PDA

View Full Version : Charging is Movement



NakedFisherman
03-01-2007, 16:27
Am I correct with my rather simple assumption?

ZomboCom
03-01-2007, 16:38
Of course it is. Why ask?

Jedi152
03-01-2007, 16:49
Ah, common sense says it is, but i'm sure NF knows his rulebook, so presumably it doesn't state anywhere that charging counts as moving.

mattjgilbert
03-01-2007, 16:54
Isn't one of the sub-phases "Move charging units"?

Cromenon
03-01-2007, 17:11
:wtf:
charging is movement....

exsulis
03-01-2007, 18:21
It does occur during the movement phase in all.

NakedFisherman
03-01-2007, 18:29
I had opponents tell me that charging wasn't movement.

I promptly picked up my models.

The point of this post was to get clarification (they asked me to get clarification).

TheWarSmith
03-01-2007, 18:46
hell yeah it's movement. I can't even imagine how it wouldn't be counted as such.

what was he trying to pull?

Kadrium
03-01-2007, 19:13
I had opponents tell me that charging wasn't movement.

I could really use a laugh at work. Please, favor us with the solid reasoning behind this worthy argument.

DeathlessDraich
03-01-2007, 19:27
It's the raw usage of RAW. I think the question is: when the rules state move or movement does it encompass charges or charging.

Sounds too obvious for an experienced player, but it is a valid question for any novice who is used to stringent rules.
I take it your friend is new to Warhammer, NF?

Most of the time, I think the problems are covered in the rules. I can't think of any instances this particluar lack of definitions doesn't.
e.g. Move or shoot - does that include a failed charge and shoot - fortunately the rules clarify this.

Krankenstein
03-01-2007, 19:38
I had opponents tell me that charging wasn't movement.

I promptly picked up my models.

The point of this post was to get clarification (they asked me to get clarification).

My imagination fails me. What is the issue? What could be gained and lost here?

NakedFisherman
03-01-2007, 21:23
The situation is thus:

My opponent declares a charge against the flank of one of my units. I plainly state that there's no way for him to make the wheel with his knights. My opponents (it was a 'megabattle') stated that the wheel might be possible, and it may be close. We never measured it out -- we just gave our opinions on the possibility of the wheel.

Of course, I disagreed. I added the fact that the new FAQ prohibits units from moving within 1" of enemy units. One of the opponents stated that no such rule existed. I let out a sigh and walked to grab the FAQ.

When I brought it back, I began reading it out to my opponents. They stopped me mid-sentence once or twice with their own rulings before I could finish enunciating the document. When I was done, they looked it over, and said it did not apply to charging because 'the FAQ answer is listed under the Moving section of the FAQ and not the Charging section and charging isn't movement.'

I questioned their candor, and they didn't relent. They assured me that it did not apply to charging.

I picked up my models.

DeathlessDraich
03-01-2007, 21:52
Much clearer now NF.
Yes the new FAQ does cause confusion.

Previously in the 6th the rule was 'ending' the move not closer than 1" AND it was stated that charging was an exception in the same section.

Now the 2 bits have been separated but the 1" rule is still an exception during charging:

pg 12 "models which would otherwise approach to within 1" without engaging are simply halted 1" away. However during charge moves, a charging unit may approach to within 1" of any enemy"

Atrahasis
03-01-2007, 23:09
So NF's opponents were correct, but for the wrong reason.

mattjgilbert
04-01-2007, 13:46
So it would seem.

T10
04-01-2007, 14:06
But that just makes them morally corrupt.

-T10

Krankenstein
04-01-2007, 14:54
Or poor at arguing in the heat of battle.

Crazy Harborc
05-01-2007, 01:56
Just follow the written rules. Move chargers occurs during the movement portion of a turn. I would have suggested they keep in mind good sportsmanship and fairplay.

I would also make it known to other players present what style of play those opponents were doing. Life's too short to waste time dealing with the people who will twist rules to try to gain a win without playing the game in a fair way. Those players sound like they need to grow up and act like mature adults.;)

Hashut's Li'l Helper
08-01-2007, 00:11
Um I'm a little confused here. Of course charging is movement, but was NF actually arguing that a charge couldn't be completed because it would come within 1" of another of his units. :confused: If not, what was he arguing?

Atrahasis
08-01-2007, 00:17
Um I'm a little confused here. Of course charging is movement, but was NF actually arguing that a charge couldn't be completed because it would come within 1" of another of his units. :confused: If not, what was he arguing?

It appears that he was.

Doc Havoc
08-01-2007, 15:33
Okay, so let me get this straight...

Your opponent declared a charge against your flank, then you would not let him move because his charge would take his unit within 1" of one of your units?:wtf:

So by the NF way of thinking, if you mixed 2 units of skirmishers no one could charge them?

Example: Models for each unit are marked with A or B

ABABABAB
BABABABA
ABABABAB

Wow! This has to be one of the worst attempts to exploit the rules in ones favor that I have ever seen! And he picked up his models and stormed out when they pointed it out.

Rulebook p. 12

However, during charge moves a charging unit may approach within 1" of an enemy (not only the ones they are charging).

Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't see anything in the rulebook FAQ that overrides this.

kir
08-01-2007, 15:44
i think he means they would end their move within 1" but not in contact. otherwise it's just an argument about nothing....

Festus
08-01-2007, 16:25
Hi

i think he means they would end their move within 1" but not in contact.
This is not a problem at all: As long as the units are in close combat, they may be closer to enemy units than 1".

They will not have to move out of the 1" zone as long as they are fighting.

cf. BRB, p. 12, right column, box, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence.

Greetings
Festus

EvC
08-01-2007, 16:34
I'm sure there must be more to the story than the unlikely "NF wanted to rules-lawyer his opponent out of being able to charge him". Enlighten us! :D

NakedFisherman
08-01-2007, 16:55
I wasn't trying to rules-lawyer my opponents. In fact, we never even measured the wheel. I wasn't about to attempt to argue with opponents who claimed charging isn't movement. I've given up arguing with irrational people if they simply wish to be irrational as a means to an end; in most rules cases that end is a favorable outcome.

Doc Havoc, not only is your example flawed rules-wise (and we're talking basics here -- both units can be charged in your example), but your attempt to discredit me because I picked up my models is rather silly considering you weren't there. I also did not 'storm out' and made no mention of such; I work at the store and run the WHFB league night off clock on my own time and even stay later than posted hours so that people can finish their games. It's unfair for you to include such epithets in your post regarding my behavior. In fact, your entire post is nothing but libel.


Um I'm a little confused here. Of course charging is movement, but was NF actually arguing that a charge couldn't be completed because it would come within 1" of another of his units.

More along the lines of 'you won't make that wheel, and you certainly won't make it staying 1" away'. The 1" away part was what caused the dispute to break down into 'charging isn't movement' and wasn't paramount to whether or not the wheel could be made (I still maintain the wheel wouldn't have had a chance either way! :p).

My opponents are regulars of the store and still come every week. I personally showed them the pertinent rules at the next meeting.

Atrahasis
08-01-2007, 17:11
More along the lines of 'you won't make that wheel, and you certainly won't make it staying 1" away'.The 1" rule doesn't apply during charges. At all.

Your opponent's may have been wrong, but why didn't you just measure the wheel?

NakedFisherman
08-01-2007, 17:13
The 1" rule doesn't apply during charges. At all.

I don't really care. If you were to read my post, perhaps you wouldn't either.

Atrahasis
08-01-2007, 17:15
To summarise - your opponent declared a charge, one you thought was impossible, but they thought possible.

You brought up an irrelevant and incorrect point, they then responded in kind, and you refused to continue the game, rather than simply measure the charge and discover who was correct on the original (and only relevant) point.

Quality sportsmanship all round.

Lord Steven
08-01-2007, 17:25
A fellow gamer gave me a clear plastic wheeling template not so long ago. It has marks on it so the wheel can be measured perfectly.

This template comes in very handy when charges are a close call. The distance can be measured quickly with much greater accuracy.

In your case, once both arguments had been put across I would have suggested that we measure the distance both ways (charging within 1 inch and charging not within 1 inch). Then if the situation arose that the charge was definately out in both instances there is no arguement.

And if the charge is in range by moving closer than 1" to a unit I'd have diced off. On a 4+ he could have it.

There are lots of rules to remember in this game and nobody can be expected to know everything. Unless someone found the rule on pg.12 we'd have played it like that.

I think quitting the game over something that could have been measured is a bit drastic.

NakedFisherman
08-01-2007, 17:37
To summarise - your opponent declared a charge, one you thought was impossible, but they thought possible.

You brought up an irrelevant and incorrect point, they then responded in kind, and you refused to continue the game, rather than simply measure the charge and discover who was correct on the original (and only relevant) point.

Actually, it wasn't much like that at all. The outcome of the situation had no bearing on whether or not I continued playing the game. The argument that 'charging isn't movement' is irrational (my opponents knew otherwise). That's entirely different from making a mistake with the rules. I wasn't about to slow a multiplayer game down with rules disputes, so I decided to not continue.


A fellow gamer gave me a clear plastic wheeling template not so long ago. It has marks on it so the wheel can be measured perfectly.

Yes, I own one as well as many others I've played against. Gale Force Nine makes them, and they're very handy.


I think quitting the game over something that could have been measured is a bit drastic.

The possibility of the wheel wasn't the proximate cause (nor were the rules at all).

Doc Havoc
08-01-2007, 18:50
So then what was the point of this thread? If rules weren't the issue and you didn't quit the game over a rules dispute then why did you post it in a rules forum?

You were cryptic at best when you first posted this and now you are denying that it had any bearing on your actions at all.


I wasn't trying to rules-lawyer my opponents. In fact, we never even measured the wheel. I wasn't about to attempt to argue with opponents who claimed charging isn't movement. I've given up arguing with irrational people if they simply wish to be irrational as a means to an end; in most rules cases that end is a favorable outcome.

So you refused to listen to their argument, and had nothing to prove your point. Once again, what were you referring to in the FAQ?


