Initiative step

[Seahawk]

I think a model Piles In at whatever modified Initiative it makes its attacks at.

It's just that is not what the rules say, because the rules assume that every model will always attack at the Initiative value that's on the profile. This is the biggest flaw of the system.

 

I personally think it would be easier and simpler to simply write it as "Make a Pile In move when the model gets to attack" or somesuch, as that would solve every problem we currently have.

[DarkGuard]

Note that I've merged a couple of the Initiative in combat topics together to make keep the board uncluttered and to make it easier to find all the issues about this particular rule.

 

If I haven't merged a thread that deals on a similar premise it's because I believed the premise was different enough to warrant its own thread.

 

Lets try and keep all Initiative step questions in this thread please. That'll include modifiers and how they interact with it like whip coils etc.

[pingo]

I think a model Piles In at whatever modified Initiative it makes its attacks at.

It's just that is not what the rules say, because the rules assume that every model will always attack at the Initiative value that's on the profile. This is the biggest flaw of the system.

 

I personally think it would be easier and simpler to simply write it as "Make a Pile In move when the model gets to attack" or somesuch, as that would solve every problem we currently have.

This is the only way to play it in a way that makes sense and always works.

 

But it's not what the rules say. Who knows whether the designers intended this. On the one hand, it makes no sense to play it this way, but on the other hand, the wording they use is very specific.

 

What do we reckon? RAW is conclusive here, but add this to the list of 'needs an FAQ' issues: until then use the RAI interpretation?

[MalachiOfRuss]

It's just that is not what the rules say, because the rules assume that every model will always attack at the Initiative value that's on the profile. This is the biggest flaw of the system.

I think what the rules say is imprecise/unclear (as I said). For example, the wording under Charging Through Difficult Terrain states that models "attack at Initiative step 1" then at the bottom of the 2nd column on the same page, it reminds the reader that those models "fight at Initiative step 1." Considering this is under the Fight Sub-phase, one could assume that "fight at" applies to everything that occurs during the Fight Sub-phase. The Unwieldy rule also uses the word "attack" but other rules for Codices do not use the word "attack." If you flip over to pg. 24, the wording at the top of the page again says "models with that Initiative..." which is very similar to the wording under Start of Initiative Step Pile In: "any model whose Initiative..."

 

I think it's also telling that the rules for Sweeping Advances specifically mention "unmodified Initiative." If they intended the Pile In moves to occur at unmodified Initiative why not use the same wording there. Or conversely, if Pile Ins are intended to happen at unmodified Initiative why not use the wording "the model's Initiative" in the Sweeping Advance rule?

 

My conclusion? Imprecise and unclear.

 

I personally think it would be easier and simpler to simply write it as "Make a Pile In move when the model gets to attack" or somesuch, as that would solve every problem we currently have.

For sanity/simplicity sake, this is how I am going to be playing it. Actually, I think a better fix would be to change the wording of all Initiative modifying rules (eg. Charging through DT, Unwieldy) to read "For the duration of the Fight Sub-phase, the models Initiative should be considered..."

[Morticon]

Did anyone notice the diagram where the explanation states that moving through terrain effects your initiative step?

 

 

edit: ah! referenced post above ;)

[JamesI]

This is one of those things where I think we all know this needs to be cleared up in a FAQ. Until then, RAW supports Seahawk's posts.

 

I don't think that is RAI, but this is the OR.

[thade]

I don't think that is RAI, but this is the OR.

I think it's okay; I mean, wielding a big ol' slow-to-swing axe may make you swing slower but not run slower. <3

[Lord Ragnarok]

It's just that is not what the rules say, because the rules assume that every model will always attack at the Initiative value that's on the profile. This is the biggest flaw of the system.

I think what the rules say is imprecise/unclear (as I said). For example, the wording under Charging Through Difficult Terrain states that models "attack at Initiative step 1" then at the bottom of the 2nd column on the same page, it reminds the reader that those models "fight at Initiative step 1." Considering this is under the Fight Sub-phase, one could assume that "fight at" applies to everything that occurs during the Fight Sub-phase. The Unwieldy rule also uses the word "attack" but other rules for Codices do not use the word "attack." If you flip over to pg. 24, the wording at the top of the page again says "models with that Initiative..." which is very similar to the wording under Start of Initiative Step Pile In: "any model whose Initiative..."

