PDA

View Full Version : Quick Terror + Animosity Questions



Moe
22-04-2007, 15:36
Hello,

If a unit fails a Terror test at the start of the turn for a Terror causing creature within 6 inches, the rulebook says it flees immediately (as compared to the Compulsary movement phase). Does this mean it can try to rally during the rally phase of the same turn it failed the terror test? Looking at the order of things it almost seems like they can.

If an Animosity bonus move would take a unit into contact (a charge), and the target unit flees, the rules state that the orc unit may still charge, move,etc. If it charges the same unit again, does that unit get to flee again (thus making a total of 2 flee rolls?). I'm thinking yes because the animosity event occurs out of sequence but before normal movement.

Thanks for the input.

Festus
22-04-2007, 16:01
Hi

p.19, BRB, right column: You may not rally if you just broke this turn.

Festus

Falkman
22-04-2007, 16:17
And yes, the charged unit must continue to flee, as all fleeing units that are charged have to.

T10
22-04-2007, 17:51
I have heard it claimed that a) a fleeing unit may only declare a Flee! as their charge reaction and that b) units only ever get a single charge reaction each turn. I have found nothing to back this up, though.

As far as I can tell, each time a fleeing unit is charged it makes another flee move and it is only destroyed by the chargers if the subsequently catch the unit.

The following seems correct:
1. The orcs move thanks to animosity and can contact a unit of fast cavalry. That unit flees.
2. The orcs declare a regular charge against the same fleeing unit and it flees again, ending up behind a screen of archers.
3. The orcs declare a charge against the archers (Enemy in the way). The archers flee past the fast cav unit.
4. The orcs declare a charge against the fleeing fast cav unit (Enemy in the way), which flees for a third time this round.

-T10

alextroy
22-04-2007, 18:17
4 is incorrect per the FAQ


Q. Can the Enemy in the Way rule allow you to charge the same target multiple times? For example, the initial target (unit A) flees through friendly unit B (which doesn't panic), stopping just behind it. The charger may
thus change the charge towards target unit B. Unit B then flees as well, going through unit A. Can the charger now change the target back to unit A? And what happens if the unit in the way is not visible to the charger?

A. Yes, and this process will continue until the situation comes to either a successful charge or a failed charge. Note that units that are charged again through this process do not get a new charge reaction, which may sometimes mean that when the charging unit will finally move its full charge distance, it may destroy several units that fled from its charge (see diagram below).

T10
23-04-2007, 06:50
That would be the reference I was missing, thanks. :)

Note how the FAQ introduces this with morsel as a being almost self explanatory, though no mention of such a restriction exists in the rule book... :)

-T10

lparigi34
23-04-2007, 12:51
Though, as confusing as usual, it specifies "in this process", so maybe you can fly twice in the turn, but not from the same unit:confused:

Masque
23-04-2007, 13:36
My understanding is that a unit can flee once as a normal charge reaction during compulsory moves and once during each charge if it is in the way.

Atrahasis
23-04-2007, 13:40
Note how the FAQ introduces this with morsel as a being almost self explanatory, though no mention of such a restriction exists in the rule book... :)We can only do what the rules say we can do - the rules don't say we get a new reaction so we don't. I'm pretty sure every other situation where a charge occurs specifies that a reaction is possible.

DeathlessDraich
23-04-2007, 14:43
a unit of fast cavalry. That unit flees.
2. The orcs declare a regular charge against the same fleeing unit and it flees again, ending up behind a screen of archers.
3. The orcs declare a charge against the archers (Enemy in the way). The archers flee past the fast cav unit.
4. The orcs declare a charge against the fleeing fast cav unit (Enemy in the way), which flees for a third time this round.

-T10

Just adding to the above which is technically correct:

1) EITW does not usually result in multiple units destroyed from a single charging unit. Destroying multiple units through EITW occurs through multiple charges within the same area. *

2) If the Fast cavalry successfully escapes the orcs,on the first charge it will be out of charge range.
It will be unethical to declare a charge against the Fast Cavalry again through EITW because they will be out of range.

The FAQ has attempted to explain a situation which cannot happen

However the diagrams provided on the same page, explains it in a more sensible way - measurement immediately after EITW; remove any unit which is caught and then EITW react to the charge - which in this case would only be the archers.

*If the Fast Cavalry was charged and the Archers were charged from another direction, it would be possible for several units to be destroyed by EITW.

Initially I thought the original thread question would be:
Which is taken first, 6" proximity Terror or Animosity tests?
I think it has to be Terror.

Atrahasis
23-04-2007, 16:23
The FAQ has attempted to explain a situation which cannot happenIt can happen - since charges are resolved in strict order, a unit which flees from one charge can be caught in the EitW process of another.

Jonke
23-04-2007, 20:19
The FAQ has attempted to explain a situation which cannot happen

Yes, it can. Unit A with M9 charges unit B wich is 6" away and flees 3" as reaction revealing unit C wich is standing 1" behind B. Now A charges C wich also flees, 7". When measuring unit B is found to be 17" from unit A wich can make a new eitw on B, destroying the unit and then makes a third eitw, this time on C and destroying that one as well.

Peace!

