PDA

View Full Version : Flyers on hills charging models on open ground without enough spaces:



teos40k
30-10-2008, 10:26
Here is the situation: I am trying to use my pegasus knights on the hill to charge my friend's riflemen those are merely 1 inch away from his warriors, and there is simply not enough space for me to place my pegasus knights between the warriors and the riflemen... Am I still allowed to charge? Do I drag both units into combat? Do I move the models so I pegasus knights can squish in..? Or do I charge with a different facing?

Thx~

kramplarv
30-10-2008, 10:58
no. you are not allowed to charge them.

skank
30-10-2008, 11:08
no, you can't charge them successfully.

Good ploy to hold up bloodthirsters/dragons etc.

T10
30-10-2008, 11:09
You can't charge the "riflemen" since there isn't enough room for you to fit your models. The "warriors" are in the way.

-T10

Condottiere
30-10-2008, 11:28
Since deployment is unclear, I'm not sure if this advice is valid - but, why not charge the warriors and over-run into the riflemen?

skank
30-10-2008, 11:33
Because they will lose?

I guess by warriors he means swordsmen, not a soft target.

BEEGfrog
30-10-2008, 19:57
This is an interesting point and people are asserting things I can't find in the rulebook. If the flyers weren't on a hill the path of LOS would almost certainly at least give an opportunity to clip.

The rules say if you can make a legal move to contact the target unit then the charge is sucessful and you have to find an equitable way to align the two units to maximise the models in contact. The gap would have to be wider than an inch in order for the flying move to be legal.

Pg 21 says a charge fails if doesn't reach (not if there isn't room to align). At the end of the page it says you should move the target unit if required to get models to align.

The extra rules/guidance in the FAQ doesn't cover it, but it does appear to be a legal charge as not having room doesn't appear to be a legal reason for cancelling a charge.

teos40k
31-10-2008, 11:07
Well it was like this.. a hill was deployed somewhere between our deployment zone. So first turn I fly my PK on the hill to gain advantage of elevation(thus granting los to the whole battle field)

His (dwarven) warriors are deployed like 1 inch in front of his thunderers those are on the hill.(riflemen)

So, on second turn my pk declared charge against the rifleman(which I have LOS without any problem.) However the gap between the warriors and riflemen is definately not wide enough for my PK to fit in. Thus the oddball situation.

Chicago Slim
31-10-2008, 11:32
If the flyers weren't on a hill the path of LOS would almost certainly at least give an opportunity to clip.
...
The rules say if you can make a legal move to contact the target unit then the charge is sucessful and you have to find an equitable way to align the two units to maximise the models in contact. The gap would have to be wider than an inch in order for the flying move to be legal.
...
The extra rules/guidance in the FAQ doesn't cover it, but it does appear to be a legal charge as not having room doesn't appear to be a legal reason for cancelling a charge.

A move which ends with your troops standing on top of his troops is not legal. In fact, while the charge declaration is legal, it's a problem of "enemy in the way", quite literally...

Your first paragraph seems to suggest clipping, but unless the shooters are significantly wider than the fighters, it'd still be an illegal move: you can't put your troops within 1" of enemy, unless you're charging them.

Sliding is an optional rule, which only applies if you're able to actually make a legal charge move. In this case, there's enemy in the way, from the start, so you can't get in with the shooters.

My tactical advice is to fly up to the flank, instead.

Chicago Slim
31-10-2008, 11:34
His (dwarven) warriors are deployed like 1 inch in front of his thunderers those are on the hill.(riflemen) ... the gap between the warriors and riflemen is definately not wide enough for my PK to fit in. Thus the oddball situation.

Not so oddball: it's a legitimate tactic, which I see used very frequently.

Doing the math, you actually require a gap of just over 2 1/2" in order to land your 40mm (~1.5") base fliers there (to make room for their base, plus 1" leeway for the other unit...)

BEEGfrog
31-10-2008, 11:56
Not so oddball: it's a legitimate tactic, which I see used very frequently.

Doing the math, you actually require a gap of just over 2 1/2" in order to land your 40mm (~1.5") base fliers there (to make room for their base, plus 1" leeway for the other unit...)

The problem is the flying move is legal without the 1" gap from enemy units as they count flying while moving.

If the gap is under 25.4mm (1" in mm) the move is invalid as the front of the unit starts moving on the ground within the 1" exclusion zone of the other uncharged unit.

If the gap is at least 85.4mm (and the flyers rank up 1 deep) then there is no question that the charge is valid.

But what happens if the gap is between 25.4mm and 85.4mm or a rear rank of the flyers would overlap the uncharged unit?

DeathlessDraich
31-10-2008, 13:28
Well it was like this.. a hill was deployed somewhere between our deployment zone. So first turn I fly my PK on the hill to gain advantage of elevation(thus granting los to the whole battle field)

His (dwarven) warriors are deployed like 1 inch in front of his thunderers those are on the hill.(riflemen)

So, on second turn my pk declared charge against the rifleman(which I have LOS without any problem.) However the gap between the warriors and riflemen is definately not wide enough for my PK to fit in. Thus the oddball situation.

1) The charge declaration is valid - since the unit of PK has LOS and is within reasonable distance.

2) After charge declaration and during the Move chargers sub-phase, the charge will be deemed to have failed or EITW is declared.

3)If the charge fails, the PK now have to move 20" (or as much of it as possible) directly and as close to the unit of Thunderers as possible - This will probably be a straight line move stopping 1" from the Warriors in front of the Thunderers.

Atrahasis
31-10-2008, 13:46
The charge is likely to be completable if the warriors are not wider than the thunderers (see attachments).

If the warriors are wider, then it will depend heavily on the relative positions of the three units.

skank
31-10-2008, 15:27
I thought it was ok to go as close to enemy units (not just the charged one) as you like as long as you were making a charge move.


