do so using the rules which are actually in the book--rather than stuff you're just making up. Fair?


Edit:

Beyond that, I do think I finally get where you're coming from. None-the-less, it seems clear to me that a person who opts to take a difficult terrain test needing a six to get any models into combat at all is not "trying to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of their models as possible." It really seems as though such a decision would be doing exactly the opposite.

Also, remember that the rule on page 34 actually has two separate components which may not always align. If you have to decide between ending up with your models engaged and ending up with more opposing models engaged, which takes precedence? Do you get to decide?

The rule doesn't say that you count the total models engaged on both sides--but that you maximize each category individually.


Edit:

One more issue I raised earlier which has never been addressed.

While it's fair to say that you have to measure the straight-line distance between each assaulting model and each target model to know which assaulting model is the closest, you don't have to (and aren't able to) measure the curving-path distance which would take each assaulting model into contact with each target model if it were to move around terrain (which any, except the first, is theoretically capable of doing.)

Further, you don't know exactly where each model will end up after moving, and their final positions affect where subsequent models can move.

The issue is this: before you start moving subsequent models (which happens well after you've decided whether they can go into difficult terrain) you cannot possibly know whether they will have to move through difficult terrain in order to engage an enemy model. You might know that they are capable of engaging an enemy model by moving through difficult terrain (provided that no friendly models get in their way before they move) but not only can you not demonstrate that no friendly models will get in their way before they move, you can't demonstrate that they can't engage an enemy model without going through difficult terrain.

Even if you're right about what the rules require you to do in some particular set of situations--that particular set of situations is one whose existence you cannot demonstrate until well after the fact--until it's too late to matter.

[Tynskel]

You keep phrasing your argument as though you get the option to take a difficult terrain check. What we keep pointing out is that the way the rules are phrased, there is no choice in the matter. You do not get a choice in taking the difficult terrain check.

The option was stripped when the word 'must' became involved.

One must try to get into b2b with as many models possible.
You can take your move back in order to take a difficult terrain check, the rules make have clear distinction for this. You must do this, if any of your models will attempt to go through difficult terrain to get to models.
You can fail the assault move. There is a clear distinction in the rulebook that failure is a possibility. This is independent of the need to take a difficult terrain check, because you take the difficult terrain check due to mechanics forcing you to take the test. All a failed assault move is not being able to reach ANY enemy models.

[Bean]

You keep phrasing your argument as though you get the option to take a difficult terrain check. What we keep pointing out is that the way the rules are phrased, there is no choice in the matter. You do not get a choice in taking the difficult terrain check.

The option was stripped when the word 'must' became involved.


This is obviously untrue. The rules require you to make the choice. The best you can say, really, is that they sometimes require you to pick one particular option, and that's the argument I presumed you were trying to make.

But, if you're going to make that argument, you have to actually demonstrate that they do force you to pick a particular option--which, in turn, would require demonstrating, for each particular situation one encounters, that more enemy models could possibly be engaged by going through difficult terrain than can possibly be engaged without going through difficult terrain.

My contention is that this latter demonstration is actually impossible given the measurements you're allowed to make, and you really need to address that contention if you want me to take your assertion seriously.




One must try to get into b2b with as many models possible.


Also strictly untrue. One must try to engage as many enemy models as possible with as many of one's models as possible. The two are not the same. Did you even read my post?




You can take your move back in order to take a difficult terrain check, the rules make have clear distinction for this.


A third falsity. The rules do not allow you to take your move back in order to take a difficult terrain test. They allow you to, and I quote, "measure a unit's move in one direction, and then change your mind and decide to move it somewhere else (even the opposite way entirely!) or decide not to move it at all."

This does not say that you can go back and change your decision about whether the unit will move through difficult terrain, and if it doesn't say that you can change that decision once it's been made, then you can't. After all, I doubt anyone would let someone choose to move through difficult terrain, get a bad roll, then go back and change that decision and opt not to go through difficult terrain and not abide by the test. If you can't change it one way, you shouldn't be able to change it the other.