Doc Havoc, not only is your example flawed rules-wise (and we're talking basics here -- both units can be charged in your example), but your attempt to discredit me because I picked up my models is rather silly considering you weren't there. I also did not 'storm out' and made no mention of such; I work at the store and run the WHFB league night off clock on my own time and even stay later than posted hours so that people can finish their games. It's unfair for you to include such epithets in your post regarding my behavior. In fact, your entire post is nothing but slander.

So sorry if the my sarcasm wasn't evident enough for you. I was using your argument to make a point. (That point being that you didn't have a leg to stand on). I don't need to discredit you for taking your ball and going home. You have done more than anyone else could ever accomplish.

And so you stay open as a service to your customers... ummm I fail to see the relevance. Do you have a big cross in the store that you can nail yourself to after hours so the other gamers can observe your martyrdom accordingly? What does this have to do with why you quit when you didn't get your way?

Here was your argument, in your own words:

More along the lines of 'you won't make that wheel, and you certainly won't make it staying 1" away'. The 1" away part was what caused the dispute to break down into 'charging isn't movement' and wasn't paramount to whether or not the wheel could be made (I still maintain the wheel wouldn't have had a chance either way! ).

And you were wrong. (And what's worse, you wouldn't even measure the arc with the device you already had for doing just that.) Then you describe when they tried to explain thier side...

Of course, I disagreed. I added the fact that the new FAQ prohibits units from moving within 1" of enemy units. One of the opponents stated that no such rule existed. I let out a sigh and walked to grab the FAQ.

When I brought it back, I began reading it out to my opponents. They stopped me mid-sentence once or twice with their own rulings before I could finish enunciating the document. When I was done, they looked it over, and said it did not apply to charging because 'the FAQ answer is listed under the Moving section of the FAQ and not the Charging section and charging isn't movement.'

I questioned their candor, and they didn't relent. They assured me that it did not apply to charging.

So you wouldn't listen, and then effectively called them liars and/or cheats (you can find the definition of candor here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/candor ), and then packed-up your models and quit. Yeah, I would definitely classify that as storming out.

Just because you work at a game store and stay late from time to time doesn't make you a good gamer. I tire of people in game stores demanding their way because it is their house and their rules. I had a gamestore owner roll 30+ dice, claim that he hit 28 times and abruptly scoop up all of his dice. When I asked to see his rolls he said "there is nothing in the rulebook that says I have to show you my dice."
He spends his days belittling children and using his position to squeeze every tactical and financial beneift out of them he possibly can.

So forgive me if I do not asssume that you are the epitomy of good sportsmanship. But then I only have your posts here on this message board to go by. And in that instance you are sorely lacking.

DeathlessDraich
08-01-2007, 19:54
Let's not be too hasty in making personal judgements especially those that impugns another's integrity and sportsmanship.

The fault is not NFs but the new FAQ on the 1" rule which could lead to a misinterpretation when first read.

Hashut's Li'l Helper
08-01-2007, 21:48
If the fish will pick up his ball and go home, when players won't let him play the rules wrong, but can't find the page ref to prove it. One can only imagine how insufferable he must must be when he might be right. :eyebrows:

Oh wait, that's right, we only need to look at his posts to know exactly. :rolleyes:

Lord Steven
08-01-2007, 22:01
Doc, you've read far too much into these few posts. It sounds as if NakedFisherman played some part in organising these events and it also sounds like he helped with the hosting. This hardly paints the picture of an evil person :)

It transpires that this was a multiplayer game and that the same people will be playing next week. We don't know whether the people arguing were repeat offenders at arguing the toss over irrational rules or any of the background.

Infact, by picking his models up to leave in a multiplayer game he actually did the other guys a favour. He didn't only give them the charge - he gave them a much better advantage.

For all I know he stopped playing because his girlfriend kept texting that his dinner was in the cat if he wasn't home by a certain time. I'd definately try to speed a game up and stop the rules lawyering under those circumstances.

Atrahasis
08-01-2007, 22:35
The best way to speed the game up would have been to measure the charge. Going off to get a FAQ that he himself admits is irrelevant boggles the mind.

Yellow Commissar
10-01-2007, 02:04
Let's not be too hasty in making personal judgements especially those that impugns another's integrity and sportsmanship.

The fault is not NFs but the new FAQ on the 1" rule which could lead to a misinterpretation when first read.

I agree on the first part; Naked Fisherman was out of line when he questioned his opponents' candor over semantics.

I disagree that the FAQ had anything to do with it. Who busts out a FAQ in the middle of a game anyway? If he wanted to use the rules clarifications in the FAQ, he should have provided his 'friends' with a copy of it before the game.

A misinterpretation is no reason for packing up ones models in the middle of a game. The rulebook has clear rules for resolving these types of disputes.

You can apologize for Naked Fisherman all you want, but the fact remains that he displayed poor sportsmanship in his admitted actions.

All this being said, I'm sure that Naked Fishermen isn't the only one of us who has failed to behave in a perfect sporting manner during a game. While I disparage his actions (particularly as a game store manager), I expect he has learned something from all this, and hope he chooses more wisely in the future.

