Assault Rules

[wkz]

Or wkz vs Tynskel's *****fighting on "A unit have to assault an enemy unit fully before split-charging. Yes/No?".

Exhibit A: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/01/spacecurves-tactics-class-death-by.html#comment-128457351
(you'll have to click "more comments" for this one)

The more recent Exhibit B: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/02/40k-tactics-beating-tyranid-deathstars.html#comment-151176599

I'm posting here because (a) on the possibility I might be wrong *gasp* I'd want to know about it. (But I'm pretty sure I'm not)

And (b) down to this point in time the argument has degraded into name calling and cursing and juvenile language (and pretty soon I think Hitler will be involved), and absolutely nothing will get resolved.

Discuss

[Sam]

From what I read, you are correct. The rules for assaulting (after declaring the charge, of course) are written on a per model basis, not a per unit basis.

[BuFFo]

What is the question?

[wkz]

Opps, forgot to post a summary.

This whole mess started with one of Spacecurves Tactical lessons (first link). Basically, Tynskel said

I see one problem with the pictures---
This wouldn't have worked if the rabbit didn't move closer to the Dark Eldar in the second picture.

Assault rules are quite strict.

And elaborated:

no, that's incorrect. You must get into base to base with the unit you declared against. If you declared the rabbit, every single terminator would have been able to reach the rabbit. None would have reached the warriors.

Multi-charging a unit is very restricted. The assault phase rules do not give choices to the user. Read the assault rules carefully--- you can only assault a second unit if 1) you cannot reach the unit declared, 2) move toward the unit declared, 3) maintain coherency. To attempt to move to the warriors would have your models move away from the rabbit. The warriors need to be close to the rabbit such that moving toward the warriors is bringing you closer to the rabbit.
and

I have been through them a gagillion times--- you cannot assault another unit unless you fulfill every single other requirement. The big one being that you are moving as close as you can to the main target--- often charging a second unit requires you to move away from your target--- that is not allowed.


Here the question: Is what Tynskel said above correct?
(Everything below is just my opinion on this question)


That's about the time I first spotted his argument. My first response:

By your logic, NOBODY will be able to multi-assault, as any other unit out there is FURTHER than the original declared unit (even if the 2nd unit involved is in the way). By your interpretation of the rules, I must fulfill "ALL of the stipulations for assaulting one unit BEFORE you can attempt to assault a second unit". So,

1) First model, must touch declared closest model. Done.
2) All other models in range to do so, must BTB with declared unengaged model of assaulted target. They cannot choose another target. Must maintain coherency.
3) All other models, must BTB with declared target. Must maintain coherency.
4) Cannot reach? Support
5) Cannot support? Hang around.

But here's the point: NOTHING in the above 5 steps state anything about assaulting a 2nd unit. They're steps to fulfill assaulting only the original target unit. And by the time "ALL of the stipulations for assaulting one unit" is done, all the models would have moved, and cannot "attempt to assault a second unit"...


Note that the above is WRONG, steps 2-4 at least (by most, if not all the people I know, and by most of the people I've read on the intawebs).

The key here is you can declare a 2nd target. That target becomes eligible for charging "as long as all for assaulting one unit stipulations are met"... note the difference in my statement and yours: Because I declared a split charge, BOTH units ARE Eligible Targets, and BOTH units count towards the rule of assaulting:

1) First model, must touch declared closest model of first target. Done.
2) All other models in range to do so, must BTB with declared unengaged targets, never mind if it is the first target or any other target. Must maintain coherency.
3) All other models, must BTB with declared unengaged targets, never mind if it is the first target or any other target. Must maintain coherency.
4) Cannot reach? Support
5) Cannot support? Hang around.

And that is where you and I (with paintraina on my side) differ...


He disagreed with that

that's incorrect.

An enemy can be 1" away from the enemy model, therefore you can charge both at the same time, you are not moving further away. Another example, if your path of model takes you around another one of your own/enemy models to reach an a model within the enemy unit, and a second unit is in the way, you can engage them that way too.

The Assault Rules are Quite Strict. You can only multiple assault if you have fulfilled the criteria for assaulting one unit.


You cannot declare a Split charge--- you can only charge one unit. Where do you come up with a split charge? There is NOTHING in the rulebook about that.


In the example above, using the first picture, the rabbit was farther away, if you had the TH terminators charge the Gargantuan Rabbit, all of the terminators can reach the rabbit, and therefore Must do so. If you declared against the Warrior squad, only some of the terminators can reach the warriors, but the others would continue around their allies, always trying to get closer to the enemy models in the same unit, however, you will be moving away from the warrior unit if you tried to engage the Gargantuan rabbit. Therefore, you cannot engage the Gargantuan rabbit.

However, in the Second picture, the Rabbit is closer--- and the picture obviously shows what happens, the only way to get your models closer to the warriors is to go through the rabbit, and therefore you may engage the rabbit too. However, the one model that is hanging out in tim-buck-too is wrong, it should be clumped up with its friends, attempting to engage the warriors, but engaging the Gargantuan Rabbit, instead.

I replied:

@Tynskel, I have my rulebook with me right now, and you're an idiot.

Pg 34: Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units:
As usual, the closest attacking model must... contact the closest enemy unit against which the assault is declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting units....

My steps are correct, unless you can point out what is wrong with the following 2 statements:

Step 2) All other models in range to do so, must BTB with declared unengaged targets, never mind if it is the first target or any other target. Must maintain coherency.

Step 3) All other models, must BTB with declared unengaged targets, never mind if it is the first target or any other target. Must maintain coherency.

And here's where you're wrong:
a)
The Assault Rules are Quite Strict indeed. You can only multiple assault if you have fulfilled the criteria for assaulting one unit enemy models that are close enough to maintain unit coherency.

b)
Using the first picture:
If you charge the bunny instead of the DE squad, closest to closest happens. However, by Step 2, you can place the next model in BTB with the DE already (2" coherency is the size of a terminator base, and it is EASILY achieved.

And if you charge the Squad instead of the bunny, closest to closest is somewhere in the middle of both squads. Simply follow the rules of "must engage un-engaged enemy models" leftwards until you get a terminator model at the left of the squad... and hey, a Terminator can now make the "jump" to hit the bunny.

c)
The rabbit is closer because you can't control a living thing that moves on its own. Ever heard of how difficult it is to make movies involving Children and Animals?

Seriously, You need to read up on assault rules, because you're getting it really, tragically wrong... and what's worse "Quite Strict" suggests you've been doing this for a while :(

He gave a final rejoinder which I missed:

I like how you bolded charge other units. You forgot the SECOND HALF of the sentence which states to follow ALLLLLLLL of the rules for moving assault models.

You have to move toward the unit you declared the charge against. You must do Everything you can to assault the unit you declared charge against.

3 of the rules state to move toward the enemy declared charge against. the 4th and 5th rules state you must maintain coherency. As long as you are moving toward the enemy and maintaining coherency, and cannot possibly get closer to the enemy unit, THEN you can charge a second unit.


... and I forgot about this thread of argument until recently (2nd link). And it has gone pretty much downhill right after that...


(I'm not going to post the contents of the 2nd link, because in the time between my first ever post here and this post, I noticed the Sticky thread at the top of the forum... Opps, sorry about breaking that rule. Feel free to close this thread if posting a link to this juvenile argument is too much)

[Paintraina]

Not much of a "Summary" wkz.

But you have it right.

Pg 34: under "Assaulting Multiple Units" says that you may assault other units provided you follow the rules for "Moving Assaulting Models".

When we look Under "Moving Assaulting Models" It states that the 1st model moved must be the one closest to the target enemy unit, and it must base that unit. This is the only time the rules force one of your models to base a certain "unit" rather than the much more permissive target of "Enemy Models" which is used for the rest of the points for assaulting enemy models.

Basically Unlike Tynskel states, the rules DO NOT say you must do everything in your power to assault the enemy unit you declared against. The actual wording says you must do everything in your power to assault enemy MODELS.

Also he continually goes back to the statement right at the start of the page under the heading "Move Assaulting Unit". This is important. It is the crux of the argument against multiassault. The statement is "assaulting units must now move into close combat with the unit they have declared an assault against" . The reason this argument does not work is that the rules for assaulting multiple enemy units specifically say to refer to the rules for "Moving Assaulting Models" when determining when a multi-assault is legit, and not the "Move Assaulting Unit" rules.

His other strong argument is that when you consider the multi-assault rules in tandem with "Moving Assaulting Models" rules, point 2 ("If Possible, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is not already in base contact with an assaulting model") seems to imply that you would be forced to assault any and all enemies within range. The reason this argument doesn't hold up is because the first paragraph of "Moving Assaulting Models" states that "Assaulting models may still not move...into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting". This means you aren't forced to base enemy models unless you actually intent to assault them.

This really should have been an open and shut case. It's really not even ambiguous.

[DarkLink]

Just keep in mind that when you are moving your assaulting models, you have to keep the models that have been moved in coherency with each other, which can severely hinder multi-charges.

So you move model A, then model B must move to be within 2" of model A. Model C must then move within 2" of models A or B, and so on and so forth. And since you must engage an enemy model if you can, that means it isn't always possible to multi-charge enemy units that are too far away from each other.

[Paintraina]

Darklink is correct. However, there are some ways to span some pretty wide multi assaults if you move your models in a certain order.

[Tynskel]

you are leaving out all of the previous statements in the rules.

p. 33
"pick a unit. Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault. Move assaulting unit."

There is only one target.

Top of page 34.
"Assautling units must now move into close combat with the unit they have declared an assault against. A player must move all of the assaulting models in each assaulting unit before moving on to the next unit. the assaulting player decides the order in which his units will move.

Moving Assaulting Models

All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules in the Movement phase, with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models. This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

This statement CLEARLY states you may not engage a second unit. All future language is with respect to this statement.

The statement is reiterated:

"Assaulting units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of their models as possible- no holding back! Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. The model selected must be the one closest 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. Roll for difficult or dangerous terrain if necessary, and if the model is killed by a dangerous terrain test, start the assault again with the next closest model. If the closest model is found not to be within move distance to the enemy, that assault does not happen and no model is moved.
If the enemy is within range, then the assault move continues. After moving the first model in the unit, you can move the others in any sequence you desire. There are some constraints on their movement though:"

Again, you may only engage models from the target unit. Note, the last paragraph. You may move in any sequence you desire. In effect, you no longer have to move your closest model towards the enemy next. However, this no where states to stop following the assaulting model rules! Whatever model you pick must move toward the closest enemy model (within the same unit, because you may not engage a second unit), this model must still move around impassable terrain, and this model may not engage a second unit.
Now the last paragraph continues: "There are some constraints on their movement though." This means there are more restrictions, not less. No where does this statement remove any previous directions on how to assault. For example: 'any enemy model within reach' is still restricted by not engaging a second enemy unit from the previous paragraphs.

Now we go to assaulting multiple enemy units.
"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

The key phrase in this sentence is 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models.' The emphasis, in the English Language, is not the first, or the middle, but is on the last phrase of a sentence. What this key phrase states is that you must follow all of the assault rules first.
The restrictions of assaulting one unit apply to all of the rules.
When one has completed all of those rules, then the player '...can assault models belonging to other enemy units'.



This is why it is difficult to assault second or more units.

[Lemt]

A few things, as both sides are leaving out important bits of the rules I'll fill in.

1) At the end of page 33 it says to look at the exception over the page for multiple targets. This contradicts what you said, Tynskel, as the rules on page 33 clearly state you CAN target multiple enemy units. How to do so will be explained later.
However, as we'll soon see, there are restrictions.

2) The rules then describe how to follow through with assaults AGAINST A SINGLE TARGET. Key points marked by the rules are:
A- You must mantain coherency.
B- You must try to B2B with enemy models not yet in B2B with your models.
C- You must then try to reach B2B with enemy models already in B2B with one of your minis.
D- You must then move within 2" of your minis already in B2B, if you can no longer reach B2B with enemy models in that unit.
E- If that is impossible, mantain coherency.
B C and D tell you how you have to move your models.A tells you to mantain coherency. E reminds you to mantain coherency with those models that can't fulfill B C and D.

3) In "Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units" what it basically says is that, after you move assaulting models, you may find you can assault other units. In other words, the miniatures, if any, left after D, AKA the ones you would move in E just to mantain coherency, can follow the same steps against another unit.
However, you MUST keep coherency with your unit. If the enemy unit is too far away to mantain coherency, too bad. No double assaults.

In other words, the following diagram illustrates a RAW-valid (and imho RAI-valid) assault against two different units.
DARK RED - Enemy unit 1 (primary target)
LIGHT RED - Enemy unit 2 (secondary target)
LIGHT GREEN - Original allied miniatures location.
DARK GREEN - Final allied miniatures location (fulfilled A, B C and D against Enemy Unit 1)
LIGHT BROWN - Final allied miniatures location (couldn't fulfill neither B C nor D against Enemy Unit 1)
BLUE ARROWS - Movement of each allied miniature.

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/4264/assaulting2enemyunitsin.jpg

I'll explain how this can be achieved.

1) You first fulfill condition B, by moving your miniatures into B2B with enemy minis, but trying to not leave enough space between your minis for more minis.
2) If you've done step 1 correctly, none (or few) miniatures will be able to fulfill step C. So you start with step D, staying as FAR AWAY from your minis as possible while still being within 2" of the minis that you already moved.
3) If you've done steps 1 and 2 correctly, you've maximised the chances you'll have the highest number of miniatures possible that can no longer fulfill B, C and D. Since they only have to fulfill A/E (AKA stay in coherency with the unit) you can either move them close to your other minis to mantain coherency, or attempt an assault against other enemy units.

EDIT: Two miniatures from Enemy Unit 2 (light red) would then have to get in closer to your allied minis, as explained under "Defenders React" on page 34, but that's not needed for this demonstration.

EDIT 2: I now think THIS POST (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showpost.php?p=122769&postcount=14) on page 2 is how is really works, read it to see why.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Lemt you are a genius,

I hope this settles this argument now.

[Tynskel]

nope, it doesn't, because the figure is incorrect.

All the rules on page 33 say is that there is an exception. However, the exception in no way states to ignore the rules for moving assaulting models--- in fact it reiterates that you must follow the moving assaulting models rules.

"There are some constraints on their movement though:" followed by your 'key points'. However, these are NOT key points. They are constraints. Constraints further constrict the rules, not loosen the rules. You are still bound by the previous assault rules--- the previous assault rules state to not engage a second unit.

The key words for multi-assault are to follow the assault rules. The assault rules are explicit about engaging multiple units. You may not engage multiple units until you have fulfilled all of the assault rules.

This means the models in the back must attempt to move toward the already engaged models. If the enemy models are not engaged (for example, you decide to move the back models first) you must still move toward the primary target.

[Morgan Darkstar]

ARRRGGGH

Had to go grab my rulebook bearing in mind its after 0200 here plus this still will not convince you so i am not sure of the point!

PG34 'srb' it says pick a unit you are correct it does unfortunately your entire argument is based on this. even though in the multiple assault rules it says "as usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest enemy model in the unit you have declared the assault against "

it goes on to say that "Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units as long as they continue to follow the rules for MOVING ASSAULTING MODELS

ie they must maintain coherence, they myst try to get into base to base etcetera.

ah who cares you not going to agree are you?

you have your opinion and thats cool.

[Tynskel]

uh, you are forgetting:

Moving Assaulting Models begins at the top of the page. That's the problem, everyone reads the bottom of the page, but the rules begin at the top.
the rules always refer to not engaging a second enemy unit. Read my previous post, read the rules, it is all there.

No where does the rules state to ignore the rule for engaging one unit.



Here's the thing. I am not going to agree with you unless you can show me the language that specifically states to not follow the assault rules.

All the multi-assault rules had to do is leave out the 'follow the assault rules' portion. But they didn't. Plus, they put that phrase at the end of the sentence, which further puts emphasis on that phrase.

[Lemt]

nope, it doesn't, because the figure is incorrect.

All the rules on page 33 say is that there is an exception. However, the exception in no way states to ignore the rules for moving assaulting models--- in fact it reiterates that you must follow the moving assaulting models rules.

"There are some constraints on their movement though:" followed by your 'key points'. However, these are NOT key points. They are constraints. Constraints further constrict the rules, not loosen the rules. You are still bound by the previous assault rules--- the previous assault rules state to not engage a second unit.

The key words for multi-assault are to follow the assault rules. The assault rules are explicit about engaging multiple units. You may not engage multiple units until you have fulfilled all of the assault rules.

This means the models in the back must attempt to move toward the already engaged models. If the enemy models are not engaged (for example, you decide to move the back models first) you must still move toward the primary target.

By your interpretation, then the section in page 34 "Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units" is useless, as you never CAN assault multiple enemy units. What I say, however, is that you can only assault multiple enemy units if you follow the rules for assaulting a single enemy unit, and only with models that can't assault the first target, and so just have to follow the rule of "stay in coherency with the rest of your unit".

You are basing your argument, I believe, on the end of the first paragraph under "Moving Assaulting Units". There, as you said, it clearly says you cannot move into B2B with an enemy unitthat you aren't assaulting.
No objections on that. Where we disagree is on how that works. Back to my diagram, while you are assaulting Enemy Unit 1 (AKA are able to fulfill conditions B, C or D with Enemy Unit 1) you CAN'T move a mini into contact with Enemy Unit 2. But after that, you can assault the second unit.



NOTE: There is a third, much more liberal interpretation, that may possibly be just as valid. Section "Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units" on page 34 says (I'll use quotation marks on literal quotes):
When you start moving your miniatures, you may find that other enemy units are within assault range. So "the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units," but follow rules A, B, C, D and E.

So here's a second diagram, to show how this would work:
DARK RED - Enemy unit 1 (primary target, you declared your assault against this)
LIGHT RED - Enemy unit 2 (secondary target)
LIGHT GREEN - Original allied miniatures location.
DARK GREEN - First miniature moved to B2B with Enemy Unit 1
LIGHT BROWN - Final allied miniatures location assaulting Enemy Unit 1 (fulfilling B, C or D against Enemy Unit 1)
LIGHT GREY - Final allied miniatures location assaulting Enemy Unit 2 (fulfilling B, C or D against Enemy Unit 2)
BLUE ARROWS - Movement of each allied miniature.
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4264/assaulting2enemyunitsin.jpg

This follows the rules for Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units. First you move the allied model closest to the enemy unit you declared your assault against into B2B with the closest enemy mini of that unit. Then, as you see you can assaultanother enemy unit too and wish to do so, you move each other miniature in your unit. You MUST fulfill B, C or D against one of the assaulted enemy units while doing this, and you MUST keep unit coherency. But you can freely choose the miniatures assaulting each enemy unit. For example, the top Light Grey miniature could just as easily be declared as attacking Enemy Unit 1. The weird placement is just to make sure you mantain coherency.

In fact, reading it carefully I'm pretty sure this is the correct working of the rules. But tell me of anything you disagree with, I want to get this right too. :D

[Tynskel]

no, the light grey models were not moving toward the unengaged enemy models. All of your models must move toward unengaged enemy model from the target unit. Since there are still unengaged models, you must try to get everyone there, even if they cannot reach.

Even if the enemy models were engaged, you are still required to move toward the target unit, in attempt 'double up' on the engaged models. Even then, you still must move toward the target unit, trying to get as close as possible.

Basically, you need to reach the 'impossible' step, and at that point, you may come into contact with an second (or more) unit(s).

This is why swarms of units are able to pull off multi-charges (ex. hormogaunt squad of 20+ models). They completely saturate the target unit, and while still attempting to reach the target unit, they 'spill over' into a second (or more) enemy units.

[Morgan Darkstar]

No i'm not going to point out why your wrong because i can't..... i just believe you are wrong.

i now remember why i hate playing this game with strangers.
'I once was privy to a discussion between two DnD players one rules lawyer was explaining his great insight into the game how he had with the rules created a invunerable character buy having a character that could ignore effects on him. he argued that as everything is essentially an effect i.e. magik, damage, starvation, drowning etc. he with this collection of abilities was effectively immortal. the gm rather than argue ended the game and we went to the pub he wasn't invited nor was he invited to the dnd session again'

edit "sorry if this sounds harsh it's not intended as an insult more trying to explain how i feel when discussing rules like this"

i agree with the liberal interpretation of the multi assault rules you don't so we will agree to disagree.

Night

[Tynskel]

Here's an example:
Blue = assaulting unit; Green = Target Unit; Red = a second opponent; 1 = closest assaulting model; L = last moving model

For simplicity, the distances are not to scale.

The models have doubled up on the entirely on every available opposing model.
The last blue model cannot:
1) reach an unengaged enemy model,
2) reach an engaged enemy model,
3) cannot reach a friendly model within 2" that is in base to base with an enemy model
4) is at the 'impossible' stage, thereby maintains coherency, and engages a second unit.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-YM2cTS62Ajo/TWxkKGW7YkI/AAAAAAAAACQ/_X3HhwybBkk/s1600/Untitled+2.jpeg

This is where you get tricky. By you choosing the order of moving your respective models, you can end up multi-assaulting. However, at all times you must follow the assault rules.


EDIT:
Also note, if I add additional models to the blue unit, I can have them further engage more red models. Essentially, only units that vastly out number their opponent can multi-charge. The circumstances, otherwise, have to beneficial to multi-charging (like your opponent mixed units).

[Lemt]

no, the light grey models were not moving toward the unengaged enemy models. All of your models must move toward unengaged enemy model from the target unit. Since there are still unengaged models, you must try to get everyone there, even if they cannot reach.

Even if the enemy models were engaged, you are still required to move toward the target unit, in attempt 'double up' on the engaged models. Even then, you still must move toward the target unit, trying to get as close as possible.

Basically, you need to reach the 'impossible' step, and at that point, you may come into contact with an second (or more) unit(s).

This is why swarms of units are able to pull off multi-charges (ex. hormogaunt squad of 20+ models). They completely saturate the target unit, and while still attempting to reach the target unit, they 'spill over' into a second (or more) enemy units.

"the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units"

Quoted again from the "assaulting multiple enemy units" section. Doesn't this part mean that you don't have to move all your minis towards the unit you directed your assault in the first place? After the first mini is moved, all the ret should be able to assault who they please, as long as they keep unit coherency.

Either way, I REALLY have to go to sleep (5:45 hours:minutes is all I have left), so I'll look into this again once I'm fresh tomorrow. I'm probably just not thinking clearly anymore. :confused:

EDIT: I'll also check your diagram tomorrow. I can't even understand my own diagrams right now.

[Tynskel]

No i'm not going to point out why your wrong because i can't..... i just believe you are wrong.

i now remember why i hate playing this game with strangers.
'I once was privy to a discussion between two DnD players one rules lawyer was explaining his great insight into the game how he had with the rules created a invunerable character buy having a character that could ignore effects on him. he argued that as everything is essentially an effect i.e. magik, damage, starvation, drowning etc. he with this collection of abilities was effectively immortal. the gm rather than argue ended the game and we went to the pub he wasn't invited nor was he invited to the dnd session again'

edit "sorry if this sounds harsh it's not intended as an insult more trying to explain how i feel when discussing rules like this"

i agree with the liberal interpretation of the multi assault rules you don't so we will agree to disagree.

Night


You forgot the most important rule for DnD.

The DM is always right.