Tha charge in the pic looks dodgy to me... Ok, if a bit of the riflemen are sticking out you can clip but hitting unit at that angle looks problematic (like pursuit). Think it's better to say failed charge even though the charge declaration is valid.

Ganymede
31-10-2008, 16:06
1) The charge declaration is valid - since the unit of PK has LOS and is within reasonable distance.

2) After charge declaration and during the Move chargers sub-phase, the charge will be deemed to have failed or EITW is declared.

3)If the charge fails, the PK now have to move 20" (or as much of it as possible) directly and as close to the unit of Thunderers as possible - This will probably be a straight line move stopping 1" from the Warriors in front of the Thunderers.


I'm going to have to call you out on point one here because, as per the Warhammer FAQ, it is incorrect.

Note this passage in the FAQ .

Q. Can a unit declare a charge against an enemy that is
obviously out of range (for example if it was deployed 24"
away and has not moved)? This could be useful to get the
unit out of the way of another friendly charging unit…
A. The rules for charging on page 18 state: ‘When you
declare a charge you must do so without measuring the
distance to the target, you must rely on your estimate of
the distance to ensure that your troops can reach their
target’. Emphasis on the ‘ensure’. Therefore, declaring a
charge that you know cannot be completed (like
charging a unit 24" away) is cheating.

Most importantly, note this specific line in the passage.

"...declaring a charge that you know cannot be completed is cheating."

If you know you have nowhere to land your models, you know for a fact that the charge can not be completed. If you know that your charge can not be completed, then it would be cheating to declare the charge.

DeathlessDraich
31-10-2008, 16:09
Read my post again please - it states within "reasonable distance" - i.e within reasonable charge reach.

The main problem here is Flyers rules and the annoying word "can"

Ganymede
31-10-2008, 16:15
What I am trying to point out to you is that you are incorrect to say that a charge is valid if there is no way for the charge to be completed. You need more than line of sight and a reasonable distance in order for a charge declaration to be legal.

DeathlessDraich
31-10-2008, 16:54
What I am trying to point out to you is that you are incorrect to say that a charge is valid if there is no way for the charge to be completed. You need more than line of sight and a reasonable distance in order for a charge declaration to be legal.

And I did not say this - "that a charge is valid if there is no way for the charge to be completed"

I included the word *reasonable* - "reasonable distance" and then clarified that it meant "reasonable charge reach".
"Charge reach" by GW explanations includes distance and space for chargers.

I'm not sure whether your criticism is 'reasonable' or possibly 'out of reach' but rest assured you I won't be 'charging' you. :p

Ganymede
31-10-2008, 20:16
And I did not say this - "that a charge is valid if there is no way for the charge to be completed"

What is this, ametuer hour? Did jokes last used in the 70's just come back into fashion?




I am accusing you of saying this...


1) The charge declaration is valid - since the unit of PK has LOS and is within reasonable distance.

...and being absolutely wrong.

Charges declarations are only valid if you can reasonably complete the charge. If there is no space for these flyers to land, then there is no way to reasonably complete the charge. If there was no way for these flyers to reasonably complete the charge, then it was not a valid charge.

BEEGfrog
31-10-2008, 21:12
I am accusing you of saying this...


...and being absolutely wrong.

Charges declarations are only valid if you can reasonably complete the charge. If there is no space for these flyers to land, then there is no way to reasonably complete the charge. If there was no way for these flyers to reasonably complete the charge, then it was not a valid charge.

I would be nice to have a rules citation to back up the "absolutely wrong" I only know of two parts of the rules that cover this and they don't cover the issue that well and point to different outcomes.

The rules on charging say that your charge fails if you cannot reach the enemy and doesn't say anything about having enough room. The bit that covers aligning units after a charge suggests moving the target unit if that is required to find the room to get the units in combat. I have found those, I can't find anything specific enough to be "absolute" in how to interpret the rules on this.

Helveticus
31-10-2008, 21:33
You can move within 1" of enemy units during the charge move... even the ones you're not charging. So if there were exactly enough distance to hit and land, the charge was legal, if there wasn't it's a clipping situation, and someone should slide, and the charge is legal.

Ganymede
31-10-2008, 23:01
I would be nice to have a rules citation to back up the "absolutely wrong" I only know of two parts of the rules that cover this and they don't cover the issue that well and point to different outcomes.

The rules on charging say that your charge fails if you cannot reach the enemy and doesn't say anything about having enough room. The bit that covers aligning units after a charge suggests moving the target unit if that is required to find the room to get the units in combat. I have found those, I can't find anything specific enough to be "absolute" in how to interpret the rules on this.

Heya frog. I see what you are saying and understand where the confusion is comming from. The support for my statement is actually in the Warhammer FAQ and is not directly in the rulebook. That being said, the FAQ answers are basically as good as the rulebook. Take a look at this earlier post of mine for the rules citation that completely backs up my statement.


I'm going to have to call you out on point one here because, as per the Warhammer FAQ, it is incorrect.

Note this passage in the FAQ .

Q. Can a unit declare a charge against an enemy that is
obviously out of range (for example if it was deployed 24"
away and has not moved)? This could be useful to get the
unit out of the way of another friendly charging unit…
A. The rules for charging on page 18 state: ‘When you
declare a charge you must do so without measuring the
distance to the target, you must rely on your estimate of
the distance to ensure that your troops can reach their
target’. Emphasis on the ‘ensure’. Therefore, declaring a
charge that you know cannot be completed (like
charging a unit 24" away) is cheating.

Most importantly, note this specific line in the passage.

"...declaring a charge that you know cannot be completed is cheating."

If you know you have nowhere to land your models, you know for a fact that the charge can not be completed. If you know that your charge can not be completed, then it would be cheating to declare the charge.

BEEGfrog
01-11-2008, 04:44
I understand what you are saying, if there was a rule that specifically said that a charge could fail because of lack of room I would accept it.