 

I think it's also telling that the rules for Sweeping Advances specifically mention "unmodified Initiative." If they intended the Pile In moves to occur at unmodified Initiative why not use the same wording there. Or conversely, if Pile Ins are intended to happen at unmodified Initiative why not use the wording "the model's Initiative" in the Sweeping Advance rule?

 

My conclusion? Imprecise and unclear.

 

I personally think it would be easier and simpler to simply write it as "Make a Pile In move when the model gets to attack" or somesuch, as that would solve every problem we currently have.

For sanity/simplicity sake, this is how I am going to be playing it. Actually, I think a better fix would be to change the wording of all Initiative modifying rules (eg. Charging through DT, Unwieldy) to read "For the duration of the Fight Sub-phase, the models Initiative should be considered..."

 

Agreed. Needs FAQ.

[Raeven]

It's just that is not what the rules say, because the rules assume that every model will always attack at the Initiative value that's on the profile.

 

You are reading what isn't there. The RAW don't say that. The use the same terminology for attacks. They don't say, during the Start of Initiative Step Pile in, use the models unmodified initiative and during the attack Initiative Step use the models modified initiative. They say, simply, Initiative.

 

It's possible for there to be scenarios to change your initiative after you make base to base contact with another model, and the rules are written to reflect these scenarios. Otherwise, Pile-In is simply part of the initiative step you attack in, based on your initiative.

 

The interchangeable use of Initiative Step and Initiative, the numerous statements saying a model strikes/attacks during their initiative, and the wording of the Pile In manuever (Start of Initiative Step Pile In), makes it clear that you are expected to pile in and attack at the same initiative step, unless something changes that "after" the pile in brings you into base to base contact, such as whip coils and lashes.

 

I would also argue that DreadKnights get I6 NDH attacks or quickened I10 NDH. The rules clearly state such.

 

GK Nemesis Halberds get +2 init, just like , but are AP3 power/force weapons because of their special stat line.

 

Banshee's and get their first attacks at I10, regardless of the weapon they have, as Codex ability supercedes weapon stats. Banshee mask is a set value change. Because it is a codex change, it comes after all previous set value changes. Codex > Advanced Rule > Basic Rule

 

Librarians get I10 when quickened...regardless of weapon. Codex > Advanced Rule > Basic Rule

 

Signum Rules follow the same procedure, except in the case of Flyers, because flyers have the additional Skyfire requirement that eliminates the bonus of Signums (unless the model is using a Skyfire weapon). Codex > AR > BR

[Seahawk]

You are reading what isn't there. The RAW don't say that.

But that is exactly what they say, as the system breaks down as soon as you apply DT, Unwieldy, and other such rules. I've already made a post that's been ignored by the naysayers and approved by the RAW-ists that details the difference in the wording.

 

GK Nemesis Halberds get +2 init, just like , but are AP3 power/force weapons because of their special stat line.

This isn't true. The rule doesn't say "...the wielder of a Nemesis halberd has +2 Initiative", it says "...the wielder of a Nemesis halberd strikes at +2 Initiative." (C:GK, p.54). It's a very big difference that you don't seem to understand.

 

Signum Rules follow the same procedure, except in the case of Flyers, because flyers have the additional Skyfire requirement that eliminates the bonus of Signums (unless the model is using a Skyfire weapon). Codex > AR > BR

Since you brought in the unrelated argument, you're actually wrong here, so I'll direct you to the posts that show otherwise:

 

Post 1

Post 2

[thade]

I don't think that is RAI, but this is the OR.

I think it's okay; I mean, wielding a big ol' slow-to-swing axe may make you swing slower but not run slower. <3

I was TOTALLY wrong here and now I see it. (I just needed to re-read the thread.)

 

Seahawk et. al. are right. I withdraw what little protest I offered, haha.

[Raeven]

I think the fundamental disconnect in the two camps on this debate can be summed up thus :

Is the "Initiative step" of the "Fight sub-phase" rule a monolithic whole which can not be sub-divided?