I'm disappointed, Tynskel. We were coming so close to having an actual, intelligent discussion about this, and you go and just start making stuff up again. When you decide to base your argument on assertions which aren't obviously false, let me know, and maybe we can try this again.

[Calypso2ts]

Sitting on top of your shoulders is one of the most powerful neural networks in existence (the fact that there are 9 billion others not withstanding). I agree with your point that really determining the moves is an 'iterative' process and you can keep within the rules while abusing movement to keep certain models in/out of combat. These grey areas are where it is difficult to determine if a test is needed or will even be a benefit.

That said, all I am saying is in cases where it is obvious that more models can be engaged with a test (imagine a 1" gap with an enemy on the other side of it, you can make it in with one model and engage several others by going through terrain...) you need to take it. Determining whether or not you can do so is a whole different can of worms.

[Bean]

I guess that's fair to an extent, though "obvious" is sort of a subjective criteria to apply. I mean, I get what you're saying, but difficult terrain tests can easily be the difference between a charge happening and a charge failing altogether--a distinction which can actually be extremely critical to the overall outcome of a game.

It would be irritating to end up in a situation where one person's idea of what's obvious is likely to make the difference between you winning a game with a charge that you're pretty sure should succeed and losing the game because your charge fails on a bad difficult terrain roll.

I guess that, among the things I'm saying, is that it's actually going to be extremely difficult to demonstrate that this rule forces you to do anything in particular in a lot of situations, and that you should have to make that demonstration before you demand that your opponent do anything in particular as a result of this rule.

I suppose I can agree that, if it really is obvious to both people, you should take the test rather than dicking around with the process to try to avoid it.

[Sam]

Also strictly untrue. One must try to engage as many enemy models as possible with as many of one's models as possible. The two are not the same. Did you even read my post?

The rules for moving assaulting models on page 34 make it quite clear you have to try to get into base to base contact. See the second and third bullet points.

[Bean]

The rules for moving assaulting models on page 34 make it quite clear you have to try to get into base to base contact. See the second and third bullet points.

Yes, but those rules don't dictate your decision about whether or not the unit takes a difficult terrain test, because they only begin to apply after that decision is made.

The question is not whether you have to follow the bullet points when moving non-initial models in the assaulting unit. Obviously, you do. The question is whether any of the rules on page 34 or 36 can force you to declare (when making the decision required by the rule on page 14) that the assaulting unit will attempt to move through difficult terrain. These rules do not, and I've already pointed that out several times.

Apparently you need to read my posts more carefully, too.

[Sam]

Yes, but those rules don't dictate your decision about whether or not the unit takes a difficult terrain test, because they only begin to apply after that decision is made.

The question is not whether you have to follow the bullet points when moving non-initial models in the assaulting unit. Obviously, you do. The question is whether any of the rules on page 34 or 36 can force you to declare (when making the decision required by the rule on page 14) that the assaulting unit will attempt to move through difficult terrain. These rules do not, and I've already pointed that out several times.

Apparently you need to read my posts more carefully, too.

I was not commenting on whether or not the rules on page 34 and 36 force you to take a test, I was responding to you stating that you must attempt only to engage models, not attempt to move into base to base contact. Maybe you should read your own post more carefully, as then you would see the context of my response.

[Sam]

"If, following the rules for moving assaulting models (see page 34), any model in an assaulting unit will have to go through difficult or dangerous terrain as part of its assault move, the unit must take the relevant test before moving." BRB, page 36, ASSAULTING THROUGH COVER

If you had the option to avoid going through difficult terrain by declaring you would not enter it, then there is no situation where a model in the assaulting unit must go through said terrain. Therefore you do not have said option.

This thread is up to 11 pages now because one person disagrees with everyone else. Carry on if you wish, I'm out.