DaBrode
23-04-2007, 22:28
Initially I thought the original thread question would be:
Which is taken first, 6" proximity Terror or Animosity tests?
I think it has to be Terror.


I believe this is correct. Animosity is taken at the start of the O&G players movement phase not "start of turn".

T10
24-04-2007, 11:47
We can only do what the rules say we can do - the rules don't say we get a new reaction so we don't. I'm pretty sure every other situation where a charge occurs specifies that a reaction is possible.

Sure, lots of irregular movement grant a charge reaction. But they never mention anything about this being in addtion to any other charge reactions that phase, turn or whatever.

-T10

T10
24-04-2007, 12:02
1) EITW does not usually result in multiple units destroyed from a single charging unit. Destroying multiple units through EITW occurs through multiple charges within the same area. *

2) If the Fast cavalry successfully escapes the orcs,on the first charge it will be out of charge range.
It will be unethical to declare a charge against the Fast Cavalry again through EITW because they will be out of range.


"Usually" is irrelevant. It is within the scope of the rules for a fast-moving unit to destroy multiple fleeing units thanks to "Enemy in the way".

In step 2 the Fast Cav successfully escape the Orcs by moving behind an interposing unit of Archers. They are still within range (as the crow flies), but the Orcs cannot reach them without first engaging the Archers. When the Archers flee the Orcs again have opportunity to reach the Fast Cav. There's nothing "unethical" about it.

-T10

Atrahasis
24-04-2007, 15:29
Sure, lots of irregular movement grant a charge reaction. But they never mention anything about this being in addtion to any other charge reactions that phase, turn or whatever.They don't need to.

"The unit may ..." is sufficient to grant the action regardless of previous actions.

DeathlessDraich
25-04-2007, 17:21
In step 2 the Fast Cav successfully escape the Orcs by moving behind an interposing unit of Archers. They are still within range (as the crow flies), but the Orcs cannot reach them without first engaging the Archers. When the Archers flee the Orcs again have opportunity to reach the Fast Cav. There's nothing "unethical" about it.

-T10

I'm afraid you've misread my post.
I used the phrase "succesfully escapes" i.e. out of charge range.

T10
26-04-2007, 09:07
I read "successfully escape" as "not being destroyed by the chargers".

If you start 2" away and flee 4" you will be ~6" away from the chargers. If you have fled through a unit that blocks the charger's path to you (e.g. a line of archers) the charger cannot reach you and you have successfully escaped. Agreed?

-T10

DeathlessDraich
26-04-2007, 09:48
It can happen - since charges are resolved in strict order, a unit which flees from one charge can be caught in the EitW process of another.

As I said in my post but the FAQ's questioner referred to charging with the same unit causing flight from the initial unit again and this should not have happened. **


Yes, it can. Unit A with M9 charges unit B wich is 6" away and flees 3" as reaction revealing unit C wich is standing 1" behind B. Now A charges C wich also flees, 7". When measuring unit B is found to be 17" from unit A wich can make a new eitw on B, destroying the unit and then makes a third eitw, this time on C and destroying that one as well.


Same as above. See example below**

T10: Yes, I understand now.
I have simply used distance whereas you have included path traversed [correctly] for success of a charge.
However when I think of the sequence of actions for EITW and fleeing it does not seem to apply for single chargers but definitely possible with multiple chargers.

B1, B2 , B3 are units of player B. Player A charges B1 who flees.
Apologies for the slightly inaccurate diagram but I hope it illustrates the main point sufficiently.

**A..........B1..................B3
...A...........B1.....B2..........B3
...A...................B2............

Sequence:

1) B1's rolls for the fleeing distance
2) *The distance is measured* = D
This is vital because all players now have a good idea at least of the distances involved

3) If this distance (D) is within A's charge range, B1 is automatically and *immediately* removed. - pg 22.
N.B. B1 only remains on the table if it has successfully fled out of A's reach.

4) If D is not within A's charge range, B1 will be placed beyond B2 and is now outside A's charge range.

A..........B1>
A.....B2..B1>
.......B2

5) (A) declares a charge on B2 using EITW and *knows* the distance involved. B2 flees revealing B1 for a possible EITW.

6) Knowing that B1 is out of charge range, wouldn't it be unethical for (A) to declare a charge on this fleeing unit (B1) since it can only react by fleeing?

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 09:58
3) If this distance (D) is within A's charge range, B1 is automatically and *immediately* removed. - pg 22.
N.B. B1 only remains on the table if it has successfully fled out of A's reach.No. It is not sufficient for the charge distance to be greater than the the distance between the units + teh fleee distance. The fleeing troops are moved long before "move chargers" and so the charge must be able to reach the fleeing unit's final position.

If, as in this example, the flee move puts the unit beyond another unit which blocks the charger's charge path, then the charge must follow EitW or fail.

6) Knowing that B1 is out of charge range, wouldn't it be unethical for (A) to declare a charge on this fleeing unit (B1) since it can only react by fleeing?Firstly, B1 is not necessarily out of charge range (as clarified above). Secondly, B1 does not get another charge reaction and so cannot flee.

DeathlessDraich
26-04-2007, 10:02
Read my post again please before commenting

Masque
26-04-2007, 10:03
Secondly, B1 does not get another charge reaction and so cannot flee.