 

Yes. Your code snippet illustrates that very well. You don't roll wounds after everyones initiative is over. You roll them at each initiative step. Each initiative step is a single entity. You start that step with a pile in and end it with saves. In the middle of that step are the models attacks, unless superseded by a rule from your opponent that reduces your initiative. I'll stop arguing the point, as I've said everything I can to make my case. If you are interested inI10 power axe attacks or quickened hammer attacks, I'm the type of person you want to play against, cause I support those rules.

 

Player turn
- Movement phase
- Shooting phase
+ Assault phase
 - Charge Sub-phase
 + Fight sub-phase
  - Choose a Combat
  + Fight a Combat
+ Initiative steps
	 - Start of Initiative step Pile In
 - Who can Fight?
 - Number of Attacks
	 - Rolling to-hit
 - Rolling to-wound
 - Allocating wounds
 - Saves
  - Determine Assault results

[Raeven]

Signum Rules follow the same procedure, except in the case of Flyers, because flyers have the additional Skyfire requirement that eliminates the bonus of Signums (unless the model is using a Skyfire weapon). Codex > AR > BR

Since you brought in the unrelated argument, you're actually wrong here, so I'll direct you to the posts that show otherwise:

 

Post 1

Post 2

 

I was using signums as an example of codexes trumping BRB. Are you saying signums give you BS5 vs flyers?

[Seahawk]

Yep. I thought you were saying otherwise.

[Raeven]

I was, but I'll gladly change my opinion.

[Gentlemanloser]

To be honest, I think GW are using Initiative and Initiative Step interchangably throughout the assault rules.

 

It's imprecise and confusing, but to me that seems what they have done.

 

For example, take the 'Hammer of Wrath' special rule. There is no need to add a cluase that this doesn't give you an extra pile in at i10, if the rules are supposed to explain that you (edit) *don't* pile in at the same step as you attack.

 

An i4 Jumper, would (if the terms are supposed to be seperate) Hammer at i10 and then pile in at i4, anyway.

 

Becuase of the poor choice to equate Iniative to Iniative Step in the assault rules, I don't think I'm going to be able to provide any sort of RAW in support. After reading the section, it's too badly written. :)

 

I'm now sure the RAI is that Iniative and Initiative Step are equatable. The 'step' the mini acts in (fully) is equal to thier 'Initiative', which can be temporarily modified.

 

By DT tests, Wargear (GK Halberds, Banshee Masks, Lash Whips) or Special Rules (Quickening, Hammer, Unwieldy).

 

You act fully on one 'step', pile and attack at the same time.

 

And as noted, tests that require characteristic tests (Sweeping Advance, Hit and Run) use the mini's unmodyfied Initiative value to do so.

 

So I feel;

 

1) Frags work the same way as Plasma grenades.

 

2) You 'pile in' at the same step you attack at.

 

3) Banshee Masks/Quickening over ride Unwieldy. (Codex rule > BRB rule)

 

4) Sweeping Advance and Hit and Run always use 'unmodified' stat values, so aren't effected by either Banshee Masks/Quickening or Unwieldy/Difficult Terrain.

 

5) Lash Whips > Nemesis Halberds, but dice off with Banshee Masks/Quickening. (Codex rule versus Codex rule)

 

While this impact 'power' of some units (fear Banshee's!), I just feel that this is the least complicated/clunky interpretation of the rules, and possibly what was intended.

 

It's a pitty that rules are as clear as mud here, and I can't really get any concrete RAW to back up my stance. ;)

[dizzy-xc]

Well, I agree with everything you just said, Gentleman Loser. I kinda came around to those same ideas myself the more I kept going over it.

[facmanpob]

Agreed, I think we need to remember that the rules were written by people who don't want us to pick through every single individual word looking for loopholes or ambiguity! They want us to go...."oh yeah, then I roll this, then I roll that, cool"! :D

 

I think simplicity is the order of the day here....otherwise my Sergeant with Power Fist lets his legs pile in at I4, but hangs around for three steps before swinging his fist....or the dude with the halberd is swinging away like mad at I6, but not actually getting into base contact with anything until 2 steps later! ;)

[Seahawk]

And as noted, tests that require characteristic tests (Sweeping Advance, Hit and Run) use the mini's unmodyfied Initiative value to do so.