[Tynskel]

"If, following the rules for moving assaulting models (see page 34), any model in an assaulting unit will have to go through difficult or dangerous terrain as part of its assault move, the unit must take the relevant test before moving." BRB, page 36, ASSAULTING THROUGH COVER

If you had the option to avoid going through difficult terrain by declaring you would not enter it, then there is no situation where a model in the assaulting unit must go through said terrain. Therefore you do not have said option.

This thread is up to 11 pages now because one person disagrees with everyone else. Carry on if you wish, I'm out.

I have pointed that rule out multiple times. Bean doesn't seem to equate this to "must" take the difficult terrain test, even though that's the only way it fits in with the other rules for assault.

Bean, basically, if I get your argument right, you think you have control over your models during assault phase movement.

The structure of the assault phase rules as situated such that your models are moving themselves. Every step of the processes limits your choice of movement, until you have fulfilled every single category within the hierarchy. Only at that point, do you have a choice in moving your models. Even then, that 'free' movement is highly restricted.

[Bean]

"If, following the rules for moving assaulting models (see page 34), any model in an assaulting unit will have to go through difficult or dangerous terrain as part of its assault move, the unit must take the relevant test before moving." BRB, page 36, ASSAULTING THROUGH COVER

If you had the option to avoid going through difficult terrain by declaring you would not enter it, then there is no situation where a model in the assaulting unit must go through said terrain. Therefore you do not have said option.

This thread is up to 11 pages now because one person disagrees with everyone else. Carry on if you wish, I'm out.

Unfortunately, the fact that a situation to which a rule applies won't arise doesn't mean that that rule starts canceling out other rules so that such a situation can arise. That's just faulty logic.

The rule on page 36 is basically non-functional, it's true, but it doesn't actually conflict with the rule on page 14, and nothing about it gives you license to ignore the rule on page 14.

It really is amazing that, even after 11 pages, so many people are still wrong.



I have pointed that rule out multiple times. Bean doesn't seem to equate this to "must" take the difficult terrain test, even though that's the only way it fits in with the other rules for assault.

Bean, basically, if I get your argument right, you think you have control over your models during assault phase movement.

The structure of the assault phase rules as situated such that your models are moving themselves. Every step of the processes limits your choice of movement, until you have fulfilled every single category within the hierarchy. Only at that point, do you have a choice in moving your models. Even then, that 'free' movement is highly restricted.


Despite my having spelled it out quite clearly, multiple times, you still are not getting my argument right.

My argument is that you must make a decision when you start to move your models and that that decision--whichever option you select--puts specific restrictions on where your models can go.

After you've made that decision, you must do exactly as the assault rules tell you to do--but they never tell you to do anything that violates the restrictions put on your movement by that initial decision, and they never tell you to do anything that forces you to take a difficult terrain test after you've decided not to do so.

[SeattleDV8]

Unfortunately, the fact that a situation to which a rule applies won't arise doesn't mean that that rule starts canceling out other rules so that such a situation can arise. That's just faulty logic.

The rule on page 36 is basically non-functional, it's true, but it doesn't actually conflict with the rule on page 14, and nothing about it gives you license to ignore the rule on page 14.

It really is amazing that, even after 11 pages, so many people are still wrong.
No , not people, just you.





Despite my having spelled it out quite clearly, multiple times, you still are not getting my argument right.

My argument is that you must make a decision when you start to move your models and that that decision--whichever option you select--puts specific restrictions on where your models can go.

After you've made that decision, you must do exactly as the assault rules tell you to do--but they never tell you to do anything that violates the restrictions put on your movement by that initial decision, and they never tell you to do anything that forces you to take a difficult terrain test after you've decided not to do so.

Again your basic argument is flawed, you are still trying to use a general rule to over turn a more specific one.
The assault rules are more specific.
The movement rules are general.
Specific trumps general.