NakedFisherman
10-01-2007, 08:46
You know myself and my opponents from the little information you can gather through text on an Internet forum. You don't know how the game went or anything of the sort. There is no reason to make a judgment about my actions without seeing them first hand and without knowing what actually occured. I gave a simple summation of the events that took place, nothing more.

In the future, be more humble about your judgments of others' character.

There are certain circumstances that would cause or instigate a person to cease playing a game. These include, but are not limited to:

- needing to help a co-worker instead of play a game
- previous delays of the event causing the store to stay open later than allowed by the landlord
- employee scheduling issues with staying open after posted hours

Rather than pass judgment on myself and my opponents and their sportsmanship, the relevant background and the proximate cause for my actions need be assessed in order to pass such a judgment accurately. I leave my personal life off these forums for a reason, so perhaps you should respect that reason and cease the denunciations.


The best way to speed the game up would have been to measure the charge. Going off to get a FAQ that he himself admits is irrelevant boggles the mind.

No, the best way to speed up the game was to remove my models and let everyone else continue playing. That's why I did it.


So you wouldn't listen, and then effectively called them liars and/or cheats (you can find the definition of candor here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/candor ), and then packed-up your models and quit. Yeah, I would definitely classify that as storming out.

I definitely did not call them liars or cheats.

EvC
10-01-2007, 12:11
"I had opponents tell me that charging wasn't movement.

I promptly picked up my models."

Suggests that the two statements are linked. You cannot blame anyone for thinking that the first sentence was the direct cause of the second. However now that you have assured us you were simply leaving the game so as to remove the source of the conflict and improve the others' experience, I think we can all happily agree that was a jolly decent move of you.

Doc Havoc
10-01-2007, 15:59
Ok with over 3200 posts in less than 2 years, I think there is more than just a "little information you can gather through text on an Internet forum" about your character and general sportsmanship.

If indeed you are such a nice guy, then it should be obvious in the way you post.

And as to why you quit the game... which is it? Store duties and conflicts or you had a rules dispute. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this was a rules forum. If it wasn't a rules issue as you now claim then why did you even waste everyone's time with this?

NakedFisherman
10-01-2007, 17:30
Suggests that the two statements are linked. You cannot blame anyone for thinking that the first sentence was the direct cause of the second.

Of course I can blame them. The two statements show no direct correlation and only show the proximate cause of my actions.

As an example, consider this:

A terrorist group, The Black Hand, assasinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

World War I began.


Ok with over 3200 posts in less than 2 years, I think there is more than just a "little information you can gather through text on an Internet forum" about your character and general sportsmanship.

You may believe what you will. However, it's only a belief.

Doc Havoc
10-01-2007, 18:29
You may believe what you will. However, it's only a belief.

Careful, it is this exact same sentiment that got you into this mess!:evilgrin:

EvC
10-01-2007, 21:39
Of course I can blame them. The two statements show no direct correlation and only show the proximate cause of my actions.

In that case I suggest you limit your rules enquiries to the question you're converned with rather than adding things that you later claim to be irrelevent ;)

T10
10-01-2007, 21:56
As is clear in the first few posts of this thread: this was an unfortunate misunderstanding. Had NF known better, he wouldn't have argued the point. Had his opponents known better, they would have corrected him. With both these failing it is understandable that both parties found the other to be unreasonable.

As for ending the game at that point it may seem extreme, but in a public venue such as a games store it is the best solution: no further ill will is fostered and it clears up the table for others. The game itself would be a lost cause anyways.

NF: Under the circumstances, I'd say it was a good call.

-T10

Yellow Commissar
10-01-2007, 23:23
As is clear in the first few posts of this thread: this was an unfortunate misunderstanding. Had NF known better, he wouldn't have argued the point. Had his opponents known better, they would have corrected him. With both these failing it is understandable that both parties found the other to be unreasonable.

As for ending the game at that point it may seem extreme, but in a public venue such as a games store it is the best solution: no further ill will is fostered and it clears up the table for others. The game itself would be a lost cause anyways.

NF: Under the circumstances, I'd say it was a good call.

-T10

What!?!

How is quitting a good call?

Not only did NF ruin the game, what kind of example is he setting for the kids that play there?

I disagree with your assessment, T10.

Athelassan
11-01-2007, 00:09
I'd say that your opponent being a wazzock, or you suspecting that your opponent's behaviour is shortly to reduce you to the state of a wazzock, that's an excellent reason to quit, and therefore a good example to set to younger gamers, rather than encourage them to engage in bitter and largely unnecessary rules disputes.

Whether either of the above reasons was the reason NF quit I know not.

Ath

Hashut's Li'l Helper
11-01-2007, 01:23
The two statements show no direct correlation and only show the proximate cause of my actions.
Gosh fella's, The fish is right. At no point did he actually say that any of the actions in the following quote even occurred on the same evening. Its possible that he's not really a gruff, unsympathetic, dismissive, egoist. Perhaps he just plays one on this forum. maybe we need to read between the lines of his post a little.

The situation is thus:

My opponent declares a charge against the flank of one of my units. I plainly state that there's no way for him to make the wheel with his knights. My opponents (it was a 'megabattle') stated that the wheel might be possible, and it may be close. We never measured it out -- we just gave our opinions on the possibility of the wheel.