But under "A Failed Charge" on pg 21 the only reason for a charge failing is being unable to reach the target. This is further amplified by last paragraph on pg 21 where it is clear that other models being in the way of lining up the combat does not cause the charge to fail as it talks about how to arrange the models to cope with the situation.

This means that the quote about declaring an obviously failing charge is irrelevant as we haven't found a rule to make the charge fail, only suggestions on how to arrange the models when there isn't enough room.

Ganymede
01-11-2008, 05:30
I am not one to believe that "...declaring a charge that you know cannot be completed is cheating," has any sort of ambiguity at all.

We do not need a rule that specifically says "charges can fail because of lack of room" because we already have a broad, sweeping rule from this FAQ that covers all situations. It is a simple procedure; if you know you can not complete a charge, then you are not allowed to declare the charge.

In all honesty, I don't think you argument holds any water. You seem to be stuck on this notion of failing charges, when the issue we are dealing with here are charge declarations that are illegal from the outset.


...

"...declaring a charge that you know cannot be completed is cheating."

This is not technical gaming jargon, nor is it code for a specific rule. It is plain english.

Atrahasis
01-11-2008, 08:23
But under "A Failed Charge" on pg 21 the only reason for a charge failing is being unable to reach the target. This is further amplified by last paragraph on pg 21 where it is clear that other models being in the way of lining up the combat does not cause the charge to fail as it talks about how to arrange the models to cope with the situation.

If there physically isn't enough room for even one model to be placed in contact with the charged unit, then the chargers are unable to reach the target. If you can place one model such that it is in contact with the charged unit, then they can reach.

BEEGfrog
01-11-2008, 09:34
I am not one to believe that "...declaring a charge that you know cannot be completed is cheating," has any sort of ambiguity at all.

We do not need a rule that specifically says "charges can fail because of lack of room" because we already have a broad, sweeping rule from this FAQ that covers all situations. It is a simple procedure; if you know you can not complete a charge, then you are not allowed to declare the charge.

In all honesty, I don't think you argument holds any water. You seem to be stuck on this notion of failing charges, when the issue we are dealing with here are charge declarations that are illegal from the outset.


...

"...declaring a charge that you know cannot be completed is cheating."

This is not technical gaming jargon, nor is it code for a specific rule. It is plain english.

If a charge doesn't fail, then it is by definition completed. If it is completed, how can a rule that requires the charge to fail apply, it has not failed!


If there physically isn't enough room for even one model to be placed in contact with the charged unit, then the chargers are unable to reach the target. If you can place one model such that it is in contact with the charged unit, then they can reach.

I am having this discussion in two threads, but where does the rule book say this? I can't find it, I can only find the bit at the end of pg 21 where it talks about moving the target models if necessary to make room for chargers. Is this something that someone told you and you have accepted as reasonable or is it actually in the book somewhere?

Atrahasis
01-11-2008, 09:37
The rules say that a charge is completed when the unit makes contact. (page 21)

If there isn't enough room for contact to be made, then the charge cannot therefore complete.

Chicago Slim
01-11-2008, 11:05
Frog, part of the problem is that you're assuming that page 21 is a complete and exhaustive list of all the conditions under which a charge can be determined to succeed or fail-- but there are other reasons for charges to fail, detailed in various sections of the rules, but not listed on page 21. Failing a fear test when charging an enemy you fear is one example. Enemy in the way is another.

See page 23, under "Enemy in the Way", for the rules to which Atrahasis and I are referring.

teos40k
01-11-2008, 13:51
Frog, part of the problem is that you're assuming that page 21 is a complete and exhaustive list of all the conditions under which a charge can be determined to succeed or fail-- but there are other reasons for charges to fail, detailed in various sections of the rules, but not listed on page 21. Failing a fear test when charging an enemy you fear is one example. Enemy in the way is another.

See page 23, under "Enemy in the Way", for the rules to which Atrahasis and I are referring.

Flyers fly over obstacles/interveining models when they charge though(pg68) So enemy in the way rule wouldn't even apply if the charge is completely legal.



In the FAQ, under the 4th paragraph of "awkward charges."

"Once the charging unit has touched its opponent, the
combat is committed and it only remains to align the
antagonists where the charge has been made at an angle.
Bear in mind what is really happening. The two units
have clashed and some warriors in advance of the rest
have struck the enemy first, but the rest will pile in
beside them and gradually both sides come together into
a wave that ebbs and flows as the troops fight. For the
purposes of the game we simply move the combatants
against each other so that a battleline is formed, and for
convenience it is easier to move the chargers. Therefore,
the charging unit is aligned to its target, but in situations
where it would be more convenient (eg, if impassable
terrain is in the way) it is entirely possible to move the
charged unit to align it with the charger."

I guess we found the answer...

FigureFour
01-11-2008, 14:42
I guess we found the answer...
Care to explain how that answers anything?

It seems to only apply if you can legally finish your charge in contact with your target. Since placing your model on top of an enemy model is illegal, doing such is not legally finishing your charge.

The FAQ is dealing with alignment AFTER the charge has been completed. For example, if your unit contacts the enemy in a V shape with another enemy unit inside the V, then you can move the units to finish the alignment.

It doesn't allow you to move the units so that you can make an illegal charge into a legal one.

Helveticus
01-11-2008, 15:01
So you hit corner to corner, you made contact, you're still in the front arc.

Chicago Slim
02-11-2008, 00:02
The problem with corner to corner is that while fliers ignore enemy troops *while moving*, they still have to give 1" clearance after they land...

teos40k
02-11-2008, 00:12
First of all. That paragraph also implies that if contact has been made, the charging/charged both can be re-aligned because once there is base contact, the fight begins, as GW always suggests, miniatures are not as static as people think they are, thus providing the 1'' clearance after charge can be given after the combatants re-align themselves. On pg12, the last 3 lines of the 1'' apart rule goes:"However, during charge moves a charging unit may approach within 1'' of any enemy(not only the ones they are charging).