As for playing with 'strangers' and 40k there are 'house rules'. And there are tournament rules. Most tournament rules are to just play the rules in the rulebook. If they do not announce formal rule changes before the game, you must follow the rules how they are written.

[Morgan Darkstar]

This is a valid interpretation of the rule i still believe it's not meant to be as restrictive as this

also what stopped the last model movin diagonally up and to the left avoiding the other unit and being closer to the original enemy?

[Tynskel]

"the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units"

Quoted again from the "assaulting multiple enemy units" section. Doesn't this part mean that you don't have to move all your minis towards the unit you directed your assault in the first place? After the first mini is moved, all the ret should be able to assault who they please, as long as they keep unit coherency.

Either way, I REALLY have to go to sleep (5:45 hours:minutes is all I have left), so I'll look into this again once I'm fresh tomorrow. I'm probably just not thinking clearly anymore. :confused:

EDIT: I'll also check your diagram tomorrow. I can't even understand my own diagrams right now.

As I stated before, the sentence states to follow the moving assault model rules. The assault rules do not allow you to engage an enemy model from another unit until you fulfill all the conditions for moving your models.

[Morgan Darkstar]

You forgot the most important rule for DnD.

The DM is always right.

As for playing with 'strangers' and 40k there are 'house rules'. And there are tournament rules. Most tournament rules are to just play the rules in the rulebook. If they do not announce formal rule changes before the game, you must follow the rules how they are written.

"pg 2 the most important rule" is this ever brought up in tournaments? lol:)

anyways its 0345 here and i have to be up for work in a few hours so good night.

[Tynskel]

That's assuming you do not know the right page. I do know the relevant pages.

For this specific argument:
p. 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 33, and 34.

for additional information:
p. 76 and 15

[somerandomdude]

Haven't read the entire thread (sorry?) and I can't believe I'm wasting my time with this, but:

How does a unit having permission to assault a second unit, not get around the statement "may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

If you are able to move into base contact with a second unit, then you would be assaulting that unit. The phrase in the second paragraph of the page is about moving into base contact with units that you are not assaulting. Not ones that you didn't declare an assault against, but ones that you are not assaulting. There is a big difference between those two.

The "rules for moving assaulting models" may or may not be everything listed under the rules for "MOVING ASSAULTING MODELS", but even if it does, ASSAULTING MULTIPLE ENEMY UNITS gives you permission to assault another unit.

Your argument that it only becomes possible to multiassault if it is impossible to get more models engaged to the first unit falls flat if we follow your original interpretation, as that would be moving "into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting", which is (supposedly) not allowed when it is time to move the second model. Why would it be allowed when you need to move the last model?

[Tynskel]

Because you have fulfilled every rule for assaulting models- ie the model has done very possible move to reach the target unit.

However, assaulting multiple units only allows you to assault a second unit after you have fulfilled all the rules for assaulting the target unit.

If the rulebook had left that phrase out, then it would have been fine, because the Multi-assault rules would override the standard rules. However, that key phrase for following the assault rules is there, and the assault rules specifically state not to assault multiple units. You must fulfill all of the requirements before assaulting a second unit.

[Tynskel]

This is a valid interpretation of the rule i still believe it's not meant to be as restrictive as this

also what stopped the last model movin diagonally up and to the left avoiding the other unit and being closer to the original enemy?

The three models that are bunched up in the enter prevent the model from getting closer, remember you still have to move around your own models.

[Lemt]

OK, so reading this fresh, this is what I have to say.
The rules that describe how to assault say you can't move miniatures into B2B with enemy minis that aren't in the unit you are assaulting.
The rules for assaulting multiple enemy units, however, say something in addition to this. Literally it says that AFTER you move the first miniature into B2B with the enemy unit you declared the assault against, you can declare other enemy units as being assaulted too.
So you have to then follow the rules for assaulting an enemy unit, just consider all the units that have now been declared as under assault by your forces as if they were a single enemy unit. AKA move your minis into B2B with enemy minis not already in B2B with yours, then get any other minis into B2B with enemy minis already in B2B with yours, then get within 2" of your minis already in B2B with the enemy, then all the rest of the minis must mntain coherency.

So I'm sticking to the second diagram I have drawn.

[Paintraina]

Lemt : Your more liberal interpretation is correct.

Tynskel: You clearly didn't read my first post, so I don't know why I am reiterating, but here it is.


As I stated before, the sentence states to follow the moving assault model rules. The assault rules do not allow you to engage an enemy model from another unit until you fulfill all the conditions for moving your models.

This is wrong. The rules under the "Moving Assaulting Models" clearly do allow you to engage ANY enemy model from any unit in range after you have engaged the original target with the closest to closest model.

We know this because the rules describing the movement of the first model clearly state "Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted"

This is the last time they mention the enemy unit in the rules under the heading of "Moving Assaulting Models". Every other time movement is being described, they use only the term "Enemy Model".

[Morgan Darkstar]

Interesting thing, page 41 'small rule book' diagram of multi combat at bottom of page would be impossible under Tynskel's version of the rules.

[Paintraina]

Thats true Morgan, but we don't really know the whole story with that picture so I am a little hesitant to use it as ammunition.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Thats true Morgan, but we don't really know the whole story with that picture so I am a little hesitant to use it as ammunition.

i think in a court of law it would be considered as circumstantial evidence. lol:)

[Tynskel]

Lemt : Your more liberal interpretation is correct.

Tynskel: You clearly didn't read my first post, so I don't know why I am reiterating, but here it is.



This is wrong. The rules under the "Moving Assaulting Models" clearly do allow you to engage ANY enemy model from any unit in range after you have engaged the original target with the closest to closest model.

We know this because the rules describing the movement of the first model clearly state "Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted"

This is the last time they mention the enemy unit in the rules under the heading of "Moving Assaulting Models". Every other time movement is being described, they use only the term "Enemy Model".

The term 'enemy model' is irrelevant due to the unit restriction, because the reference frame of the entire section is for targeting one unit.
They HAVE to say enemy model, or you could just dog pile all of your models onto a single enemy model, because this single model is tied to one unit. Try to replace enemy 'model' with enemy 'unit': it would make no sense. The rules would contradict each other.
You have already engaged the enemy unit with moving your first model, why would they need to reference the same enemy unit again with the 'constrained' movement rules at the bottom of the first column?

The point is, the phrasing on multi-charge does not override the moving assaulting model rules which state to not engage enemy models.

[somerandomdude]

Because you have fulfilled every rule for assaulting models- ie the model has done very possible move to reach the target unit.

However, assaulting multiple units only allows you to assault a second unit after you have fulfilled all the rules for assaulting the target unit.

If the rulebook had left that phrase out, then it would have been fine, because the Multi-assault rules would override the standard rules. However, that key phrase for following the assault rules is there, and the assault rules specifically state not to assault multiple units. You must fulfill all of the requirements before assaulting a second unit.

There's nothing about "fulfilling" rules. You have to follow them. At no point is a rule sufficiently "fulfilled" and gets shut off.

If you're going to take the stance that the rules prevent you from doing something, and no where does it state that rule shut off, then that rule will ALWAYS prevent you from doing something. At this point (and maybe earlier) you're making things up to try to make your point.

EDIT: You still haven't answered how the second unit being assaulted is not "a unit being assaulted".

[Morgan Darkstar]

The term 'enemy model' is irrelevant

so you are now saying some of the rules are irrelevant ???????????? hmm thats not going to work.

[Tynskel]

hahahah, good joke.

I explained what I said fine, and I showed an example.

Follow the page, you get to the bottom of the page, you go to the next page, and low and behold, you may assault as second unit, as long as you follow the assault rules. In this case I have followed every rule that is laid out, and now may assault a second unit.

Sounds like a stepwise fashion to me!
Especially since this is accomplished in an iterative fashion: you do not move all models at once, you move them one at a time. You do not get to the assaulting a second unit until you have converged during the 'do' loop.

1) move model toward unengaged enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
2) move model toward engaged enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
3) move model toward friendly model engaged with enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
4) maintain coherency.
5) may engage second enemy unit while maintaining coherency.

[somerandomdude]

I'm confused, isn't the basis for your argument the line "... may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting"?

If this is not overridden by the rules under ASSAULT MULTIPLE ENEMY UNITS then it would be impossible to assault multiple enemy units. That second unit is not a unit being assaulted, so you could never be in base contact with it. It's not that you could once you had no where else you HAD to go, it's that you never could. Ever.

There's no way that the rule you are referencing is in effect for the second model, and NOT in effect for the last model.

"As usual, the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

The moment you find that it is possible to reach other enemy units, you can assault that other enemy unit. When you do that, the second unit is a legal target, because [the rule I quoted at the top] does not apply to them.

Also, the picture on the bottom of page 41 shows a multiple assault into two units, and it seems as though they could've followed your steps a bit more if they were in fact forced to.

[Lemt]

hahahah, good joke.

I explained what I said fine, and I showed an example.

Follow the page, you get to the bottom of the page, you go to the next page, and low and behold, you may assault as second unit, as long as you follow the assault rules. In this case I have followed every rule that is laid out, and now may assault a second unit.

Sounds like a stepwise fashion to me!
Especially since this is accomplished in an iterative fashion: you do not move all models at once, you move them one at a time. You do not get to the assaulting a second unit until you have converged during the 'do' loop.

1) move model toward unengaged enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
2) move model toward engaged enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
3) move model toward friendly model engaged with enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
4) maintain coherency.
5) may engage second enemy unit while maintaining coherency.

Except that's not what the rules say. The way it tells you to assault multiple enemy units is:
-You move the FIRST miniature into B2B with the enemy unit you declared the assault against-
-You can choose to declare more enemy units as being assaulted.
-You keep moving models, as per normal assault rules.

So using your listing, it would be.

0a) move first model toward unengaged enemy model of the unit you declared the assault against
0b) declare if you want to include more enemy units into the assault
1) move model toward unengaged enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
2) move model toward engaged enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
3) move model toward friendly model engaged with enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
4) maintain coherency.

Your step 5 is in reality step 0b. You don't have to move all the minis you can before declaring a mutliple assault, you declare the multiple assault after you move the first mini.


I've already quoted the rules that explains this, I feel like you're just ignoring my posts. :(

[ArchonPhelps]

You have a hard time to change someone thoughts when they are not open to change. I say lets put this to a vote, The right way where the rulebook says Vs Tynskel donkey backwards theory.

Makes me happy I dont live in Indiana so I know I will never have to play a guy who plays an interpretation of 40k

[Morgan Darkstar]

You have a hard time to change someone thoughts when they are not open to change. I say lets put this to a vote, The right way where the rulebook says Vs Tynskel donkey backwards theory.

Makes me happy I dont live in Indiana so I know I will never have to play a guy who plays an interpretation of 40k

Remember everyone is entitled to an opinion. Arriving into an argument and calling someones viewpoint a donkey backwards theory is a tad rude. regardless of how much i agree with you. :p

[ArchonPhelps]

I am just saying that this is the United States of America and lets use what we are given, right to vote and freedom of speech. Well that is unless you are a felon then no voting for you.

[Lemt]

I just want Tynskel to tell me why he disagrees with whay I've said. I think I cover his objections quite well. :(

[Tynskel]

watchout, governors don't have to have proof that you are a felon, and can remove your name from the registrar all the way up to and including the day of elections!

[Paintraina]

Well Tynskel will only hang on to his interpretation until he plays in a big tournament. After a judge is called over when someone multiassaults him, he will immediately be shown how it really works. Until then, we are beating our heads against the wall.

Tynskel: Multiassault rules say to follow the rules "for moving assaulting models". Not all the assault rules as you seem to think. There is a very important distinction.

[Tynskel]

Lemt : Your more liberal interpretation is correct.

We know this because the rules describing the movement of the first model clearly state "Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted"

This is the last time they mention the enemy unit in the rules under the heading of "Moving Assaulting Models". Every other time movement is being described, they use only the term "Enemy Model".

you are forgetting the paragraph before that one:

"This mean that assaulting models may still not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting."

Pluralized, not singular.

"I just want Tynskel to tell me why he disagrees with whay I've said. I think I cover his objections quite well."

for lemt.
The multi-charge rules state to follow the moving assaulting models rules. The rules for moving assaulting models state to not engage units that are not the target unit. This means that you must complete the iterative process before you can attempt to engage a second unit (reach convergence). Your diagram would work if you had ~10 more models--- where all of the engaged models are saturated, and all of the friendly models that are in base to base are saturated. At that point, you could 'daisy chain' over to another unit.

[ArchonPhelps]

Tynskel you are forgetting the paragraph in multi assault that says you can assault other unit though.

[Lemt]

you are forgetting the paragraph before that one:

"This mean that assaulting models may still not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting."

Pluralized, not singular.

"I just want Tynskel to tell me why he disagrees with whay I've said. I think I cover his objections quite well."

for lemt.
The multi-charge rules state to follow the moving assaulting models rules. The rules for moving assaulting models state to not engage units that are not the target unit. This means that you must complete the iterative process before you can attempt to engage a second unit (reach convergence). Your diagram would work if you had ~10 more models--- where all of the engaged models are saturated, and all of the friendly models that are in base to base are saturated. At that point, you could 'daisy chain' over to another unit.

This that I bolded is wrong. Read the rules again. Page 34, second paragraph: "... and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

You move the first mini towards the unit you declared the assault against. Then, you say you want to assault other units too. Now those other units are also units you are assaulting, so you can move B2B with them.

[Tynskel]

are you forgetting that I have cited that paragraph like a thousand times now?

Lemmy help refresh you what it says:

"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

And, I will reiterate what I have said before: In the English Language, emphasis is not the first, or the middle, but is on the last phrase of a sentence. You must follow the rules for 'moving assaulting models'. The first paragraphs states that models (plural) must not engage a unit that is not the target. You must go through the entire iterative process until you reach a point of convergence before you can have models engage a second unit.

[Lemt]

Tynskel, I give up, think whatever you please.

[Morgan Darkstar]

I am not even going to read this thread anymore because quite frankly it's pointless and i have beter things to do like paint!

"Ragequit in 3.2.1. ARRGGGHH.................:p

[Tynskel]

someone asked about the picture on p. 41 and stated that my interpretation wouldn't work. However, I present here a scenario where my way works fine.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_-aIO0argrU/TW2VEDh5diI/AAAAAAAAACc/WYgJfy2mfDo/s1600/Untitled+3.jpeg

[Tynskel]

This that I bolded is wrong. Read the rules again. Page 34, second paragraph: "... and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

You move the first mini towards the unit you declared the assault against. Then, you say you want to assault other units too. Now those other units are also units you are assaulting, so you can move B2B with them.

The multi-charge rules do not state you can declare assault against another unit. Until the opportunity opens up for assaulting a second unit, you must continue the iterative process of assaulting the target unit.

[somerandomdude]

. The first paragraphs states that models (plural) must not engage a unit that is not the target. You must go through the entire iterative process until you reach a point of convergence before you can have models engage a second unit.

Read your own posts please. The first sentence I quoted makes the second sentence impossible. If you can't engage a unit that is not the target, then you can't engage a unit that is not the target.

Your interpretation of the rules makes the rule for assaulting a second unit wasted text. If that's the way you want to play it, fine. Any argument you make that is in favor of a second unit being the victim of an assault goes against your argument.

[ArchonPhelps]

I have a question then Tyskel. What if I have a squad of 10 marines charging a blob squad of 40 IG. You saying I can not charge another squad of IG command squad since my 10 marines have to be in B2B with the blob squad first?

[wkz]

are you forgetting that I have cited that paragraph like a thousand times now?

Lemmy help refresh you what it says:

"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

And, I will reiterate what I have said before: In the English Language, emphasis is not the first, or the middle, but is on the last phrase of a sentence. You must follow the rules for 'moving assaulting models'. The first paragraphs states that models (plural) must not engage a unit that is not the target. You must go through the entire iterative process until you reach a point of convergence before you can have models engage a second unit.

And here's the interesting point: You must follow the rules for 'moving assaulting models'. The first paragraph DOES state that models (plural) must not engage a unit that is not the target.

However, all the rest of the rules DO NOT STATE A TARGET. Instead, the fact is (a) they all mention only "models", and (b) the Multi-assault rules unlocks models from other units to be assaulted.

You must go through the entire iterative process yes, but by such process as long as that first model had moved, the assault is established on that first enemy UNIT and the rest of the MODELS in the assaulting squad is free to go after any MODELS you decide to declare an assault against (provided they meet the rest of the rules of assaulting MODELS)


Also, your diagram is wrong:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/wkz/Untitled3-1.jpg
Via your very strict rules, you are not allowed to assault until "all the requirements of assaulting ONE unit is fulfilled" right? Well, that last model there is NOT allowed to brush a 2nd unit, because (a) it has to fulfill rule 3: be 2" away from a model base to base.

And even if it cannot fulfill that (by being too far away), by your rules it have to fulfill ALL the rules for assaulting that first unit before it can even think about touching a 2nd unit, correct? So (b) it is not allowed to base to base with another, even if it is "hanging around" as per your interpretation of the rules: they're NOT allowed to be close to the 2nd unit, thus they have to go around.

AND by your interpretation of the rules, "Models should not be within 1" of enemy models they are not assaulting". Well, by your interpretation of the rules, you're not declaring an assault on Red in the first place. Thus, that model CANNOT brush against models in Red, say "opps, we're now in close combat", and become a multi-assault. After all, Hanging Around (rule 5) does not state anything about contacting another enemy unit. Thus by strict interpretation, it is NOT ALLOWED to CONTACT another enemy unit.

And even then, your diagram is wrong for the countercharge: The model's pile-in for red will have to fulfill rule 2 first: be in base-to-base with an unengaged model first. Thus, red should have spread out all over the models in the back of blue.


___
Tynskel, I think the problem here is that you're (a) switching on and off the rules as you see fit, which is wrong. A rule is always "On", you cannot switch it off just at your convenience.

Also, (b) you're blending the meaning of certain rules into all the other rules. This is evident as per your insistence that a paragraph describing the first model's movement (and via my viewpoint IS only for that first model), MUST be applied to all the rest of the assault movement rules (which is 3 paragraphs later and the subject of another target: "rest of models of assaulting squad"). Also, you insist a rule that is meant for going around models you're NOT assaulting is used to control the movement rules for models you ARE assaulting

This is wrong. You'd have to arbiterally switch off too many things harphazardly, in all the most random places to make it work. An example:

You cannot brush past a model to count as assaulting a 2nd squad, because to do that you have to "switch off" the "must fulfill all rules for assaulting the 1st squad", which by your interpretation, "must move the closest distance", "must only assault the first unit" and "must fulfill all rules, only against the first unit". Also, you'd have to switch off the rules for "Models may NOT assault units they are not assaulting, they have to stay 1" away and go around" rule.

That is why I said your diagram above is illegal, by your own rules: you're switching off too many rules in order to make a multi-assault occur.

As I've said before in the (2nd batch of) comments: this switching on and off of rules and sub-rules can be insane: if I can arbitarly switch on and off rules as I like based on an interpretation of earlier rules being imposed and bled on later rules, I can do crazy things like Rage going backwards (because MOVEMENT RULES says you can go anywhere), Fearless not working (because the UNIT have to take a leadership test regardless), etc... This is obviously wrong, as you said so yourself. Why then are you allowed to arbiterally switch on and off such rules yourself then?

___
This is not how I read the rules, to be honest: The first sentence in the assault rules ("All units must Engage their declared enemy units") referes to a source: UNIT, and an action: Engage, and a target: Enemy UNIT. The First Model to enemy Closest Model paragraph has a target too: describing the first model to initiate an assault (and if he dies from Dangerous Terrain, making someone else the first model). After that, it now have a different source: Rest of the Models.

The rules concerning the unit itself is now used up, as by the act of first model base-to-base it is fulfilled. Don't get me wrong: it is not switched off. But with that first model there, the rest of the models are now NOT hte first model, and must fulfill the rules of the "rest of the models" section. And thanks to that single sentence in "Multiassault", the "rest of the models" are allowed to treat other enemy unit's models as valid targets.

[Tynskel]

No, not at all.
What I am saying is that you must do everything you can to get as many models engaged with the intended target as you can. Look at the second diagram I drew, the one that is the 'result' on page 41 of the rulebook.

[Tynskel]

And here's the interesting point: You must follow the rules for 'moving assaulting models'. The first paragraph DOES state that models (plural) must not engage a unit that is not the target.

However, all the rest of the rules DO NOT STATE A TARGET. Instead, the fact is (a) they all mention only "models", and (b) the Multi-assault rules unlocks models from other units to be assaulted.

You must go through the entire iterative process yes, but by such process as long as that first model had moved, the assault is established on that first enemy UNIT and the rest of the MODELS in the assaulting squad is free to go after any MODELS you decide to declare an assault against (provided they meet the rest of the rules of assaulting MODELS)


Also, your diagram is wrong:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/wkz/Untitled3-1.jpg
Via your very strict rules, you are not allowed to assault until "all the requirements of assaulting ONE unit is fulfilled" right? Well, that last model there is NOT allowed to brush a 2nd unit, because (a) it has to fulfill rule 3: be 2" away from a model base to base.

And even if it cannot fulfill that (by being too far away), by your rules it have to fulfill ALL the rules for assaulting that first unit before it can even think about touching a 2nd unit, correct? So (b) it is not allowed to base to base with another, even if it is "hanging around" as per your interpretation of the rules: they're NOT allowed to be close to the 2nd unit, thus they have to go around.

AND by your interpretation of the rules, "Models should not be within 1" of enemy models they are not assaulting". Well, by your interpretation of the rules, you're not declaring an assault on Red in the first place. Thus, that model CANNOT brush against models in Red, say "opps, we're now in close combat", and become a multi-assault. After all, Hanging Around (rule 5) does not state anything about contacting another enemy unit. Thus by strict interpretation, it is NOT ALLOWED to CONTACT another enemy unit.

And even then, your diagram is wrong for the countercharge: The model's pile-in for red will have to fulfill rule 2 first: be in base-to-base with an unengaged model first. Thus, red should have spread out all over the models in the back of blue.


___
Tynskel, I think the problem here is that you're (a) switching on and off the rules as you see fit, which is wrong. A rule is always "On", you cannot switch it off just at your convenience.

Also, (b) you're blending the meaning of certain rules into all the other rules. This is evident as per your insistence that a paragraph describing the first model's movement (and via my viewpoint IS only for that first model), MUST be applied to all the rest of the assault movement rules (which is 3 paragraphs later and the subject of another target: "rest of models of assaulting squad"). Also, you insist a rule that is meant for going around models you're NOT assaulting is used to control the movement rules for models you ARE assaulting

This is wrong. You'd have to arbiterally switch off too many things harphazardly, in all the most random places to make it work. An example:

You cannot brush past a model to count as assaulting a 2nd squad, because to do that you have to "switch off" the "must fulfill all rules for assaulting the 1st squad", which by your interpretation, "must move the closest distance", "must only assault the first unit" and "must fulfill all rules, only against the first unit". Also, you'd have to switch off the rules for "Models may NOT assault units they are not assaulting, they have to stay 1" away and go around" rule.

That is why I said your diagram above is illegal, by your own rules: you're switching off too many rules in order to make a multi-assault occur.