This is obviously just normal idle chitchat between two spirited opponents.


Of course, I disagreed. I added the fact that the new FAQ prohibits units from moving within 1" of enemy units.
Yup, he's got that right, The faq certainly does prevent units in non charging movement from moving within 1". (the red herring is quicker than the eye)
One of the opponents stated that no such rule existed. Here again he is right, the rule clearly exists, it's just not germane to anything that was currently happening.
I let out a sigh
Clearly the problem here is that his opponent, (even though the Fish never said so) also thought that the rule that Fishie brought up was supposed to have something to do with the legality of his charge declaration. The sigh is obviously a sigh of relief, as the sidetracked opponent is thrown off of the true course of rules relating to charges, and onto the false debate of rules that the fish knows, but do not apply. I have heard, (if by heard you mean totally fabricated) that often when he gets into situations that he doesn't like, Fishie shouts "look snorri trolls". A debate about the brokeness of SOC armies then ensues, and games are never finished due to the distraction.


and walked to grab the FAQ.
When I brought it back, I began reading it out to my opponents.
Now this is where I get confused. did you go to grab the FAQ as a result of the rules debate? Is this even on the same day? were there a multitude of reasons for you to grab the FAQ, and thie debate was only one; like in your causes of WW1 example.

They stopped me mid-sentence once or twice with their own rulings before I could finish enunciating the document. Blaspheming little men, how could they when you were so clearly only trying to elucidate them. Just out of curiosity, were you using the Eric Idle as archbishop voice while you tried to "enunciate the document"


When I was done, they looked it over, and said it did not apply to charging because 'the FAQ answer is listed under the Moving section of the FAQ and not the Charging section and charging isn't movement.' Well this is wrong, but since noone had the rule book with them apparently, looking at the actual 1" rule that the faq clarified was clearly out of the question.


I questioned their candor, and they didn't relent. They assured me that it did not apply to charging.
At which point realizing that the rule did not in fact apply to charging, though not for the reasons said, we amicably finished the game.


I picked up my models
Well why not, the game being over, and everyone happy.

Thus crisis was averted and tranquility reigned throughout the kingdom.


On a side note. Once, after the FAQ came out, I tried to use the ability to stand and shoot with a pistol wielding character at a model that wasn't charging him. when my opponent complained I quoted him this from the faq" Q. can a model stand and shoot at a charging unit, and then use another weopon in the ensuing combat A. yes" they became especially upset when i tried to say i could also attack with my great weapon. I explained that the faq was the new rule, and I didn't have ther rulebook so they couldn't look it up. I was sure however that the FAQ overrode the rulebook anyway.

Axel
11-01-2007, 01:53
I fail to grasp why you ever need the FAQ for that situation, or why you need the 1" rule at all?

When they charge and reach you, 1" is irrelevant - except if you claim that another unit is blocking the way, which - per special rule for charges - is also irrelevant. If they do NOT reach you, the charge is stopped after half movement, which will leave them safely out of the 1"-range (at least I fail to imagine a situation in which a failed charge leaves you within 1" of a unit). Nothing here needs the FAQ, its all in the rulebook. And of course charge is part of the movement.

Hashut's Li'l Helper
11-01-2007, 02:24
I fail to grasp why you ever need the FAQ for that situation, or why you need the 1" rule at all?

When they charge and reach you, 1" is irrelevant - except if you claim that another unit is blocking the way, which - per special rule for charges - is also irrelevant. If they do NOT reach you, the charge is stopped after half movement, which will leave them safely out of the 1"-range (at least I fail to imagine a situation in which a failed charge leaves you within 1" of a unit). Nothing here needs the FAQ, its all in the rulebook. And of course charge is part of the movement.

Thats the point. Thats why everyone is on the fish.

Yellow Commissar
11-01-2007, 03:39
I fail to grasp why you ever need the FAQ for that situation, or why you need the 1" rule all.

That's because you've never seen the " FAQ Tactic" in action. The idea is to whip out a document that your opponent has never seen before on turn 4. After insisting that it trumps the book of rules that you've been playing from all evening, you can trash your opponents army with rules he is not familiar with. It is a resoundingly effective strategy. It's fair to say that it works every time. In fact, your opponent will often just concede the game at this point, and hand you a glorious victory. Yay!

DaBrode
11-01-2007, 03:57
I like Warhammer. I think the rules in general are pretty darn complicated but all-in-all detailed and play very well into the types of weapons and models displayed on the table. Catapults act and fire like catapults, as do cannons and such. Everything just feels right. In the end it's all about fun and where I can say I'm one that absolutely LOVES to debate...

...why are we debating NF's character? 1/2 page of question and answer and then 2 1/2 pages of wasted time that literally could suck the fun out of this hobby for any newcomer that reads this.

Sorry but I just think that needed to be said here.

Palatine Katinka
11-01-2007, 04:02
Charging is movement. The original question is answered.

Charging is, however, an exception to the 1" apart rule. (As has been mentioned already).