I know I'm stepping onto a firing range on this one, but...

I think B1 does get another charge reaction at this point.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 10:09
1) B1's rolls for the fleeing distance
2) *The distance is measured* = D

Read my post again please before commentingI think you're trying to say that this means D is the distance to the final position of B1. That's not what its says at all though, so you can't blame me for replying as if it doesn't. :)


I know I'm stepping onto a firing range on this one, but...

I think B1 does get another charge reaction at this point.
Read the earlier posts in the thread. Units that have already reacted to a charge this turn do not get a second reaction due to EitW.

Masque
26-04-2007, 10:22
Read the earlier posts in the thread. Units that have already reacted to a charge this turn do not get a second reaction due to EitW.

I've read the whole thread (I commented on this very situation earlier)...


My understanding is that a unit can flee once as a normal charge reaction during compulsory moves and once during each charge if it is in the way.

...and am very familiar with the EitW rules as well as the FAQ concerning them.

I believe that the FAQ only disallows a unit from getting multiple charge reactions during the same charge move during the Move Charges phase. This would allow a unit to flee up to X+1 times in a turn where X is the number of charging units.

Festus
26-04-2007, 10:26
Nope, units only get one *flee* response during the move chargers subphase. They may well flee multiple times within one turn, though.

Festus

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 10:27
I believe that the FAQ only disallows a unit from getting multiple charge reactions during the same charge move during the Move Charges phase. This would allow a unit to flee up to X+1 times in a turn where X is the number of charging units.
"This process" in the FAQ refers to EitW and not to any specific instance of EitW.

Masque
26-04-2007, 10:34
Nope, units only get one *flee* response during the move chargers subphase. They may well flee multiple times within one turn, though.

Are you basing this entirely off of this FAQ?

'Q. Can the Enemy in the Way rule allow you to charge the same target multiple times? For example, the initial target (unit A) flees through friendly unit B (which doesn't panic), stopping just behind it. The charger may thus change the charge towards target unit B. Unit B then flees as well, going through unit A. Can the charger now change the target back to unit A?

A. Yes, and this process will continue until the situation comes to either a successful charge or a failed charge. Note that units that are charged again through this process do not get a new charge reaction, which may sometimes mean that when the charging unit will finally move its full charge distance, it may destroy several units that fled from its charge.'

I would argue that 'this process', which is used twice, refers only to redirecting the charge (I know, I know, old term) of a single charging unit not to all EitW charges made by units this turn.

T10
26-04-2007, 11:11
Yes, it is based entirely off the FAQ. Any new charge declared in the EitW situation is a new charge and elicits a new charge response from the charged unit. The rules fail to cover the event that a unit can repeatedly become the target of a charge from the same unit. The FAQ deals with this.

Now, I don't object to the ruling involved - it makes a certain kind of sense after all. I just can't see that the "Note that..." part is based on clearly outlined rules.

-T10

Masque
26-04-2007, 11:18
Yes, it is based entirely off the FAQ. Any new charge declared in the EitW situation is a new charge and elicits a new charge response from the charged unit. The rules fail to cover the event that a unit can repeatedly become the target of a charge from the same unit. The FAQ deals with this.

Now, I don't object to the ruling involved - it makes a certain kind of sense after all. I just can't see that the "Note that..." part is based on clearly outlined rules.

Are you agreeing with Festus and Atrahasis that a unit may only flee once per move chargers subphase? You point out that this FAQ covers the situation of a unit being charged multiple times by the same unit. But what about the times a unit is EitW of multiple units? I say this FAQ does not prevent the unit from fleeing from each of those chargers.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 11:26
My objection to a multiple reactions is purely based on the fact that with X charging units a unti could end up fleeing 18X" in a single phase, which just seems wrong.

Masque
26-04-2007, 11:36
Looking at the diagram directly following that FAQ it appears that the original charge target doesn't even get to flee again during the move chargers subphase which I think lends more strength to my argument. I now think that a unit only gets a single charge reaction against each charger during the entire movement phase.

Masque
26-04-2007, 11:39
My objection to a multiple reactions is purely based on the fact that with X charging units a unti could end up fleeing 18X" in a single phase, which just seems wrong.
__________________
If this is the rules forum, then the above is RAW.
That doesn't mean that I think it is "right" in a fun sense.

I had to include your sig in this quote because I think it's just so blatantly opposite to what you are saying as to be fairly humorous. :p

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 11:43
Looking at the diagram directly following that FAQ it appears that the original charge target doesn't even get to flee again during the move chargers subphase which I think lends more strength to my argument. I now think that a unit only gets a single charge reaction against each charger during the entire movement phase.It doesn't lend strength either way, since it only deals with one charging unit. We have no examples in the rules of the result of multiple charging units and EitW.


I had to include your sig in this quote because I think it's just so blatantly opposite to what you are saying as to be fairly humorous. :pNot at all - in fact the EitW rules say that the target of an EitW charge makes a charge reaction as normal.

Since we know that units that have already had a charge reaction don't get one during EitW, not getting a new charge reaction must be normal ;)

Masque
26-04-2007, 11:49
I'm not sure which diagram you're referring to, can you be more specific?