As I've said before in the (2nd batch of) comments: this switching on and off of rules and sub-rules can be insane: if I can arbitarly switch on and off rules as I like based on an interpretation of earlier rules being imposed and bled on later rules, I can do crazy things like Rage going backwards (because MOVEMENT RULES says you can go anywhere), Fearless not working (because the UNIT have to take a leadership test regardless), etc... This is obviously wrong, as you said so yourself. Why then are you allowed to arbiterally switch on and off such rules yourself then?

___
This is not how I read the rules, to be honest: The first sentence in the assault rules ("All units must Engage their declared enemy units") referes to a source: UNIT, and an action: Engage, and a target: Enemy UNIT. The First Model to enemy Closest Model paragraph has a target too: describing the first model to initiate an assault (and if he dies from Dangerous Terrain, making someone else the first model). After that, it now have a different source: Rest of the Models.

The rules concerning the unit itself is now used up, as by the act of first model base-to-base it is fulfilled. Don't get me wrong: it is not switched off. But with that first model there, the rest of the models are now NOT hte first model, and must fulfill the rules of the "rest of the models" section. And thanks to that single sentence in "Multiassault", the "rest of the models" are allowed to treat other enemy unit's models as valid targets.

Actually you are incorrect, the last model moved was the one that engages the gabbos. The rules specifically state that the controlling player can choose the order of moving the models. All of the models move toward the intended target unit. The last model moves to maintain coherency, that's the most it can do, and while maintaining coherency may engage the multi-charge move. Then the gabbos counter charge in.

Actually, quite frankly, I skipped most of what you wrote because the first line in bold is wrong. If you are going to make such a strong statement, you should make sure you are correct.--- on page 33 you can only target one unit, and the subsequent paragraph that you are referring to states you can only engage the unit they are assaulting.

Honestly, I don't know where you are getting this idea that I am 'switching' on and off rules. I said before, this is an iterative process, you must fulfill all the requirements before engaging a second unit. Your 'not activating rule #3' statement is not true, read the rulebook again. If you cannot reach a friendly model that is in b2b with an enemy model, then you must maintain coherency. Really, this is getting silly, because you are just making stuff up about what I have said.

Okay, now as I am reading more of what you said, I am starting to chuckle.
You need to calm down, and clear you head of the thoughts that you think I am on fire and must burn for my insolence.

You have whole paragraphs not citing the text but instead using 'interpretations'. This is why you are having so much trouble with this. Stop re-writing the rulebook, and start actually writing out the entire rules.

What's even better is that you are saying things that I never said--- I never said that you have to stay more than an 1" away from the enemy model. In fact, the rules state that requirement is waived during assault. You may not move into base to base contact with a unit that you are not assaulting--- that's what I said.

[ArchonPhelps]

Tynskel, do you even play 40k with other people or has everyone just stop playing you cause you're just so far out there? I mean I can see how this can happen when you make stuff up like this. Or are they just being polite and say yes to what ever you say just so they dont have to hear you talk?

[wkz]

...
a) Here's the point: where is the "must do everything you can to get as many models engaged with the intended target as you can" ruling? All I can read is (i) Unit must engage enemy unit they declared (note that lack of "must do everything to get models engaged), and (ii) Must do everything you can to get as many models engaged (note the lack of "unit").

As I've said above, which you skipped, you just CANNOT blend rules into each other.

b) "Actually you are incorrect, the last model moved was the one that engages the gabbos" -True. That's what I understand from your diagram.

"The rules specifically state that the controlling player can choose the order of moving the models. " - truth

"All of the models move toward the intended target unit." ... true, you can do that.

"The last model moves to maintain coherency, that's the most it can do" - true,

"and while maintaining coherency may engage the multi-charge move". - Here's the point: you forcefully disengaged the Must Move Against Singular Unit Only rule that you've been trying to argue for this whole time.

Here's the point: notice that 2nd last blue model at the bottom, 2nd from the right? WHY can't he go into base-to-base with an enemy model while maintaining the 2" 'support base-to-base model" rule? Because they all have to move in a straight line? Where in rules 2~5 (for models after the first) say they HAVE to move in a straight line?

Plus the straight line rule specifically states : "Must take the shortest distance". Well, thanks to another sentence elsewhere, "You cannot move within 1" of enemy models you're not assaulting", correct? The combination of the 2 means this: the shortest distance does not need to be a straight line, it can be a CURVE, but it only needs to be THE shortest distance.

Thus, "Shortest distance NOT engaging a unit you're assaulting"... in my diagram above, I've drawn that arrow, and by your rules that should be the only legal path you can take.

"Then the gabbos counter charge in." - I know what your diagram said. But before that,you'd have to explain the step above.

And what in the WORLD is a gabbos?!? Can't you just use "Red"? Or, you know, their proper name: Grechin??


c)
Actually, quite frankly, I skipped most of what you wrote because the first line in bold is wrong. If you are going to make such a strong statement, you should make sure you are correct.--- on page 33 you can only target one unit, and the subsequent paragraph that you are referring to states you can only engage the unit they are assaulting.

Fine. We all know which sentence you and I have been arguing about all this time, so if you wish to disregard an essay based on a misprint of one QUOTE LOCATION, feel free.

In fact, just to MAKE SURE you read the above AND respond to it:

Edit: Amendments in progress. See point E for the reason
I've made amendments. Please respond to the above.


d) I get the idea for 'switching' on and off rules (hey, you read the entire post after all!!) from the simple fact you're blending rules: if you have to fulfill ALL the rules, as per your interpretation, and if you have such sentences as "Cannot be within 1" of a model you are not assaulting", the ONLY way you can multi-assault is to bend the rules by switching stuff off.

Edit: to Tynskel's edit:
e)
You need to calm down, and clear you head of the thoughts that you think I am on fire and must burn for my insolence. Unlike that linked comments thread, I am actually quite calm. So thanks for your concern.


You have whole paragraphs not citing the text but instead using 'interpretations'. This is why you are having so much trouble with this. Stop re-writing the rulebook, and start actually writing out the entire rules.Fine, if you wish. I'll have it done shortly. Disregard point (c) above.


What's even better is that you are saying things that I never said--- I never said that you have to stay more than an 1" away from the enemy model. In fact, the rules state that requirement is waived during assault. You may not move into base to base contact with a unit that you are not assaulting--- that's what I said. Oh? Really? Fine then, point "b" above, please explain that... and HOW it fits into the bolded part of THIS quote?

[Tynskel]

Bwahaha! I am sorry my simplified drawing confused you. In no way did I intend that the models must move in straight lines. The arrows represent where the model ends up. Also, the blue model that ends up in the middle of no where must head toward the friendly model, representing being within 2" of the friendly model in base to base, which is what has been drawn.

I still do not understand where you are getting this 1" requirement. Which reafirms that you need to read the rules again.... On page 34 you will note that the 1" rule has been waived for assault moves.

I do not forcibly disengage the last rule, I fulfilled every rule required, and now may engage a second unit-- there is a difference. this is what makes me laugh over n' over. You keep thinking that I am picking and choosing. No, I move the models attempting to engage the target unit until a model comes up that cannot reach the target unit, cannot reach even a friendly model engaged with a target unit model. At which point you continue with the rules, which then allow you to assault a second unit, while still maintaining coherency.

Third, you keep saying that wondering where the intended target reference comes from. P. 33 then on page 34 last sentence of the first paragraph under 'moving assaulting models'. You know, the sentence I keep citing that states you cannot move your models into base to base with a unit you are not assaulting? Since you can only assault one unit until you have fulfilled all of the assault rules, this line is still in effect.

[Tynskel]

Tynskel, do you even play 40k with other people or has everyone just stop playing you cause you're just so far out there? I mean I can see how this can happen when you make stuff up like this. Or are they just being polite and say yes to what ever you say just so they dont have to hear you talk?

Wow. Uh, rude. I explain this to people all the time, and they look at the rules, and we go through examples. It is quite simple, and it follows the rules quite nicely. So no, I do not have problems with people playing with me. This also prevents the cheesy cheats that are on BoLS sometimes, like the bunny article, an d the stupid BA vs Bug article.

I am one of the more entreating people to play in my group:
1) I am consistent.
2) my blasters go pew pew, my tanks go vroom vroom, my marines go for the emperor, my bugs go hiss.
3) my heroes fight incredible odds
4) I don't give up, even when it is 'assured' a loss. A lot of people really like this one. What a pain in the arse it is to set up a game to have it end on turn three because someone backs out. You'd also be surprised how often the 'loss' can turn into a tie, or a win.
5) I help people with army design
6) we discuss how to make better moves and target priority
7) I train children how to play where most people I know just crush them.

The funny thing is, I am pointing out how the rules do not 'all of the sudden' disappear, and you are saying to me that I am 'far out'. Maybe you should think about the rules a bit more.

[wkz]

As per Tynskel's request:







are you forgetting that I have cited that paragraph like a thousand times now?

Lemmy help refresh you what it says:

"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

And, I will reiterate what I have said before: In the English Language, emphasis is not the first, or the middle, but is on the last phrase of a sentence. You must follow the rules for 'moving assaulting models'. The first paragraphs states that models (plural) must not engage a unit that is not the target. You must go through the entire iterative process until you reach a point of convergence before you can have models engage a second unit.

And here's the interesting point: You must follow the rules for 'Move Assaulting Units' (pg 34). The first paragraph of page 34 DOES state that:
"Assaulting units must now move into close combat with the unit they have declared an assault against. A player must move all of the models in each assaulting unit before moving onto the next unit..."

However, in the entire rest of the section 'Move Assaulting Units' (pg 34), except for the first model, they do not mention any UNITS as a target. Instead, the fact is:
Moving Assaulting MODELS:
First paragraph talks about MODELS, and how they can enter within 1" of enemy MODELS

2nd paragraph first sentence mentions "Assaulting units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of their models as possible". Note that at no point at all is the word "Unit" mentioned.

Then the 2nd paragraph continues: "Start each assault by moving a single model from the assaulting unit. ... must be the one closest to the enemy (going around ... and enemy models in units not being assaulted)." This means you flat out CANNOT assault an enemy model in units other than what you intend to assault. 2nd paragraph follows: "Move the model in contact..." and a whole bunch of rules for that first model.

3rd paragraph of the section 'Move Assaulting Units' (pg 34) states: "If the enemy is within range, the assault move continues." It is also the paragraph which contains the bulleted points (the Rules 2~5 of assault rules) which are important to the discussion, which according to the last 2 sentences of the paragraph "After moving the first model in the unit, you can move the others in any sequence you desire. There are some constraints on their movement though:"

This means the constraints on models AFTER the first models are Rules 2~5, and ONLY Rules 2~5. These constraints do not obtain additional constrants that were meant for the first model, and these constraints mentions ONLY MODELS, and against ENEMY MODELS.

In fact, here's the interesting part: ONLY in the 2nd paragraph, and ONLY in the movement of the closest single model, is there a mention of "enemy model in the unit being assaulted". All the other mention in all 4 paragraphs of "Moving Assaulting Models" under "Move Assaulting Units" refer to enemy MODELS ONLY. Even the very first paragraph of the Move Assaulting Units super-section says "Assaulting units" against "opposing models"

This is important because, in the "Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units" (pg 34), "As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models" (that's models other than the first model) "can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models." And the rules mention only MODELS.

You must go through the entire iterative process yes. But:
The First move, by both the "Moving Assaulting Models" and "Assaulting Multiple Units", is by a single model against the "closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared". After which, all mention of BOTH rule sets says Enemy Models, and not Enemy Units. Enemy Models which can, by "Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units"'s 2nd paragraph 2nd sentence, be allowed to be OTHER enemy units!


Also, your diagram is wrong:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/wkz/Untitled3-1.jpg
Via your very strict rules, you are not allowed to assault until "all the requirements of assaulting ONE unit is fulfilled" right? Well, that last model there is NOT allowed to brush a 2nd unit, because (a) it has to fulfill rule 3: be 2" away from a model base to base.

And even if it cannot fulfill that (by being too far away), by your rules it have to fulfill ALL the rules for assaulting that first unit before it can even think about touching a 2nd unit, correct? So (b) it is not allowed to base to base with another, even if it is "hanging around" as per your interpretation of the rules: they're NOT allowed to be close to the 2nd unit, thus they have to go around.

AND by your interpretation of the rules, "Models should not be within 1" of enemy models they are not assaulting". Well, by your interpretation of the rules, you're not declaring an assault on Red in the first place. Thus, that model CANNOT brush against models in Red, say "opps, we're now in close combat", and become a multi-assault. After all, Hanging Around (rule 5) does not state anything about contacting another enemy unit. Thus by strict interpretation, it is NOT ALLOWED to CONTACT another enemy unit.

And even then, your diagram is wrong for the countercharge: The model's pile-in for red will have to fulfill rule 2 first: be in base-to-base with an unengaged model first. Thus, red should have spread out all over the models in the back of blue.


___
Tynskel, I think the problem here is that you're (a) switching on and off the rules as you see fit, which is wrong. A rule is always "On", you cannot switch it off just at your convenience.

Also, (b) you're blending the meaning of certain rules into all the other rules. This is evident as per your insistence that Paragraph #2 of "Moving Assaulting Models" (page 34), describing the first model's movement (and ONLY for that first model), MUST be by your opinion applied to ALL the rest of the assault movement rules (which is Paragraph #3 of "Moving Assaulting Models" (page 34), describing a different bunch of targets: "AFTER moving the first model in the unit, you can move the others...").

Also, you insist a rule that is meant for going around models you're NOT assaulting (first paragraph of "Moving Assaulting Models" (page 34) "...may not move into base contact with enemy models from an unit they are not assaulting") is used to control the movement rules for models you ARE assaulting.

This is wrong. You'd have to arbiterally switch off too many things harphazardly, in all the most random places to make it work. An example:

You cannot brush past a model to count as assaulting a 2nd squad, because to do that you have to "switch off" your interpretation: "must fulfill all rules for assaulting the 1st squad", which by your interpretation, "must move the closest distance", "must only assault the first unit" and "must fulfill all rules, only against the first unit". Also, you'd have to switch off the rules for "Models may NOT assault units they are not assaulting, they have to stay 1" away and go around" rule.

That is why I said your diagram above is illegal, by your own rules: you're switching off too many rules in order to make a multi-assault occur.

As I've said before in the (2nd batch of) comments: this switching on and off of rules and sub-rules can be insane: if I can arbitarly switch on and off rules as I like based on an interpretation of earlier rules being imposed and bled on later rules, I can do crazy things like Rage going backwards (because MOVEMENT RULES says you can go anywhere), Fearless not working (because the UNIT have to take a leadership test regardless), etc... This is obviously wrong, as you said so yourself. Why then are you allowed to arbiterally switch on and off such rules yourself then?

___
This is not how I read the rules, to be honest: Once again, the first Paragraph of 'Move Assaulting Units' (pg 34) ("Assaulting units must now move into close combat with the unit they have declared an assault against") referes to a source: ASSAULTING UNIT, and an action: MOVE INTO CLOSE COMBAT, and a target: UNIT they have declared an assault against. The First Model to enemy Closest Model paragraph (or: Paragraph #2 of 'Moving Assaulting Models') has a source and target too: describing the first model to initiate an assault against an enemy model. After that, in Paragraph #3, there is a DIFFERENT source yet again: Rest of the Models and 5 rules, all of which describes enemy MODELS (if it describes the opposing units/models in the firs place).

The rules concerning the unit itself "Assaulting Units must now move into close combat with the unit they have declared an assault against" (paragraph #1, sentence #1) is now used up, as by the act of the first model being base-to-base it is fulfilled. Don't get me wrong: it is not switched off. But with that first model in base-to-base, the UNIT is considered "move into close combat" AND is in close combat with "the unit they have declared an assault against".

At this point, the rest of the models are now NOT the first model, and must fulfill the rules of the "rest of the models" section. And thanks to that single sentence in "Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units" (Paragraph #2, Sentence #2), the "rest of the models" are allowed to treat other enemy unit's models as valid targets.


Now that this post has been edited to YOUR apparently high standards for quoting rulebook rules, please respond.

[wkz]

(to the 2 posts where Tynskel ninja'ed me)


Bwahaha! I am sorry my simplified drawing confused you. In no way did I intend that the models must move in straight lines. The arrows represent where the model ends up. Also, the blue model that ends up in the middle of no where must head toward the friendly model, representing being within 2" of the friendly model in base to base, which is what has been drawn.
Good, now tell me why the 2 bottom-most blue models cannot just simply attack the red unit right then and there? They have fulfilled all the requirements of assault after all


I still do not understand where you are getting this 1" requirement. Which reafirms that you need to read the rules again.... On page 34 you will note that the 1" rule has been waived for assault moves. Fine. That's true. BUT:
"... may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting" IS part of the rules ("Moving Assaulting Models", 1st paragraph, last sentence). Why then are you allowed to move a unit into base-to-base just simply because you're drawing a straight line? Don't you have to fulfill rule 5 first?

And if because you can multi-assault because you can fulfill rule 5 (hang around, so I hang around with an enemy model in Base-to-base), can't I just do that with all of the other rules 2~4? After all, as said above, they refer to enemy MODELS, and as you just said, the 1" requirement is wavied!


I do not forcibly disengage the last rule, I fulfilled every rule required, and now may engage a second unit-- there is a difference. this is what makes me laugh over n' over. You keep thinking that I am picking and choosing. No, I move the models attempting to engage the target unit until a model comes up that cannot reach the target unit, cannot reach even a friendly model engaged with a target unit model. At which point you continue with the rules, which then allow you to assault a second unit, while still maintaining coherency.First: Show me the rule which states which states you must fulfill ALL the Rules 2~5 before you can engage the 2nd enemy unit. Also, show me the wording in Rules 5 which says "Must simply stay in coherency" allows it to engage enemy units... BUT is also the reason which also disallows Rule 2~4 to engage enemy units!

Also, I suggest you read the rule yet again: Nowhere in Rules 2~5 does it mention ENEMY UNITS. It mention ENEMY MODELS. And Enemy models is precisely what Squad #2 and above are made out of!


Third, you keep saying that wondering where the intended target reference comes from. P. 33 then on page 34 last sentence of the first paragraph under 'moving assaulting models'. You know, the sentence I keep citing that states you cannot move your models into base to base with a unit you are not assaulting? Since you can only assault one unit until you have fulfilled all of the assault rules, this line is still in effect.That sentence is reproduced here:"This means that assaulting models may stilll not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are NOT assaulting"
This is why I say you're switching rules on and off: rules 2~5 state you can assault enemy MODELS. "Assault Multiple Units" state you can assault enemy MODELS of different UNITS. Yet you insist that this rule is "ON", thus you cannot assault enemy units at all... right until you have a model at Rule 5, which SUDDENLY CAN "move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are NOT assaulting", meaning the rule you keep insisting works for rules 2~4 suddenly switched off for Rule 5!


Wow. Uh, rude. I explain this to people all the time, and they look at the rules, and we go through examples. It is quite simple, and it follows the rules quite nicely. So no, I do not have problems with people playing with me. Right...


This also prevents the cheesy cheats that are on BoLS sometimes, like the bunny article, an d the stupid BA vs Bug article.You're doing quite a lot of people a disservice by this sentence. After all, you yourself DO come to BOLS...


I am one of the more entreating people to play in my group:RIGHT...

1) I am consistent. A person completely wrong can be consistent too.

2) my blasters go pew pew, my tanks go vroom vroom, my marines go for the emperor, my bugs go hiss.Despite what you think, "Counts as" is perfectly acceptable in this game.

3) my heroes fight incredible oddsWith ruleset interpretation as similar to this, I can see why they always have incredible odds.

4) I don't give up, even when it is 'assured' a loss. A lot of people really like this one. What a pain in the arse it is to set up a game to have it end on turn three because someone backs out. You'd also be surprised how often the 'loss' can turn into a tie, or a win.Truth. Yes, I am agreeing with you here.

5) I help people with army designDoesn't need to be good with the rules to help people after all. And there IS such a thing as "bad advice"

6) we discuss how to make better moves and target priority... with rules interpretation such as this?

7) I train children how to play where most people I know just crush them.By "crush" you mean playing to win? Some people do that. But seriously, training people with the wrong ruleset? I fear to go where you had been, to be honest.


The funny thing is, I am pointing out how the rules do not 'all of the sudden' disappear, and you are saying to me that I am 'far out'. Maybe you should think about the rules a bit more.And MAYBE, just MAYBE you SHOULD think of the rules, yourself. Because the rules did not disappear, but is seriously twisted into something very much different in your interpretation..

[Tynskel]

Dude:
you keep going around in a circle. Your circle is also very small: You keep referring to half of the sentence, not the entire sentence. Of course, when you refer to half a sentence you will not understand what I am saying.

This is where I laugh, you keep complaining the rules state 'enemy models'. Well of course they do! This is the 'Moving Assaulting Models' section. Which happens to follow, 'Moving Assaulting Units', and follows 'Declares Assaults'. What you are failing to see is that the entire section narrows down. It is coherently following the rules, too.

The multi-assault rules say:
"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

One of the rules that you MUST follow under "moving assaulting models":
"This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

You MUST follow ALL of the 'Moving Assaulting Models' rules. The rule I previously mentioned is pluralized: that means all models within the unit must follow these rules.

Back to my Example:
the first of the bottom 2 marines:
He needs to move to be within 2" of a friendly model engaged in close combat and is therefore too far away to engage the gobbos.
last of 2 bottom marines:
can only maintain coherency, thus fulfilling all of the 'moving assaulting models' rules, and may continue the rules to following section 'assault multiple enemy units'.


By the way: my marines go pew pew, and my tanks go vroom vroom is not a statement about 'counts as'. I physically make the sounds.

"You're doing quite a lot of people a disservice by this sentence. After all, you yourself DO come to BOLS..."
Bwahahahah. That's funny, because of the insults you just started throwing at me when I kept pointing out how you were wrong (and you are still wrong), and now you are talking about a disservice. Did you even notice, after our bout, and then your posting to the forums, BoLS posted an article about chillin' out? You need to chill out.

Ultimately, the argument you are presenting is flawed because you are choosing to ignore key rules. I am *slowly* correcting your mistakes (for example, the 1" rule, which you posted three times, I pointed out three times, and then you fixed it). Eventually you'll see this mistake about the assault rules you are making.

[Fellend]

Personal attacks does not make arguing about rules any easier.
That being said, I have less respect for you now Tynskel, bolters don't go pew pew, that's IG.Bolters go bang bang!

[ArchonPhelps]

I dont even play marines and I knew they go bang bang.

[Tynskel]

Plasma Rifles go Pew Pew!

[weeble1000]

Personal attacks does not make arguing about rules any easier.
That being said, I have less respect for you now Tynskel, bolters don't go pew pew, that's IG.Bolters go bang bang!

I like to think that lasguns go crack crack.

I've read through all of these posts and I think I have to agree with Tynskel on this one. That said, I don't have an overabundance of faith in the ability of Games workshop to write rules that perfectly describe what they are intended to.

Much of the argument seems to revolve around the difference (or lack thereof) between the "first" model in the assaulting unit and the remainder of the models. This make me think about why the rules were written that way. It seems to me that you need to force a player to actually assault the unit that the assault was declared against. Otherwise you could just declare an assault and move your models at whatever unit.

Distance is also important when assaulting, right? You need to be able to reach the unit you declared your assault against or you can't assault it. Games Workshop likes to keep players guessing distances, although that is slowly going out of style. This is related to making sure that the unit is forced to assault the unit it declared its assault against. If you weren't forced to, the distance is a little less important because you could, in effect, change your mind and assault a unit that you think is closer.