To sum up; Charging is movement but is allowed to be within 1" of the enemy.

The 1" away rule is included to make it clear which units are in combat and which are not. I sometimes find that units get into crazy positions and remembering what each one is doing is not always easy, the rule not there to prevent charges from taking place. It does not apply to "charge moves".

NakedFisherman, it does sound like you left in a huff rather than leaving because you had better things to do. Whether or not this is true is not my place to say, I can only tell you how it reads to me (and apparently others).

Without measuring the charge we will never know if it would be in range or not but that is not relevant. They were incorrect, charging is movement. You were incorrect, 1" apart does not apply to charges. If you were playing at the under 16's club at my store you would both be corrected and told to play nicely or not at all.

NakedFisherman
11-01-2007, 05:26
NakedFisherman, it does sound like you left in a huff rather than leaving because you had better things to do.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that I went anywhere. I just stopped playing. I still was there the whole time, I just wasn't participating in the battle any more. My friend and opponent also decided not to continue.

What's the big deal here?

Palatine Katinka
11-01-2007, 05:52
I don't know where you are getting the idea that I went anywhere. I just stopped playing. I still was there the whole time, I just wasn't participating in the battle any more. My friend and opponent also decided not to continue.

What's the big deal here?

By "left" I meant the table not the venue.

There was no "big deal". As I said, it is not my place to say what happened and what didn't, I wasn't there. You asked for a rules clarification and people have given one. Unfortunately it doesn't quite match your interpretation and subsequently your stance seems to have been called into question.

We are all human and prone to error.

If I offended you, I apologise, it was not my intention.

Please remember that the most important rule is that "...having fun and keeping to the spirit of the game is more important than winning..."

T10
11-01-2007, 09:19
What!?!

How is quitting a good call?

Not only did NF ruin the game, what kind of example is he setting for the kids that play there?

I disagree with your assessment, T10.

Under the circumstances, the players proved equally unable to argue their positions. NF got it wrong from the start, so poo on him with nobs on.

His opponents failed to help correct his mistake. Had the three of them managed to dig up the right rule then the situation would have been resolved and all three learned something new. Huzzah! The show goes on!

Except it didn't and the three were essentially at a perceived deadlock.

At this point you have two options: To quit the game or keep on arguing until one side gives up. Which is the best option?

Hint: It's the one that doesn't potentially go on for ever.

-T10

TzarNikolai
11-01-2007, 10:00
That's because you've never seen the " FAQ Tactic" in action. The idea is to whip out a document that your opponent has never seen before on turn 4. After insisting that it trumps the book of rules that you've been playing from all evening, you can trash your opponents army with rules he is not familiar with. It is a resoundingly effective strategy. It's fair to say that it works every time. In fact, your opponent will often just concede the game at this point, and hand you a glorious victory. Yay!

its an FAQ and errata, its the most up to date version of the rules. if your opponent hasn't seen it before then so what? you'd rather play by the older rules that are by definition not as good? after all if they were, why would there even be an FAQ?

GranFarfar
11-01-2007, 17:32
its an FAQ and errata, its the most up to date version of the rules. if your opponent hasn't seen it before then so what? you'd rather play by the older rules that are by definition not as good? after all if they were, why would there even be an FAQ?

Well, since they are not actually IN the book you can't expect everyone to have read the FAQ, and thus can't demand to use them. Unless you let your opponent read them before you start playing that is.
So, yes, if my opponent have no idea of how the new rules work I would rather play with the old.

Axel
11-01-2007, 18:40
The original topic seems to be beaten to death, so you hopefully forgive me when I deviate...


I like Warhammer. I think the rules in general are pretty darn complicated but all-in-all detailed and play very well into the types of weapons and models displayed on the table. Catapults act and fire like catapults, as do cannons and such. Everything just feels right.

Have you ever played CHARIOTS? They play like mobile rams, and keep nothing of the real feeling of chariots. Their rules are an abomination.
Apart from that, the usage of stone-throwers on a battlefield does not really feel right in any historical context. You simply cannot aim with them as good as the rules imply, and it takes MUCH longer. But - compared to chariots - this is a minor quirk.

Charging is movement!

Paulus
11-01-2007, 20:52
I think people are misunderstanding Naked Fisherman's post (NF please feel free to correct me if I am wrong).

He is not really questioning the rules & from his other posts clearly has a good knowledge of the rules.

The point is (from what I can gather) that these were fairly experienced players who trying to reason the hysterically ridiculous notion that charging is not moving.

The result of the charge is irrelevant it is the fact they were arguing that charging is not movement.

NakedFisherman
11-01-2007, 21:31
The result of the charge is irrelevant it is the fact they were arguing that charging is not movement.

http://www.itv.ch/images/hammer.jpg

Paulus
11-01-2007, 21:34
Ha ha! Yeah think I would of stopped a that point to bang my head against a wall! :D

DaBrode
11-01-2007, 22:48
The original topic seems to be beaten to death, so you hopefully forgive me when I deviate...