BEEGfrog
02-11-2008, 01:51
Frog, part of the problem is that you're assuming that page 21 is a complete and exhaustive list of all the conditions under which a charge can be determined to succeed or fail-- but there are other reasons for charges to fail, detailed in various sections of the rules, but not listed on page 21. Failing a fear test when charging an enemy you fear is one example. Enemy in the way is another.

See page 23, under "Enemy in the Way", for the rules to which Atrahasis and I are referring.

These cites don't support your case. Fear does not cause a charge to fail it causes the charge to be cancelled, although the unit is treated as if it had done a failed charge (note it remains stationary and does not move its normal move forward).

Page 23 is irrelevant to the case as nothing about it applies to this example: the target unit hasn't fled and the charging unit has a legal move to contact the target. Nothing is in the charger's way to the point of contact, the non-target only starts getting in the way once the chargers try to align with the target.

DeathlessDraich
02-11-2008, 08:54
First of all. That paragraph also implies that if contact has been made, the charging/charged both can be re-aligned because once there is base contact, the fight begins, as GW always suggests, miniatures are not as static as people think they are, thus providing the 1'' clearance after charge can be given after the combatants re-align themselves. On pg12, the last 3 lines of the 1'' apart rule goes:"However, during charge moves a charging unit may approach within 1'' of any enemy(not only the ones they are charging).

Glad you've found the answer to your question.:)

Some additional comments:

1) Yes, if the charging unit makes contact in the right charge zone, the charge is successful.

2) To make contact the charging *unit* must have space.
N.B. - *unit* .
If there is space for only 1 model and not the rest of the unit, the charge fails or sometimes EITW may be declared.

Both (1) and (2) are supported by the rules and the BRB FAQs.

3) Corner contact (for a successful charge) is not specifically mentioned by the rules, IIRC, but is commonly accepted by most players as a very sound interpretation.


4) In the case of flyers, EITW is a tricky issue but that is another matter.

BEEGfrog
02-11-2008, 21:40
Glad you've found the answer to your question.:)

Some additional comments:

1) Yes, if the charging unit makes contact in the right charge zone, the charge is successful.

2) To make contact the charging *unit* must have space.
N.B. - *unit* .
If there is space for only 1 model and not the rest of the unit, the charge fails or sometimes EITW may be declared.

Both (1) and (2) are supported by the rules and the BRB FAQs.

3) Corner contact (for a successful charge) is not specifically mentioned by the rules, IIRC, but is commonly accepted by most players as a very sound interpretation.


4) In the case of flyers, EITW is a tricky issue but that is another matter.

1) Agree ( :D miracles can happen - deathless and me agreeing on anything!)

2) Disagree ( :evilgrin: normal service resumed - at least deathless and I are generally polite in our disagreements). The flyers are past the enemy unit and the uncharged troops haven't been exposed by fleers or interposed in another way since charge declarations so EITW doesn't apply. I have found nothing in the BRB to support the theory of the charge failing, both the BRB and the FAQ are only interested in the charge having the distance (or in the FAQ a fair estimation of the distance) in deciding if the charge fails.

3) Agreed ( the subliminal messages could actually be working! )

4) EITW for flyers is strange because, quite often the blocking unit isn't actually in the way and the flyers can just fly over them (even if the blockers can fly too). So I suppose I agree, but probably for different reasons.

I also spotted the box out on page 12 about the 1" apart rule, it doesn't apply to chargers! Even to non-target enemy units...

This gives an interesting extension of this argument for a theoretically legal anti-VC-bunker tactic. Your flyers on a hill have LOS to the vamps unit, even if there is no gap between the bunkered unit and an interposing unit. Therefore your flyers charge the bunkered unit and room has to be made for the combat. (I wonder how many people reading this now have steam pouring out their ears and look like this icon -> :mad: ?)

DeathlessDraich
03-11-2008, 07:48
2) Disagree ( :evilgrin: normal service resumed - at least deathless and I are generally polite in our disagreements). The flyers are past the enemy unit and the uncharged troops haven't been exposed by fleers or interposed in another way since charge declarations so EITW doesn't apply. I have found nothing in the BRB to support the theory of the charge failing, both the BRB and the FAQ are only interested in the charge having the distance (or in the FAQ a fair estimation of the distance) in deciding if the charge fails.


Not sure what you're saying.

This is my interpretation



2) To make contact the charging *unit* must have space.
N.B. - *unit* .
If there is space for only 1 model and not the rest of the unit, the charge fails or sometimes EITW may be declared.

Both (1) and (2) are supported by the rules and the BRB FAQs.


and this is the rules support


Q. The rules for Enemy in the way on page 23 only cover
the case of enemy units getting in the way of the
chargers. What happens if you declare a charge and
then, as you move the chargers, realise that there are
other things other than enemies in the way of your
charge?
A. The Failed Charge rules on page 21 state that a unit
may fail a charge because ‘the enemy has fled out of
reach, or if you have estimated your charge incorrectly’.
This includes situations when a unit declares a charge
and then finds out that the charge cannot be completed
for reasons other than enemy in the way (e.g. not enough
space to squeeze through terrain, friendly units blocking
the way, and so on). In such cases, the charge is failed,
and the charging unit must stop in contact with the
friendly unit or impassable terrain blocking its way,, or
inside the difficult terrain slowing it down, etc. Note that
the charge reaction declared by the enemy still stands.

Atrahasis
03-11-2008, 08:42
the uncharged troops haven't been exposed by fleers or interposed in another way since charge declarations so EITW doesn't apply.Neither of the conditions you list are actually required by the rules.

Chicago Slim
04-11-2008, 01:07
Woah-- Atrahasis, Draich and I all agree on something. Surely, a sign of the End Times.