So the assaulting unit has to reach its declared target. It needs to either be within 6 inches or be able to move far enough to reach the unit (assuming you have to go through difficult terrain). Logically, the shortest distance between the two units is between the two closest models. So the rules tell you to move the closest model in the assaulting unit into base to base contact with the closest model in the unit being assaulted. Further, that model may not do weird things like move through impassable terrain, friendly models, or though gaps smaller than its base. Even further, that model is specifically restricted to moving into base to base with the target unit, so you can't get all squirly and assault a unit other than the one you declared your assault against. Assaulting models also don't get a free pass through difficult terrain, and so the rules say to start again with the next closest models if the first one dies.

I can see why people think that the rules for moving this model are not considered when following all of the rules for moving assaulting models. The rules written for moving that model seem to be specifically related to making sure you assault the unit you declared your assault against. If the assault works, i.e that first closest model is able to make base to base contact with the declared target, why would all of the other models in the unit be required to follow the same rules?

I think Tynskel has very plainly stated that the rules for assaulting multiple units require you to follow all of the rules for moving assaulting models. Is it what the game designers intended? I don't know. Is it what the rules say? Yes. Does it make sense? Well, Tynskel's interpretation of the rules isn't contradictory. Does Tynskel's interpretation severely limit one's ability to assault multiple enemy units? Absolutely. Again, is that what the game designers wanted? I have no idea, but I don't think that really matters when you're having a strict RAW debate.

[ArchonPhelps]

Okay so I am tired and the rulebook finally made its' way to me after an earthquake pushed it away. That being said, in the Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units section it states;

"As you move assaulting models, you may find it i possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting." (pg 34)

I know I seem out there but that means after I move the first model I can declare that my unit is assaulting multiple enemy units. That means I can choose to assault another unit if I wish. Yes I know I have to follow the normal rules for Moving Assaulting Models, but I can assault other units instead of doing all my moves then try to assault a different unit. I can pick and choose which model I want to assault with the exception of the first two models who were the closest to the enemy units.

[Paintraina]

Tynskel,
What is this "First half of the sentence" you are referring to? Just give me a quote from the book.

[Tynskel]

I find it interesting that from:
"As you move assaulting models, you may find it i possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting." (pg 34)

you get:
" I can declare that my unit is assaulting multiple enemy units"

No where in that statement does it supply a rule of any sort. All that line states is a proximal location.

second:
"Yes I know I have to follow the normal rules for Moving Assaulting Models, but I can assault other units instead of doing all my moves then try to assault a different unit."

The rulebook does not say this.

[ArchonPhelps]

I find it interesting that from:
"As you move assaulting models, you may find it i possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting." (pg 34)

you get:
" I can declare that my unit is assaulting multiple enemy units"

No where in that statement does it supply a rule of any sort. All that line states is a proximal location.

second:
"Yes I know I have to follow the normal rules for Moving Assaulting Models, but I can assault other units instead of doing all my moves then try to assault a different unit."

The rulebook does not say this.

Really? haha okay you got me red handed . . . but its the left hook you have to worry about. You complain that people dont finish reading the section I was hoping you would bit on it, but this is even better.

Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units section; "As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared." (pg 34)

In respect to the first part comes the rest of the paragraph as follows; "Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models." (pg 34)

Oh yes feel the burn. Nothing personal, but thats why you northeners are all donkey backwards. Raise up its Texas Independence Day.

[Paintraina]

Tynskel, The reason the book doesn't want you declaring assault on multiple units is simply because that will screw up the rule about being forced to assault the same unit you shoot at.

If you could declare assaults on multiple units, then the rules that say you can't assault a unit different from the one you shot at, would be wasted text.

If I could declare on two units, I would shoot at the longfangs across the table, and then declare an assault on both the longfangs and a nearby grey hunter unit. That would be legal. This is how the book gets away from this.

I am still waiting on your quote of the first half of the sentence that we seem to be missing.

[Tynskel]

???
¿And what are you trying to say?
¿¿¿

Wow, you noticed that you have to first declare who you are assaulting against.
That's why it is past tense, silly.
Oh, I get it! You are complaining about Texas: the state that keeps dumbing down its edjumacation system.

[ArchonPhelps]

you actually do declare you are assaulting the second, third, etc unit just not at the same time.

[Tynskel]

Tynskel, The reason the book doesn't want you declaring assault on multiple units is simply because that will screw up the rule about being forced to assault the same unit you shoot at.

If you could declare assaults on multiple units, then the rules that say you can't assault a unit different from the one you shot at, would be wasted text.

If I could declare on two units, I would shoot at the longfangs across the table, and then declare an assault on both the longfangs and a nearby grey hunter unit. That would be legal. This is how the book gets away from this.

I am still waiting on your quote of the first half of the sentence that we seem to be missing.

Dude, read my posts. I have quoted the sentence at least a half a dozen times now.

Your statement is pure speculation.

[Tynskel]

you actually do declare you are assaulting the second, third, etc unit just not at the same time.

Where does the rulebook say this!?!

You guys are complaining that I am making rules up, whereas I cite the rulebook, yet you guys are just making stuff up!

[ArchonPhelps]

I am going to take that as a win for me since you have no come back reguarding the rules.

You need to watch your tongue sir. Just remember that I'm from Texas, ..........

[ArchonPhelps]

Stated in the big rulebook, Page 34, Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units, second paragraph of said section, first sentence states; "As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared."

[Tynskel]

uh what?
What?
You are making no sense!

That statement, and the 'highlighted' word in no way allow you to declare more assaults. It does not say this at all--- that's what 'making up rules' means.

Here, I'll repeat what I said:
???
¿And what are you trying to say?
¿¿¿
Wow, you noticed that you have to first declare who you are assaulting against.
That's why it is past tense, silly.
Oh, I get it! You are complaining about Texas: the state that keeps dumbing down its edjumacation system.

[Tynskel]

what you are not understanding is the english language: You can switch tenses in a sentence depending on what subject and verb are being associated.

("As usual closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit)- this segment is in present tense, because this effect is occurring at present time.
( against which the assault was declared.")- this statement was in the past, because you had to first declare all of your assault moves before you can actually move. You can not have declared in present tense, because the rules do not allow you to continuously declare assaults.


You got nothing here, buddy.

[ArchonPhelps]

First off that is what it says in the rulebook. If you choose/can not read the rulebook that is your issue not mine. Explains why half the things you write are signs of MR. Which I think is great that they let you go outside without your helmet at times.

That is what it says crack open your rule book and read the section. I promise it says declare. I give you my word as a Texan that it says it.

[Paintraina]

I'm not trying to be an ***. I seriously don't know what this "first half of the sentence" thing is that you keep referring to. Please just quote it from the book.

[Tynskel]

First off that is what it says in the rulebook. If you choose/can not read the rulebook that is your issue not mine. Explains why half the things you write are signs of MR. Which I think is great that they let you go outside without your helmet at times.

That is what it says crack open your rule book and read the section. I promise it says declare. I give you my word as a Texan that it says it.

???
Dude, I explained how the english language works---- you simply cannot construct that sentence without saying 'declared'. The fact that is says 'declared' says nothing about future declarations. Declaring to assault a unit occurs in the past. Hence past tense.

Does the rule say 'you now may declare against another unit'?
No, it does not. You are making stuff up.

[Tynskel]

I'm not trying to be an ***. I seriously don't know what this "first half of the sentence" thing is that you keep referring to. Please just quote it from the book.

I am not sure what you are asking for, but it must be in relation to something someone else said--- a lot of the problem of this topic have been focused on part of a sentence with context to the rest of the sentences and previous paragraphs.

Three of the important rules to look at:

"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

the second:
"This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

the third:
"There are some constraints on their movement though:"

The first part is under the multi-assault rules. The second is under the first paragraph of 'moving assault models'. The last is just before the bullet list.

The second rule refers to all of the models within the unit. The last portion restricts movement even more than previously. The bullet points say 'enemy models', but are under the pretext of the second statement I mentioned. This statement is inherently linked to the paragraph before (about units), and the section before that (about declaring assaults). The rules start broad and are chained together while narrowing down to how to move individual models. But these individual model movement is within the context of only assaulting one unit.

The first phrase I mention means that every friendly model within your unit may not go and assault a second unit until they have fulfilled all of the rules for 'moving assaulting models'.

The movement of assaulting models is an iterative process that moves towards convergence (where your models cannot even get into range of a friendly model that is in base 2 base with an enemy model). Once convergence has been ascertained, you have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules, and may assault a second unit.

[Paintraina]

Ok, Perfect. Thank you.


I am not sure what you are asking for, but it must be in relation to something someone else said--- a lot of the problem of this topic have been focused on part of a sentence with context to the rest of the sentences and previous paragraphs.

Three of the important rules to look at:

"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

the second:
"This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

the third:
"There are some constraints on their movement though:"

The first part is under the multi-assault rules. The second is under the first paragraph of 'moving assault models'. The last is just before the bullet list.

The second rule refers to all of the models within the unit. The last portion restricts movement even more than previously.


Alright. Here's the thing. I submit that the portion you are referring to: "and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting." does not place undue constraints on movement and here is why: a unit can assault more than one unit. It cannot declare an assault against more than one unit (as some of your detractors seem to think), but this is irrelevent because the very first rule you quoted clearly allows me to assault units other than the one I declared on, by simply moving into contact with a second unit.



The bullet points say 'enemy models', but are under the pretext of the second statement I mentioned. This statement is inherently linked to the paragraph before (about units), and the section before that (about declaring assaults). The rules start broad and are chained together while narrowing down to how to move individual models. But these individual model movement is within the context of only assaulting one unit.


Yes, this is true, but nothing in the paragraph before or the section before disallows the "liberal" interpretation of the multi-assault rules.



The first phrase I mention means that every friendly model within your unit may not go and assault a second unit until they have fulfilled all of the rules for 'moving assaulting models'.


Your first phrase which is "Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models." Has a sentence before it which makes me wonder how you arrived at this conclusion. I'll repeat the preceding sentence here along with the rule you quoted: "As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

To me, this seems to clearly go against your conclusion. Surely the only conclusion that could be drawn from these two sentences is that only the First friendly model (not models) must assault the unit upon which the assault was declared. I really want to know how you didn't arrive at this.



The movement of assaulting models is an iterative process that moves towards convergence (where your models cannot even get into range of a friendly model that is in base 2 base with an enemy model). Once convergence has been ascertained, you have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules, and may assault a second unit.

So here's the rub: Aside from the very first model, the iterative process under "moving assaulting models" do not once mention moving toward an enemy unit, but rather enemy models.

[ArchonPhelps]

???
Dude, I explained how the english language works---- you simply cannot construct that sentence without saying 'declared'. The fact that is says 'declared' says nothing about future declarations. Declaring to assault a unit occurs in the past. Hence past tense.

Does the rule say 'you now may declare against another unit'?
No, it does not. You are making stuff up.

First of I am not a dude or your buddy.

Well I am lucky to have the foremost expert on the English language here on BOLS. Like I have said it is in relation to the first sentence of the section. maybe if you actually paid attention for once and have an open mind you could understand it.

I get it you are making fun of me by saying declare five times, clever girl.

No it does not say that, but it is implied. Yes I hear it your response back already, so to counter your counter. a=1, couple =2, you are to closed minded. Keep on crying your pathic cry but I hope you come to WAR games con or something larger than your mom's basement to come out and see how the game is played.

[wkz]

Ho man, this is going to be a doozy of a reply.

Dude:
you keep going around in a circle. Your circle is also very small: You keep referring to half of the sentence, not the entire sentence. Of course, when you refer to half a sentence you will not understand what I am saying.

This is where I laugh, you keep complaining the rules state 'enemy models'. Well of course they do! This is the 'Moving Assaulting Models' section. Which happens to follow, 'Moving Assaulting Units', and follows 'Declares Assaults'. What you are failing to see is that the entire section narrows down. It is coherently following the rules, too.

The multi-assault rules say:
"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

One of the rules that you MUST follow under "moving assaulting models":
"This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."
Here's the point: I INTEND to assault unit #2, #3 and all of the above other than Unit #1, which is my declared assault unit. The rule Does say: "and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting." Guess what, I AM assaulting them!

WHEN I have achieved the move into assault against unit #1, which is getting at least 1 model into base-to-base, I can then move my models into ALL the units I intend to assault. I can even NOT tell the opponent about it: nowhere in the rules tell us to declare the targets of multi-charge assault targets unit #2 and above.


You MUST follow ALL of the 'Moving Assaulting Models' rules. The rule I previously mentioned is pluralized: that means all models within the unit must follow these rules.Indeed! Except that rule, by its direct opposite (at least the last part), means "May move into base contact with models you intend to assault. See above quote reply: you can choose to assault unit #2, and thus can put models into base-to-base with unit #2 pretty much from your own unit's model #2 and above!


Back to my Example:
the first of the bottom 2 marines:
He needs to move to be within 2" of a friendly model engaged in close combat and is therefore too far away to engage the gobbos.
last of 2 bottom marines:
can only maintain coherency, thus fulfilling all of the 'moving assaulting models' rules, and may continue the rules to following section 'assault multiple enemy units'. Indeed. BUT why only Rule 5 have this exception? Why not rules 2~4?

After all, "This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting." You keep INSISTING models caught under rules 2~4 cannot multi-assault other units because of this rule, YET models in rule 5 suddenly can, even if there is no exception written into the rules in ANY WAY!

Especially units in rule 4: "If a model cannot reach any enemy models, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with an assaulting model". Why then can't you use these models as the muti-assault models? Why?



By the way: my marines go pew pew, and my tanks go vroom vroom is not a statement about 'counts as'. I physically make the sounds. ... to each our own. You're more alike to me than I though, but that's a different story for another time.


"You're doing quite a lot of people a disservice by this sentence. After all, you yourself DO come to BOLS..."
Bwahahahah. That's funny, because of the insults you just started throwing at me when I kept pointing out how you were wrong (and you are still wrong), and now you are talking about a disservice. Did you even notice, after our bout, and then your posting to the forums, BoLS posted an article about chillin' out? You need to chill out. BOTH of us need to chill out, Especially you! The last 3 pages have been particularly insulting, and not even against me, seriously.


Ultimately, the argument you are presenting is flawed because you are choosing to ignore key rules. I am *slowly* correcting your mistakes (for example, the 1" rule, which you posted three times, I pointed out three times, and then you fixed it). Eventually you'll see this mistake about the assault rules you are making.And guess what? Even if I "conceded" the point, YOU are more wrong than you think you are.

Page 11, Movement rules, "Models in the way" last sentence: "To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting." Its NOT "moving in the assault phase", its "unless assaulting", aka: only when the model is assaulting against that model are you allowed to break the 1" bubble. Are you assaulting that model? Yes, No?


Next post....

I find it interesting that from:
"As you move assaulting models, you may find it i possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting." (pg 34)

you get:
" I can declare that my unit is assaulting multiple enemy units"

No where in that statement does it supply a rule of any sort. All that line states is a proximal location.And no where in all the rules says "everybody must attack only enemy unit #1, until a model reaches rule 5 of assault rules. Only models under rule 5 can multi-assault"

As I said above: you need not declare you want to multi-assault (doing so is only a formality that prevents confusion). As long as you WANT to assault an enemy unit, That sentence you keep using loses its meaning: You may move into base contact with models you intend to assault, and since I have to "keep following the rules for moving assaulting units" means I have to only attack units from unit #1 right? NO! Nowhere in the assault rules, as I've said in my previous post, says ENEMY UNIT in any way except for that very first model! Following the rules itself, which states enemy models, I can attack models from unit #2 onwards!


second:
"Yes I know I have to follow the normal rules for Moving Assaulting Models, but I can assault other units instead of doing all my moves then try to assault a different unit."

The rulebook does not say this.The rulebook DOES say this: "Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units": "Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models".

And before you start saying "2nd half of this sentence, blah blah" and moving in a circle again, YES, the RULEs for moving assaulting MODELS is all about enemy MODELS, not UNITS. And Unit #2 and above HAVE ENEMY MODELS.

Next post... Oh wait, personal attack, skip.

Next post... dismissing someone's logic as "pure speculation", without bothering to look at it, skip

Next post... complaining someone is doing what he is doing all this time, skip

Next post... making someone explain themselves while attacking an entire state. Bravo, perfect anger tactics.

Next post... ... there's an interesting point here:

what you are not understanding is the english language: You can switch tenses in a sentence depending on what subject and verb are being associated.Interesting... lets continue.


("As usual closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit)- this segment is in present tense, because this effect is occurring at present time.Indeed.

( against which the assault was declared.")- this statement was in the past, because you had to first declare all of your assault moves before you can actually move. You can not have declared in present tense, because the rules do not allow you to continuously declare assaults.Truth. You should have already declared an assault target.

Here's the thing:
"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units..." This is in the present tense right? There is no "need to declare" written here, correct? It just simply unlocks units to attack, correct?

You DO NOT NEED to declare your INTENTION to MULTI-ASSAULT, correct?


Next post ... speaking 100% truth. With a huge sprinkling of "your opinion is bad and you are wrong" Tynskel, have you ever thought of becoming a politician? Your play with words is flawless...
... *looks at what he is arguing for* ...
Then again, maybe not.

Oooo, last post....

I am not sure what you are asking for, but it must be in relation to something someone else said--- a lot of the problem of this topic have been focused on part of a sentence with context to the rest of the sentences and previous paragraphs.

Three of the important rules to look at:

"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."Truth.


the second:
"This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

the third:
"There are some constraints on their movement though:"

The first part is under the multi-assault rules. The second is under the first paragraph of 'moving assault models'. The last is just before the bullet list. Truth.


The second rule refers to all of the models within the unit. The last portion restricts movement even more than previously. The bullet points say 'enemy models', but are under the pretext of the second statement I mentioned. This statement is inherently linked to the paragraph before (about units), and the section before that (about declaring assaults). The rules start broad and are chained together while narrowing down to how to move individual models. But these individual model movement is within the context of only assaulting one unit. And THIS is where our opinion differ:
a) The second rule, I agree with you: it applies to all models in the assaulting unit.

b) The last portion DOES NOT restrict movement rules MORE than previously. To say that is to imply ALL the movement rules of model #1 applies to models #2 and above (must move in a straight line, must contact the closest enemy model, etc), which by both your examples and mine is clearly wrong.

The 2nd paragraph of "moving assaulting models" talks about the first model and its restrictions, BUT in the 3rd paragraph: "After moving the first model in the unit, you can move the others in any sequence you desire. There are some constraints on THEIR movement thou". The first part is "all the other models other than the first" (my interpretation), and the 2nd part is "this are the constraints on < subject >" and the < subject > by the English language have been stated earlier ("all the other models other than the first")

They do not need to attack only the first enemy unit, they do not need to move against the closest model, they do not need to move the absolute closest distance. What they do need to do, is to contact the enemy, and enemy MODELS as such.


The first phrase I mention means that every friendly model within your unit may not go and assault a second unit until they have fulfilled all of the rules for 'moving assaulting models'. And I STRONGLY disagree. Here's the first phrase again:
"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."
What are the rules for the first half? "can assault models belonging to other enemy units"
What are the rules for the second half? Basically, refer to assaulting models
What are the rules for assaulting models, for models after than the first? Rules 2~5 and the master rule:
"This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

"There are some constraints on their movement though:" (and bulleted points)

This is why we're arguing, apparently: I INTEND TO assault enemy unit #2, which is not the original enemy I've declared an assault against. By the rules, I do NOT NEED TO declare this intent (although I tend to do so as a formality).

By the rules, I "may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting", but guess what? BECAUSE I WANT to assault them, they don't count as "enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting", because I INTEND to assault them, and by the simple act of moving Model #2 into base-to-base with a model from that unit (using assault rule #2 instead of assault rule #5) I AM assaulting them!!

And the constraints for models #2 onwards? They keep talking about enemy MODELS. I can assault MODELS, correct? And since I am fully intending to assault models from unit #2, I can apply rules 2~5 on MODELS from that unit #2, correct?



The movement of assaulting models is an iterative process that moves towards convergence (where your models cannot even get into range of a friendly model that is in base 2 base with an enemy model). Once convergence has been ascertained, you have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules, and may assault a second unit.And this is where a very big hole in your logic falls apart.

Your main point is that (a) Your models follow the rules in the 2nd paragraph (especially "can only target unit #1, the declared unit", and "This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.").

Now, remember: you cannot switch off rules, you can only fulfill them. And because models #2 of your assaulting unit and above must follow the rules for models #1 (must move in the shortest distance possible, most contact the closest enemy model possible, etc), 2 paradox occurs:

i) Paradox #1: The model #1 rules clearly state "The model selected must be the one closest to the enemy... Move the model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted"

But rules #2 to #5, even ignoring models which have moved, have rules against it: You can base-to-base with an enemy model who is not engaged, but in a lot of situations that same model is NOT the closest model! You can stick 2" from a model in base-to-base, but does that mean the assault fails (as per paragraph #2)? The rules clash so hard it is not funny...

So we can agree that rules #2 to #5 supersedes the movement of models #2 and above, that the rules for model #1 is not affected? But but... gasp! This means that you DO NOT NEED to assault only the unit you declared an assault against! Rules #2 to #5 have super-seeded that!!

Also: The global rule is still in effect though: "enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting". And by your arguments thus far, "assaulting" means "declared assault", isn't it? Right, back to square one... or is it?





ii) Paradox #2: here's the point: Rules #2 to #5 tramples all over the rules for assaulting model #1, but does not touch the global rule for assaulting models, and that global rule prevents us from going after other enemy units, correct?

Here's the thing: this is rule #5: "If this is impossible, it must simply stay in coherency". This is the freedom of movement which you say can be used to multi-charge.

HOWEVER, this DOES NOT SUPERSEDE the global rule! The GLOBAL RULE IS STILL IN EFFECT! And since you've argued that the global rule means cannot assault other squads, it means you STILL cannot assault other squads!

Even the multi-assault rules bear this out!! "Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models." BUT that's 100% correct: the GLOBAL RULE that prevents Rules #2 to #4 from assaulting OTHER units, that same global rule is STILL a "rules for moving assaulting models"!! And that same rule still applys for Rule #5!!

And: Nothing in Rule #5 contradicts the Global rule, as per Paradox #1, so we can't simply say "this rule overwrites the other rule previously", Nothing in other sections of the book contradicts it, Nothing anywhere specifically switches off or gives an exception to this rule!

Thus by your very reasoning and logic, "enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting" equals "cannot multi-assault at all" equals "Nobody can multi-assault, under all circumstances!!"

Is this stupid, or is there something very wrong here???

[ArchonPhelps]

agrees with Paintraina amd WKZ

[Tynskel]

it isn't even implied. That's the point you are missing about the word 'declared'.


"To me, this seems to clearly go against your conclusion. Surely the only conclusion that could be drawn from these two sentences is that only the First friendly model (not models) must assault the unit upon which the assault was declared. I really want to know how you didn't arrive at this."

No, because the key phrase is follow the rules for assaulting models. The rules for assaulting models clearly state you cannot engage a unit that you did not declare assault against.

"So here's the rub: Aside from the very first model, the iterative process under "moving assaulting models" do not once mention moving toward an enemy unit, but rather enemy models."