Have you ever played CHARIOTS? They play like mobile rams, and keep nothing of the real feeling of chariots. Their rules are an abomination.
Apart from that, the usage of stone-throwers on a battlefield does not really feel right in any historical context. You simply cannot aim with them as good as the rules imply, and it takes MUCH longer. But - compared to chariots - this is a minor quirk.

Charging is movement!

How would you recommend they are played? Both Chariots and Stonethrowers that is?

In my opinion a stonethrower's dice rolls and guess setup is perfect for what the game involves. It feels like a stonethrower. Chariots I feel the same about.

Yellow Commissar
12-01-2007, 00:13
Under the circumstances, the players proved equally unable to argue their positions. NF got it wrong from the start, so poo on him with nobs on.

His opponents failed to help correct his mistake. Had the three of them managed to dig up the right rule then the situation would have been resolved and all three learned something new. Huzzah! The show goes on!

Except it didn't and the three were essentially at a perceived deadlock.

At this point you have two options: To quit the game or keep on arguing until one side gives up. Which is the best option?

Hint: It's the one that doesn't potentially go on for ever.

-T10

Hello.

I see your point of view here, but I'd like to point out a third option.

What I choose to do in situations like this is to follow the rules on page 3 and agree on a fair and reasonable solution. I don't care if I am right. I'd rather that my friend enjoys the game and get on to rolling dice and killing stuff.

All NF had to do was agree to anything; even a dice roll.

This is my point, and obviously many others.

No one remembers all the rules all the time, or even where they are located, so who cares about getting every miniscule detail correct?

The rules dispute was no reason for abandoning the game. There may have been other reasons, but to quit to avoid an argument is silly. Why argue? The book tells us to agree, and get on with the fun. Arguing is no fun.

IMO, NF violated The Most Important Rule when he walked to grab the FAQ and began to enunciate it. This sort of behaviour is bad form, and expressly prohibited by the written rule.

The game shouldn't be about the rules, it should be about ensuring that your opponent(s) have at least as much fun as you do.

Out.

Atrahasis
12-01-2007, 00:14
http://www.itv.ch/images/hammer.jpg

Except they only, by your account, argued that once you'd already brought a completely irrelevant FAQ into the discussion.

Paulus
12-01-2007, 00:38
Naked Fisherman was NOT arguing with a rule, he's already said this earlier in the thread forget anything about the rules & look at the following statement:

"Charging is not movement"

Naked Fisherman was simply posting to say that he had someone make that statement during a game & probably wanted to see if anyone else had heard similar bizarre statements like this during a game.

Instead he has had comments about how he is childish thrown at him, the only mistake he has made is probably in not posting this in fantasy general, as people seem to take things far too seriously when posting in the rules section, lol!

Yellow Commissar
12-01-2007, 04:11
He is not really questioning the rules & from his other posts clearly has a good knowledge of the rules.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! LOL!

You're kidding, right? :wtf:

Doc Havoc
12-01-2007, 04:16
I had opponents tell me that charging wasn't movement.

I promptly picked up my models.

The point of this post was to get clarification (they asked me to get clarification).

Sorry Paulus, but this was a rules question. Maybe since this has gone on for 4 pages and NF changes what his reasoning was every other post you didn't read his origunal post. So here you go... that was in his own words.

Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Obviously he had to leave the game and prepare for his nightly closing dutes and subsequent after hours crucifiction. And as I am sure most of you realise, no one goes to the cross unscathed. First you have to build the cross, then drag it through the store while being flogged and jabbed at by irrational rule-quoting players. And after you have been properly secured to the cross, they will nail your copy of the most recent errata/faq above your head so everyone knows you went to the cross a martyr.

Special thanks go out to those who lock-up after the crucifiction. (Ever try to fumble through you keys with 8 inch railroad spikes through your hands?)

Axel
12-01-2007, 08:04
How would you recommend they are played? Both Chariots and Stonethrowers that is?

In my opinion a stonethrower's dice rolls and guess setup is perfect for what the game involves. It feels like a stonethrower. Chariots I feel the same about.

Stonethrowers have no place on a battlefield, and never had. Thus, I put them fully under the "fantasy" section of this game (like Dragons) and do not care for their rules at all.

Chariots, however, where mobile platforms, either used as by the Egyptians (and others) for missile combat (bow and spear) or as by the Assyrians as small mobile defensive platforms (to much less effect, and they usually dismounted for the actual fight). They did NOT, NEVER ram their horses into enemy units. Horses are not build for that kind of impact, and if they ever did so they certainly created some damage but also self-destructed in the process. You simply do not go into CC with a chariot, for its far too easy for the enemy to simply cut down the horses.

Chariots vanished from the battlefields when horses where bred to a size that cavalry became possible. There were SOME later usages (eg Gaugamela) but with no effective impact. If WFB insists on giving charging chariots impact hits due to the "horses weight", barded steeds should have the same. Overall, the chariots as used by WFB give me shudders.

T10
12-01-2007, 08:11
Hello.

I see your point of view here, but I'd like to point out a third option.

What I choose to do in situations like this is to follow the rules on page 3 and agree on a fair and reasonable solution. I don't care if I am right. I'd rather that my friend enjoys the game and get on to rolling dice and killing stuff.