The diagram in the 7th Edition FAQ right after the question we've been discussing. The archers don't flee twice.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 11:52
The diagram in the 7th Edition FAQ right after the question we've been discussing. The archers don't flee twice.

Sorry, I found it just after posting. It doesn't reinforce any arguments concerning multiple chargers as only one charger is involved.

DeathlessDraich
26-04-2007, 12:06
The rules fail to cover the event that a unit can repeatedly become the target of a charge from the same unit. The FAQ deals with this.
-T10

This won't happen from a single charger scenario unless you disagree with post #19 and this is why I think the FAQ was written without sufficient consideration of the Caught rules.

It will happen if a unit, fleeing as a charge response, is subjected to a charge by *another* unit of bigger US. In this case the flee direction will change to the direction of the unit with the biggest US and might possibly move the fleers towards the original chargers who auto destroy them when 'move chargers' is finally resolved.

It makes good sense in real life too as enemy units in a clump which are surrounded and charged, will easily get in each other's way and be destroyed


Are you agreeing with Festus and Atrahasis that a unit may only flee once per move chargers subphase? You point out that this FAQ covers the situation of a unit being charged multiple times by the same unit. But what about the times a unit is EitW of multiple units? I say this FAQ does not prevent the unit from fleeing from each of those chargers.

The question of how many charge responses is unnecessary for fleers. They do not need a charge response to further charges since they always automatically flee - pg 46

Masque
26-04-2007, 12:10
It doesn't lend strength either way, since it only deals with one charging unit. We have no examples in the rules of the result of multiple charging units and EitW.

You would agree that according to that example the archers do not flee a second time, correct? If they don't get to flee from this EitW charge at all then the 'note' precluding additional charge reactions from 'this process' can't be talking about this situation, can it? Wouldn't it just say that a unit can't declare a charge reaction against a EitW charge if it has already performed a charge reaction this turn? I still contend that 'this process' refers to leapfroging EitW charges from one charger.

Masque
26-04-2007, 12:16
This won't happen from a single charger scenario unless you disagree with post #19 and this is why I think the FAQ was written without sufficient consideration of the Caught rules.

I think the problem is that most everyone disagrees with post #19. ;) You don't check to see if a unit is Caught until just before the unit charging it actually moves.


The question of how many charge responses is unnecessary for fleers. They do not need a charge response to further charges since they always automatically flee - pg 46

Fleers may or may not get a charge reaction (depending on the situation and who you agree with on how to read that FAQ) but if they do it will be to flee. This makes it very important to know whether or not they get a reaction.

Festus
26-04-2007, 12:17
Hi

Where is the problem? A unit can only charge multiple units one after another if it makes EitW charges. So only this process allows the possibility of multiple charge reactions. Any other charge (even by multiple units) only allows one charge reaction. Period.

And the EitW FAQ says:
Note that units that are charged again through this process do not get a new charge reaction...

What is there to be misunderstood?

Wonders
Festus

Masque
26-04-2007, 12:23
Where is the problem? A unit can only charge multiple units one after another if it makes EitW charges. So only this process allows the possibility of multiple charge reactions. Any other charge (even by multiple units) only allows one charge reaction. Period.

And the EitW FAQ says:
Note that units that are charged again through this process do not get a new charge reaction...

What is there to be misunderstood?


The problem arises when a unit is in the way of multiple chargers. I contend that the unit gets a single charge reaction vs the initially declared chargers plus one against each of the later chargers that were not initial chargers it is in the way of. Atrahasis (I believe) thinks that the unit gets a single charge reaction vs the initially declared chargers plus one against the first charger it is in the way of.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 12:39
Atrahasis (I believe) thinks that the unit gets a single charge reaction vs the initially declared chargers plus one against the first charger it is in the way of.I wouldn't even give them that. I don't think a unit should get more than one charge reaction in a single phase.


The question of how many charge responses is unnecessary for fleers. They do not need a charge response to further charges since they always automatically flee - pg 46They do not automatically flee. They automatically declare and execute a flee reaction. If no reaction is possible, they cannot declare it, automatically or not.

Festus
26-04-2007, 14:42
Hi

I am 100% with Atrahasis here: One charge reaction per unit per turn - and as many flee moves as it needs to execute subject to the rules. As a unit can ever only perform a charge response once, it can only flee once as a charge reaction in a particular movement phase. If this does not bring them clear of any and all chargers in this turn, the unit is destroyed.

It will not flee multiple times as charge reactions, but just once.

Festus

T10
26-04-2007, 14:47
But this is all based off the FAQ, right? This isn't outlined in the rule book in an obscure paragraph I missed?

-T10

Masque
26-04-2007, 14:58
I wouldn't even give them that. I don't think a unit should get more than one charge reaction in a single phase.

I don't think there's anything to support this belief though. I can think of at least three examples that allow multiple charge reactions during a single phase.


Charges by multiple units subject to compulsory movement (such as spawn) during the movement phase.
Charges by multiple units due to the effects of spells during the magic phase.
Pursuit into fresh enemy by several units during the combat phase.


Each of those 'charges' allows a charge reaction under the rules.