This is why I find this argument hilarious: you have to follow all of the rules! The first paragraph states that the models (plural) cannot engage a second enemy unit. That means the 'enemy models' in the bullet list are only apart of the unit you declared against.

[Tynskel]

The issue, to me, is quite clear.
You guys are looking at each sentence as independent of all other sentences. However, that is not how the rulebook works at all.

So, when the book says "As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models." you disavow all previous language in the book. However, this rule specifically states to follow the rules for assaulting models. Then you guys refer to the word 'enemy models', which completely disavows the rest of the section which refers to only engaging one unit.

Did you guys read weebles 1000 post? He completely sees what I wrote. In fact, I gathered from his language that he doesn't like to play this way, but he agrees that is what the rules state from RAW.

[wkz]

it isn't even implied. That's the point you are missing about the word 'declared'. There is only one "declared" mentioned in the assault rules, (excluding the first paragraph of the entire page) and that is for the assaulting model #1's movement. But lets see the other parts of the post.



"To me, this seems to clearly go against your conclusion. Surely the only conclusion that could be drawn from these two sentences is that only the First friendly model (not models) must assault the unit upon which the assault was declared. I really want to know how you didn't arrive at this."This is not an exact quote. Where did you get this from?
I provided you the courtesy of editing my posts to follow your standards of notation and reference, can you do me the courtesy of doing the same?


No, because the key phrase is follow the rules for assaulting models. The rules for assaulting models clearly state you cannot engage a unit that you did not declare assault against. The rules for assaulting Models state units in only 2 places: First sentence "assaulting units must now move into close combat with the unit they have declared an assault against." Note the use of "Unit" instead of "Models": as long as one model is in base-to-base, it is considered "moved against"... and nowhere does it says "must use all the rules of assaulting", "cannot assault other units", etc

2nd: Moving Assaulting Models, paragraph #2 "...Move that model into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being assaulted..." This refers to the first model only, unless you want to run into paradox #1 I mentioned in my previous post.

It does say you NEED to engage a unit you have declared an assault against... but NOWHERE does it say you cannot engage a unit other than the declared unit!


"So here's the rub: Aside from the very first model, the iterative process under "moving assaulting models" do not once mention moving toward an enemy unit, but rather enemy models."Again, this is not an exact quote. See the reply to quote #2 above.


This is why I find this argument hilarious: you have to follow all of the rules! The first paragraph states that the models (plural) cannot engage a second enemy unit. That means the 'enemy models' in the bullet list are only apart of the unit you declared against.And read my reply again: I am FOLLOWING ALL THE RULES!! And the rules does NOT DISALLOW me to assault other targets with my model #2 onwards!!

And get your quote correct: The first paragraph of "move assaulting units" refer to ASSAULTING UNITS, and the first paragraph of "move assaulting models" states that the models (plural) cannot engage a second enemy unit THEY ARE NOT ASSAULTING.

Guess what? I FULLY INTEND to assault that 2nd unit!


Edit: another Tynskel ninja post:


The issue, to me, is quite clear.
You guys are looking at each sentence as independent of all other sentences. However, that is not how the rulebook works at all.Huh?? From my viewpoint you are mish-mashing all the rules into one horrid mess. See my paradoxes #1 and #2 from my previous post!

In fact, I only apply rules if IT AFFECTS THE MODEL. Rules #2 to #5 affects models after the first, but the 2nd paragraph of
"Moving assaulting Models" does not (except for that global rule which we keep quoting), so I Don't Use It, well Because It Doesn't Apply. Hell, I dragged a rule out of the MOVEMENT RULES, just to show you're wrong, remember?


So, when the book says "As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models." you disavow all previous language in the book. No, that is NOT what I did. I did not "disavow all previous language in the book". Otherwise I can simply fly models across the board.

I simply followed the WORDING of the "ASSAULT RULES" as applied to that model and that model only (rules applying to Model #1 does not apply to Model #2 onwards, and global rules are global rules). Isn't that what RAW is all about!???


...However, this rule specifically states to follow the rules for assaulting models. Then you guys refer to the word 'enemy models', which completely disavows the rest of the section which refers to only engaging one unit.Again, where does it says "engaging one unit"? I see it only twice: see above. Move against Unit is fulfilled once you get that first model into position, and First Model Movement does not affect all the other model's movement!

All the other rules are for other models, with only one master rule bleeding into ALL models! And all the rule's wording says "enemy models", thus allowing you to assault enemy MODELS, even models not belonging to the original declared unit!


Did you guys read weebles 1000 post? He completely sees what I wrote. In fact, I gathered from his language that he doesn't like to play this way, but he agrees that is what the rules state from RAW.Yes, I saw that post. But here's the arguement fallacy: someone agreeing with you does not make both of you correct. Otherwise I can simply say "Hey, I got 2 people agreeing with ME!! Am I more correct than you"?!??

NO

In fact, I weep for the fact your version of the assault rules just got taught to someone... Your version have something very wrong from where I stand...
(btw, weebles have 120 posts right now, and that is post #67 of this thread. Where did you get 1000 from?)

[ArchonPhelps]

The issue, to me, is quite clear.
You guys are looking at each sentence as independent of all other sentences. However, that is not how the rulebook works at all.

So, when the book says "As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models." you disavow all previous language in the book. However, this rule specifically states to follow the rules for assaulting models. Then you guys refer to the word 'enemy models', which completely disavows the rest of the section which refers to only engaging one unit.

Did you guys read weebles 1000 post? He completely sees what I wrote. In fact, I gathered from his language that he doesn't like to play this way, but he agrees that is what the rules state from RAW.

Yes you can. But Phelps what do you mean? as per the rules;

"Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

They say you CAN. Now Tynskel with your two English courses from Junior College you know what the word "can" means and I bet you know the history behind the word as well. In short it doesnt mean you have to. I can save the world from being dumb but then that limits the amount of people that I can make fun of to only 3/4 of the population. Can you understand the rules? Yes you can!

On a relate note thank you for atleast re-read the rule. So they had the word declare in there, did they not? Declare was not use earlier in the section right? It is understood then that it is implied. Like it or not I am right.

I think you are more right wkz. If Tynskel wants to start saying that that he has one then you actually have about seven spoken up for you

[Bean]

Alright, let's walk through it, step by step:

First, we pick one of our units (A) and declare that it will assault an enemy unit (D).

Next, the model in A which has the shortest path to a model in D must move, along that path, into base-contact with a model in D.

Next, any other model in A may move, following the movement rules, but with the following exceptions and restrictions:

It may be moved within 1" of enemy models.

It may not be moved into base contact with enemy models in units it is not assaulting.

It must maintain coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved.

It must move into base contact with an enemy model that is not already in base-contact with an assaulting model.

If that is not possible, it must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base-contact with an assaulting model.

If that is not possible, it must move to within 2" of one of it's own unit's models that is already in base contact with an enemy.

If that is not possible, it must stay in coherency.

In addition, on page 34, we have this:

"As usual, the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

So, each model in A after the first can assault a model from any unit it can reach (prioritizing those which are not already in base-contact with an assaulting model), so long as doing so doesn't leave it out of coherency.

Nothing in the rules for moving assaulting models obligates it to attempt to base an enemy model in the unit against which the assault was initially declared (note that the bullet point says, "must move into base contact with any enemy model within reach that is not in base contact with an assaulting model," not, "must move into base contact with any enemy model in the target unit..." or anything of that nature.)


To illustrate it better, if I were to find myself in this situation:


A1 . . A2


D1 . . . E1


where A1 and A2 are models in the assaulting unit, D1 is a model in the enemy unit against which I declared my assault, and E1 is a model an another enemy unit that A2 can reach.

I move A1 into contact with D1. I move A2 into contact with E1 (but not D1). A1 and A2 are in coherency.

What rules have I broken?

[Paintraina]

it isn't even implied. That's the point you are missing about the word 'declared'.



"To me, this seems to clearly go against your conclusion. Surely the only conclusion that could be drawn from these two sentences is that only the First friendly model (not models) must assault the unit upon which the assault was declared. I really want to know how you didn't arrive at this."

No, because the key phrase is follow the rules for assaulting models. The rules for assaulting models clearly state you cannot engage a unit that you did not declare assault against.


See, here's where your wrong. The rules for assaulting models don't state that you cannot engage a unit that you did not declare assault against.

The rules do state "you may not move into base to base contact with a unit you are not assaulting", like I already mentioned, multi-assault rules allow us to assault models belonging to enemy units with remaining models past the first model (who is forced to move into base with the unit you declared your assault against).

Remember, the 40k rules operate on "Specific overrides general".




"So here's the rub: Aside from the very first model, the iterative process under "moving assaulting models" do not once mention moving toward an enemy unit, but rather enemy models."

This is why I find this argument hilarious: you have to follow all of the rules! The first paragraph states that the models (plural) cannot engage a second enemy unit. That means the 'enemy models' in the bullet list are only apart of the unit you declared against.

Give me a quote from the book that says this. Nowhere does it say anything of the sort.

[Bean]

Paintraina's reply is spot on, and Tynskel has been critically misrepresenting the relevant rules.

The rules do not say that an assaulting unit may not engage two enemy units.

The rules do not say that an assaulting model must only attempt to base or become engaged against models from the unit against which the assault was declared.

The rules do say that assaulting models may not end in base contact with models in units they are not assaulting, but they also say that any assaulting model beyond the first may assault any model it can reach while following the rest of the rules--which means that the rule against ending in base contact with models in units you're not assaulting only comes up if you choose not to assault a unit you could reach.

[doom-kitten]

I didn't read this whole thing head started to hurt so I'm just gonna have my say and back out and pray no one ***** slaps me, anyways I recommend some nice relaxing tea maybe coffee (much better) and a nice relaxing nap with a kitten or two. Seriously I hate to be the nuisances that points out it's a game as far as I see it this really doesn't matter it's just making people argue and not getting anywhere and turning into a spiral of your wrong and I'm right seriousy what so hard about the dice roll method you pick up a die drop it and blam dice gods say your wrong or right. This method has worked for every dispute my group has ever had and it produces opportunities for houserule and prescedents that we can draw back on, I'm not a rule guru and I don't want to be one my gaming group has one and he works well for us, he rarely plays but he knos the rules and FAQs very well and is very impartial. Seriously kittens they will **** your **** up if your upset they know their assualt rules to the tee and they ain't afraid to use them XD.

[Tynskel]

I just love how you guys leave you the line in the first paragraph under moving assaulting models.
It is as though it isn't there for you guys.

[weeble1000]

What is the purpose of the language, "you may not move into base to base contact with a unit you are not assaulting?" If the multi assault rules allow a model to assault any unit within reach, coherency, etc.; why would you need to say that a model couldn't BTB with a model from a unit it is not assaulting since any model it is BTB with is now being assaulted? The rules operate on a model by model basis, so you would theoretically never be in a situation in which you could potentially be in BTB with a model from a unit not being assaulted.

I could be wrong, but if your interpretation of the rules is correct, this language seems to have no purpose. I will also point out that Tynskel's interpretation doesn't include any superfluous language. This doesn't mean it is what the writers intended, just that a literal interpretation of the rules as they are written actually doesn't cause any contradictions.

[wkz]

I just love how you guys leave you the line in the first paragraph under moving assaulting models.
It is as though it isn't there for you guys.

This line? "This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting"?

Read all our replies carefully. Its been MENTIONED TO THE DEATH: Yes, we can't assault what we don't intend to assault, but we DO fully INTEND to assault that unit#2 we're going to multi-charge!

Read carefully dude... or are you choosing NOT to care, put your hands to your ears and saying "lalalallalalalalala can't hear you lalalalalalala....."?



What is the purpose of the language, "you may not move into base to base contact with a unit you are not assaulting?" If the multi assault rules allow a model to assault any unit within reach, coherency, etc.; why would you need to say that a model couldn't BTB with a model from a unit it is not assaulting since any model it is BTB with is now being assaulted? The rules operate on a model by model basis, so you would theoretically never be in a situation in which you could potentially be in BTB with a model from a unit not being assaulted.

I could be wrong, but if your interpretation of the rules is correct, this language seems to have no purpose. I will also point out that Tynskel's interpretation doesn't include any superfluous language. This doesn't mean it is what the writers intended, just that a literal interpretation of the rules as they are written actually doesn't cause any contradictions.
Welcome back

I do believe that rule is put in place so that the "...with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models" rule does not kick in against models you're not assaulting. (Note that in the movement rules, page 11, "Models in the way": "A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the movement and shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting")

Thus, if you don't intend to assault unit #2 (maybe they're assault terminators, and you don't want a thunderhammer to the face this turn), you can't squeeze pass 2 models of unit #2 and/or have one of your assaulting model in base-to-base with unit #2 just so you can reach a model from unit #1. After all, being in base-to-base means you're in close combat, and that is not what you want after all for unit #2...

HOWEVER, if you intend to multi-charge unit #1 and #2, you can THEN move models into base to base with enemy models of unit #2.

The rule is pretty simple this way, I think. What I think got you confused is the INTENT to assault: you do not want to assault that unit? Fine, go around, don't put models in base-to-base. However, if you want to? Fine, you are allowed to put models from Models #2 onwards in base-to-base. As long as you put a model in base-to-base means you ARE assaulting that enemy unit, and all the rules of being in close combat (pile in, attacks, morale, who wins, etc) will also now apply to that enemy unit. Otherwise, it doesn't

Also, if you think Tynskel's explanation is correct, consider this: Models under rules #1 (for first model) to #4 cannot jump to the next squad to multi-assault. But Models under rule #5 (simply stay in coherency) can. However, rule #5 makes no mention at all it CAN multi-assault, despite it saying nothing, AND the sentence you mentioned above is still an assault rule and is still in effect since the multi-assault rules state you have to fulfill all assault rules for Models...

Why is the multi-assault unlocked for that model then? Why is that specific Rule #5 the unlock for multi-assault against the global "may not move into base to base contact with a unit you are not assaulting", while Rules #2 to #4, which does not mention enemy units in any way (as opposed to enemy models) not unlocked? This is described in my "Paradox #2" (my previous or 3rd last posts backwards)

[Tynskel]

There is no rule in the rulebook for 'intent'.

Also, the rules do not say you have to stay 1" away during the assault phase, you just may not move into base contact with a unit you are not assaulting.

When you have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules, you move to a different category of rules. The rules for 'Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units'.

[wkz]

There is no rule in the rulebook for 'intent'.

Also, the rules do not say you have to stay 1" away during the assault phase, you just may not move into base contact with a unit you are not assaulting.

There is also no rule in the rulebook for the actual process of declaring assaults (curiously, only possible targets of assaults/legal assaulters are written)... so, is that left out or not?

Also, read the sentence right before that one: "All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as the Movement phase, with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models."

So, what does movement rules say? "A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the movement and shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the assault phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting".

You can read the 1" rule both ways to be honest. Do we do the movement rule's "cannot break the 1" bubble unless you're assaulting that model", or "can break everyone's 1" bubble as long as we don't base-to-base"... its up to you, but also note that it has nothing on our "can model #2 onwards assault a different unit" discussion.
...
...
...
Except for the fact that the main sentence under dispute ("This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting") is now having its relevance questioned: is it meant more for stopping assault rules from interfering with core movement rules? Or is it to prevent units other than the declared unit from being assaulted until very late in the assault?



And yes, you just may not move into base contact with a unit you are not assaulting. But I do FULLY INTEND TO ASSAULT that unit #2, so the restriction does not apply.

And even if we remove "intent" from it... I move a model using rule #2 against an enemy model, who so happens to be from unit #2 (not my original declared squad). Therefore by the rules, I AM assaulting him right? Once again: the restriction does not apply.


When you have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules, you move to a different category of rules. The rules for 'Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units'.They are NOT rules used in sequence. In fact, the order presented in the 'Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units' mentioned "first model" and "models after the first", which means the rule's timeline overlap with the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of 'Moving Assaulting Models'

Hell, if a rule is only activated later because it comes later, does it mean the rage rule's 'must move towards opponent' is activated after normal movement rules? Hey, I can rage backwards!

[Rapture]

What is the purpose of the language, "you may not move into base to base contact with a unit you are not assaulting?" If the multi assault rules allow a model to assault any unit within reach, coherency, etc.; why would you need to say that a model couldn't BTB with a model from a unit it is not assaulting since any model it is BTB with is now being assaulted? The rules operate on a model by model basis, so you would theoretically never be in a situation in which you could potentially be in BTB with a model from a unit not being assaulted.

I could be wrong, but if your interpretation of the rules is correct, this language seems to have no purpose. I will also point out that Tynskel's interpretation doesn't include any superfluous language. This doesn't mean it is what the writers intended, just that a literal interpretation of the rules as they are written actually doesn't cause any contradictions.

Doesn't that line just mean that if you are touching it you have to be assaulting it? So, no excluding models you are touching from the upcoming assault.

[Bean]

I just love how you guys leave you the line in the first paragraph under moving assaulting models.
It is as though it isn't there for you guys.

I didn't leave that out. I addressed it specifically. Each non-initial assaulting model can move into base contact with models from any unit, so long as it is assaulting that unit and it ends its movement in coherency with a model in its own unit that's already moved. Further, it can assault any enemy unit, so long as it ends up reaching a model in that unit.

That's all that's necessary. Again, your case just isn't based on actual rules.

[Tynskel]

wait, what? no rule for declaring assaults? Come on--- this is becoming redonkulous.
You just need to back pedal a page from 34. here's a hint: Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault. Here's another hint: singular.

Your second point is meaningless. I'll help you out: The 'may be moved within 1" of enemy models' is before the statement about 'may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.' Independent of each other. However, the rules that come afterward are bound by the 'may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting' rule.

The third point is meaningless to: for example, the 'rage' comment you state: you may intend to move your unit away from the enemy while under 'rage', however, the rules as written do not allow this.

Yes, I am glad we agree there is a sequence (oh wait, you do not think there is a sequence, even though the rules state you move one model at a time... 'in any sequence you desire'), but you keep forgetting the part about following the rules for 'moving assaulting models' which state not to move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.

Still gotta follow all of the rules.

[Tynskel]

Doesn't that line just mean that if you are touching it you have to be assaulting it? So, no excluding models you are touching from the upcoming assault.

You are forgetting about the p.33 and declaring assaults: you can only declare against one unit.

[Bean]

It's true that you only declare a single target for each assault. However, the rules specifically (and functionally) allow for assaulting models to assault units other than the one against which the assaulting unit's assault was initially declared--and this allows assaulting models to move into base contact with models in those enemy units. It's all there, in the rules. You seem to be willfully and senselessly ignoring the section on assaulting multiple enemy units, which specifically states that you can, indeed, assault enemy units other than the one against which you initially declare the assault.

[Rapture]

You are forgetting about the p.33 and declaring assaults: you can only declare against one unit.

Did I say otherwise?

[wkz]

wait, what? no rule for declaring assaults? Come on--- this is becoming redonkulous.
You just need to back pedal a page from 34. here's a hint: Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault. Here's another hint: singular.Yes, it says that. Yes, it is singular. However, how should you say it? In a booming voice? By moving model #1 into the enemy squad without telling the opponent? By coughing in code? Or should it even be said? Shall I cant in binary?!?? Shall I ask the Eldar gods to put a vision into your mind?!? Shall I carve it into your skin with a knife in the name of the chaos gods?!?

There is no mention of HOW. Just like HOW you tell your opponent you want to target unit #2 for multi-assault after unit #1.

Needing specific rules for INTENT, especially when the rules just simply say "go ahead, move the guy there. Just remember to follow those rules" (My words, about the "assaulting multiple enemy units" section) is just as stupid as the above.



Your second point is meaningless. I'll help you out: The 'may be moved within 1" of enemy models' is before the statement about 'may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.' Independent of each other. However, the rules that come afterward are bound by the 'may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting' rule.Wonderful.
The entire Frakking PARAGRAPH was talking about MOVEMENT rules in assault phase, and then there is an example of what it means. Common English language sometimes really does do that "rule, then example" thing.

And even then, as long as I am base-to-base with another unit, I am assaulting another unit. Movement rules are meant to STOP people from being in base-to-base if they're not fighting in close combat, it is not there to prevent assaults into close combat... but let us go with the "this is a new assault rule" theory of yours for the moment...


The third point is meaningless to: for example, the 'rage' comment you state: you may intend to move your unit away from the enemy while under 'rage', however, the rules as written do not allow this.Why?
First (again) you mention 'Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units' rule is applied only after 'Moving Assaulting Models' and 'Moving Assaulting Units', because it is written after. Can't I do the same with 'Movement Rules' (hey, no direction written), and apply 'Rage' Rules only afterwards?!? Can't I do the same with 'Taking Saves' before 'Complex Units'?!?? Can't I overwrite all kinds of stuff only because they're written earlier?

I am just pointing out the wrongness of your earlier statement.

Also, you mention 'Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units' rule is applied only after 'Moving Assaulting Models' (again)... but Rule #5 of 'Moving Assaulting Models' is part of 'Moving Assaulting Models'. IF 'Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units' only comes after, models under Rule #5 CANNOT BASE-TO-BASE contact another unit. Multi-assault is thus impossible, thus proving something is VERY WRONG with your version of the rules...



Yes, I am glad we agree there is a sequence, but you keep forgetting the part about following the rules for 'moving assaulting models' which state not to move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting.And that is an example of movement rules. And even if it is not movement rules but is an addition to assault rules, I have 2 questions for you:

a) If I fully DECIDE/INTEND/WANT TO assault Unit #2, can't I just ignore that rule (since Unit #2 is not "a unit they are not assaulting")

b) Using your explanation of the rules... Since I have to fulfill ALL the rules of assaulting, even when we're at assault Rule #5, this master assault rule is STILL active right? Why are we ALLOWED TO move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting (which by your meaning is any other unit than the original declared assault target), when the rules say "may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting"


Still gotta follow all of the rules.Yes, Please answer (B) one sentence above!! Are we even ALLOWED to multi-assault???

As I keep saying, there is something very wrong with your version of the rules...

PS: I've quoted page numbers and titles and paragraph #s all over my replies as you requested. Now I request you do the same.

[Tynskel]

hahhaha, I love that you are trying to add more words to intent.
Speaking about words: 'how to declare'
try using a dictionary: to make known or state clearly, especially in explicit or formal terms: to declare one's position in a controversy.
You don't have to use a booming voice, but you can if you want to. You just have to make it explicit! like: "I declare you a moron!" or "My Raveners are going to assault you Devastators."

Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!
Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!
Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!

I think you get the point. On second thought...

Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!
Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!
Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!

[wkz]

hahhaha, I love that you are trying to add more words to intent.
Speaking about words: 'how to declare'
try using a dictionary: to make known or state clearly, especially in explicit or formal terms: to declare one's position in a controversy.
You don't have to use a booming voice, but you can if you want to. You just have to make it explicit! like: "I declare you a moron!" or "My Raveners are going to assault you Devastators."Hah. I love how you keep deviating from your original argument: "there is no rule for INTENT".

Well, The rule states ".. may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting". Well, I want to (multi-)assault that unit. There is no rule for intent however. Hell, even your dictionary meaning for DECLARE says"make known"... but how?

This is the point: How Doesn't Matter. The point is NOT how, but rather Why am I not allowed to WANT to assault that other squad!??? (or : "there is no rule for INTENT" ... so... "there is no rule, so you can't intent"??)