All NF had to do was agree to anything; even a dice roll.

This is my point, and obviously many others.

No one remembers all the rules all the time, or even where they are located, so who cares about getting every miniscule detail correct?

The rules dispute was no reason for abandoning the game. There may have been other reasons, but to quit to avoid an argument is silly. Why argue? The book tells us to agree, and get on with the fun. Arguing is no fun.

IMO, NF violated The Most Important Rule when he walked to grab the FAQ and began to enunciate it. This sort of behaviour is bad form, and expressly prohibited by the written rule.

The game shouldn't be about the rules, it should be about ensuring that your opponent(s) have at least as much fun as you do.

Out.

Agreed: this situation should never have occured.

I've never been in such a situation, at least not in a game of Warhammer. I attribute that to the fact that I play with friends and people that are genuinely interested in having fun.

The Most Important Rule works only when it works.

-T10

Yellow Commissar
13-01-2007, 03:21
Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt.


You know, you are exactly right. We shouldn't be so judgemental towards Naked Fisherman for his admitted poor sportsmanship. I think we should reach out to him in his distressing time of need. He must be feeling awful about his lapse in rules knowledge. He is, after all, a rule afficionado. It's not his fault that his rulebook is missing page 3. :evilgrin:

Ganymede
13-01-2007, 08:01
To answer the question, yes, charging is a type of movement.

DaBrode
19-01-2007, 07:52
Stonethrowers have no place on a battlefield, and never had. Thus, I put them fully under the "fantasy" section of this game (like Dragons) and do not care for their rules at all.

Chariots, however, where mobile platforms, either used as by the Egyptians (and others) for missile combat (bow and spear) or as by the Assyrians as small mobile defensive platforms (to much less effect, and they usually dismounted for the actual fight). They did NOT, NEVER ram their horses into enemy units. Horses are not build for that kind of impact, and if they ever did so they certainly created some damage but also self-destructed in the process. You simply do not go into CC with a chariot, for its far too easy for the enemy to simply cut down the horses.

Chariots vanished from the battlefields when horses where bred to a size that cavalry became possible. There were SOME later usages (eg Gaugamela) but with no effective impact. If WFB insists on giving charging chariots impact hits due to the "horses weight", barded steeds should have the same. Overall, the chariots as used by WFB give me shudders.

Huh, well I have no problems with you lumping stonethrowers into the fantasy category. However, if a stonethrower was to be used, and indeed in this game it is used, I can completely imagine it working as the rules have been set up for it.

As for your opinion on chariots and their use, I believe GW uses the excuse of scythed wheels to explain the impact hits. My limited experience with chariots in real life is hindering my ability to answer this as a real life scenario but for the purposes of this game...I recall in Gladiator (the movie) that scythed wheels indeed took out a foot troop or two. So obviously in the opinions of more than just myself and GW, some people believe they incur impact hits of some sort.

But I'll agree to disagree. You seem to want the rules to reflect real life where as I feel they are working with fantasy imitating a version or a possibility of life-size warfare.

EvC
19-01-2007, 11:12
Scythed wheels killed unarmed people in a coluseum, not in war. And scythed wheels merely add +1.

Yellow Commissar
19-01-2007, 19:50
Last I checked this is still a game fantasy battles. It's not called "Warhammer; The Game of Realistic Historical Battles" :wtf:
We are dealing with witches, goblins and elves here.

Axel
19-01-2007, 21:27
I have no problem with witches, goblins and elves. But I think the chariot rules are stupid and do not reflect a chariot at all. Even in fantasy it will still be drawn by horses (or wolves, or whatever), and crashing it into an enemy unit into cc will do more damage to the chariot and result in no cc-ability. That it does otherwise is fine with me, but its not how a chariot works.

Scythes work when you move "through" an enemy unit, for which it has to make place. If they retreat wide enough, however, the skythes will be useless, and if they retreat not wide enough, the chariot will drive OVER the retreating soldiers, which will be the last thing it does if it has any speed. Its like using a Jeep for tank duties, it simply does not work. The fact that the whole game is FANTASY does not mean that it is mandatory to violate common sense (and no, I do not apply that to magic or monsters). This all is just in reply to someone who mailed that chariots FEEL like they should, to which I heartily disagree. Anyway, I have no problems playing with them, they just don`t FEEL like chariots should do.

Palatine Katinka
19-01-2007, 22:34
Should this still be going on? Charging is Movement, we all agree. Atrahasis is sounding like Phoenix Wright (No offence intended with that, Nick rocks!) and Paulus, did you really mean to say "forget anything about the rules" because if you did, charging isn't movement, it's what i do to my phone at night! ;)

I was surprised to see that this had gone on this long.

Yellow Commissar
20-01-2007, 00:50
I have no problem with witches, goblins and elves. But I think the chariot rules are stupid and do not reflect a chariot at all. This all is just in reply to someone who mailed that chariots FEEL like they should, to which I heartily disagree. Anyway, I have no problems playing with them, they just don`t FEEL like chariots should do.

Oh. :o Silly me. I thought this was the rules forum; where we discuss what the actual rules are, not what they should be. ;) :evilgrin: