Pile in clarifications

[Morticon]

Why people are claiming you should also be in Initiative Step 4 (but only for the first bit, ignore the part about you MUST fight) is beyond me.

 

Because intention or not, thats what the rules have told us. And i was arguing the same as you, puffin, and when i typed everything out and broke it all down, I couldnt prove my argument nor disprove the other. The wording is too tight as far as the model's initiative being referenced as the point it piles in.

[dizzy-xc]

The wording is too tight as far as the model's initiative being referenced as the point it piles in.

 

Yes it does, apologies on that snippet, but Banshee Masks change a models Initiative to 10 for the 1st round of an assault, so if they have power axes, that's their Initiative and they'd thusly fight at Initiative Step 10. Same thing with GK Marine Halberds, they'd pile in and fight at I6. Quickening, I10 NDH.

 

For those that keep refrencing the Marine with PF on p.23, Sergeant Adrax charged, and did not pile in. So we cant use this as a Rosetta Stone for figuring anything out.

 

I believe I am leaning towards Initiative steps and Initiative values being synonymous for the purposes of Piling in, Initiative Steps, and Unwieldy. If anyone can show proof where GW breaks/seperates them down into sub categories, I'd like to see that referenced.

[Gentlemanloser]

I think it's the quote where you pile in at your Initiative.

 

That's seperate to attacking at your Initiative Step.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread - this is my conclusion.

 

But the ommision currently makes Frags useless.

 

As DT does nothing to alter Initiative, only Initative Steps. :(

[MalachiOfRuss]

I think the wording is too imprecise. The book has varying terms of "fights at", "attacks at", "strikes blows at." Furthermore, none of which clarify whether Pile In moves constitute "fighting at" or "attacking at" a certain Step.

 

I can see the case being made either way - but I will bet money that if/when GW releases a FAQ addressing this they will rule that you use the model's modified Initiative for all purposes.

[Seahawk]

Okay, we really need to stop making a billion threads that all ask about Pile In, or condense them or something.

 

 

I think the wording is too imprecise. The book has varying terms of "fights at", "attacks at", "strikes blows at." Furthermore, none of which clarify whether Pile In moves constitute "fighting at" or "attacking at" a certain Step.

It is pretty clear, actually.

 

Here's what I wrote in one of the other ones:

 

A model's Initiative is not modified by terrain or Unwieldy, and a simple glance at the rules reveals why. Here are some examples of things that do not modify the Initiative but instead tell you when to attack:

 

"...all of the unit's models must attack at Initiative step 1..." (BRB, p.22)

"A model attacking with this weapon does so at Initiative step 1..." (BRB, p.43)

"...the wielder of a Nemesis halberd strike as +2 Initiative." (C:GK, p.54)

 

These absolutely no not modify a model's Initiative in the slightest. It merely tells you when you can attack. Here are some examples that actually modify a model's Initiative:

 

"...the Librarian has...Initiative 10..." (C:SM, p.57)

"...a model wearing a Banshee mask has Initiative 10..." (C:E, p.31)

"...any enemy model that is in base to base contact with a Tyranid with...lash whips counts their Initiative value as 1..." (C:T, p.83)

"...any enemy model is in base contact with a model with whip coils they count their Initiative value as 1..." (C:N, p.44)

 

Can we understand the difference of language used with these? One set says "Attacks at step X" and the other says "Their characteristic is X." This is a very important distinction that has been overlooked.

 

 

To address other stuff:

- No, this does not give models two I values. It only has one, but attacks at a different step than normal. This is allowed because Advanced > Basic.

- No, this does not modify the value because then the value would be permanently that raised or lowered value and would affect Characteristic Tests rather unfairly for certain items of wargear or psychic powers.

[MalachiOfRuss]

Don't forget the wording also on pg. 22 that "reminds" the reader that a model charging through terrain "fights at" Init 1. Here again another word that is neither "swings", "strikes", "attacks." In this case is "fight" = "attack" "strike" and "swing"? Maybe. Or does it apply to the entire Fight Sub-phase (since it's the same word)?

 

I understand where you're coming from, but without the various steps/headings being specifically mentioned, I think the wording is still "unclear."