I think the 'note' in the FAQ only exists to prevent two leapfrogging fleeing units from being completely unchargeable by a single unit making a single charge.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 15:02
The charge rules are pretty screwed in the rulebook. The only situation they adequately cover is one where one unit charges another in a vacuum, with no psychology involved.

To answer your question : No, nothing in the rulebook explicitly states that units only get one charge reaction.

Festus
26-04-2007, 15:05
The charge rules are pretty screwed in the rulebook.
And the FAQ didn't really make it better in any way - it even made matters more complicated IMO

Festus

lparigi34
26-04-2007, 16:05
So, as we seem to agree to disagree, I'm just stating the way I'm going to play it until it gets FAQ'd. Pretty simple (your input will be appreciatted)

RULE: Only on flee movement per phase.

If you are caught for any other reason after having already fled in any single phase, you are destroyed!

->In the movement phase, if you charge or compulsory move trough a unit that already flee moved for any reason, that unit is destroyed.

->In the magic phase, if a unit already made a flee movement during this phase (i.e. due to 25% casualties form a MM) and you can magic-charge another unit into it, then it is automatically destroyed if reached by the chargers.

->In the CC phase, a unit that already fled from a combat is automatically destroyed if it gets in the way of another pursuing unit from a later combat.

This is consistent with the EitW rules, IMO also consistent with the fact that chargers can only get one pursuit/overrun reaction and that the 25% casualties check is per phase too.

It all seems to indicate that there is some time of timeline here and fleeing twice will create a discontinuity in the space-time continuum... :wtf:

ok... ok... forget the previous paragraph ;)

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 16:10
->In the magic phase, if a unit already made a flee movement during this phase (i.e. due to 25% casualties form a MM) and you can magic-charge another unit into it, then it is automatically destroyed if reached by the chargers.Panic tests for 25% casualties are made at the end of the phase.

Multiple spells exist that cause immediate panic checks though, so its worth making the point anyway.

lparigi34
26-04-2007, 16:16
Panic tests for 25% casualties are made at the end of the phase.

Multiple spells exist that cause immediate panic checks though, so its worth making the point anyway.

Right, missed that one, bad example. But you correctly pointed out that there are other spells that cause inmediate checks. Thanks.

Masque
26-04-2007, 16:17
So, as we seem to agree to disagree, I'm just stating the way I'm going to play it until it gets FAQ'd. Pretty simple (your input will ba appreciatted)

RULE: Only on flee movement per phase.

But what about stand and shoot? Would you allow that multiple times per phase? I reallly don't think there is anything differentiating the different kinds of charge reaction. Would you allow a unit to stand and shoot against one situation and then flee against another? Why or why not?

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 16:50
But what about stand and shoot? Would you allow that multiple times per phase? Short answer : no.

DeathlessDraich
26-04-2007, 17:05
I think the problem is that most everyone disagrees with post #19. ;) You don't check to see if a unit is Caught until just before the unit charging it actually moves.
Fleers may or may not get a charge reaction (depending on the situation and who you agree with on how to read that FAQ) but if they do it will be to flee. This makes it very important to know whether or not they get a reaction.

Nothing wrong with post #19 as far as I can see. In fact your statement about Caught seems to support it.

N.B. EITW rules state that it occurs "as the chargers make their full charge move through the enemy" i.e. the EITW declaration is done after the fleers who are Caught ["through the enema" :p ] are removed

1) Fleers measure the flee distance. This is compared with the charge distance and the fleers are removed *immediately* if 'caught'.

" sufficient movement to catch them... the fleeing unit is destroyed and immediately removed"


I wouldn't even give them that. I don't think a unit should get more than one charge reaction in a single phase.
They do not automatically flee. They automatically declare and execute a flee reaction. If no reaction is possible, they cannot declare it, automatically or not.

1)The rules should not be modified to 1 charge reaction per phase. Charge reactions must be allowed to be changed/modified in quite a few circumstances and the rules state that they can/must.
Perhaps you mean

'One *initial* charge response which can be modified if the rules states it is necessary later"

2) The rules state they automatically flee. The rules do not state that no reaction is possible.

You seem to have substituted your own rules for the actual rules?


Hi

I am 100% with Atrahasis here: One charge reaction per unit per turn - and as many flee moves as it needs to execute subject to the rules. As a unit can ever only perform a charge response once, it can only flee once as a charge reaction in a particular movement phase. If this does not bring them clear of any and all chargers in this turn, the unit is destroyed.

It will not flee multiple times as charge reactions, but just once.

Festus

One charge reaction and as many flee moves?? This is confusing Festus.
Perhaps you mean

"One charge reaction after charge declarations are first made" ?

Charge reactions can and must be allowed to be modified to fit in with rules elsewhere.

The only reaction which does not change is flee.
Is this what you mean?



RULE: Only one flee movement per phase.


Charges are resolved one at a time but in doing so it might create EITW which necessitates another round of charge declarations and response.

If the unit has *successfully fled* from a charge, it may end up within the *path* of a charge from another unit. Therefore it would automatically flee again [pg 48] but away from the charger of bigger US. If it now flees successfuly or is not Caught, this may in turn bring it within the vicinity of another charge path which necessitates another flight and so on.