Anyway, I'd just like to note that Beegfrog's interpretation IS supported by the ERRONEOUS first printing of the 7th Ed. rules-- see both the FAQ and (perhaps more importantly) the errata, which notes that the 2nd and later printings will clearly indicate (on page 23) that fleeing enemies are NOT a precondition to the Enemy in the Way rules.

In the first printing, the rules suggested that EitW would only come into play if enemy had fled a charge. This was, for whatever reason, deemed outside the intention of the ruling, as clarified by the Errata AND the FAQ.

That is all.

FigureFour
04-11-2008, 01:39
The flyers are past the enemy unit and the uncharged troops haven't been exposed by fleers or interposed in another way since charge declarations so EITW doesn't apply. I have found nothing in the BRB to support the theory of the charge failing, both the BRB and the FAQ are only interested in the charge having the distance (or in the FAQ a fair estimation of the distance) in deciding if the charge fails.

Are you seriously suggesting that placing your model on top of an enemy model is a legal movement?

BEEGfrog
04-11-2008, 02:59
For EITW to take effect enemy have to be in the way. Flyers fly over people in the way so it is difficult for people to get in their way, especially as pg12 says there is no minimum distance required from enemy units if charging. EITW says if you can't make a legal move to your declared target due to an enemy unit being in the way you can either charge the unit or stop an inch away. But the charging unit can move to contact the target, we are arguing about can it stop if/when it gets there and has to land.

My theory on the correct sequence of action is as follows:

1) Declare charges, charges responses, etc. and measure to see if the charging unit can contact.

2) If the target is within a legal charge move then declare the charge successful, and, as the rules state, move on to aligning chargers and target unit.

3) As part of the aligning process line up the combatants units so that the maximum models are in contact, ensure there is space provided for the combatant units, moving the charging unit, or if necessary, as allowed in the alignment rule, moving the target unit as well.

Note that the charging unit does not land on any other troops as the position of the combatant units should be adjusted so that there is room for the melee to take place. This alignment process takes place during the charge move, as part of the charge move, so any restriction on landing on enemy troops does not apply as the troops previously in the way will not be in the way once the position of the melee is adjusted to make room.

Re: the errata on EITW, I understood that the intent of the rule was to allow for the effects of charge responses on both this and previous charges. Also, that the errata was made to allow for the case when a unit flees from another charge and ends up blocking the path of this charge where the original target does not flee. The errata makes this interpretation less reliable, but I still assert that EITW does not apply as the charger can reach the target.

Re: the Q and A from rules support, note it specifically excludes enemy units. And the charging unit can contact the target unit within its charge range.

Thank you for making the citations for everyone to look at and comment on, it moves the debate forward in a positive way.

Atrahasis
04-11-2008, 09:04
You seem to think that "reaching the target" means "being within X inches of the target", where X is the charge distance.

There are more conditions than that for reaching the target, and being able to actually place your models on the table in contact is one of them.

If there is not enough room for you to complete the move into contact, the charge fails (or EitW is declared, depending on the situation).

Gazak Blacktoof
04-11-2008, 09:43
For EITW to take effect enemy have to be in the way.

And that they're where you want to land doesn't make them "in the way"?

The EITW rules are quite broad and cover any situation under which an enemy unit is stopping you from completing your charge.

As atrahasis has said if you can get 1 model legally into contact with the enemy then you can begin the procedure of wheeling to align which allows for the wheeling of both units if wheeling the charger isn't sufficient.

Whitehorn
04-11-2008, 11:20
Charging is a move, so you cannot succeed if you cannot place the models.

However, the way the quoted FAQs and charging procedures happen, I feel you are allowed to declare the charge and then see how it plays out.

They may shoot you.

They may fail a fear test and produce space.

If, after reactions and range check there is insufficient space, it's a failed charge.

Atrahasis
04-11-2008, 11:22
If you know it cannot complete then you can't declare it - unless there is a reasonable expectation that there will be space then you know you can't complete it.

Expecting a unit to fail a fear/terror test is not a reasonable expectation by the normal standards applied in these cases.

Whitehorn
04-11-2008, 11:32
NO, that's entirely down to the player's estimation of the space.

There's no way teos knows that there's exactly 1 inch space without cheating.

So you are justifying cheating with cheating?

Same goes for that poor example. Charging a unit 24 inches away is cheating? What if your charge range is 20 inches? 4 inches is fair estimation error.

Atrahasis
04-11-2008, 12:32
I can tell whether a 40mm base will fit in a gap, and I can tell the difference between 20" and 24".

A charge is only reasonable if both players agree it could complete - how you handle disagreements about what is reasonable is up to you.

Chicago Slim
04-11-2008, 18:12
For EITW to take effect enemy have to be in the way. Flyers fly over people in the way so it is difficult for people to get in their way

Flyers do fly over people, but that does not allow them to land on top of people.

That said, I'm not really adding anything to the conversation, at this point, other than a slightly different spin on what I, and Atrahasis, and Draich, have already said. I figure, if we haven't convinced you yet, Beeg, then I doubt that there's anything that will convince you... :)


1) Declare charges, charges responses, etc. and measure to see if the charging unit can contact.

Measurements are, in general, not taken until the Declare Charges subphase. So, you're pretty much skipping the Rally Fleers and Compulsory Moves subphases; also, stand-and-shoot reactions happen during Move Chargers, but before measurements are made.


2) If the target is within a legal charge move then declare the charge successful, and, as the rules state, move on to aligning chargers and target unit.

This, during Move Charges. I generally agree, though I suspect that I have a slightly different definition of "a legal charge move" than you do, since I would include things like "there's room to land" in that definition... :)


Re: the errata on EITW, I understood that the intent of the rule was to allow for the effects of charge responses on both this and previous charges. Also, that the errata was made to allow for the case when a unit flees from another charge and ends up blocking the path of this charge where the original target does not flee. The errata makes this interpretation less reliable, but I still assert that EITW does not apply as the charger can reach the target.

