Posts above edited
Fortunately all of the above is shown to now be of no consequence, as now this thread has shown people dispute it.. you are aware you *may* be cheating.So if you use the tactic again you have your intent right here.(if it is deemed it is required)

A good reason why your pushing for a houserule.. as you’d then have the defence of “consent” and it would have to be informed.. bless the poor chap would have to read this monster of a thread, before he could let you play your way and you not be guilty of cheating.

Its that or fall back on diminished mental capacity when your opponent decides to exact his sentence (I'm crap on that, I only remember the dude who was found guilty because he didn't crash his truck immediately he carried on for 100 yards after being hypnotised by the white lines on the road-and therefore was deemed in control of the vehicle.)

Tim you were confused about playing a game (sorry must be humour I am not used too) in your post you said that if during a game an opponent does not want the rule to work the way you want it to then it can be house ruled. I thought this mild 7 page discussion was to discuss and get the rule sorted for one and all not for it to be house ruled if an opponent of yours feels like he is being cheated or treated unfairly during a game. You self proclaimed Rule Lawyer seems to be not be holding up for me as mentioned by KMB you just want it your way and all your compromises have done nothing to help solve the origional rule question (7 pages of posts) Me stating you have cheated seems to have touched a nerve (why is this LMTRK) . You mentioned that you said sorry after your inital game because you felt you had been cheesy with how you used the rule to your advantage to get the win, thats says a lot that for me.

@Cobby-I will say this, accusing someone of cheating will touch a nerve with anyone, not just Tim. I don't believe that Tim cheated or intentionally tried to cheat during the game in question. I believe he attempted a tactic that he thought was a legal one. I will admit that at first blush, I also thought that it was a legal (ruleswise) tactic. I have since changed my mind due to the discussion that followed.

I believe that the rules state that a unit that reacts to an assault must move every model up to 6" towards the enemy unit that is assaulting. I believe that the last bullet point of the 'Move Assaulting Models' rule that states, "If this {the assaulting or reacting move} is impossible, it must simply stay in coherency." only refers to moving through friendly or enemy models, through gaps narrower that the base, moving into base contact with a unit you are not assaulting, or moving into or through impassable terrain. Barring that, the models in the assaulting unit, or in the reacting unit, must move as far as possible to try to get into contact with the enemy.
I will just say again that calling the move cheating is by inference calling Tim a cheater and again, I don't believe that to be the case, and I know I would not like to have that particular term hung on me.

@Lord Malek-Tim, I try to know the rules as best I can, and I play within the rules, as I am sure you do. You tried a tactic that you thought in good faith was legal. In a discussion that followed, examples were given that proved that interpretation and tactic to be wrong. To request a houserule from this forum's members that counters the conclusion reached by the majority is a reach. Your knowledge of the rules is extensive, but the rules knowledge of other members on this forum are no less formidable, and at times any of us could be shown to be wrong on a particular point. What should any of us do if that should prove to be the case? Please look at my signature. There is nothing wrong with admitting to being wrong.

@All. My intention is not to troll or flame or any of that stuff (most of which I don't even know or understand) but to point out that the last few posts are not really worthy of the spirit of the AoS forums. There have been a few threads where rules were discussed and no resolution was reached. We all by mutual, unstated consent simply moved on. I think we could easily do the same here.

Of course, I could be wrong.
Time Wizard

timewizard wrote:@Cobby-I will say this, accusing someone of cheating will touch a nerve with anyone, not just Tim. I don't believe that Tim cheated or intentionally tried to cheat during the game in question.

Thanks TW.

timewizard wrote:I believe that the rules state that a unit that reacts to an assault must move every model up to 6" towards the enemy unit that is assaulting. I believe that the last bullet point of the 'Move Assaulting Models' rule that states, "If this {the assaulting or reacting move} is impossible, it must simply stay in coherency." only refers to moving through friendly or enemy models, through gaps narrower that the base, moving into base contact with a unit you are not assaulting, or moving into or through impassable terrain. Barring that, the models in the assaulting unit, or in the reacting unit, must move as far as possible to try to get into contact with the enemy.

If a model cannot move for some reason (it is penned in by terrain and other models, etc), then I agree it would have to remain in coherency... however, it is up the the other models around it to make this happen, not itself - so its the moves of the other models that would have to be restricted (you would have to take into account that a different model wont be able to move when moving a model, in order to plan ahead and make sure coherency isnt broken).