As I said, trying to FORCE a specific method for declaring INTENT is just as stupid as forcing a specific method for declaring DECLARATIONS.



Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!
Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!
Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!

I think you get the point. On second thought...


Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!
Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!
Your arguments continue to make no sense. The 'stay in coherency' is the last restriction, then the 'remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units...' comes into play. Then follows: 'as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models'.
Oh my! It is a loop!Hah. On second thought, you better not learn programming. If you think that causes a loop, you're not going to get anything done (Especially since most programming languages uses the OOP programming, where a latter class overwrites sections of an earlier one)

And the thing is, your argument above exposes the fact you're still following a linear use of the rules: You're still insisting 'Moving Assaulting Models' come before 'Assaulting Multiple Units'. That is WRONG. What I said is they occur in the same timeline. They use the same ruleset. They ARE COMBINED INTO ONE WHOLE.

Just as the Rage rules gets cross-referenced with the movement rules, certain movement rules get replaced, and the resulting combination is used on models with Rage, the 'Moving Assaulting Models' and 'Assaulting Multiple Units' rules are combined before use.

And guess what? THAT argument you are referring to, that argument that causes the looping, THAT is using YOUR VERSION OF THE RULES!!! INTERESTING, NO?!

[wkz]

You know what, I'll leave this here, since I've asked this 4 times, but gotten ignored all those times...

Using Tynskel's version of assault rules, Let us Multi- Assault!!

"As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models"

Right! Follow All the rules!!
"This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

Right! This sentence means we can assault only one unit's models, because we can only declare one target for assault!! This is the all-important rule for moving assaulting models!!
Lets continue assaulting the only unit we can assault!!
...
Wait, we ARE STILL multi-assaulting!!
"As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models"

Right! Follow All the rules!!
"This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

Right! This sentence means we can assault only one unit's models, because we can only declare one target for assault!! This is the all-important rule for moving assaulting models!!
Lets continue assaulting the only unit we can assault!!
...
Wait, we ARE STILL multi-assaulting!!
"As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models"

Right! Follow All the rules!!
"This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

Right! This sentence means we can assault only one unit's models, because we can only declare one target for assault!! This is the all-important rule for moving assaulting models!!
Lets continue assaulting the only unit we can assault!!
...
Wait, we ARE STILL multi-assaulting!!
"As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models"

Right! Follow All the rules!!
"This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

Right! This sentence means we can assault only one unit's models, because we can only declare one target for assault!! This is the all-important rule for moving assaulting models!!
Lets continue assaulting the only unit we can assault!!
...
Wait, we ARE STILL multi-assaulting!!

< repeat to infinity >
Congrats Tynskel. Welcome to the world of paradox.

[Tynskel]

no, that's not my version of the rules: the rules for moving assault models are setup as a loop.
Sorry man, I write FORTRAN. Yeah, baby! NCL n' IDL too, woo hoo hoo!
And, I am not sure how you manage to see where I am 'deviating' from my original argument, without saying anything to how I did 'deviate'.

It is obvious you want to assault as second unit, just follow the rules, and you'll get there!

I love how you say they come from the 'same timeline', yet you don't refute that the book specifically states you move the models in sequence.

I love your version, how it forgets to get out of the loop! That's funny, but that's not what the rules say. You complete the rules for moving assaulting models, you are now free to assault models belonging to other enemy units. It's all right there!

[JxKxR]

Holy hell it's like looking into the brown eye of a greater daemon of Tzeentch.

[Bean]

no, that's not my version of the rules: the rules for moving assault models are setup as a loop.
Sorry man, I write FORTRAN. Yeah, baby! NCL n' IDL too, woo hoo hoo!
And, I am not sure how you manage to see where I am 'deviating' from my original argument, without saying anything to how I did 'deviate'.

It is obvious you want to assault as second unit, just follow the rules, and you'll get there!

I love how you say they come from the 'same timeline', yet you don't refute that the book specifically states you move the models in sequence.

Antics aside, you're still demonstrably wrong--as I've demonstrated.

[Tynskel]

Declare assault against unit:
Do i, models -1
If model can reach unengaged enemy model in unit, then
move into base 2 base, else
if model can reach engaged enemy model in unit, then
move into base 2 base, else
if model can reach friendly model that is engaged with enemy model in base 2 base, then
move within 2" of friendly model, else
if model can reach to maintain coherency, then
may engage enemy model from different enemy unit, else
maintain coherency
end Do

not too hard.

I do have to admit, it would have made it easier for everyone if the writers wrote everything in code!
Just watch out for GoTo statements. That's actually the difference between what you wrote, and what I wrote. You think the 'follow moving assaulting models' rules is a GoTo statement.

[Bean]

Declare assault against unit:
Do i, models -1
If model can reach unengaged enemy model in unit, then
move into base 2 base, else
if model can reach engaged enemy model in unit, then
move into base 2 base, else
if model can reach friendly model that is engaged with enemy model in base 2 base, then
move within 2" of friendly model, else
if model can reach to maintain coherency, then
may engage enemy model from different enemy unit, else
maintain coherency
end Do

not too hard.

I do have to admit, it would have made it easier for everyone if the writers wrote everything in code!
Just watch out for GoTo statements.

Not too hard, just wrong. You've added several instances of "in unit" which aren't in the actual rules.

It's easy to look right when you misrepresent the rules. Unfortunately, the real rules contradict you quite straightforwardly.

[Tynskel]

Not too hard, just wrong. You've added several instances of "in unit" which aren't in the actual rules.

It's easy to look right when you misrepresent the rules. Unfortunately, the real rules contradict you quite straightforwardly.

actualyl, in unit is in the rules: Under declare assault, and under may not assault a second enemy unit.

You know, the rules that you keep forgetting. It is also in the code--- under the first line that I wrote.

[Bean]

No, it's not. The phrase "in unit" doesn't appear under the section on declaring assaults, and there is nothing on page 33 or 34 which says that you can't assault a second enemy unit. In fact, there's a rule on page 34 which specifically says that you can assault a second enemy unit.

Did you actually read any of the rules, or did you just fabricate your own little set of Tysnkel rules in your head for the purposes of this argument?

[ArchonPhelps]

actualyl, in unit is in the rules: Under declare assault, and under may not assault a second enemy unit.

You know, the rules that you keep forgetting. It is also in the code--- under the first line that I wrote.

I thought that this is real life not a computer program. If you wanted it to be a code then go play Dawn of War and complain about your crappy connection or that the guy you are playing against manage to hack the system to beat you, even though you know you just suck at one more thing That being said. . .

First off if I assault only one unit then yes I am going to follow the rules under Moving Assaulting Units section to every crossed "t" and every dotted "i". but when you assault another unit I then further expand the rules to Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units.

I know it is hard for you to understand it but lets face it you will twist everything around so that you will look like the hero, good guy, etc. I would like to call this effect the "Eric Cartman Effect" trademark and copyrighted cirra 2010.

I hope that someday you come out from your mothers basement and play in a GT so that you may be educated.

[wkz]

<something is removed here, because of harsh language. Sorry about that>

no, that's not my version of the rules: the rules for moving assault models are setup as a loop. But but but, that IS your rules!!!
Oh wait, I forgot to add the part where you forget entire sections of earlier 'Moving Assaulting Models' rules, because that is the only way you can move a model into actual combat with a separate squad. Opps.


Sorry man, I write FORTRAN. Yeah, baby! NCL n' IDL too, woo hoo hoo!
And now I have even LESS respect for you. Especially if you use the latter FORTRAN versions. For goodness sake, how can you work with a OOP language (IF you're using FORTRAN 2003 that is) when you can't even understand simple "inheritance" and "overloading" of specific data sections?


It is obvious you want to assault as second unit, just follow the rules, and you'll get there! It is obvious by my version. It is, however, against at least one major rule by YOUR version even if you follow the rules.


I love how you say they come from the 'same timeline', yet you don't refute that the book specifically states you move the models in sequence.Have you ever heard of parallel processing? Ansynchronized threads? Linear programming?

Good. Throw that out of the window. This is more like an inherited object we're working with here. This is not "do A, then do B", "do A and do B at the same time" or any somesuch. This is "Create object X, which have rule A combined with rule B".

Here's my argument again:
a) Rule #1 is the same between all versions: move the first model
b) Rules #2 to #5 are affected by 'assaulting multiple enemy units' if you wish to. This has the effect of:
Rule #2: The most important one ... coherency.
Rule #3: If possible, the model must move into base contact with any enemy model (insert Assault Multiple rule) the model CAN assault models from other units (/end insert) ...
Rule #4: If there are no such... move into base contact with an enemy model (insert Assault Multiple rule) the model CAN assault models from other units (/end insert) ...
Rule #3: ...Move within 2" of one of its own models...
Rule #3: ...Stay in coherency ...


I love your version, how it forgets to get out of the loop! That's funny, but that's not what the rules say.Of course!! Because it is following YOUR version.


You complete the rules for moving assaulting models, you are now free to assault models belonging to other enemy units. It's all right there!Now answer this paradox, which I am asking for the FIFTH time: During rule #5 of assault rules, the global rule for assaulting is STILL IN PLACE. "may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting." is still in place.

If you are to move the models under rule 5, you HAVE to move them under this global rule. There's no exception to this rule: you can't choose to ignore it now, because you're still moving under rule #5.

And after you move the models its too late: the model had moved. It cannot be "re-moved" to another location.

How in hades do you get THAT model into base-to-base with another model then?!


Declare assault against unit:
Do i, models -1
If model can reach unengaged enemy model in unit, then
move into base 2 base, else
if model can reach engaged enemy model in unit, then
move into base 2 base, else
if model can reach friendly model that is engaged with enemy model in base 2 base, then
move within 2" of friendly model, else
if model can reach to maintain coherency, then
may engage enemy model from different enemy unit, else
maintain coherency
end Do
And that exposes a flaw of yours YET again: you do not "Do A, then do B"! All of the exceptions and rules are active at the same time!

Yes, the "Moving Assaulting Models" rules are synchronous, "do this, then do that". BUT The global rule of assaults AND the rules for "assaulting Multiple enemy models" ARE active ON TOP OF THESE 5 ASSAULT RULES.

THOSE rules do not follow your if-else statement. In fact, the correct debugged code should be:

Move First model
Do i=1, models-1
If model can reach unengaged enemy model in unit AND Check global rules passed then
begin
....if CALL function (enemy model within range, type UNENGAGED) = true then
........move into base 2 base with unengaged.
end else
if model can reach engaged enemy model in unit AND Check global rules passed then
begin
....if CALL function(enemy model within range, type ENGAGED) = true then
........move into base 2 base
end else
if model can reach friendly model that is engaged with enemy model in base 2 base AND Check global rules passed then
....if Check global assault rules=true then move within 2" of friendly model
end else
if model can reach to maintain coherency, then
....if Check global assault rules=true then maintain coherency
end Do
...
function (enemy model within range, type UNENGAGED)
....Check movement pathing, ignore 1" requirement
....Check global assault rules
....Check enemy model, disregard which UNIT it comes from
....If all of the above = ok, return true else return false
end function
...
function(enemy model within range, type ENGAGED)
....Check movement pathing, ignore 1" requirement
....Check global assault rules
....Check enemy model, disregard which UNIT it comes from
....If all of the above = ok, return true else return false
end function


not too hard. At all.

In fact, here's the interesting thing: I've bolded the single line in your quote WHICH IS NOT WITHIN THE RULES. There is NO RULE in rule 5 which states it can go after something else.

Where does that line come from? Remember: if you have not COMPLETED Rule 5, you have not yet COMPLETED ALL of the rules for assault... and that means by YOUR rules, you cannot even think about touching a model from another unit!


I do have to admit, it would have made it easier for everyone if the writers wrote everything in code! so do I, because your murder of the English language is quite sad...

Just watch out for GoTo statements. That's actually the difference between what you wrote, and what I wrote. You think the 'follow moving assaulting models' rules is a GoTo statement.I don't think you're going to do this, but please follow This advice of yours yourself.
....
And No. It is NOT a goto statement. For goodness sake Tynskel, once again your linearity is showing through again: this is NOT a "do A and then do B" situation!!

[Tynskel]

This is getting hilarious. Can no one see the part that says you may only engage the unit you declared against? It is on p.33, and on p.34, more than once. The rules under 'moving assaulting models' states you may not engage a unit that you are not assaulting--- that would apply to the rest of the rules in the section. It is not 'waived' when you get down the bottom of the column. You are not assaulting a second unit until you fulfill the requirements for assaulting the single unit. You may only engage a second unit after you have followed the rules for 'moving assaulting models'. Even the rules for assaulting models refer to the bullets at the end as 'constraints', which by definition, restricts their movement.

[Tynskel]

hahhaahh! parallel processing! bwahahah! That would work if the rules were written for parallel processing. Here's a good example: shooting. That's parallel processing.
However, the 'Moving assaulting models' states sequence.

There is no excuse for ignoring the rules for 'moving assaulting models'.

[Bean]

This is getting hilarious. Can no one see the part that says you may only engage the unit you declared against? It is on p.33, and on p.34, more than once. The rules under 'moving assaulting models' states you may not engage a unit that you are not assaulting--- that would apply to the rest of the rules in the section. It is not 'waived' when you get down the bottom of the column. You are not assaulting a second unit until you fulfill the requirements for assaulting the single unit. You may only engage a second unit after you have followed the rules for 'moving assaulting models'. Even the rules for assaulting models refer to the bullets at the end as 'constraints', which by definition, restricts their movement.

See, you make your own error clear in this very paragraph. You first say, "you may only engage the unit you declared against," then say, "you may not engage a unit that you are not assaulting."

"Declared against" and "assaulting" are two very different things, and the rulebook actually uses the latter wording--not the former. It further gives you license to assault things that you didn't declare against. No rule or combination or rules on page 33 or 34 asserts that you can only engage the unit you declared against.

You can assault units that you didn't declare against. The rules state that specifically. As long as you are assaulting such a unit, you can engage it--you can move assaulting models into base contact with it.

The rules do no prohibit you from basing models in units other than the one you declared against. The rules prohibit you from basing models in units that you're not assaulting--but allow you to assault any unit you can reach, even if you didn't declare against them.

The only thing that declaration forces is where the first assaulting model must go. That's it. The rest is geometry and following the rules for moving assaulting models, none of which necessarily prevent you from assaulting and subsequently basing models in other enemy units.

Again, Tynskel, you make it clear that your position is based on a misrepresentation of the rules. I agree that your continued recalcitrance on this issue is starting to get a bit hilarious. Frankly, though, I suspect that were I to have been participating in this argument as long as wkz has, I would no longer find it so, and I have sympathy for his apparent irritation with you.

[lattd]

That would work if the rules were written for parallel processing. .

First line from the Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units states "As you move your models you may find it possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one your assaulting. This clearly means multi assaults run in parallel to the rules for multiple assaults." Page 34 the small Rulebook first sentence of multi assault rules.

As has been pointed out you have added that models my target the first unit, this is never stated in the rules all it requires you to do is charge as many models as possible and to keep unit coherency.

I find it extremely ironic you attack people for not reading the rules when you have failed to do so yourself.

[Rapture]

This is silly. I have been involved in quite a few multi assaults. The assault move rules that everyone is so hung up on don't not make any specifications as to which unit the enemy model being moved toward have to belong to. What the movement rules essentially say is not 'stay in coherency and no holding back'. Other than that, assaulting more than one unit is pretty simple.


hahhaahh! bwahahah!

Calm down. No one is keeping score.

[doom-kitten]

Sooooo coffee didn't work eh, kinda sucks for some reason I opened this thread expecting a civil ending to this stream of repetetion but no just the same stuff being repeated in many different ways. So just cause I missed it why's this so important?

[Bean]

Doom-kitten:

The issue is, essentially, whether it's actually possible to assault more than one enemy unit with one of your own and, if you can, which models can actually engage a unit other than the one against which you declared your assault.

Now, I don't know about you, but I assault multiple units with some frequency--often two chimaeras or a chimaera and a squad sitting next to it--and so it is actually important to me that I'm allowed to do so by the rules.

Of course, if the question is why convincing Tynskel that I'm allowed to do so is so important, then I've got nothing. He can pretend the rules are whatever he wants them to be, as long as I don't have to play him. That part is just for fun.

[doom-kitten]

I understand the importance of multi-charging I've had a number of them used against me. What I don't get is the long drawn out arguement over it, as far as I know a multi assualt is no different then a regular assualt.

[ArchonPhelps]

What ever you do, do not tell Tyskel that other wise he will go monkeys. Actually I think that he will throw his monkey poo on you. That is why he stays at home all the time so he wont cause a disturbance.

It is pretty clear to everyone else expect to Tyskel

[somerandomdude]

This is getting hilarious. Can no one see the part that says you may only engage the unit you declared against? It is on p.33, and on p.34, more than once. The rules under 'moving assaulting models' states you may not engage a unit that you are not assaulting--- that would apply to the rest of the rules in the section. It is not 'waived' when you get down the bottom of the column. You are not assaulting a second unit until you fulfill the requirements for assaulting the single unit. You may only engage a second unit after you have followed the rules for 'moving assaulting models'. Even the rules for assaulting models refer to the bullets at the end as 'constraints', which by definition, restricts their movement.

How many times do I have to say this?

You say that the rule says you can only engage those you "declared against", and yet you say that, after you've done everything you say you must do, you can then engage the second unit.

For the last time, you can either have it one way, or the other. Either it is completely impossible to engage a second unit (because, as you say, the rules for moving assaulting models states that you can not be in base contact with anyone else), OR that rule is waived by the ability to assault multiple units.

Pick a side of THAT argument.

[Tynskel]

As I stated before, the sentence states to follow the moving assault model rules. The assault rules do not allow you to engage an enemy model from another unit until you fulfill all the conditions for moving your models.

[Morgan Darkstar]

As I stated before, the sentence states to follow the moving assault model rules. The assault rules do not allow you to engage an enemy model from another unit until you fulfill all the conditions for moving your models.

And therefore would never be able to assault another unit because one of the conditions for moving your models is that you cannot move within 1" of an enemy model in a unit they are not assaulting.

When in your odd version of the Rules does this condition cease to apply and why?

I fail to see why you cannot see the inherent flaw in your argument.

[Bean]

As I stated before, the sentence states to follow the moving assault model rules. The assault rules do not allow you to engage an enemy model from another unit until you fulfill all the conditions for moving your models.

Again, this is not true. The rules allow you to engage an enemy model from another unit as part of fulfilling all the conditions for moving your models. This is made perfectly clear by the actual rules, as I've demonstrated.

[somerandomdude]

The assault rules do not allow you to engage an enemy model from another unit until you fulfill all the conditions for moving your models.


And, according to you, one of those conditions (that you must follow) for moving your models is that no model is in base contact with an enemy they are not assaulting. The only way to "fulfill" (your made-up requirement) the statement "not be in base contact with other units" would be to... *gasp* not be in base contact with other units. If you go into base contact with that unit, then... you broke your rule (note: your rule... not the game's rule).

[ArchonPhelps]

Thank you Bean and Somerandomdude for the reinforcements

[Tynskel]

p. 33
"pick a unit. Declare which enemy unit it is going to assault. Move assaulting unit."

There is only one target.

Top of page 34.
"Assautling units must now move into close combat with the unit they have declared an assault against. A player must move all of the assaulting models in each assaulting unit before moving on to the next unit. the assaulting player decides the order in which his units will move.

Moving Assaulting Models

All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules in the Movement phase, with the exception that they may be moved within 1" of enemy models. This means that assaulting models may still not move through friendly or enemy models, may not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting."

This statement CLEARLY states you may not engage a second unit. All future language is with respect to this statement.

[Morgan Darkstar]

And therefore would never be able to assault another unit because one of the conditions for moving your models is that you cannot move within 1" of an enemy model in a unit they are not assaulting.

When in your odd version of the Rules does this condition cease to apply and why?

I fail to see why you cannot see the inherent flaw in your argument.

Sorry i got a little mixed up here so here is a re-draft

And therefore would never be able to assault another unit because one of the conditions for moving your models is that you cannot move into base to base contact with an enemy model in a unit they are not assaulting.

When in your odd version of the Rules does this condition cease to apply and why?

[Tynskel]

Follow the page, you get to the bottom of the page, you go to the next page, and low and behold, you may assault as second unit, as long as you follow the assault rules. In this case I have followed every rule that is laid out, and now may assault a second unit.

Sounds like a stepwise fashion to me!
Especially since this is accomplished in an iterative fashion: you do not move all models at once, you move them one at a time. You do not get to the assaulting a second unit until you have converged during the 'do' loop.

1) move model toward unengaged enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
2) move model toward engaged enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
3) move model toward friendly model engaged with enemy model ::repeat until fulfilled::
4) maintain coherency.
5) may engage second enemy unit while maintaining coherency.

[Morgan Darkstar]

look under the rules for assaulting multiple units, once first model has moved ect others may assault other units as long as they CONTINUE to follow the rules for moving assaulting units.

now look back at the rules for moving assaulting units, specifically the section about moving models after the first it begins with 'after moving the first model in the unit, you can move the others in any sequence you desire there are some constraints on there movement.' "you see what i am getting at here?"

you CONTINUE to follow the rules for moving assaulting units.

you do NOT start again

[Tynskel]

Because you have fulfilled every rule for assaulting models- ie the model has done every possible move to reach the target unit.

However, assaulting multiple units only allows you to assault a second unit after you have fulfilled all the rules for assaulting the target unit.

If the rulebook had left that phrase out, then it would have been fine, because the Multi-assault rules would override the standard rules. However, that key phrase for following the assault rules is there, and the assault rules specifically state not to assault multiple units. You must fulfill all of the requirements before assaulting a second unit.

[Morgan Darkstar]

No it tells you to CONTINUE to follow the rules for MOVING assaulting units AFTER you have moved the FIRST model. and from that point there is nothing prohibiting you from assaulting other units, look again, hopefully you will eventually see that I, and others who have been trying to explain this to, you are right.

[Tynskel]

The multi-charge rules do not state you can declare assault against another unit. Until the opportunity opens up for assaulting a second unit, you must continue the iterative process of assaulting the target unit.

[ArchonPhelps]

Stupid question for a stupid person, this means you Tnyskel. So I declare an assault and move fully toward that enemy unit following your set of rules, not the games. I then want to assault another unit. The question would be do I get another 6" for my assault move?

I would like to point out that following you set of rules that I would get to since I am following the Moving Assaulting Units. Warp the rules more for all of us.

Nice try Morgan

[somerandomdude]

Until the opportunity opens up for assaulting a second unit,

Which happens when? As far as everyone in this thread is concerned, it happens when you move the second model (assuming he can move and still be close enough to be in coherency). According to you, it's almost at the end, when you've moved everyone into base contact and two inch coherency to a model in base contact, and OH YEAH into coherency with any other model (that's the last bullet). So, in order to fulfill the last bullet's requirement, you have to move every model.

You can't "fulfill" your supposed list of requirements (namely, not being in base contact with another unit and being forced to move every model into coherency) and still assault a second unit.

I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself. When you've finally realized how your own argument invalidates itself please let me know.

[Bean]

The multi-charge rules do not state you can declare assault against another unit. Until the opportunity opens up for assaulting a second unit, you must continue the iterative process of assaulting the target unit.

