Pile in, Unwieldy, and DT

[Seahawk]

I believe people have been intepreting tactics with Unwieldy weapons incorrectly.

 

Start of Initiative Step Pile In

- "...any model whose initiative is equal to the value of the current initiative step..."

 

Unwieldy

- "A model attacking with this weapon does so at I step 1..."

 

 

So, to me this means that a marine with an Unwieldy weapon will Pile In at I Step 4 and attack at I Step 1. The Unwieldy doesn't make them I1, it just means that they attack at a different step to their normal I value.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[edit] Difficult Terrain does the same thing:

"If at least one model in the charging unit moved through difficult terrain as part of its charge move, all of the unit's models must attack at Initiative Step 1."

 

Again, this is "Pile In at I4 and attack at I1".

 

Does anything else do this?

[dswanick]

You are absolutely correct about the Pile In at I4. In your experience have people been doing it differently?

[Legatus]

Well, "fighting at Initiatiev step 1" is indeed different from "counting as Initiative 1". For one, it allows a Marine with an unwieldy weapon to still pursue enemies at an Initiative of 4. However, I do think that the pile in at the beginning of every Initiative step is meant to allow those models fighting at that step to make sure they can be in base contact. Otherwise it could happen that you pile in a model with a power fist at Initiative step 4, but the model it moved into BtB with is being removed before it actually gets to strike. I don't think that was the intention. So, I guess the "any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step" should really be "any model fighting at the current Initiative step". But that's not what it says, unfortunately.

[thade]

RAW is boilerplate. RAI supports it: having a heavy, slow weapon doesn't impede how fast your legs move. <_<

[pingo]

... the weidler of a Nemesis halberd strikes at +2 Initiative.

Presumably a similar situation for GKs.

 

However, this time RAW may occasionally lead to problems as a GK with a halberd does not get to Pile In before striking: he may not have the opportunity to get into base-to-base.

[King Willy]

My guess that we are meant to add or subtract any modifiers at this point, so they do count as the altered initiative for the pile ins, sure a powerfist is not going to run any slower when charging but he would need to take longer to get in a position to hit anything other then air.

 

Either way it would seem odd for models to pile in to a position and then not be able to attack cause there mate be stealing kills, just seems wrong with hammers being so prolific.

[dswanick]

My guess that we are meant to add or subtract any modifiers at this point, so they do count as the altered initiative for the pile ins,

Except the rule says "strikes at +2 Initiative", not necessarily "is +2 initiative." or "counts as +2 initiaitve"...

[Morollan]

Much as I might enjoy seeing halberd-wielding GKs stranded with nothing to attack, I can't believe that this is the intention. RAW, however seems clear that we pile in on our actual initiative value rather than the value that we are attacking at.

[Gentlemanloser]

Originally, the change to CC in 6th was met by a bit of a facepalm by my mates, when we realised that Killzones were back.

 

But the Pile In moves sort this, don't they?

 

Well, apart from GKs using Nemesis Force Halberds, of course. ;)

[dswanick]

Originally, the change to CC in 6th was met by a bit of a facepalm by my mates, when we realised that Killzones were back.

 

But the Pile In moves sort this, don't they?

 

Well, apart from GKs using Nemesis Force Halberds, of course. ;)

Yeah, I'm not seeing a huge amount of problems with this method of CC. Kill Zones are not back because Casualties can still be removed from amongst the whole unit, not just the Engaged models, and models at low Initiative will Pile In to fill a void in the ranks before resolving thier own attacks.

[Gentlemanloser]

Unless you use 'Look out, Sir!" I tohught all casualties come from the closest mini's just like shooting?

[Seahawk]

Kill zones are indeed back. Models are only removed from the closest first, farthest last (p.25). This is why each Initiative value has it's own Pile In.

 

As for "guesswork" and RAI arguments (that every topic has for some reason :))...really, we can't presume to know what the devs were thinking and how they "meant" it to be. I know I didn't sit in on their meetings. Did anyone else here do as such? They have pulled some epic reversals on "Community RAI" in past FAQs, and deciding that 'you' know more than the devs do smacks of an attitude that I wouldn't want to play with on the tabletop.

 

These are the rules as presented to us, and in most cases, this is how we should play them (Pile In at normal I, attack at I1). House rules are fine for select groups, but if anyone else wishes to play with them they should remember that the lowest common denominator for all players is the BRB and the rules presented therein. My quote in Gentlemanloser's signature (nearly a year ago!) still holds true.

[dswanick]

Unless you use 'Look out, Sir!" I tohught all casualties come from the closest mini's just like shooting?

Yes, nearest to farthest - but all models in a unit Locked in Combat can become casualties, not just those which are Engaged. That was one of the problems of the 3rd Ed "kill zones".

The other problem was models finding themselves not in Base-to-Base or close enough to a model when it came time for them to Attack thus losing the potential. Pile In solves this problem. So 6th Ed rules are almost completely different from those early versions which came to be known as "kill zone".

[Seahawk]

True. I guess it's just a different form of kill zones, where if the PF or other smashy item gets in close (which, if the I is high enough, it has to) but then gets killed because he's closest, or "in the zone".

 

On the plus side, following the rules for specific models and removal points, the controlling player decides who takes what wound when multiple models are equi-distant from the killers.

[dswanick]

True. I guess it's just a different form of kill zones, where if the PF or other smashy item gets in close (which, if the I is high enough, it has to) but then gets killed because he's closest, or "in the zone".

 

On the plus side, following the rules for specific models and removal points, the controlling player decides who takes what wound when multiple models are equi-distant from the killers.

Yeah, there are some definite trade-offs in the new CC setup. I guess it will just take several games to internalize all the nuances and come up with a new method of play. Although, for me, a whole new way of approaching CC, that rewards paying attention to model placement and wargear selection, is actually welcome.

[King Willy]

It's something I haven't quite gotten used to, keep putting sergeants at the front to get them into b2b and then watching them get smashed by massed attacks is bloody annoying.

[Gentlemanloser]

The other problem was models finding themselves not in Base-to-Base or close enough to a model when it came time for them to Attack thus losing the potential.

 

Yeah it's those 4th Ed Kill Zones I was talking about. ;)

 

We left RT and skipped 2nd and 3rd. ;)

[Seahawk]

I added the bit about Difficult Terrain as it has the same mechanic as Unwieldy. I didn't even realize it at the time I read it a while ago, but it was brought up in the I10 vs I1 thread so figured it had a place here.