However, I dont think thats what the last bullet point is about... (it would be a very rare occurance)

timewizard wrote:You tried a tactic that you thought in good faith was legal. In a discussion that followed, examples were given that proved that interpretation and tactic to be wrong.

I must be missing something, because I wasnt aware that that was the case.

Are you saying that it has been accepted that "trying" to get within 2" of an engaged model means moving as close as possible, even when you know it is impossible for them to get there? If that is the case, why is this included under Pile In again?

timewizard wrote:There is nothing wrong with admitting to being wrong.

Oh dont worry, I am not afraid of being wrong (I already admitted that I missed the extra Pile In restriction that King spotted)... I just didnt think I am (see above).

Cheers

~ Tim

Really does ponder why we feed the thing

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:However, I dont think thats what the last bullet point is about... (it would be a very rare occurance)

Compared to your situation which, also relies on a very rare occurrence also? But you must be right..so the burden is on the other guy to show that your doing something isn't done everywhere, right???

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:I must be missing something, because I wasnt aware that that was the case.

Are you saying that it has been accepted that "trying" to get within 2" of an engaged model means moving as close as possible, even when you know it is impossible for them to get there? If that is the case, why is this included under Pile In again?

Of course your missing stuff.. your barely reading the thread just repeating .. you can't just say “why no repetition?”, when I said why there was no repetition and you just completely dodged my point.. this whole thread is you missing something... waiting a few pages and then saying it again as if no one countered your point. As I say you've rotated again.. and again and not countered anything.
Since you seem to have alluded the last point by (rather than addressing it or beating it)jumping through a question on English legal phraseology and back onto an old point that I'd at least chipped at and you hadn't recovered or rebuttalled but are still stating as solid thats "MISSING SOMETHING".
from page 2.. when the thread was at least slightly entertaining

Because 'trying', makes the addition of repetition redundant,(and duplication can lead to such confusion as your having over point 1 and 5 looping .[...]) as I said. It does not need to say it as it already has.
([..] saying that this is incorrect, because you read there to be no duplication in doing so is a constructive failure..1 lead to the other and in itself is more RAI for my side)

(just to clarify like I mentioned on the last page., this point only exists if you are right, if you are wrong the book is fine-I can’t remember which fallacy who is using with this) I'd further add that your reliance on a rule you did not spot.. as evidence for another rule needing to be more explicit, because its implied..is a weak point from your own perceptions of reading the book, its like your trying to tell off the book.
Maybe Timewizard can explain it in a new way that you won't ignore.

timewizard wrote:@Cobby-I will say this, accusing someone of cheating will touch a nerve with anyone, not just Tim. I don't believe that Tim cheated or intentionally tried to cheat during the game in question. I believe he attempted a tactic that he thought was a legal one.

Seconded.

timewizard wrote:
Of course, I could be wrong.

This reminds me a little of "Everyone can be wrong about everything all of the time."
This ^ is true, but it's implications really are quite startling.
Of course, I could be wrong.

In any case...

@Tim.
What are your thoughts re my point about (my use of individual).

"Assaulting units must attempt tp engage as many (individual) opposing models as possible with as many of their (individual) models as possible...(RAW)...no holding back!" (FLUFF/RAI).

Do you not think that those individual models will be forced to move further than they "need to" as required by bullet point 4?
If it's true (as yet unproven), that you cannot pre-measure during assaults, are you not duty bound to commit to moving them in such a way that at least accepts the possibility of having to move them further?

Personally, I don't think you should pre-measure anything to do with assault rules (each different move step refers back to the previous ones, which inevitably winds up at "declare assaults").
To pre-measure something that could be relevant in the next assault phase is a stretch too far.

Pile in.
Tim's argument revolves around the "flow chart" and, if it's not possible to do a, you must do b, failing that, you must "simply" do c.
Pile in changes part of this...or does it?

The other types of movement during assault, assume that at least some models may (must) move. Whereas pile in is entirely different.

It works "just like" defenders react, which in itself works like "move assaulting models".

Now, in those other steps, Tim maintains that models move according to what they can demonstroubly achieve, rather than moving as far as they possibly can.
This would mean, that a model 7.5" away from the engagement zone, "simply" has to retain coherency.
If you can't do it, you don't have to, just move down the flow chart to a lesser requirement.