The iterative process doesn't involve assaulting the "target unit." Again, you're just imagining stuff in the rules that isn't there.

The iterative process involves moving assaulting models, towards enemy models--not enemy models in any particular unit. Any enemy models.

[Tynskel]

"There are some constraints on their movement though:" These are constraints. Constraints further constrict the rules, not loosen the rules. You are still bound by the previous assault rules--- the previous assault rules state to not engage a second unit.

The key words for multi-assault are to follow the assault rules. The assault rules are explicit about engaging multiple units. You may not engage multiple units until you have fulfilled all of the assault rules.

[lattd]

"the previous assault rules state to not engage a second unit.

No that is wrong it says you target a unit and then assault as many models as possible. This has already been pointed out countless times. Only the first model has to a restriction to assaulting a targeted unit, that is the only mention of enemy unit in the assault rules, the rest state enemy models.

[ArchonPhelps]

You can not fix stupid. As much as we can try Tyskel is to dumb to change. People through out the entire post have been trying to tell him nicely then not so nicely and now straight forward that he should just quit the game cause he is causing more headaches that actually helping anything.

[Morgan Darkstar]

"There are some constraints on their movement though:" These are constraints. Constraints further constrict the rules, not loosen the rules. You are still bound by the previous assault rules--- the previous assault rules state to not engage a second unit.

The key words for multi-assault are to follow the assault rules. The assault rules are explicit about engaging multiple units. You may not engage multiple units until you have fulfilled all of the assault rules.

No the key words for multi-assault are to follow the rules for moving assaulting models after already moving the first model. after moving said first model there is no constraints on attacking other units.

it's almost as if the writer's concluded that 99.999% of people would understand that the section under multi-assault, where it states that after moving the first model others may then assault other units. that this would unlock you from the restraint of not assaulting other units, which is why there is no reference to the word unit after the section regarding the moving of the first model.

note this is the simplest form of the rule in a game children are meant to understand.

[Bean]

"There are some constraints on their movement though:" These are constraints. Constraints further constrict the rules, not loosen the rules. You are still bound by the previous assault rules---

True



the previous assault rules state to not engage a second unit.


False. The previous assault rules do not state to not engage a second unit. Where do you think this is written?



The key words for multi-assault are to follow the assault rules. The assault rules are explicit about engaging multiple units. You may not engage multiple units until you have fulfilled all of the assault rules.

Again, not true. If the rules really explicitly tell you that you can't engage multiple units, where is it written? Show me the quote, or admit you have no case.

[Tynskel]

"This mean that assaulting models may still not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting."

Pluralized, not singular.

You have only declared against one unit, you can not assault a second or more units until you have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

[Morgan Darkstar]

"This mean that assaulting models may still not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting."

Pluralized, not singular.

You have only declared against one unit, you can not assault a second or more units until you have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting.
and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting.
and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting.
and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting.
and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting.
and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting.
and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting.
and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting.
and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting.

again i state the multi-assault rule "After moving the first model other models CAN assault models in other units as long as the keep following the rules for moving assaulting units" from that point

after the first model has been moved the rules cease to use the term unit and refer to enemy models do not you think there might be a reason for this?

it's like arguing with a computer with a faulty logic circuit

[ArchonPhelps]

To bad with this faulty computer you can not simply shoot it or throw it from the top of a 5 story building.

[Morgan Darkstar]

I Would rather reformat then do a clean install of windows and 5th ed ruleset :)

[Bean]

"This mean that assaulting models may still not pass through gaps narrower than their base, and may not move into base contact with enemy models from unit they are not assaulting."

Pluralized, not singular.

You have only declared against one unit, you can not assault a second or more units until you have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

Nope. You're still erroneously conflating "assaulting" with "have declared an assault against." The two aren't the same. You do only declare an assault against one unit, but that isn't necessarily the only unit you're assaulting. You can, in fact, be assaulting other units, and the rules for assaulting multiple units make that clear.

You can assault a second unit while fulfilling the "moving assaulting models" rules. As long as you are assaulting a second unit, you can move into base contact with its models. No further declaration is necessary. None of the rules in the "moving assaulting models" section prevent you from assaulting a second unit, and the rules in the section on assaulting multiple units specifically allows you to do so.

You've still got nothing, Tynskel. Sorry.

[Tynskel]

The multi-charge rules do not state you can declare assault against another unit. Until the opportunity (ie, following all of the assault rules) opens up for assaulting a second unit, you must continue the iterative process of assaulting the target unit.

[ArchonPhelps]

Tynskel has yet learn how to read multiple sections and use them over lappingly. Who knows maybe one of these days something will hit him in the head and finally make that connection.

[Tynskel]

No, not at all.
What I am saying is that you must do everything you can to get as many models engaged with the intended target as you can.

[Morgan Darkstar]

The multi-charge rules do not state you can declare assault against another unit. Until the opportunity (ie, following all of the assault rules) opens up for assaulting a second unit, you must continue the iterative process of assaulting the target unit.

The opportunity arises after you have moved the first model "this specifies a point during the assault rules" and it states i CAN "can being a do word" Assault models from other units as long as you keep following the rules for moving assaulting units.

"now this is the important bit so pay attention"

I then look back to the rules for moving assaulting units at the point after i have already moved the first model

it states that i must attempt in any order to move my models into base to base with as many enemy models as possible "not unit just models"

you dont go back to begining, you follow moving assaulting models from the point after you have moved the first model.

[wkz]

This is getting hilarious.Indeed.

Note that in this post, I am NOT going to regurgitate all the crap I have been saying, so I don't sound like the parrot Tynskel is...


The rules under 'moving assaulting models' states you may not engage a unit that you are not assaulting...This is the corner-piece of your defense. Through the interaction of this sentence and the one in Multi-assault ("Fullfill all rules for assault") you have defended your version of the assault rules to the death...

Well, I am through with treating you as a person who actually thinks, thus I am through with complying with most of your viewpoint of every other rules to tell you how wrong you are for topic rule we're discussing (assault), so here's the first true counter-argument from me to you:

THAT SENTENCE ABOVE ARE NOT ASSAULT RULES. (... may not engage a unit that you are not assaulting...) THEY ONLY INTERFERE WITH ASSAULT RULES ONLY BECAUSE THEY GOVERN MOVEMENT, BUT IS NOT AN ASSAULT RULE . They are only reproduced in the Assault Rules as an example.

And: THE ONLY RULE FROM MOVEMENT THAT IS WAIVED IN THE ASSAULT RULES IS THIS: "All of the models in an assaulting unit make their assault move following the same rules as the movement phase, with the exception that they may be within 1" of enemy models. THIS MEANS...."

"THIS MEANS", in the English language, is used to indicate that the following is used ONLY as an EXAMPLE of movement rules in assault. All of the rules you're using is based off an example of STANDARD MOVEMENT RULES. Basically, you're saying "because the standard movement rules say this, therefore I can't do this in the assault phase..."

Well, guess what? There's nothing in the movement rules about not being able to engage a 2nd unit after the first declared unit. In the movement rules, all it says is "a model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement or Shooting phases- this is only possible in an assault during the Assault Phase".

There's no indication of timing, of when, of which rule in Assault before something else can be assaulted, of ANYTHING at all in the assault phase. In fact, if it is MOVEMENT rules, it should ALWAYS APPLY, NO MATTER WHAT?

So, what's it going to be:
a) a model will always be constrained by movement rules, therefore by (wrong) interpretation, it may never multi-assault regardless of which assault rule it is using. Or

b) a model will always be constrained by movement rules, but movement rules does not have anything regarding multi-assault (only mentioned "assaulting"). And due to Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units, Models #2 and above can multi-assault enemy units.

Tynskel, the sad truth is that you're quoting an Example as a Rule WRONGLY, and extracting the WRONG meaning from that, and all this in order to justify something that is WRONG in the first place. That's all that is.




hahhaahh! parallel processing! bwahahah! That would work if the rules were written for parallel processing. Here's a good example: shooting. That's parallel processing.
...... You're either a sad secondary-level/lower-grade-school school club programmer, or you only just started a polytechnic/university course in programming... There is no way a career programmer can make a mistake THIS big.

What did you do? Did an internet search and grabbed the word FORTRAN randomly??

Here's a good example: shooting. That's NOT parallel processing, it is LINEAR. Take squad A. Shoot squad B. Resolve wounds and any conditions (i.e. pinning). ONLY AFTER squad A is done can squad C shoot at squad B. That's LINEAR.

For example #2: Take all of squad A's Initiative 4 models in a close combat against Squad B. Resolve wounds and any armor saves... and you can do all of squad A's Initiative 4 models' CC attack back at Squad A at the same time. Only remove models at the end of Initiative 4. That' PARALLEL.

And what's worst, I've stated before that the entire Assault Rules as a whole is NOT linear, and is NOT parallel. It is a combined WHOLE. It is more like how MOVEMENT rules are used in ASSAULT to move models, aka a combination of movement and assault rules mixed into one whole is used to constraint how models get into base-to-base with others.

This combined whole will have movement rules removed from assault rules (cannot be within 1"), some movement rules constrained by assault rules (the 5 assault rules governing movement direction/destination) and vice versa (assault rules restricted by movement rule's difficult terrain checks, "cannot move through models", etc).

This is the same thing that's working the moment 2 rules come together! Rage and movement rules! Tankshock and Ram! Morale and stubborn/fearless! And in this case: Moving Assaulting Models and Assaulting Multiple Units!!

And this show of how you lack understanding of how rules interact with each other is showing through again!



And lastly:


.... So just cause I missed it why's this so important?
Because there are poor folks such as weeble1000 who would believe this wrong interpretation of the rules if someone doesn't present a counter. In fact, Tynskel had stated before that this interpretation of the ruleset is used by his entire gaming group, because he argued for it and was apparently successful!! Apparently he talked until the entire group agreed out of the fact its 3am in the middle of the night and the game's still at turn 2 or something...

Then again, I believe I will not "win" this argument because the other side is using the Chewbacca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense)Defense (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense) method of trying to confuse his opponent utterly, forcing his opinion on another... I just simply hate people who uses this defense...

[Tynskel]

Actually, the shooting is a type of parallel. The assault phase is linear. All shooting happens at the same time for the squad, not a model by model basis, like moving assaulting models.

You must have fulfilled every rule for assaulting models- ie the model has done very possible move to reach the target unit. However, assaulting multiple units only allows you to assault a second unit after you have fulfilled all the rules for assaulting the target unit.

If the rulebook had left that phrase out, then it would have been fine, because the Multi-assault rules would override the standard rules. However, that key phrase for following the assault rules is there, and the assault rules specifically state not to assault multiple units. You must fulfill all of the requirements before assaulting a second unit.

[somerandomdude]

You must have fulfilled every rule for assaulting models- ie the model has done very possible move to reach the target unit. However, assaulting multiple units only allows you to assault a second unit after you have fulfilled all the rules for assaulting the target unit.

So what happens when you reach the final bullet point of that passage that states you must move models into coherency? Do you skip that step?

It's under the heading for "moving assault units", isn't it? If you don't move them into coherency, then you haven't satisfied everything before moving into contact with another unit. If you do, then you've already moved them for the assault phase.

[Tynskel]

At that point the model has fulfilled its requirements for 'moving assaulting models'.
Moving a model into coherency does not necessitate that they have finished moving.

[Rapture]

You guys have batter chance of convincing the pope that god isn't real. Let it go.

[wkz]

...shooting is a type of parallel... The assault phase is linear... But this is not what I am saying now, is it?

True, everyone in a unit shoots at the same time (BUT resolves one-by-one unit), and the 5 assault rules are linear (only in logical thinking of what a model should do... If, Else If statements end up only doing ONE of the statements, not all of them in a sequence)...

BUT Once again: Take the rules as a WHOLE, not a linear, parallel, etc rules.

Only go linear/parallel if the rules outright state it (close combat initiative orders). Doing anything otherwise will cause insane logic loops with ten thousand insane troll logic to form... speaking of which:


At that point the model has fulfilled its requirements for 'moving assaulting models'.
Moving a model into coherency does not necessitate that they have finished moving.So, it is OK to stop following restrictions if DURING moving a model you fulfilled the requirement?

OOOoooooooo....

Take rule 5: Maintain coherency. And take that last model which is ALREADY in coherency even though it didn't move. It has fulfilled ALL the rules needed for assault right?

Can I then Break Rule #5 by moving that model OUT OF COHERENCY?? Can I END its movement out of COHERENCY, BECAUSE I have already fulfilled all the rules at the start/during the model's movement???

Because, that is exactly what you're saying: you cannot assault enemy models. But you can during a rule-5 multi-assault move BECAUSE you fulfilled the conditions DURING the assault move, and so any restrictions, including multi-assault restrictions are switched off.

Wow, this is AMAZING!! What possibilities I am seeing right now!! I can now move 6" always in difficult terrain because my models already fulfilled the difficult 1" move I rolled! HELL, My models can now MOVE 50" in ONE turn because I've fulfilled the 6" requirement for infantry only just earlier!!

Tynskel, you've just became bat**** insane in my eyes. Please stop.





You guys have batter chance of convincing the pope that god isn't real. Let it go.
*sigh*

[Bean]

The multi-charge rules do not state you can declare assault against another unit. Until the opportunity (ie, following all of the assault rules) opens up for assaulting a second unit, you must continue the iterative process of assaulting the target unit.

But the multi-charge rules do state that you can assault another unit while moving non-initial models. Here; let me quote you the rule:

As usual, the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then, remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models.

It's perfectly clear: non-initial models can assault non-declared enemy units while following the rules for moving assaulting models. No part of the iterative process which governs their movement contradicts this--or specifies anything about a target unit at all.


You're still blatantly, obviously misrepresenting the rules--adding things like "target unit" and "declare assault against another unit"--concepts which you're applying in a way that the actual rules never do. How many times do I have to show you what the real rules are before you start actually trying to answer the question using them instead of the crazy rules you've made up in your head?

[Morgan Darkstar]

again you fail to address my post

The opportunity arises after you have moved the first model "this specifies a point during the assault rules" and it states i CAN "can being a do word" Assault models from other units as long as you keep following the rules for moving assaulting units."now this is the important bit so pay attention" I then look back to the rules for moving assaulting units at the point AFTER i have already moved the first model it states that i must attempt in any order to move my models into base to base with as many enemy models as possible "not unit just models"
you do not go back to begining, you follow moving assaulting models from the point after you have moved the first model.

this surprisingly is following the rules in a linear fashion.

now unless you can find the rule in the book that says this is wrong i politely ask you to not to bother posting again.

[Tynskel]

You can assault a second unit--- as long as you follow the moving assaulting models rules. Those rules must be fulfilled first!

The rules are followed in sequence. If your model can reach an enemy model from the original unit, then you must engage that model first.

[sebi81]

No. Actually it is the other way round. The first model must go in b2b contact with the declared unit. the next model can go in b2b contact with an enemy model of another unit if it stays in coherency.

If you decide to do so, you have to get as many models of both assaulted enemy units in b2b contact.

In your interpretation in the end you would have many models without b2b contact standing in second line behind the models in b2b contact you declared the assault against. This is the complete opposite of the intention of the rules. As long as you are able to you must get as many models in b2b contact with the assaulted enemies. You aren't allowed to put a model in the second line.

So your interpretation of "fulfilling" the rules first actually ends in a position where the rules aren't followed.

The rules for moving assaulting models say you must get as many assaulters in b2b contact with the assaulted. The assaulted enemies are all that get assaulted not only the unit you declare assault against. The rules aren't fulfilled on after the other. If I interpreted you right, you say I must declare assault, then move all assaulters first in b2b contact, then move all so that they are 2 inches behind the ones in b2b contact and may then assault another unit.

But the rules state, that only the first model must assault the unit the assault was declared against. All of the others are axplicitly allowed to assault other enemy units.

As soon as another enemy unit is assaulted the rules of moving assaulting models must be followed. For both enemy units at the same time. As many as possible in b2b contact. That is what the rules say. No word about fulfilling the moving assaulting rules first for the declared unit or for one unit after the other.

[Morgan Darkstar]

You can assault a second unit--- as long as you follow the moving assaulting models rules. Those rules must be fulfilled first!

The rules are followed in sequence. If your model can reach an enemy model from the original unit, then you must engage that model first.

I have followed the rules for moving assaulting models

i have moved the first model to the closest model in the unit i am assaulting.

now as per the multi-assault rules "after the first model has been moved I CAN assault other units. as long as i KEEP "i.e. from that point" following the rules for moving assaulting models.

now back to the rules for moving assaulting models

after moving the first model other models must attempt to move into base to base with as many enemy models as possible. MODELS! any enemy model it does not say MODELS IN THE SAME UNIT!

WHY! why is this such a hard thing for you to understand? :(

[Bean]

You can assault a second unit--- as long as you follow the moving assaulting models rules. Those rules must be fulfilled first!

The rules are followed in sequence. If your model can reach an enemy model from the original unit, then you must engage that model first.

Nope. You're still inserting that "original unit" in there, even though the rules don't say anything of the sort. Seriously, Tynskel--this would clear up in an instant if you would actually just go read the rules.

There is a sequence that you follow: move the first model, then move the rest of the models, in sequence, as part of (as you say) an iterative process. No part of that iterative process or any of the rules governing it, though, prevent you from assaulting a unit other than the initial target of the charge--and the rules for assaulting multiple targets, which apply to that entire sequence and every model moving within it just as much as any of the other rules for moving assaulting models do, specifically allow those models to assault units other than the initial target of the charge.

Why do you insist on continuing to blatantly misrepresent the rules, Tynskel?

[doom-kitten]

Okay because I feel this is nessacary and I felt like actually researching the rules myself I will now put the rules I found up so peoples can read...

ASSUALTING MULTIPLE ENEMY UNITS pg 34 (small rule book)

As you move assaulting models, you may find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assualting.

As usual the CLOSEST ASSUALTING MODEL MUST be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assualt was declared. THEN REMAINING MODELS CAN ASSUALT models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assualting models. Remember that the assualting unit is not allowed to break it's unit coherency, and this will obviously limit the potential for this kind of assualt.

If the assualting unit shot in the shooting phase then it must declare it's assualt against the unit it shot at, but it can engage other enemies as described here.

Seems pretty straight forward to me, the closest models must make contact with the original target and all remaining models may move in to contact with enemy models so long as they remain in coherency, it says nowhere that they must move towards the original target. It actually says:
* The most important one is that each model must end it's assualt move in coherency with another model in it's own unit that has already moved

* If possible, the model must move into base contact with ANY ENEMY MODEL within REACH that is not alreadying in base contact with an assualting 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 assualting model.

* If a model cannot reach any enemy models, it must try to move within 2" of one of it's own unit's models that is already in base contact with an enemy.

* If this is impossible, it must simply stay in coherency.

I see not rule dictating that the unit must move towards the original target only that the closest model must assualt the original target as far as I can determine any other model is and I quote page 34 (small rule book again; After moving the first model in the unit, you can move the others in ANY SEQUENCE YOU DESIRE, with the above restrictions.

[lattd]

I already pointed out that comment and it was ignore someone people just do not read rules.

[Tynskel]

The multi-charge rules do not state you can declare assault against another unit. Until the opportunity opens up for assaulting a second unit, you must continue the iterative process of assaulting the target unit.

[Morgan Darkstar]

The multi-charge rules do not state you can declare assault against another unit. Until the opportunity opens up for assaulting a second unit, you must continue the iterative process of assaulting the target unit.

No they don't

[Bean]

The multi-charge rules do not state you can declare assault against another unit. Until the opportunity opens up for assaulting a second unit, you must continue the iterative process of assaulting the target unit.

Never mind. Arguing against a broken record has gotten old. I can only point out your outright fabrications so many times before it gets boring. Luckily, you're so obviously wrong that I'm not particularly worried that you'll accidentally sway anyone to your position.

Have fun.

[sebi81]

The multi-charge rules do not state you can declare assault against another unit. Until the opportunity opens up for assaulting a second unit, you must continue the iterative process of assaulting the target unit.

You don't need to declare assault against a second unit. The multi-charge rules state an exception from the rules for assaulting. They clearly say you are allowed to assault a unit you did not declare assault against. So where in the rules do you get that one after the other thing? The so called "iterative process" in the rules talks only about assaulting enemy models not about assaulting the target unit. The first modell must assault the target unit, all others can assault enemy models of other units. If you decide to do so you must follow the "iterative process" and get as many assaulters in b2b contact with as many enemy models of both assaulted units.

[doom-kitten]

I just put up the Multi Assualt rules, I don't understand how they are not perfectly clear. Wowsers arguing for the sake of arguing.

[wkz]

Tynskel, you can multi-assault from model 2 onwards. The multi-charge rules does not state you can declare assault against another unit, but you don't need to. The moment a second unit is close enough, you can assault another target unit you intend to.

[ArchonPhelps]

I hate broken records thats why I just go with mp3's haha.

I do like the fact that now everyone is trying to educate the one in-grown hair on a baboon's donkey

[Tynskel]

The point is, the phrasing on multi-charge does not override the moving assaulting model rules which state to not engage enemy models you are not assaulting.

[Morgan Darkstar]

The point is, the phrasing on multi-charge does not override the moving assaulting model rules which state to not engage enemy models you are not assaulting.

apart from where it says you CAN assault other enemy units from the point after you have moved the first model...

In the RULES for moving assaulting models after moving the first model there is no longer a restriction on assaulting other units as it refers to MODELS NOT UNITS!

stop trying to process the rules like a computer and think about them instead.

[sebi81]

But it allows you to assault other units. You are than actually assaulting two units and are allowed to engage models of both units. You must follow the rules for both assaulted units at the same time not one after the other. The assaulting models rules don't say anything about the unit you have declared assault against. they talk only about assaulted models, which can be models of the declared unit and the unit you assaulted because of the multi-charge rules.

[JxKxR]

I hate broken records thats why I just go with mp3's haha.

I do like the fact that now everyone is trying to educate the one in-grown hair on a baboon's donkey

I think Tynskel just F'ing with all of you because it's funny.:p

[Tynskel]

apart from where it says you CAN assault other enemy units from the point after you have moved the first model...

In the RULES for moving assaulting models after moving the first model there is no longer a restriction on assaulting other units as it refers to MODELS NOT UNITS!

stop trying to process the rules like a computer and think about them instead.

No. The multi-charge rules state you must follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules. There is nothing in the multi-charge rules that states that you are 'currently' assaulting multiple units.

You cannot engage a second unit until you have fulfilled all of the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

[Morgan Darkstar]

I think i can hear a buzzing noise

[Morgan Darkstar]

No. The multi-charge rules state you must follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

The multi-charge rules state you must KEEP following the 'moving assaulting models' rules
furthermore the multi-charge rules specify a time during the 'moving assaulting models' rules
AFTER MOVING THE FIRST MODEL


There is nothing in the multi-charge rules that states that you are 'currently' assaulting multiple units.

Because all you have done at this point is moved the first model stupid.


You cannot engage a second unit until you have fulfilled all of the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

You keep repeating this as if it's some sort of mantra for you. again i state in clear english.