Charge paths are determined before moving chargers.
This is the only additional useful information that the FAQ provided.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 17:26
Nothing wrong with post #19 as far as I can see. In fact your statement about Caught seems to support it.

N.B. EITW rules state that it occurs "as the chargers make their full charge move through the enemy" i.e. the EITW declaration is done after the fleers who are Caught ["through the enema" :p ] are removed

1) Fleers measure the flee distance. This is compared with the charge distance and the fleers are removed *immediately* if 'caught'.

" sufficient movement to catch them... the fleeing unit is destroyed and immediately removed"No, no and no again. The distance rolled is NOT compared to charge distance. Chargers must be able to reach the fleeing unit in its final position in order to destroy them.

If the fleeing unit ends up on teh other side of another unit or terrain then the chargers may not be able to reach them and thus escape.

It is NOT a direct comparison of charge and flight distance.




1)The rules should not be modified to 1 charge reaction per phase. Charge reactions must be allowed to be changed/modified in quite a few circumstances and the rules state that they can/must.
Perhaps you mean

'One *initial* charge response which can be modified if the rules states it is necessary later"The rules do NOT explicitly allow second reaction in any circumstance - they allow it to change (due to psychology) but nowhere do the rules say that more than one reaction is permitted.


2) The rules state they automatically flee. The rules do not state that no reaction is possible.They do not. They say that they automatically declare a flee reaction. Nowhere dothe rules say that this is in addition to any previously declared reaction.


You seem to have substituted your own rules for the actual rules?As have you. As I have stated previously, the charge rules in the rulebook (even when "clarified" by the FAQ) simply don't work. Some degree of creativity is required and allowing units to flee an infinite amount just doesn't seem the correct way to proceed.

Consider the following situation:

A1.(13").B1.(13").A2

A1 and A2 (Empire Knightly Orders) both charge B1. B1 is a WLC and so must flee. A1 is moved first, and so B1 flees from it. It flees 3 inches and so escapes A1. A2 then charges, and B1, being a fleeing unit, must flee (by your interpretation). B1 flees 5" from A2's charge. It has now escaped 2 separate units that were both within charge range because it has been allowed to flee twice in one phase.

Allowing more than one reaction per phase results in fleeing units being uncatchable.

Masque
26-04-2007, 18:33
Consider the following situation:

A1.(13").B1.(13").A2

A1 and A2 (Empire Knightly Orders) both charge B1. B1 is a WLC and so must flee. A1 is moved first, and so B1 flees from it. It flees 3 inches and so escapes A1. A2 then charges, and B1, being a fleeing unit, must flee (by your interpretation). B1 flees 5" from A2's charge. It has now escaped 2 separate units that were both within charge range because it has been allowed to flee twice in one phase.

Allowing more than one reaction per phase results in fleeing units being uncatchable.

If these were both normally declared charges the WLC would only get one charge reaction. I think this is pretty clear in the rules. It would flee from whichever unit has higher US. Then when it came time to actually move the chargers one (or both) would be found to be in charge range and unimpeded and the WLC would be removed as a casualty. Then any in range chargers would make a full charge move (in order of charge declaration I believe) towards the spot the WLC was removed from.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 18:57
If these were both normally declared charges the WLC would only get one charge reaction. I think this is pretty clear in the rules. It would flee from whichever unit has higher US. Then when it came time to actually move the chargers one (or both) would be found to be in charge range and unimpeded and the WLC would be removed as a casualty. Then any in range chargers would make a full charge move (in order of charge declaration I believe) towards the spot the WLC was removed from.

But no, according to DD any fleeing unit that is successfully charged flees automatically.

Another example:

A1.(13").B1.B2.(13").A2

A1 charges B1, A2 charges B2. Both B's flee, and switch positions. A1 now declares an EitW charge against B2 and A2 the same against B1. As both units are fleeing, they must both flee again. They switch positions again.
Ad infinitum.

Masque
26-04-2007, 19:18
But no, according to DD any fleeing unit that is successfully charged flees automatically.

Another example:

A1.(13").B1.B2.(13").A2

A1 charges B1, A2 charges B2. Both B's flee, and switch positions. A1 now declares an EitW charge against B2 and A2 the same against B1. As both units are fleeing, they must both flee again. They switch positions again.
Ad infinitum.

For some reason you're doing things out of sequence. I'm going to assume the As are 8" move cavalry and that the Bs are infantry that always happen to roll 7" for their flee distance.

After B1 and B2 switch places the first time A1 will EitW B2 which will flee, quite possibly past A2 but more likely between B1 and A2. Now we'd have something like this...

A1.(20").B1.B2.(6").A2

Then A1 will make a failed charge and we'll have...

A1.(12").B1.B2.(6").A2

Then A2 will measure and find out it is within range of it's original target and B2 will be removed as it is unable to flee (either because it has already fled from any EitW [common interpretation of the rules, I think] or because it had already fled from A2 once for this charge move [my interpretation]). Then A2 will attempt to make a full charge move towards the final resting place of B2 but will find that B1 is in the way...

