Assault Move Question

[Bean]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SeattleDV8]

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

[Bean]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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




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

[SeattleDV8]

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

Actually ,thats exactly what it says.

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

Well since thats not what it says ,by your own logic I guess you are neither ' literate and bother to actually read them'
Do you really need the cheap shots?
I mean yes it's no fun being on the losing side of a discussion, but could you pretend to be an adult.

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

When your basic premise is wrong your conculsions are wrong.

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

You might wish to follow your own advice.

[Tynskel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bean]

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

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

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

Have fun guys.

[Tynskel]

I am not sure where I went into nonsense.

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

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

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

[Mal]

Is this discussion still going on?

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

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

[Tynskel]

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