The rules for multi-assault state that after the first model has been moved, you can assault other enemy units as long as you keep following the rules for 'moving assaulting models' After the first model has been moved there is no reference to the term unit in the rules for 'moving assaulting models' only that i have to assault as many enemy models as possible.

do you get it now or are you going to reboot again

[Tynskel]

No, because the line that states you can only assault units that you are assaulting: you must continue to follow that rule. The multi-charge rules do not state that you adding units to assault, all they say is that the opportunity to assault a second unit opens up, if you follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules. You cannot assault a second unit until the opportunity opens up, which is after you have completed enough iterations for a model to only be in coherency.

you keep ignoring the first paragraph for 'moving assaulting models'.

[Morgan Darkstar]

No, because the line that states you can only assault units that you are assaulting: you must continue to follow that rule. The multi-charge rules do not state that you adding units to assault, all they say is that the opportunity to assault a second unit opens up, if you follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules. You cannot assault a second unit until the opportunity opens up, which is after you have completed enough iterations for a model to only be in coherency.

you keep ignoring the first paragraph for 'moving assaulting models'.

I am not ignoring it
'may not move into base to base with a unit they are not assaulting'
this does not restrict you to one unit

You however keep ignoring this

Again the rules for multi-assault state that after the first model has been moved, you can assault other enemy units as long as you keep following the rules for 'moving assaulting models' After the first model has been moved there is NO reference to the term unit in the rules for 'moving assaulting models' only that i have to assault as many enemy models as possible.

[Tynskel]

yes it does, because you are only assaulting one unit until you fulfill the requirements for 'moving assaulting models' which opens up the opportunity to assault a second unit.

It does not state under 'multi-assaults' that you are now assaulting multiple units after moving your first model. All it states is that you may engage a second unit as long as you follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

[Morgan Darkstar]

yes it does, because you are only assaulting one unit until you fulfill the requirements for 'moving assaulting models' which opens up the opportunity to assault a second unit.

Thats your opinion it isnt written in the rules


it does not state under 'multi-assaults' that you are now assaulting multiple units after moving your first model. All it states is that you may engage a second unit as long as you follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

Again, the rules say i can assault other enemy units after moving the first model, the rules on pg34 for moving assaulting units, in no way restrict me to one unit.

'cue logic fail loop'

[Tynskel]

no. This is not an opinion.

The rules say you can assault multiple enemy units after moving the first model, but you must follow the rules for 'moving assaulting models'. The rules for assaulting models state that you many not assault 'enemy models from a unit they are not assaulting', you cannot assault a second unit until you have fulfilled all the requirements for 'moving assaulting models'.

The multiple assault rules do not state that the other enemy units are now units you are assaulting. All the rule states is "Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

[Bean]

I think you're imposing a fiddly timing restriction that isn't present in the actual rules--and which would render the entire section on assaulting multiple units non-functional if it were.

Essentially, this is what you're saying:

One of the rules governing the movement of assaulting models is that they can't assault enemy models in units they're not assaulting.

Further, the rules for assaulting multiple units say that an assaulting model can't initiate an assault against a non-declared enemy unit unless it can actually pull off that assault according to the rules for moving assaulting models, which it never can because before it can assault a unit it must already be assaulting a unit, and it can't enter a state in which it is assaulting a unit unless it can assault that unit without first being in that state.

That about right?

Operating on the presumption that this is, in fact, a good representation of your position, I'll go on to rebut.

This would be a good argument, except that it again misrepresents the rules in a subtle but critical way: the rules for moving assaulting models don't actually say that assaulting models can't assault models in non-declared enemy units--all those rules do actually say is that assaulting models can't move into base contact with enemy models in non-declared enemy units.

Assaulting an enemy unit isn't the same thing as moving a model into base contact with one of its models.

In fact, if I begin to move my second model he can start assaulting that second enemy unit well before he actually moves into base contact with any of its models. He can, in fact, start assaulting that second enemy unit--gain a state of assaulting that enemy unit--as soon as I decide that that's what he's going to do. Once I've made that decision, that assaulting model is assaulting that enemy unit--it gains the state necessary to allow it to move into base contact with that unit's models, and that happens well before it actually runs up against the rule which prevents it from moving into base contact with enemy models in unit's it's not assaulting.

The model can begin the process of assaulting an enemy unit before the rule which prevents it from moving into base contact with models in enemy units it's not assaulting ever kicks in--and beginning the process of assaulting prevents that rule from kicking in at all.

Not only is your fiddly timing conundrum not supported by the text of the rules, it would render an entire section of the rules non-functional, which pits it quite clearly against the intent of the rules, as well. You're wrong in spirit and in letter.

[Morgan Darkstar]

The multiple assault rules do not state that the other enemy units are now units you are assaulting. All the rule states is "Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

:confused: is this as dumb as it sounds or is it just cause it's late? i am going to get some sleep we will continue this tomorrow.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Bean, that is one of the best and most logical counter arguments i have seen.

However i have a sneaky suspicion it won't make a difference :(

[Tynskel]

As I stated before, the sentence states to follow the moving assault model rules. The assault rules do not allow you to engage an enemy model from another unit until you fulfill all the conditions for moving your models.

[ArchonPhelps]

As I stated before, the sentence states to follow the moving assault model rules. The assault rules do not allow you to engage an enemy model from another unit until you fulfill all the conditions for moving your models.

Where in the rulebook does it say I have to fulfill all the conditions for moving your models? I see where it says I can assault other units as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models.

I must not have been dropped on my head as a child and can think.

[wkz]

As I stated before, the sentence states to follow the moving assault model rules. The assault rules do not allow you to engage an enemy model from another unit until you fulfill all the conditions for moving your models.

Once again: the "overall rule" you say prevents all models from assaulting a 2nd unit is still active when a model is moving under rule #5.

The only way to ignore this rule... is to ignore this rule WHILE the model is STILL MOVING, which brings us to something I've said in page 17:



At that point the model has fulfilled its requirements for 'moving assaulting models'.
Moving a model into coherency does not necessitate that they have finished moving.
So, it is OK to stop following restrictions if DURING moving a model you fulfilled the requirement?

OOOoooooooo....

Take rule 5: Maintain coherency. And take that last model which is ALREADY in coherency even though it didn't move. It has fulfilled ALL the rules needed for assault right?

Can I then Break Rule #5 by moving that model OUT OF COHERENCY?? Can I END its movement out of COHERENCY, BECAUSE I have already fulfilled all the rules at the start/during the model's movement???

Because, that is exactly what you're saying: you cannot assault enemy models. But you can during a rule-5 multi-assault move BECAUSE you fulfilled the conditions DURING the assault move, and so any restrictions, including multi-assault restrictions are switched off.

Wow, this is AMAZING!! What possibilities I am seeing right now!! I can now move 6" always in difficult terrain because my models already fulfilled the difficult 1" move I rolled! HELL, My models can now MOVE 50" in ONE turn because I've fulfilled the 6" requirement for infantry only just earlier!!


*sigh*

[sebi81]

Tynskel, your opinion leads to a loop. You try to read the rule as if they say: "you can assault another unit after you have followed the moving assaulting models rules."

But the rules say, if you choose to assault another unit during an assault, you must follow the moving assaulting models rules. If your opinion was right and only the unit you declared the assault against was the assaulted unit, then it would never be possible to assault a second unit.

As long as you assault, you must follow the assaulting models rules is what the rules fur multi-charge say. This means, you are never in an assault allowed to move closer than 1 inch to an enemy which is not assaulted. You can not "fulfill" this point. It is a "don't" not a "to-do". So if only the declared unit was the assaulted unit, following the rules for moving assaulting models would completely prevent multi-charges.

What is the logical problem in the opinion, that multi-charge allows you to assault a second enemy unit without declaring the assault against that unit? If you are able to assault another unit, this unit is by the meaning of the word an assaulted unit. So the prohibiton of getting closer than 1 inch to not assaulted enemys doesn't take place.

The rules want to achieve that as many models as possible are in b2b contact after the charge. If your opinion was right, there were many models not in b2b contact standing in second line behind the ones in b2b contact with the first assaulted unit and only very few in b2b contact with the second assaulted unit. That is neither what the rules intent, nor what they say.

[L192837465]

Lets just let Tynskyl lose games because he can't read a rule. He'll be at a GT, this will come up, and a judge will laugh in his face for being a moron.

Good show gents.


I don't even PLAY 5th edition and I understand the multi-assault rules now.

[Tynskel]

the rules are already written as a loop and when they converge, ie your model can only stay in coherency, they have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules and can assault a second unit. You are right, sometimes that means you cannot assault a second unit. But that is not always the case, in fact I probably multi-assault just as often as you guys do, because it also depends on how you approach your enemy.

[wkz]

the rules are already written as a loop and when they converge, ie your model can only stay in coherency, they have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules and can assault a second unit. You are right, sometimes that means you cannot assault a second unit. But that is not always the case, in fact I probably multi-assault just as often as you guys do, because it also depends on how you approach your enemy.Just simply saying "loop" exposes the linearity of the thought process again. All the rules are applied All the time. At the SAME time.

Just because all of us read the rules linearly doesn't mean the rules are applied linearly. There are 5 assault rules, but only one is used at any moment (the IF/ELSE, IF/ELSE eliminates the other rules from use). And during the use of one of those 5 rules, ALL the other rules are active at the same time.

When the multi-assault rules allow someone to assault a 2nd unit more than 6" away (easy to do for Orkz and their large mobs) which is something which you're arguing against, I seriously doubt you multi-assault just as often as we guys do...



Given how short and unthinkingly repetitive your most recent answers have been, I don't believe I can ever convince you, ever. I'll drop this... for now.
(Edit: I guess not)

[Tynskel]

since when does the rules state that they play at the 'same time' when the assault rules specifically state that the models move in 'sequence', and must follow a restricted movement order.

You keep saying 5 assault move rules----- what about the ones at the top of the page! They still apply!

[Bean]

since when does the rules state that they play at the 'same time' when the assault rules specifically state that the models move in 'sequence', and must follow a restricted movement order.

You keep saying 5 assault move rules----- what about the ones at the top of the page! They still apply!

The rules are all in effect all the time (though, since their effects are conditional, most only actually impact the game at certain times). The models move sequentially--that doesn't suggest that the rules should be applied sequentially. There's no logical connection between the one and the other.

[Tynskel]

yes, all of the rules are in effect, except when stated otherwise. And the rule for assaulting multiple units doesn't come into effect until after you have followed the rules for 'moving assaulting models', because the rules for multi-assault state to follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules. Of which, one of the 'moving assaulting models' rules states you are not supposed to engage a unit you are not assaulting.
You can not qualify to assault a second unit until you have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

[Morgan Darkstar]

yes, all of the rules are in effect, except when stated otherwise. And the rule for assaulting multiple units doesn't come into effect until after you have followed the rules for 'moving assaulting models',

The rules for 'assaulting multiple units' quite clearly state they come into play 'After moving the first model'
and only to keep following the rules for 'moving assaulting models' not as you seem to think 'complete moving assaulting models'


because the rules for multi-assault state to follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules. Of which, one of the 'moving assaulting models' rules states you are not supposed to engage a unit you are not assaulting.

The rules for 'moving assaulting models' Do not state that you are not supposed to engage a Unit they are not assaulting, the rules state that you cannot move into Base to Base contact with a Model they are not assaulting. as Bean pointed out the assault begins before you reach Base to Base contact.


You can not qualify to assault a second unit until you have fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

This is not written anywhere in the book

[Tynskel]

The multi-charge rules still have a qualifier of following the 'moving assaulting models' rules. You must keep following the rules for 'moving assaulting models' and one of those rules explicitly states you must not engage models that you are not assaulting. You must complete all of the rules before you can engage a second unit, because you are not assaulting a second unit during the time of following 'moving assaulting models'.

Also note, the multi-charge rules have their own requirements: maintain coherency, and that's their only rule.

[Morgan Darkstar]

The multi-charge rules still have a qualifier of following the 'moving assaulting models' rules. You must keep following the rules for 'moving assaulting models' and one of those rules explicitly states you must not engage models that you are not assaulting.

I am assaulting the second unit, therefore i can engage that units models. in fact i can in most cases follow the rule more than if i was assaulting one unit. As 9 times out of 10 i can get more models in Base to Base with different enemy models, as the rules for moving assaulting models insist i try to do.


You must complete all of the rules before you can engage a second unit, because you are not assaulting a second unit during the time of following 'moving assaulting models'.

Yes I am


Also note, the multi-charge rules have their own requirements: maintain coherency, and that's their only rule.

So that would make us right then as it's their only rule?

[Daemonette666]

I declared an attack against a Basalisk that had not moved, and I had shot at with 2 plasma pistols. My opponent had a IG combined platoon of about 20 models massed in a gulley and protected the fron and 2/3rds of the side of the tank to restrict my assault. I had moved my landraider to the side and disembarked kharn, ans a squad of 9 berserkers including a champ with powerfist.

My opponent said I could not multi - assault both the tank and the unit. I disagreed, showed him the multiple assault rules, and proceeded to move the berserker champ, kharn and another model into the tank until it was covered, then I moved the rest of the squad into his IG combined platoon as I could reaach the rear of the tank. I saying that, the IG platoon only had a frontage of 5 models, 3 of which were covering the tanks flank.

The IG player could not react properly because he had his troops crammed into a gully, and I destroyed the tank, and the unit in one turn losing only 2 models from the squad. Did I do the assult correctly, because I think I did?

I fulfilled the steps required to cover the tank, and could not get any more units into base contact with the tank, and then moved the reat into base contact with the squad.

I am quite sure I followed LEMTs example sufficiently.

[wkz]

since when does the rules state that they play at the 'same time' when the assault rules specifically state that the models move in 'sequence', and must follow a restricted movement order...
a) I am talking about the RULES, which you're using in sequence and thus wrong, not about the individual models affected by said rules.

b) The assault rules NEVER stated that the models move in 'sequence', and they NEVER stated they must follow a restricted movement order. In fact, they state the exact opposite.


...
You keep saying 5 assault move rules----- what about the ones at the top of the page! They still apply!
They will apply. They will ALWAYS apply! THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I'VE SAID.

What is wrong in your interpretation is (a) an interpretation of one of those rules, and more importantly (b) the forced linear application (and wrongful activation/fulfillment sequence) of ALL the main rules involved, thus magnifying the first point's flaws and problems.

[Duke]

Just a friendly reminder that we are still talking about little plastic toys, as you were.

Duke

[BuFFo]

Can a mod please move this thread over to Dakka?

Some of us are trying to enjoy the hobby.

Thanks. :p

[wkz]

Can a mod please move this thread over to Dakka?

Some of us are trying to enjoy the hobby.

Thanks. :p
You mean this is the kind of things that happen in DakkaDakka?
...
I think I now understand why people would want a belated summary article in BOLS rather than trawling for information themselves...

[BuFFo]

You mean this is the kind of things that happen in DakkaDakka?

Yes. Detailed rule debates for a game system that is not based on strict rules, but rather an agreement by both players on what should be done that makes the game FUN.

Case in point. Group A plays Assault working one way, and that group is having fun. Group B plays Assault working another way, and that group is having fun. A person from group A and B meat online, and a conclusion never gets met, no matter how well thought out the arguments are.

The thing is, this game is not designed to be debated. This game is designed to have both players just simply roll a 4+ to settle any arguments in person to get the game going. You can't roll a 4+ online because of egos, stubbornness, and the anonymity of general bias.

Basically, this game is designed to be have players settle arguments face to face, and not online.



I think I now understand why people would want a belated summary article in BOLS rather than trawling for information themselves...

I don't know what you mean. People like BoLs because it is a laid back site without much of the tournament BS drama that plagues the other larger 40k sites.

I can see the Assault rule being played either way. I just go with what my opponent wants to do before the game starts, just to get the ball rolling.

[doom-kitten]

Can a mod please move this thread over to Dakka?

Some of us are trying to enjoy the hobby.

Thanks. :p

Ah people who speak common sense *sniffle* this post needed it so bad XD

[BuFFo]

Ah people who speak common sense *sniffle* this post needed it so bad XD

This thread is 22 pages long... All on a topic that my friends and I solved with a quick discussion in person, and an agreement all around based on what makes the game fun for the most players involved.

Personally, I was playing it that you had to move your assaulting models into one unit, trying to engage as many as possible, before moving any models into a second unit. My friends didn't like that, so I simply said "Cool guys." and now we play it that you move one model first, then you move whatever the hell you want around against as many units you want, as long as you keep coherency and try to engage as many models as possible.

That didn't take 22 pages, and my ego was set aside to make sure everyone was enjoying the gaming experience.

I love being older and wise :P

P.S. - Little did they know, they made my Wych assaults even deadlier. Oh well. lol!

[doom-kitten]

Me and my buds never have discussions like these the most intense rule bump we crossed was well I can't remember, we have a guy we acts as a rules guru for us and he's always very impartial personally I think every gaming group needs someone who just sits back and watches. It's crazy what this guys spots and points out; never in detriment to the game thou if you forget to shoot a unit or that you can assualt after deepstriking your Vanguard he won't inform you of that, your mistake live with it but generally my group will let you you go back and do it. The assualt rule where never ones I now alot about assualting it's something I don't do alot, (WS 3, STR 3 just doesn't strike alot of terror in foes) so it was never an issue for me however my friends that do assualt always did it the move the first guy in and then the rest move as desired within coherency always made sense.

[Tynskel]

Oh Noes! The forum is off topic because the moderator jumped in!



Ahhhhhh! whatever shall we do?!?!?!?

I am quite pleased, 22 pages, and only about, oh, 21 pages of dung flinging!!

[junkmonkey]

wha? no wait, please don't shut this down!

I first read all the way through this thread a few months back when these guys got to page 12 and just re-read the whole thing yesterday. Its like a soap opera now (space opera?).

I'm totally gnawing at the bit to find out if one side or the other will ever cede their point. :)

Just to add my two cents as well...

I think the first couple of sentences of the 'Assaulting Multiple Enemy Units' section makes it very clear as to how to proceed...

FROM BRB
"As you move assaulting models, you may find it is possible to reach other enemy units that are close to the one you are assaulting.

As usual the closest attacking model must be moved to contact the closest model in the enemy unit against which the assault was declared. Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models. Remember that the assaulting unit is not allowed to break its unit coherency, and this will obviously limit the potential for this kind of assault"
END FROM BRB

The first bolded sentence makes it clear that the 'multi assault' parameters are in effect right from the beginning of and all through a units assault move (not after the move bullets but at all stages of them).

The red text refers to the movement of the first and closest tiny soldier (beginning of assault) and also reinforces the need for the FIRST model to contact the declared unit.

The Tan text declares that the rest of the models, (if possible to reach from first bold sentence) can assault models belonging to other units (no secondary declarations needed) as long as they stay in coherency. Nowhere in the five bullet points does it say the assaulting models must engage the declared unit, only in the sentence before the bullets is this mentioned and it clearly refers only to the first model AND refers the bullets to the rest of the models where the first sentence of the 'Multi assault comes into play.

This is about as clear as I can think to explain it.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Ding Ding Round 3 or is it 4? or 44? who knows? and who cares?

An new Challenger steps forward into the light. challenging Tynskel's mighty all knowing knowledge of the 'Assault Rules'

Personaly I would give up now, before like me you get sick of going round in circles, like a kitten chasing it's tail


Challenging Tynskel's mighty all knowing knowledge of the 'Assault Rules'

"as opposed to my mighty all knowing knowledge of the 'Assault Rules'

[junkmonkey]

ha! No plans for 22 more pages of posts.

[Morgan Darkstar]

ha! No plans for 22 more pages of posts.

Oh you never know, you might get sucked in like i did!:eek:

ttfn

[Tynskel]

and you left out, may not assaulting models you are not assaulting. You are not assaulting a second unit until you have fulfilled a the 'moving assaulting models rules'.

Here's the thing, it says you 'may find it possible'. That does not mean 'you can do it!'. All it says that enemy models from a second unit may be in range. However, the qualifier is the 'moving assaulting models' rules. And the moving assaulting models rules do not allow to assault models you are not assaulting. You cannot assault a second unit until you have moved in sequence and fulfilled the 'moving assaulting models' rules.

[lattd]

If your not assaulting the second unit then you could never multi assault, you move one model into base to base contact with a model from an enemy unit. The rules then state you must contact as many enemy models as possible with the multiple assault rules saying these models can be from another unit.

During this process you must maintain coherency and assault as many models as possible.

I think that is the simplest way you could explain the assault rules.

[Tynskel]

no, the multi-assault rules state to follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules. You must fulfill the requirements before you can assault a second unit. Until then, the only unit you are 'assaulting' is the one that you have declared against. Once a model can only maintain coherency (thus fulfilling all requirements for 'moving assaulting models', it may then engage a second (or more) units.

[junkmonkey]

The problem is, you keep treating the multi assault rules as if they are a phase of the assault rules.

They are not. There is not an assault phase and a multi assault phase.

The first two sentences of the muti section make it clear that all it's exceptions are in effect during the entire assault phase.

[lattd]

no, the multi-assault rules state to follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules. You must fulfill the requirements before you can assault a second unit. Until then, the only unit you are 'assaulting' is the one that you have declared against. Once a model can only maintain coherency (thus fulfilling all requirements for 'moving assaulting models', it may then engage a second (or more) units.

Yes and from the second "stage" as you call it, of the assault rules states you can assault enemy models and its after the first stage that the multiple assault rules take place. The fact that the rules even state this but you deny it is mind boggling.

[Tynskel]

I am not denying that it states you may assault a second unit. However, the rules explicitly state to follow the 'moving assaulting models' rules. The rules for 'moving assaulting models' specifically state you cannot assault anything you are not currently assaulting. The only way for a model to assault a second unit is for them to have fulfilled all the 'moving assaulting models' requirement (ie, can only maintain coherency). Once that has been accomplished, the model may assault a second unit (or third). Once again, you continue to move your models in sequence, and when you can only maintain coherency, you may assault a further unit.

[ArchonPhelps]

The rules for 'moving assaulting models' specifically state you cannot assault anything you are not currently assaulting. The only way for a model to assault a second unit is for them to have fulfilled all the 'moving assaulting models' requirement (ie, can only maintain coherency).Once that has been accomplished, the model may assault a second unit (or third). Once again, you continue to move your models in sequence, and when you can only maintain coherency, you may assault a further unit.

I have been searching the rules in both sections and no where do I find the rule that says I have to fulfill all the requirements first to assault another unit.

I see where it says the following ". . ., as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models." It does not say after you have fulfilled moving into assault with your declared enemy unit.

So if you could just show me where it says I have to fulfilled all the requirements in plain english and not in your warp mind and I will believe you. It is that simple.

[Tynskel]

The only way to have followed a rule is to do everything the rule has stated for you to do. You are not following the rules if you only do half of what a rule says.

In this case, that means you model must follow every rule for 'moving assaulting models' before you can assault a second unit.

[ArchonPhelps]

The only way to have followed a rule is to do everything the rule has stated for you to do. You are not following the rules if you only do half of what a rule says.

In this case, that means you model must follow every rule for 'moving assaulting models' before you can assault a second unit.

So no you can not provide a page? Even though the rules states. "Then remaining models can assault models belonging to other enemy units, as long as they keep following the rules for moving assaulting models."

Ummmmm interresting.

[Morgan Darkstar]

Oh no here we go again!

"i think the first few lines of this song sum up this thread"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU

great song aswell

[Duke]

I think ending on a song is a great way to put this to rest...Closed.

Duke