A1.(12").B1.(10").A2

A2 will most likely choose to charge B1. Now, using my interpretation of the FAQ B1 would be allowed to flee from A2 since it has not done so yet this charge move. Then A2 would catch or more likely fail to catch B1 leaving something like this...

A1.(5").B1.(9").A2

Simple. See? :angel:

I think if we either discount the 'note' in the FAQ or use my interpretation of it or come up with a better one then there is strange charge situation I can't map out in this fashion. Oh, and that is a challenge. ;)

Festus
26-04-2007, 19:35
Hi

You have to do all EitW measuring before actually moving any troops. Noone of the chargers will be moved before the final position of the units is not ascertained. This can only happen after all flee movements have been done.

The distance will stay the same. As Atrahasis showed.

Festus

Masque
26-04-2007, 19:43
You have to do all EitW measuring before actually moving any troops. Noone of the chargers will be moved before the final position of the units is not ascertained. This can only happen after all flee movements have been done.

The distance will stay the same. As Atrahasis showed.

Wow. I completely disagree with this. Units charge in a strict order. EitW happens as the unit makes it's charge move. You resolve whether the first declared charge is successful, fails, or has EitW and begin again before moving on to the second declared charge. If somehow what I've just said is completely wrong can you point out a rules quote for me?

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 19:45
Your solution only works with specific measurements.

The problem arises when, after exchanging places the first time, B2's second flee move does NOT place it between B1 and A2. In other words, after A1's first EITW we have:

A1<--->B2<>B1<------->A2

Now, does A1 fail its charge now with no recourse to further EitW. or when A2 forces B1 to flee again does A1 get another chance as there are now enemy in the way again (assuming B1 flees past B2)?

Note that if you don't allow EitW at this point, both B units can escape despite being in charge range of 2 units.

Not allowing ANY duplicate charge reactions is the only way I can see to prevent strange anomalies like this.

Masque
26-04-2007, 19:54
Your solution only works with specific measurements.

The problem arises when, after exchanging places the first time, B2's second flee move does NOT place it between B1 and A2. In other words, after A1's first EITW we have:

A1<--->B2<>B1<------->A2

Now, does A1 fail its charge now with no recourse to further EitW. or when A2 forces B1 to flee again does A1 get another chance as there are now enemy in the way again (assuming B1 flees past B2)?

Note that if you don't allow EitW at this point, both B units can escape despite being in charge range of 2 units.

Not allowing ANY duplicate charge reactions is the only way I can see to prevent strange anomalies like this.

If I'm not understanding your example I apologize in advance. B1 and B2 switched places during compulsory moves. Then A1 tried to charge B1 but found B2 in the way. B2 fled, but not far enough, so A1 would destroy B2 and if B1 were close enough would destroy it too (my interp) or B1 would flee once more. The only thing I'm unclear on is what A2 would do next. It's charge on B2 is still unresolved but B2 no longer exists (note that similar situations can occur with only one unit per side). I would suggest that the best option would be to make a failed charge towards B2's final resting place.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 20:26
OK. If we allow new charge reactions for new charges:

1. A1 and A2 declare charges from this position:

A1<----->B1<>B2<----->A2

2. B1 and B2 flee, crossing over

A1<----->B2<>B1<----->A2

3. A1 declared first, so we check for EitW1 and find B2 in the way. A1 declares a new charge against B2. Since charges are resolved in declaration order, A1 doesn't resolve yet - A2's first charge was declared before A1's new one. Therefore we check A2 and find B1 in the way. A2 declares against B1. So now we're back to A1, becuase its new charge was declared before A2's new charge. A1 causes B2 to flee:

A1<------>B1<>B2<----->A2

4. Oh dear. A1 declares on B1. We now resolve A2's charge because that was declared first. Go back to 3.

I hope you can see the problem with this. If "this process" in the FAQ refers only to EitW from a specific charge, then these two units will flip over ad inifitum.

------------------------------------
NOT allowing new reactions.

1. A1 and A2 charge from this position:

A1<----->B1<>B2<----->A2

2. B1 and B2 flee, crossing over:

A1<----->B2<>B1<----->A2

3. A1 declared first so declares an EitW charge against B2. A2 finds B1 in the way and declares against B1. No new charge reactions are allowed so B1 and B2 are destroyed.

Masque
26-04-2007, 20:43
Ok, the part I guess I (and maybe the rulebook) was not very clear on. Charges during the Move Chargers subphase that were declared during the Declare Chargers subphase are resolved in order. All other charge declarations in the game are handled as soon as they come up.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 20:52
The rulebook most certainly doesn't say that. Enemy in the Way happens during Move Chargers and Move chargers says:


Charges are resolved one at a time, in the order they were declared.

In other words, your solution requires the invention of a rule unsupported by the rulebook or the FAQ and is therefore untenable.

Masque
26-04-2007, 21:03
The rulebook most certainly doesn't say that. Enemy in the Way happens during Move Chargers and Move chargers says:

Charges are resolved one at a time, in the order they were declared.

In other words, your solution requires the invention of a rule unsupported by the rulebook or the FAQ and is therefore untenable.