They actually aren't tested on the unmodified value, and indeed test on the highest value they have. So, a GKT unit with a single halberd would Hit and Run on I4 still (because the halberd does not add +2 Initiative to the model), a unit that charged through DT would still H&R on a normal I, but a Quickened unit would test on I10, while a unit with all models being lashed/coiled would test on I1. See how this still makes the wording distinct, and that I =/= I Step?

 

Sweeping Advance is the only instance where you use the unmodified value of Initiative.

[Gentlemanloser]

>_<

 

I read;

 

As in the rules, this is done on the unmodified values. As noted above, Characteristic Tests do not use the unmodified values.

 

As 'do'.

 

/sigh

 

So Characteristic tests use modifier values. I can live with that. :)

 

Also, if the DT test doesn't modify Initiative, then what do the following bonus form Assault Grenades do?

 

Models equipped with Assault Grenades don't suffer the penalty to their Initiative for charging enemies through cover

 

What penalty to Initiative?

[thade]

Models equipped with Assault Grenades don't suffer the penalty to their Initiative for charging enemies through cover

 

What penalty to Initiative?

Read the rules. <3

 

Or not, as it's the same as last edition. :)

[Gentlemanloser]

I have done Thade. Would you like me to quote the DT rules agian? :)

 

(Edit: Becuase it was easy to grab and C&P - Oh and I don't recal last editions rules mentioning Initiative Step in them! B))

 

if at least one model in the charging unit moved through Difficult Terrain as part of its charge move, all of the models must attack at Initiaitve step 1, regardless of other Initiative modifiers

 

(No mention of a penalty to Initiative)

 

They mentioned a penalty to Initiative Step, so where's the penalty to Initiative? ;)

 

This is of course, if you support Initiative Step to be seperate to Initiative... Otherwise, the penalty to Initiative Step *is* the penalty to Initiative.

 

Phew. Too many Initiatives there... No wonder GW messed it up so badly! :P

 

Edit2: The last part of the DT rules imply that modifiers to Initiative change your Initiative Step itself. Food for thought. In this case any *codex* Initiative modifier would then over ride the DT penalty, as 'regardless of other Initiative modifiers' would conflict. And we know, in a conflict Codex > BRB...

 

Food for thought. ;)

[MalachiOfRuss]

To be honest, I think GW are using Initiative and Initiative Step interchangably throughout the assault rules.

...

I'm with you 100% - your point about the wording in Hammer of Wrath is a telling point.

[Gentlemanloser]

Are the apendicies (the bits at the back with the Psychic Discipline Powers) 'advanced' rules?

[Raeven]

I have done Thade. Would you like me to quote the DT rules agian? :P

 

(Edit: Becuase it was easy to grab and C&P - Oh and I don't recal last editions rules mentioning Initiative Step in them! -_-)

 

if at least one model in the charging unit moved through Difficult Terrain as part of its charge move, all of the models must attack at Initiaitve step 1, regardless of other Initiative modifiers

 

(No mention of a penalty to Initiative)

 

They mentioned a penalty to Initiative Step, so where's the penalty to Initiative? :)

 

This is of course, if you support Initiative Step to be seperate to Initiative... Otherwise, the penalty to Initiative Step *is* the penalty to Initiative.

 

For the purpose of Characteristic Tests, there is no change to Initiative, which is why I think they made the wording like they did. For the purpose of Assault, it's been shown how your initiative step can be changed after an effect from base to base contact with another model, but this doesn't modify your initiative for the purpose of Initiative Tests.

 

Page 26 "FIGHT NEXT INITIATIVE STEP" supports the concept that all the things listed from the start of the INITIATIVE STEPS (pg 22-26) rules through the end of them are all one monolithic sequence and not seperate sequences, with exceptions we have already covered.

 

 

Edit2: The last part of the DT rules imply that modifiers to Initiative change your Initiative Step itself. Food for thought. In this case any *codex* Initiative modifier would then over ride the DT penalty, as 'regardless of other Initiative modifiers' would conflict. And we know, in a conflict Codex > BRB...

 

Food for thought. :)

 

I think this is another case of the two terms being used interchangeably. (edit) DT == Cover. See pg. 28 Charging Through Difficult Terrain. In that paragraph, in one sentence it says DT and in the last half of the same sentence it says cover.

 

They should have made a list of definitions that explain these interchangeable uses of terms in the appendix.