Actually, the errata clarifies that EitW CAN occur, whether or not the original target flees (that is, the original printing suggested that EitW could only happen as a result of a target fleeing as a charge response; the errata makes it clear that EitW can occur whether or not anyone flees).

BEEGfrog
05-11-2008, 10:12
I think we have got to the nub of the debate.

Is a move that would be legal and accepted by you all as legal made illegal if it follows the same path but stops a few inches earlier due to being a charge and contacting the enemy that few inches within its charge move?

I have been saying that since the path is a valid path and there is the feature in the alignment rule to move the melee to allow the charger to fit, maximising troops in contact, then the charge is valid and goes ahead.

You have been saying that although the path would be valid if the charger cleared the intervening troops, it isn't valid because the intervening troops haven't been cleared. As they haven't been cleared, they count as EITW and the chargers have the option of charging the intervening troops or stopping 1" short of them.

Consider the following cases (called A, B & C as we have already used numbers in the thread):

A) If the flyers could fly a path that would allow them to contact the target unit at an angle that would mean that their wheel to alignment would place them on top of the intervening troops but their initial position of first contact was not on top of the intervening troops. Would this be a legal move and would the melee be moved to make room?

B) If the flyers intial contact would be over the intervening troops but wheeling into alignment would make them not over the intervening troops then is this legal and the charge successful.

C) The example we have been discussing, the initial contact has the chargers over intervening unit and the wheel to align leaves the chargers over the intervening unit.

So finally, which of these are legal and what/where are the rules that differentiate the different outcomes between them? Under my interpretation there isn't a difference as I haven't seen where the rulles differentiate them.

Atrahasis
05-11-2008, 10:17
A) is legal - once a charger has made (legal) contact then it is a legal charge and alignment etc must follow

B) is illegal - if the models cannot be placed in contact, then they have not made contact

C) Illegal - if the models cannot be placed in contact, then they have not made contact

The rules allow the combatants to be shuffled to form a neat battle line AFTER contact has been made. If no contact can be made legally, then there is no permission to shuffle anyone.

BEEGfrog
05-11-2008, 11:32
Trying to understand the problem with B). The flyers don't end their move over another unit and they are expressly allowed to fly over other units during their move, so being over a unit part way through a move shouldn't be a problem. E.g. they are following the exact same route as A) but the intervening unit is positioned slightly to one side.

Or is it only that if A) is legal and B) is legal, it becomes difficult to justify C) being illegal?

Atrahasis
05-11-2008, 11:39
B) is illegal because your so-called initial contact over the intervening troops is not contact at all. Unless the unit can make contact legally (ie place the models in base contact and not on top of other troops) then contact has not been made.

Chicago Slim
05-11-2008, 11:46
Well, my problem with all three examples is that you're trying to wheel a unit of skirmishers (or a single character), instead of moving the closest model into contact, and then ranking the remainder of the unit up.

Units of flyers are always skirmishers. Skirmishers don't have a ranked formation, and so do no wheel-- so when you talk about "wheeling into alignment"-- that part doesn't happen at all.

My BRB is buried behind a construction zone at the moment, so I can't cite the page #, but the section on "Skirmishers" is quite clear on how skirmishers move during a charge. You should follow those rules instead.

BEEGfrog
05-11-2008, 12:29
B) is illegal because your so-called initial contact over the intervening troops is not contact at all. Unless the unit can make contact legally (ie place the models in base contact and not on top of other troops) then contact has not been made.

This is the rule I keep asking for a citation for. At the moment I can't find it so think it is an imagined/misremembered/previous version rule. Tell me where it is so I can move on to other things.

In B) the same mechanism as A) means that the unit does not end its move over another unit. The end position is legal; at the point of initial contact the flyers are still moving so still count as flying (as fly=move while flyers are not counting their ground movement allowance); the unit is allowed to fly over other units during its charge and only lands at the end of its move so its move is legal unless there is a rule I haven't found that disallows this.

BEEGfrog
05-11-2008, 13:00
Well, my problem with all three examples is that you're trying to wheel a unit of skirmishers (or a single character), instead of moving the closest model into contact, and then ranking the remainder of the unit up.

Units of flyers are always skirmishers. Skirmishers don't have a ranked formation, and so do no wheel-- so when you talk about "wheeling into alignment"-- that part doesn't happen at all.

My BRB is buried behind a construction zone at the moment, so I can't cite the page #, but the section on "Skirmishers" is quite clear on how skirmishers move during a charge. You should follow those rules instead.

Apologies if this results in two post in a row.

The skirmishing rules do not address the issue of room to deploy in anyway that directly applies to this case. It says that you place skirmishers that can reach the unit along the side that counts as facing until no more can count as fighting then the remaider of the unit is ranked up behind.

It doesn't mention what happens when either (potential) front rankers can reach the target but when placed in contact their bases would overlap with another enemy unit's bases or the models becoming the charger's rear ranks would land on top of another enemy unit. This issue occurs whether or not the chargers are flyers.

This gives the interesting result that it specifies the exact width that the unit has to be (number of models capable of counting as fighting), their position if in front rank (in contact with relevant face of target, counting corner-to-corner) or rear rank (as ranked unit, directly behind rank in front, identical width except rear rank which can be smaller).

What happents if overlapping another unit? The rules don't give an option not to rank up!

FigureFour
05-11-2008, 13:44
Is a move that would be legal and accepted by you all as legal made illegal if it follows the same path but stops a few inches earlier due to being a charge and contacting the enemy that few inches within its charge move?
Yes. A legal move would become illegal if you shortened it, if this shorter move will place the moving model in an illegal position. Your supposition of "the path is legal therefore any movement along the path must be legal" is flawed. If you fly over impassible terrain, you have made a legal move. If you cut that move short so you land in the impassible terrain (for any reason, charging or not) you have made an illegal move, even though the path would have been fine if your endpoint was further away.


