Initiative step

[Morticon]

Hey guys,

 

ive read the various discussions on here regarding pile ins at models initiative etc.

 

After reading the rules more, I cant shake the feeling things may not be as they seem and I believe we may have not interpreted things properly.

 

 

Here are my musings.

 

I recommend having a quick look over charging through cover, and unwieldy rules too as they are the two that got me thinking. (both of which specifically reference " initiative step" )

 

Most importantly pg 22:

 

"To represent this, a model's Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat. Work your way through the Initiative values of the models engaged in the combat starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. This means that each combat will have ten Initiative steps..." (emphasis mine)

 

The implication here is that ( Initiative steps = when the character attacks)

This is really important.

 

The term "Initiative Step" is used quite specifically.

 

Now, we get this:

 

On page 23 the rule says "At the start of each Initiative step*, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current initiative step*...must make a pile in move".

 

I believe if we are making pile in moves and attacks at different initiatives we are using 2 types of Initiative step interpretations - there is only one.

 

I believe that we were focusing on the model's initiative part and not the fact that there is an Initiative Step protocol in place.

 

 

Additionally, to further back up my thinking, on pg 23:

Who can fight:

 

A model is engaged in combat and must fight if:

* during its Initiative Step it is in base contact with one or more enemy models

 

To argue that a model has moved at its initiative step but does not fight is to create a contradiction in the rules.

 

In short and in summary I believe:

 

1. A models Initiative Step is when a model attacks - not what Initiative value it has.

2. Pile ins are done referring to model's Initiative step and done so assuming the model's initiative and the models initiative are the same - this, however is not always the case.

 

 

In conclusion, i believe we do indeed move our models to pile in at their Initiative step (when they fight) and not what their base init is.

 

 

Over to you guys.

[Ushtarador]

We pile in when the model attacks, not at its base initiative (which is how it is meant to be I suppose). We actually never considered another option at our store ^^

[dizzy-xc]

Page 23 CERB, 2nd column 1st paragraph last sentence: 'Note that certain situations, abilities and weapons can modify a model's Initiative.'

 

That is an altogether vague rule when you consider what a model attacks at and what he piles in at. Are they the same or different? Does the modifier modify initiative concerning pile in, or attacks or both? The implication is huge when considering that a GK Halberd grants +2 I. So how do we resolve this? I see it getting diced off.

[dswanick]

The implication here is that ( Initiative steps = when the character attacks)

This shoots your "implication" right between the eyes:

"This means that each combat will have ten Initiative steps, starting at Initiative 10 and working down to Initiative 1. You'll rarely have models fighting at all of the Initiative steps, so just skip any that don't apply.", BRB, Pg.22.

This makes it clear that "Initiative steps" are seperate constructs from "the Initiative values of the models involved in a combat" (ie. when the model attacks).

[thade]

The way I've read it and been operating with it is this: attacker makes charge moves; when each model's initiative comes up, they first get a 3" pile in (which may bring them into range to swing if they weren't there before...or may bring them to BtB if they weren't before) and they if possible they swing.

 

I like it a lot; it adds a fun dimension to the melee and makes it feel more swirly and wild...as described in the books. :)

[Morticon]

So far in this thread we have the following replies:

 

 

Ushtarador: who agrees and his group plays it that way.

 

Dizzy: Who adds a great argument for the case I posited. But who is otherwise unsure ( but doesn't address my arguments which posit that the model piles in when he attacks)

 

Dswanick: Who disagrees- but whose argument is Non sequitur as it stands. Can you rephrase, DS?

 

Thade: Added what he does and how much he likes it.

 

 

So, we have 4 comments, none of which include logical rules based agreements/disagreements?

Also been posting this on a few other forums, and it seems that the majority of people are playing it as move in at the initiative you strike at.

 

Arguments to the contrary awaited!

 

Cheers.

[dswanick]

I recommend having a quick look over charging through cover, and unwieldy rules too as they are the two that got me thinking. (both of which specifically reference " initiative step" )

Most importantly pg 22:

"To represent this, a model's Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat. Work your way through the Initiative values of the models engaged in the combat starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. This means that each combat will have ten Initiative steps..." (emphasis mine)

The implication here is that ( Initiative steps = when the character attacks)

This is really important.

The term "Initiative Step" is used quite specifically.

"each combat will have ten Initiative steps". If "Initiative steps = when the character attacks" then the sentence can be written "each combat will have ten [steps] when the character attacks". This makes no sense.

Now, we get this:

On page 23 the rule says "At the start of each Initiative step*, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current initiative step*...must make a pile in move".

I believe if we are making pile in moves and attacks at different initiatives we are using 2 types of Initiative step interpretations - there is only one.

I believe that we were focusing on the model's initiative part and not the fact that there is an Initiative Step protocol in place.