[Bean]

Again your basic argument is flawed, you are still trying to use a general rule to over turn a more specific one.
The assault rules are more specific.
The movement rules are general.
Specific trumps general.

I'm not using any rule to overturn any other rule. My explanation follows every rule to the letter.

The specific over general axiom applies only to situations where you have multiple, mutually exclusive rules and must choose one over the others.

The rule on page 14 doesn't contradict any of the rules on page 34 or on page 36--it is not mutually exclusive with any of them. You can follow all of them, and so you must do so. There is no need to select some and discard the others, and so the specific over general axiom is not used.

My basic argument is not flawed. Your understanding of my basic argument, obviously, is, as is (apparently) your understanding of the issue in general.

Again, I might be the only one disagreeing, but that just means the rest of you are wrong. Not one of you has offered anything resembling cogent support for your position or cogent criticism of mine.

[SeattleDV8]

Yes it does, your idea that by declaring you will not go into difficult somehow magically stops you from following the rules on pg.34.
It doesn't.
If you can possibly get more models
A. into BTB with models that are not in BTB contact
Then
B. into BTB with models that are in BTB contact with other models
And only then
C.try to engage (come within 2" of your own models that are in BTB)
And
D.keep all of them in coherency with models that have moved.
Then you must do so. The rule on page 14 then becomes moot.
It doesn't matter what you declared , you are forced to attempt the Difficult terrain test.
Even though you might fail, you must try.
Your whole argument is based on a flawed premise.
Yes, the general rule falls to the specific.

[Bean]

I don't think that the rule on page 14 stops you from having to follow the rules on page 34 for moving non-initial models. I've never once said that, and I've said the opposite more than once.

What the rule on page 14 does is no more than modify what types of movements your assaulting models can possibly make.

The rules to which you're referring force your models to do specific things if those things are possible.

They don't force you to do those things if they are not possible.

If your model is not allowed to move through difficult terrain, and it can't get into base contact with an enemy model without going through difficult terrain, then getting into base contact with an enemy model isn't possible.

Thus, if your model is not allowed to move through difficult terrain, and it can't get into base contact with an enemy model without going through difficult terrain, then it is not forced to try to get into base contact by the rules on page 34.

This remains true even if it could get into base contact with an enemy by moving through difficult terrain. That fact is rendered irrelevant by the fact that it can not. This doesn't contradict the rule which says you must try to get into base contact if possible--that rule simply doesn't trigger because it's not possible[/ii].

You all seem to think that "if possible" means "if the assaulting model is within 6" of an enemy model." This is simply, obviously, and utterly untrue.

"If possible" means "if there is a path along which the assaulting model can move which meets all three of the following conditions: it gets the model into base contact with an enemy model, it isn't more than 6" long (or whatever the assaulting model's allowed movement is) and it doesn't break any other rules."

When following the correct order of rule application, you make the decision about whether the models will go through difficult terrain before you start applying those rules on page 34. Once you've made that decision, certain things that might have been possible before might become impossible, but [i]that doesn't break any rules. It doesn't break the rules on page 34, and it doesn't break any rules anywhere else. You're allowed to make decisions which limit the future actions your models can possibly take, and rules which allow you to make those sorts of decisions don't contradict other rules simply because they prevent the situations to which those rules apply from arising.


Finally, the rules on page 34 do not say that if your model could reach base contact with an enemy model were it allowed to go through difficult terrain, that it must go through difficult terrain in order to do so.

What the rules actually say, to those of us who are both literate and bother to actually read them, is that your models must attempt to base enemy models if it is possible for them to do so. The notion that they could do so by way of movements which they are not allowed to make is irrelevant to the discussion. Such movements are not possible, and thus don't trigger rules with the if possible conditional.




The rule on page 14 does not contradict the rule on page 34. Neither is obviated by the specific over general axiom. Your reasoning is flawed, your evidence is faulty, your conclusion is wrong, and I've already explained all of that, perfectly clearly, citing the actual rules, more than once. What do I have to do to get you folks to actually try to follow the rules rather than making stuff up and pretending that stuff is rules?