I have been saying that since the path is a valid path and there is the feature in the alignment rule to move the melee to allow the charger to fit, maximising troops in contact, then the charge is valid and goes ahead.
Yeah, but this is wrong. You only align if you can make a legal charge move that brings you into contact with the target model. If there's no legal spot to place your model in contact with the enemy, you haven't completed your charge and therefore don't get to align. Just like you can't take your "free wheel" before you've contacted the enemy.


You have been saying that although the path would be valid if the charger cleared the intervening troops, it isn't valid because the intervening troops haven't been cleared. As they haven't been cleared, they count as EITW and the chargers have the option of charging the intervening troops or stopping 1" short of them.
Exactly. The movement would be valid if there were no enemies in the way. However if there ARE enemies in the way, the Enemy In The Way rules are invoked.


A) If the flyers could fly a path that would allow them to contact the target unit at an angle that would mean that their wheel to alignment would place them on top of the intervening troops but their initial position of first contact was not on top of the intervening troops. Would this be a legal move and would the melee be moved to make room?
Yes it would be a legal move. The initial charge is legal, and you are allowed to make room for the wheel.


B) If the flyers intial contact would be over the intervening troops but wheeling into alignment would make them not over the intervening troops then is this legal and the charge successful.
This would not be legal. The initial movement is obviously illegal, and so it cannot be completed. If the initial movement is not completed, you don't get to wheel.

This would be the same as making a failed charge and then using the "free wheel" to align to make contact.


C) The example we have been discussing, the initial contact has the chargers over intervening unit and the wheel to align leaves the chargers over the intervening unit.
Still illegal, since the initial contact cannot happen.


So finally, which of these are legal and what/where are the rules that differentiate the different outcomes between them? Under my interpretation there isn't a difference as I haven't seen where the rulles differentiate them.
The difference is that the alignement rules only apply if you can finish your charge move in contact with the enemy in a legal position. Essentially they are two seperate movements with their own rules governing them. If the first move isn't good, the second one doesn't happen so you can't rely on the results of your theoretical alignment move to turn an illegal charge into a legal one.


In B) the same mechanism as A) means that the unit does not end its move over another unit. The end position is legal; at the point of initial contact the flyers are still moving so still count as flying (as fly=move while flyers are not counting their ground movement allowance); the unit is allowed to fly over other units during its charge and only lands at the end of its move so its move is legal unless there is a rule I haven't found that disallows this.

No. At the initial point of contact the movement is done. Alignment is NOT part of your charge move.

Chicago Slim
05-11-2008, 14:08
Apologies if this results in two post in a row.

The skirmishing rules do not address the issue of room to deploy in anyway that directly applies to this case. ... It doesn't mention what happens when either (potential) front rankers can reach the target but when placed in contact their bases would overlap with another enemy unit's bases or the models becoming the charger's rear ranks would land on top of another enemy unit. This issue occurs whether or not the chargers are flyers.

Correct-- the skirmisher rules don't cover this, because it's already been covered in the Movement Phase rules: a move is not legal if it ends in contact with an enemy, unless the mover had declared a charge against the relevant unit.

In this particular case, you're moving a flyer into contact with a legal charge target, to the correct facing, but you're ALSO moving the same flyer into ILLEGAL contact, with a different enemy, one the incorrect face. I continue to suggest that such a move is not legal.


That said, I do recognize that there's one paragraph, in Move Chargers, which you've cited, that allows for adjustment of any and all relevant units--so we essentially have two rules that, in this very limited case, may conflict. I would argue that the "adjust" rule you've cited is much less strongly-worded ("...it is allowable...") than the earlier rule I'm citing (again, don't have my books this week, so I apologize for the lack of chapter-and-verse... I recall the text as along the lines of "... may not..." and "...must...")


What happents if overlapping another unit? The rules don't give an option not to rank up!

This is where I refer to Enemy in the Way: the "overlapping unit", as you call it, is very literally ENEMY, who are IN THE WAY. Why is that a hard concept?


Anyway, as I've said before, I don't think that there's anything that'll convince you, if we haven't already, so I guess I'm done here. Of course, you can play it however you want, assuming you can convince your opponent to agree with you. But I hope that, if nothing else, this conversation may convince you that your rules interpretation is not in synch with, at least, the majority of people on this forum.

BEEGfrog
05-11-2008, 14:21
No. At the initial point of contact the movement is done. Alignment is NOT part of your charge move.

That is why people need to cite or make clear their logic, instead of just saying something is wrong. I can accept this as a RAW reason why the logic chain doesn't stack up.

I like to think the intent was to have a melee in this situation and the GW rules writers did their normal bad job of writing what they meant. I also think it strange that it should count as two separate moves as it is one real motion (as GW have used as an argument before in their rules and FAQs).

However, this still leaves us with the skirmisher issue. If there is one place where a model from the charging unit can legally stop in contact with the target, and multiple skirmishing models can reach this place, what happens when the skirmisher's ranking up for melee rule makes models overlap other units' bases?

FigureFour
05-11-2008, 14:34
That is why people need to cite or make clear their logic, instead of just saying something is wrong. I can accept this as a RAW reason why the logic chain doesn't stack up.

Appologies for the lack of citations. I'm at work right now. I'll try to back up my position a little more when I get home.


I like to think the intent was to have a melee in this situation and the GW rules writers did their normal bad job of writing what they meant. I also think it strange that it should count as two separate moves as it is one real motion (as GW have used as an argument before in their rules and FAQs).

Really, the alignment rules are strange in general. I think the intent is that should a legal charge move bring two unit into contact, they should line up properly. They should not turn an illegal charge move into a combat.

Moving a unit away from a defended position that would keep combat from occuring doesn't seem like what GW wanted.


However, this still leaves us with the skirmisher issue. If there is one place where a model from the charging unit can legally stop in contact with the target, and multiple skirmishing models can reach this place, what happens when the skirmisher's ranking up for melee rule makes models overlap other units' bases?