But what does the protocol do? It does two things: (actually it does more than two things, but I don't think Who can fight? is being questions)

1. It tells us that a model Piles in at the Initiative step equal to its Initiative Characteristic value.

2. It tells us to resolve the models attacks at the Initiative step equal to its Initiative Characteristic value.

Additionally, to further back up my thinking, on pg 23:

Who can fight:

A model is engaged in combat and must fight if:

* during its Initiative Step it is in base contact with one or more enemy models

To argue that a model has moved at its initiative step but does not fight is to create a contradiction in the rules.

In short and in summary I believe:

 

1. A models Initiative Step is when a model attacks - not what Initiative value it has.

2. Pile ins are done referring to model's Initiative step and done so assuming the model's initiative and the models initiative are the same - this, however is not always the case.

 

In conclusion, i believe we do indeed move our models to pile in at their Initiative step (when they fight) and not what their base init is.

But that is explicit in the rules. "Unwieldy" tells us to alter the directions given by the Basic rule as it relates to when a models attacks are resolved. But leaves alone the rule as it relates to when a model makes a Pile In move.

[Seahawk]

Exactly. Pile tells us to use the I on the profile, which now doesn't change due to weapons or terrain or wargear. It was quite the foible I think.

[Morticon]

Sorry for the confusion.

Im going to have to clarify.

 

When I used " = " I did not mean a simple substitution of words (the one for the other).

I meant that 'Initiative step' is the time 'when a character attacks'.

 

 

In short, my argument was essentially that the focus has been on wording of "the model's initiative" being referenced and not the model's initiative in relation to the "Initiative step". As well as the fact that if we pile in at one step and attack at another, I believe we are breaking/adding rules.

 

Additionally, I find it very counter intuitive that a model would be able to attack, and only later pile in (ala Halberds) or conversely charge in and sit around holding their proverbials until they can attack.

 

However, in looking much much closer, I think you guys are right RAW.

 

I'll still expand though, and show the source of my confusion.

 

 

My argument was as follows:

 

 

"Initiative step" is defined by the rule book as the time a model:

 

 

1. Fights.

 

(pg. 22)

"To represent this, a model's Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat. Work your way through the Initiative values of the models engaged in the combat starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. This means that each combat will have ten Initiative steps..." (emphasis mine)

 

I felt that these are not mutually exclusive. ie: The rules do not afford us the opportunity to Pile in at one time, and attack at another.

 

 

We cannot pile in at our initiative if we are not attacking because we are only allowed to pile in when it is our initiative step (ie: when we fight).

 

However, in retrospect, this is a general (basic?) rule and advanced would break them ??

 

2. Piles in.

(pg. 23)

"At the start of each Initiative step, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current initiative step*...must make a pile in move".

 

NB:

The only time it allows us to make a pile in move is when the model's initiative is equal to the Initiative Step WHICH is the time where it fights as listed above.

 

If the "initiative step" is defined as the point at which the model must attack then how can you pile in at Init4 if you are attacking at Init1 ? And are we not then breaking a rule?

 

If we substitute words in this case it would be:

 

"at the start of each step when a model attacks, any model whose initiative is equal to the value of the current step when a model attacks must pile in".

 

 

That was my thinking.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

As noted I do think it seems clear RAW, it just seems so odd.

[dswanick]

As noted I do think it seems clear RAW, it just seems so odd.

Odd? Yes. Even more odd when you consider that models armed with I+ weapons (like GK Halberds) get thrown under the bus because they are called to resolve their attacks before they are allowed to Pile In. But it does seem that the new rule mechanic was written with an intentional eye towards clarity-of-process and someone just droped the ball and never asked that question, thus resulting in a more confusing process. Hopefully it will get FAQ/Errata'd quickly.

[Raeven]

What's to be FAQ'd?

 

A models initiative is when it makes its moves during the initiative steps. This starts with Pile In and ends with the models attack. A models initiative is not static, but it only has one initiative value after all changes based on advanced rules and wargear have been made. You aren't told to seperate the models base value with gear/rule modified values, pg 2 Modifiers explains the process to change a models characteristics.

[Raeven]

Exactly. Pile tells us to use the I on the profile, which now doesn't change due to weapons or terrain or wargear. It was quite the foible I think.

 

 

Where does it say that? How are you coming to that conclusion?

[dswanick]

What's to be FAQ'd?

 

A models initiative is when it makes its moves during the initiative steps. This starts with Pile In and ends with the models attack. A models initiative is not static, but it only has one initiative value after all changes based on advanced rules and wargear have been made. You aren't told to seperate the models base value with gear/rule modified values, pg 2 Modifiers explains the process to change a models characteristics.

