Pile-in and "engaged" models

[Azazel665]

Here's something kind of interesting I noticed today. The 4th edition rules (p.44) state very clearly that in the unlikely even that a pile-in move results in no engaged models, then the assault is over. Going over the same section in 5th ed, (p.40), the same language is a bit looser saying instead "insufficient to bring the combatants back together" rather than using the game term "engaged".

 

I like the comparatively conversational tone of the new rules, but this kind of taking a fairly functional, specific rule and muddying the language seems kind of dubious. I'm assuming folks are generally interpreting the new version of the rule to be more or less the same as it's 4th ed version, no?

[SeattleDV8]

except for the fact that both sides can pile in up to 6" . that would be a very rare assault that couldn't reengage 12"

[Azazel665]

Agreed, just strange that a rev of the rules would choose to be increasingly vague instead of the other way around.

[Brother Gothard]

Not really strange at all. This is GW. If anything they'll cite that specific line as a reason for rereleasing a new rulebook and charging us another $70 bucks.

 

Back on topic, I think the wording has changed, but the effect is the same as in 4th. Bringing them "back together" would be base to base contact, which would be engaged. But I dont even want to think about where players will run off with this in the future.