I'm not sure at all and without the rules in front of me don't want to discuss it in detail.

My opinion is that it should be an illegal charge if there isn't enough room for the whole unit, but I'd let the skirmishers stretch out sideways instead of ranking up if that's the only way they'd fit.

Basically I think the charge should be allowed (as it was probably legal) but I don't think a unit not involved by the combat should be moved to make room. Under any circumstance it seems strange to me that some troops would stand aside to let their friends get killed, so I'd try to make sure it happens as little as possible.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

BEEGfrog
05-11-2008, 15:34
Appologies for the lack of citations. I'm at work right now. I'll try to back up my position a little more when I get home.
No, I was unclear, you were specific enough that I was able to find the part of the rules in question and see if they could be interpreted the way you were interpreting them and if there was a different/better interpretation.

A lot of people have been saying the interpretation was wrong without giving enough information to show what was wrong. I didn't know what was right according to RAW but the stuff I could find was pointing one way. You said "something was wrong because..." when too many were saying somethng like "we don't do it that, so you must be wrong".


Really, the alignment rules are strange in general. I think the intent is that should a legal charge move bring two unit into contact, they should line up properly. They should not turn an illegal charge move into a combat. If the alignment move was interpreted as one continous charge move from beginning to end then it wouldn't have been illegal because one unit never ends up on top of another. Splitting the charge into two seperate moves appears to be RAW, even if it jars with my mental image of a dynamic, constantly moving battle.


Moving a unit away from a defended position that would keep combat from occuring doesn't seem like what GW wanted. Alignment rules imply trying to get them to fit first with the charging unit then with both the charging and target units, I think it is the FAQ that possibly goes beyond these two. GW always seem to me to imply that the spirit of the rules should be to get the maximum amount of models in combat without actually breaking any rules rather than looking for ways to restrict fighting or prevent charges.


My opinion is that it should be an illegal charge if there isn't enough room for the whole unit, but I'd let the skirmishers stretch out sideways instead of ranking up if that's the only way they'd fit.

Basically I think the charge should be allowed (as it was probably legal) but I don't think a unit not involved by the combat should be moved to make room. Under any circumstance it seems strange to me that some troops would stand aside to let their friends get killed, so I'd try to make sure it happens as little as possible.

The alignment rules talk about moving the target rather than 3rd parties, but the skirmishers rule give no option about how you rank up i.e. you can't make them wider. I would generally move the melee, i.e. charger and target before a 3rd party, but 3rd parties too if nothing else will work.

But I don't know what is right, unfortunately I need to track down the specific rules that cover each situation before I am happy that I understand a rule properly. I.e. I need to know both what a unit can do and why it can do it.

Chicago Slim
05-11-2008, 16:43
Splitting the charge into two seperate moves appears to be RAW, even if it jars with my mental image of a dynamic, constantly moving battle.

Yeah, so long as we're fitting to mental images, I had a hard time visualizing fliers sweeping down into a tiny little gap, and still successfully charging... :)


GW always seem to me to imply that the spirit of the rules should be to get the maximum amount of models in combat without actually breaking any rules rather than looking for ways to restrict fighting or prevent charges.

I agree, though it's also clearly possible for careful deployment to create situations in which a unit is safe from being charged...

FigureFour
05-11-2008, 17:44
No, I was unclear, you were specific enough that I was able to find the part of the rules in question and see if they could be interpreted the way you were interpreting them and if there was a different/better interpretation.
Oh, good. I won't go look up a page number when I get home then. Still, I'm usually a little hesitant when arguing based on my memories and impressions of the rules. I'd always prefer to have a precise wording backing me up, since often the precise wording is vital to getting the correct interpretation.


A lot of people have been saying the interpretation was wrong without giving enough information to show what was wrong. I didn't know what was right according to RAW but the stuff I could find was pointing one way. You said "something was wrong because..." when too many were saying somethng like "we don't do it that, so you must be wrong".
Yeah. "You're wrong," is never a helpful answer in this sort of situation. Even if it's right it's very hard to assess the credibility of the statement and it certanly doesn't help you understand the rule any better.


If the alignment move was interpreted as one continous charge move from beginning to end then it wouldn't have been illegal because one unit never ends up on top of another. Splitting the charge into two seperate moves appears to be RAW, even if it jars with my mental image of a dynamic, constantly moving battle.

Agreed. Frankly, it makes sense for many fliers to end their charge on TOP of their target. Honestly, you think a bat swarm lines up in front of the front rank of a unit? No, they're going to descend over top of the unit and swarm amongst it.

However, in the game, this would be tough to handle so we don't do it.


Alignment rules imply trying to get them to fit first with the charging unit then with both the charging and target units, I think it is the FAQ that possibly goes beyond these two. GW always seem to me to imply that the spirit of the rules should be to get the maximum amount of models in combat without actually breaking any rules rather than looking for ways to restrict fighting or prevent charges.
I think the intent of the rule is that if you manage to legally complete a charge, you should fight that charge in a sensible manner. You don't want a block of infantry hanging off the corner of another block at a 45 degree angle because there's a rock in the way of their alignment move.

I don't think they were intended to replace tactical positioning of your unit with big die rolling brawls, which is what a lot of people try to use them to do. You don't seem like that type though, so don't take that personally.


The alignment rules talk about moving the target rather than 3rd parties, but the skirmishers rule give no option about how you rank up i.e. you can't make them wider. I would generally move the melee, i.e. charger and target before a 3rd party, but 3rd parties too if nothing else will work.

But I don't know what is right, unfortunately I need to track down the specific rules that cover each situation before I am happy that I understand a rule properly. I.e. I need to know both what a unit can do and why it can do it.

I think you're probably right actually. I admit my solution is against the rules and based on my personal preference.

I'm not sure you CAN avoid breaking some rules in this situation though, which is why GW posted those guidelines in the FAQ. I think your solution is closer to what GW has in mind, and therefore it probably "more right."