Back to pile in.
"The player must still move them as close as possible..."
So, if there is mass carnage, unit A (possibly) has to move all it's models up to (but in this case as far as possible) 6", to get b2b/engage etc, it must, even if it's demonstrable that they simply cannot do it.

Not only that, but unit B has to as well, even if it's demonstrable that they simply cannot do it either.

Note that the "player must still move them as close as possible to such enemies" all the while acting "just like when defenders react" which itself is following the rules for "moving assaulting models."

Imo, "still", in this case occupies a similar hierarchy as "simply."

Difficult/dangerous terrain aside, I think all of these assault movement types are governed by the same rules.

That is an awesome "damned if you do damned if you don't "thing at the end ruffian.

I hope that it ends up being both are not required and that simply is simples (my p2 version) though Simpler

But yeah that is an awesome bit of roadblock to tim's usage/keystone.

I think I'm gonna need a cup of tea whilst I reread it all.
back in a mo.

ruffian4 wrote: Note that the "player must still move them as close as possible to such enemies" all the while acting "just like when defenders react" which itself is following the rules for "moving assaulting models."

Imo, "still", in this case occupies a similar hierarchy as "simply."

Difficult/dangerous terrain aside, I think all of these assault movement types are governed by the same rules.

Agreed, and this is the point of argument that made me change my mind. Moving "up to 6" in an attempt to move into base contact" defines a maximum move, not a minimum one. You can't say "I moved 1/8" and that is up to 6"!" As Ruffian said, assaulting, reacting and pile-in all follow the same movement rules, and these are governed by the same conditions. This is also why models reacting to assault are not slowed by diff terrain or have to take dangerous terrain tests. They 'must' move up to the full 6". The only things that could or would prevent this are the conditions elaborated in the first paragraph under Moving Assaulting Models.
You might not want to move all the models in your unit the full 6" because it might pull them off an objective or out of range contesting one. C'est la guerre! In the game of chess, there is the term zugzwang which is German for "compulsion to move". You don't want to move the models of that unit in that manner, but you have to. Well, learn from this and plan a different strategy and use different tactics next time.

killmaimburn wrote:That is an awesome "damned if you do damned if you don't "thing at the end ruffian.

I hope that it ends up being both are not required and that simply is simples (my p2 version) though Simpler

But yeah that is an awesome bit of roadblock to tim's usage/keystone.

And not to flog the dead horse, this is indeed the block to that usage.

PS @ KMB, how was the tea?

Made my teeth Esther Rantzen, (i've got one of those dalek arm tea bag squishers, to make my tea even more betterer, and I OD'd on it)

has Ruffian introduced you to "bottom", so you may be aware of the humour of the retracting gum?
If not why not..let us hold a moratorium on all else until we can establish an international language for conveying celeb knock downs of the early 90s whilst drinking bad cocktails.
I think possibly it might actually be more funny to the US as you lot (generally and correctly) view us as all being drunk all the time and having bad teeth..this combines the two.

What makes you think we are all sober and white teeth over here? In fact, some of my best drunks are friends!

My favorite poem from college...(ahem, {clears throat for oration...})
Starkle, starkle little twink,
what the hell you are, I think.
Mushtimes it is resumed that I am under the affluence of incohol,
but that's only what some tinkle peep!
Cause the drunker I sit here, the longer I get.

BTW, looked up Esther Rantzen on wikpedia. Will have to read it full later when I have time (or earlier, damn this time warp thing ).
Is she really going to run for Parliment?

timewizard wrote:Is she really going to run for Parliment?

Yep she was already put forward for candidacy, I just hope the locals to luton wake up and show there anger by giving her no votes, unfortuantely there will be some idiot that votes for her....herself and her husband, which sort of proves the 'idiot' part

Elvis

Probably.. like most ‘none of the above’ ("brewster millions" kicks ass)candidates- it depends on whether the righteous ire dies out before hand or not..
“The city” is returning to normal like an apocalypse didn’t happen, (paris has capped their financial centres but we won’t for a plethora of reasons) and the 20 billion pages of broadsheets on public money for MPs castles for ducks and moat cleaning is all but forgotten.Although she has chosen a good place to contest.
Depending on how the Ireland referendum goes down I reckon the hot topic for the election (still a way off next spring/summer probably )will try to be over Europe (schisms look like being 1)reform=integration=bad,2) reform = necessary (“what integration you silly peeps” 3) reform badly done= grudgingly accepted for the voting block on environment/bigger picture itus) and public spending (which everyone will lie about becuase no puppy wants to know what lives in the door at the end of that long corridor) (as that is “bigger picture” and doesn’t make the centrists all look weaselly)