What's to FAQ? Well how about -

Grey Knight has a I characteristic of 4. Grey Knight is armed with a Halberd which tells us to resolve the models attacks at I4+2 = Initiative step 6. But Grey Knight model still Piles In at Initiative step 4. So unless the Grey Knight model starts the Fight subphase in base-to-base contact, he will be called to resolve his attack, which will result in him not getting any, at I step 6, then at I step 4 he will be called to Pile In.

Maybe this was intentional, maybe not. But R.A.W. - that's how it works.

[pingo]

What's to be FAQ'd?

 

A models initiative is when it makes its moves during the initiative steps. This starts with Pile In and ends with the models attack. A models initiative is not static, but it only has one initiative value after all changes based on advanced rules and wargear have been made. You aren't told to seperate the models base value with gear/rule modified values, pg 2 Modifiers explains the process to change a models characteristics.

That's all well and good, but consider the GK Halberd issue where the codex states the wielder "strikes at +2 Initiative".

 

This is not a modifier to the model's base Initiative value. It is directing the player to make their attacks during the Initiative 6 step. However, RAW it may be argued that although the model makes attacks at I6, he Piles In during the Initiative 4 step, which would be after his attacks are made.

 

A similar (but opposite!) issue occurs with Unwieldy weapons which direct the player to make attacks at I1 but is not a modifier to the model's base Initiative. In these cases, the RAW position may be that the model Piles In before he makes his attacks.

[Raeven]

Sorry, but that's just wrong.

 

Your model does not have two initiative values. It has a single initiative value that can be modified by wargear or rules. Pg. 2 explains how to apply the modifiers. Pg 7. explains Basic vs. Advanced, stating that advanced rules "always override any contradicting basic rules."

 

Your models initiative profile is the basic rule. The weapon initiative modification is the advanced rule. Pile In isn't a seperate action, it is a conditional step taken at the beginning of every initiative step.

 

pg 51 states that, "If a model has more than one Melee weapon, he must choose which one to attack with when he comes to strike blows - he cannot mix and match the abilities of several different weapons."

 

So, you must choose which weapon you are going to use before you make your attack. That weapon modifies your Init. Your Init sets your place in the Init Steps.

[dswanick]

Correct. a model only has one Initiative Characteristic value. Have you read the rules? Do you remember reading the part where Unwieldy says "A model attacking with this weapon does so at Initiative step 1,"? So yes, your model has an Initiative of 10 but because it is wielding an Unwieldy weapon the attacks are resolved at Initiative step 1 even as it possessess an Initiative Characteristic value of 10. And because its I is 10, even as its attacks are resolved at I step 1 it will still Pursue, Pile In, etc... at I step 10. Not because it has two I values, but because the Basic rules for when to resolve a models attacks have been changed by an Advanced rule.

[Morticon]

Sorry, but that's just wrong.

 

Did you not see my whole argument where I basically disproved myself!?

[Raeven]

Correct. a model only has one Initiative Characteristic value. Have you read the rules?

 

Pile In is a conditional action of a models Initiative Step. How do we arrive at the models Initiative Step? The book clearly states, "a model's Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat" (pg.22) and "Models make their attacks when their Initiative Step is reached" (pg.23). Therefore Initiative and Initiative Step are the same value. When a weapons sets your Initiative to 1, it sets your Initiative Step to 1. You then wait your turn until your Initiative Step and make a Pile In move "IF" your model is not already in base to base contact with an enemy model. Basic vs Advanced rules makes it clear that the weapon overrides the model profile.

 

Where you guys are getting confused is seperating Pile In from the Initiative Step. It is not a seperate action. Initiative Step is determined by when the model is allowed to attack. Pile In is determined by Initiative Step.

[Raeven]

Sorry, but that's just wrong.

 

Did you not see my whole argument where I basically disproved myself!?

 

 

I did. dswanick and pingo, apparently not. :)

[dswanick]

Correct. a model only has one Initiative Characteristic value. Have you read the rules?

 

Pile In is a conditional action of a models Initiative Step. How do we arrive at the models Initiative Step? The book clearly states, "a model's Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat" (pg.22) and "Models make their attacks when their Initiative Step is reached" (pg.23). Therefore Initiative and Initiative Step are the same value. When a weapons sets your Initiative to 1, it sets your Initiative Step to 1. You then wait your turn until your Initiative Step and make a Pile In move "IF" your model is not already in base to base contact with an enemy model. Basic vs Advanced rules makes it clear that the weapon overrides the model profile.

 

Where you guys are getting confused is seperating Pile In from the Initiative Step. It is not a seperate action. Initiative Step is determined by when the model is allowed to attack. Pile In is determined by Initiative Step.