[SeattleDV8]

Finally, the rules on page 34 do not say that if your model could reach base contact with an enemy model were it allowed to go through difficult terrain, that it must go through difficult terrain in order to do so.
Actually ,thats exactly what it says.


What the rules actually say, to those of us who are both literate and bother to actually read them, is that your models must attempt to base enemy models if it is possible for them to do so. The notion that they could do so by way of movements which they are not allowed to make is irrelevant to the discussion. Such movements are not possible, and thus don't trigger rules with the if possible conditional.
Well since thats not what it says ,by your own logic I guess you are neither ' literate and bother to actually read them'
Do you really need the cheap shots?
I mean yes it's no fun being on the losing side of a discussion, but could you pretend to be an adult.



The rule on page 14 does not contradict the rule on page 34. Neither is obviated by the specific over general axiom. Your reasoning is flawed, your evidence is faulty, your conclusion is wrong, and I've already explained all of that, perfectly clearly, citing the actual rules, more than once. What do I have to do to get you folks to actually try to follow the rules rather than making stuff up and pretending that stuff is rules?
When your basic premise is wrong your conculsions are wrong.

All I am saying is that the assault rules change and modify the movement rules.

You might wish to follow your own advice.

[Tynskel]

Despite my having spelled it out quite clearly, multiple times, you still are not getting my argument right.

My argument is that you must make a decision when you start to move your models and that that decision--whichever option you select--puts specific restrictions on where your models can go.

After you've made that decision, you must do exactly as the assault rules tell you to do--but they never tell you to do anything that violates the restrictions put on your movement by that initial decision, and they never tell you to do anything that forces you to take a difficult terrain test after you've decided not to do so.

No,
I am getting your argument right: You are saying you have control over how you move your models. The act of 'choosing' to roll difficult terrain check is exercising control over your models.

However, the way the assault rules are written, ESPECIALLY including p.36, the only time you have control over your models is when:

There are no enemy models within reach, even if you went through difficult terrain, there are no enemy models that you can try to get within 2" of a model from the same unit already in base to base contact, including moving through difficult terrain, AND you are maintaining coherency, then you can move your model the way you want to.

Here's another thing you forget to cite: "Roll for difficult or dangerous terrain if necessary..." (p.34).
Note, you do not get a choice. The language is written such that the decision is made for you. This follows the context of, "Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted, using the shortest possible route."

[Bean]

So, Seattle basically maintains that a rules which reads, "If possible, the model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model," means, "the model must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model, even if it's impossible."

Meanwhile, Tynskel just keeps bringing up stuff I've already addressed.

Looks like the other camp has disintegrated into nonsense posting, again, so I think I'm done, again, until someone comes up with something novel which isn't obviously wrong.

Have fun guys.

[Tynskel]

I am not sure where I went into nonsense.

However, I have read through your arguments, but I fail to see the connection of where you get to 'declare' moving through difficult terrain or not, especially since the assault rules state otherwise.

The decision to make an assault or not, and after fulfilling the entire criteria for moving models in assault are the only times the controlling player has any say in how models moving during such assault.

On page 36 "This has two disadvantages. The first and most obvious is that such tests might cause the assault to fail altogether if the closest model cannot make it into contact with the enemy." This creates a situation that states that a model in the back of your unit, going through difficult terrain, can cause the first model to fail the difficult terrain check.

[Mal]

Is this discussion still going on?

Guys were not going to convince bean that hes making a mistake, the argument was cited very early in this discussion and there has been no offical rule stated to oppose it...

So why don't we just put this one to bed and save any further hard feeling and arguments.

[Tynskel]

I gotta quote Commander Peter Quincy Taggert and Mathesar, "Never Give Up, Never Surrender!'