And anyway like sonny bono, reagan, jesse the body ventura and arnie never considered political office. :p (and those are just ones off the top of my head) Didn't your lot willingly elect a dead man? (I even heard a horse..but that was pub talk)

(maybe this should be split into Tea 3 this time its personal )

killmaimburn wrote:Didn't your lot willingly elect a dead man? (I even heard a horse..but that was pub talk)

Welly, sh*tting here, aftere drunkt my umpteeth supa largar, pocking bits of congealarised foode from betwixteth blackenede stuuuuumps...

Is the world at large, aware of the paradox that is Boris Johnston (spelling? new mayor of London)???
Even Arnie himself quietly criticised him for "fumbling all over the place."
I honestly believe people voted for him as a joke.

The man is so stupid, I'm amazed that he could actually get to work (I'm not sure he does, as London has yet to sink into a crevasse or something).
"There are no disasters, only opportunities for new disasters."

The first thing he did, after being announced as the new mayor, was to trip up a step!

I would vote for Jesse Ventura. Anyone who "Aint got time to bleed" is doing his fair share, don't you think? This is why, he isn't phased by an enemy being "dug in, like an Alabama tick."
See, it makes sense???

Norsemantyr has been confused for Adrian Edmonson, btw.

My town (of which I am supposed to feel civic pride, as it is 60 miles from London ), has the dubious honour of launching some of the crusades to the "holy" land.
Yee hah!!!

However, one thing I am proud of, is an old MP, called Charles Bradlaugh.
He was an athiest, elected to Parliament, who would refuse to swear on the (shouldn''t that be "A") bible.

They would send him packing, but the voters of Northampton kept sending him back.

I like that.

@KMB: I spent the last week on holiday with (amongst other people, no political scandal here ) one of the Lib Dems publicity staff (who is also a councillor for one of the London Boroughs). Europe isn't expected to be an important issue in the next election - although none of the parties have really formulated their manifestos as of yet.

A wager sir baragash
You mean HQ PR/spin doctor in chief or constituency press officers?
(probably any of that bit we can do by PM, I'll start the ball rolling )
My nose tells me I can bet 50 p (to baragash not to all folks who jump in and agree) that if before end october Ireland meets its ratification promise (having said no once, they're doing it again under certain clarifications, and it looks very probable) then it will be part of the point scoring oneup man ship of the election campaign. (as we won't be able to engineer a response before.. any action would have to be quickly after the election= an issue)

Gordon Browns (mildly paraphrased but vaguely as spoken "It doesn't matter that their was none, as Irelands "No" stopped the process" Becomes a problem.(but only to the media and those with a cause to take up)
A certain 1 issue party grew under PR system, and gets to swagger around.. more so with any legacy hangover shift away from main parties.
Lab would like to not mention it due to track record (just incumbents prerogative), Cons would rather not mention their schism between new-Green and old-Europe (green tree new wave, old battles) So it won't be a manifesto thing (unless its by parties to remind Lab of its previous manifestos).
But it will erupt somewhere along the way and become a marginal seat factor.(especially in places where the conservative vote can be split and people engage in tactical voting)

"But KMB, we're in a bad ass recession (you've said it yourself) surely jobs economic infrastructure will wipe away petty tribalisms"..Nope , elephant in room, you don't win by depressing your audience with debt burden (you can allocate blame.. but not really talk about the fixes.)
Possibly defence will be a factor..depending on how much the news wears it out too early,and new rolling news story disasters with human interest features.

Maybe my post misrepresented my mind.. I don't think it will be THE issue(2001 style), but I believe it will be AN issue that gets picked up

Ruffian - I find the awesome thing in "Boris" (I really do want to know if labours swear box for treating him as a household name was true) is that he is considered the personification of an english fumbling fop/boris the menace..given he has described himself as a "one-man melting pot" (I believe mostly Turkish?) Awesome.