I'm not going to quote the entirety of the Fight subphase rules here - it's both unnecessary and contrary to the forum rules. I'll just suggest that you go and re-read the rules in their entirety, and evaluate them for what they actually say instead of what you want them to mean. I'm confident that you will understand that RAW ≠ RAI in this case.

[Raeven]

"a model's Initiative determines when he attacks in close combat." (pg. 22)

 

"At the start of each Initiative step, any model whose Initiative is equal to the value of the current Initiative step, that isn't already in ...." (pg.23)

 

"When their Initiative step is reached, models with that Initiative who are still alive must attack." (pg.24)

 

 

Therefore, models can only have 1 initiative value for the purposes of Assault. This is either the models unmodified base initiative for the entire turn, or it is the models modified initiative for the entire turn.

 

It's convoluted, but the Initiative Step sequence happens all at one time and does not seperate a models base initiative with it's attack initiative for the purposes of sequence.

[thade]

Therefore, models can only have 1 initiative value for the purposes of Assault.

This is perhaps a minor nick-pick (as it's not really on deck here) but your conclusion here is false. Models both swing at and Pile In at the same Initiative (whatever Initiative that they have attacks at). However, should a model be called upon to take an Initiative test (something that comes about from whack-a-doo grenades and Psychic powers) the model uses it's full Initiative (i.e. not one that's affected by wielding something that's Unwieldy). For example, a Captain with two Thunder hammers swings at I1 and also Piles In at I1 (if he's not already in BTB or - for some strange reason - not in a Challenge) but if he needs to take an Initiative Test to avoid getting sucked into a Warp tear or something, he tests at his full Init (only failing on a 6).

 

It's convoluted, but the Initiative Step sequence happens all at one time and does not seperate a models base initiative with it's attack initiative for the purposes of sequence.

If you're saying, "A model both Piles In and attacks at whatever Initiative it will be swinging at this round," then I agree with you; that's how I understand it as well.

 

EDIT: Clarification.

[Raeven]

Therefore, models can only have 1 initiative value for the purposes of Assault.

This is perhaps a minor nick-pick (as it's not really on deck here) but your conclusion here is false. Models both swing at and Pile In at the same Initiative (whatever Initiative that they have attacks at). However, should a model be called upon to take an Initiative test (something that comes about from whack-a-doo grenades and Psychic powers) the model uses it's full Initiative (i.e. not one that's affected by wielding something that's Unwieldy). For example, a Captain with two Thunder hammers swings at I1 and also Piles In at I1 (if he's not already in BTB or - for some strange reason - not in a Challenge) but if he needs to take an Initiative Test to avoid getting sucked into a Warp tear or something, he tests at his full Init (only failing on a 6).

 

Point.

 

It's convoluted, but the Initiative Step sequence happens all at one time and does not seperate a models base initiative with it's attack initiative for the purposes of sequence.

If you're saying, "A model both Piles In and attacks at whatever Initiative it will be swinging at this round," then I agree with you; that's how I understand it as well.

 

EDIT: Clarification.

 

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

[dizzy-xc]

Exactly. Pile tells us to use the I on the profile, which now doesn't change due to weapons or terrain or wargear. It was quite the foible I think.

 

Yes, but allow me to quote myself again here...

 

Page 23 CERB, 2nd column 1st paragraph last sentence: 'Note that certain situations, abilities and weapons can modify a model's Initiative.'

 

After looking at this further, this is where I'm settling down with this issue for simplicity sake. This rule simply tells us that a model's initiative is modified by certain situations, abilities and weapons. So if a GK halberd modifies a model's initiative, then that initiative is no longer a base value and becomes a modified value. So if Pile in tells us to use the Initiative which is modified by the above rule, then a GK Halberd Marine would Pile in at I6. I really dont see how the above rule can be interpreted otherwise, unless Pile in says to Pile in using a model's "Unmodified Initiatve". Does it say that?

[puffin]

Close combat is fought as a series of Initiative Steps. Each step starts with Pile In, then models MUST attack, then the step ends. There is no provision for Piling In and not attacking (the rules are extremely specific about this - if you are in this I-step then you MUST attack). Similarly, there is no wording in the rules that states that you may join an I-step but not be allowed to Pile-In. Therefore in the case of the Halberd you MUST pile in and attack in the same I-step.

 

The same is true of Unwieldy weapons. You attack at I-step 1, therefore you are a part of I-step 1, therefore your Pile-In happens at I-step 1. The wording is quite clear - page 23 and page 24 both use the phrase "Initiative" to refer to the same thing therefore there is no possibility of argument here: if you Pile In on an I-step you MUST attack. Unwieldy states that you take part in I-step 1, therefore I-step 1 is when you pile-in. Arguing that the Pile-In rule on p23 is not overridden by Unwieldy but the attack rule on p24 is - when they both use the same phrase and refer to the same thing - is fairly illogical.