Declare chargers and move chargers also say the happen during the movement phase but we know that isn't always the case. EitW is in effect a subsubphase that can potentially occur during any attempted charge move. You wouldn't try and say that a flee charge reaction declared any time other than the declare chargers subphase still waits for the compulsory moves phase to come around again to resolve, would you? EitW pretty clearly states that you deal with the unit's attempted charge against any and all foes in the way before moving on.

DeathlessDraich
26-04-2007, 21:03
No, no and no again. The distance rolled is NOT compared to charge distance. Chargers must be able to reach the fleeing unit in its final position in order to destroy them.

If the fleeing unit ends up on teh other side of another unit or terrain then the chargers may not be able to reach them and thus escape.

It is NOT a direct comparison of charge and flight distance.
.

You seem to misinterpret and misread my posts every time.
I said the fleers *distance* must be compared to the charge distance not the fleeing *dice roll*. 'Compared' does not mean 'must be equal to' or even 'less than' etc.
This fleers distance is the distance it moved from its initial to its final position - this surely would be obvious. To explain every single phrase used in this way would lengthen any post.

If the fleeing distance is smaller than the fleers are Caught - again maybe I should have explained the exact distance of the fleers to the chargers etc etc but

Isn't it obvious that the chargers must reach the fleers to destroy them.

The crux of my argument is not this which is obvious to everyone but that the rules specifically state that:

1) Fleers who are caught, are immediately removed and therefore take no part in any EITW.

2) In any EITW situation where there are fleers, these fleers have successfully escaped the initial charge.

3) Any charge on a fleeing unit will automatically make it flee

4) Since a distance was measured before EITW, a charge declaration by a charger on the same initial unit [now fleeing] is unethical unless it's flee direction has been changed by another charging unit.

The first 3 are directly derived from the rules.

The last is a suggestion of how it should be played.




The rules do NOT explicitly allow second reaction in any circumstance - they allow it to change (due to psychology) but nowhere do the rules say that more than one reaction is permitted.
.

The first part of your statement is not in the rule book.
Again a misread. I used the word modified. A charge reaction can and must be modified in certain circumstances - you've mentioned them (Fear, Terror).
We are in agreement here. Why are you adopting a confrontational stance?



They do not. They say that they automatically declare a flee reaction. Nowhere dothe rules say that this is in addition to any previously declared reaction.
.

Automatically declare a flee reaction means they flee. You can ignore the word charge reaction if you don't like it but the fleeing unit will flee again because that is what the rules state and this is what I've been saying.




As have you. As I have stated previously, the charge rules in the rulebook (even when "clarified" by the FAQ) simply don't work. Some degree of creativity is required and allowing units to flee an infinite amount just doesn't seem the correct way to proceed.
.

I have not modified any rules just followed them, quite strictly in my view, in sequence.
Yes, there are problems with the whole sequence in the movement phase. We've always agreed on that.
Using the rules I arrived at the sequence outlined in post#19. Yes, certain terms I used, have to be explained more clearly etc but if you tweak the phrases used here and there, I'm sure it will be acceptable.

I'm loathe to criticise and I do respect your knowledge;

However, there's no offence intended in the advice I proffer below:

If I were to put myself in your shoes I would now be criticising your phrase 'flee and infinite amount' in an unpleasant manner but I won't.
I do understand the gist of what you're saying in that statement - that EITW could result in too many fleeing units leading to chaos.
Your responses would sound more civil if you make an effort to understand the posts you refer to, in the same way I have made an effort to understand the gist of your last statement.

With that , my capacity for reiterating the same points is exhausted.

I retire, totally knackered!:D

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 21:17
DeathlessDraich, I believe the confusion arises thus:

You believe that the distance to the charged unit os measured, the flee roll is added and if this is less than the charge distance of the charger then the unit is removed.

This is not the case.

Fleeing units can flee and still be within charge distance of the charger, but be out of charge reach. EitW can result in them later being back in reach and so result in a new declaration against them.

An example:

A1<--7"-->B1<-2"->B2

A1 has M8. B2 flees 4", and ends up behind B2. It is now out of charge reach of A1. A1 declares EitW charge against B2 who also flees, fleeing past B1. B1 is still within 16" of A1 and ther eis no longer enemy in the way, so A1 charges B1 and destroys it, possibly also destroying B2 in the process.

Note that EitW is NOT determined until move chargers, which comes well after compulsory moves. The flee roll is essentially irrlevant - it is the position of the fleeing unit when it comes to resolving charges that determines whether the unit is caught.

Masque
26-04-2007, 21:23
DeathlessDraich, I believe the confusion arises thus:

You believe that the distance to the charged unit os measured, the flee roll is added and if this is less than the charge distance of the charger then the unit is removed.

This is not the case.

Fleeing units can flee and still be within charge distance of the charger, but be out of charge reach. EitW can result in them later being back in reach and so result in a new declaration against them.

An example:

A1<--7"-->B1<-2"->B2

A1 has M8. B2 flees 4", and ends up behind B2. It is now out of charge reach of A1. A1 declares EitW charge against B2 who also flees, fleeing past B1. B1 is still within 16" of A1 and ther eis no longer enemy in the way, so A1 charges B1 and destroys it, possibly also destroying B2 in the process.

Note that EitW is NOT determined until move chargers, which comes well after compulsory moves. The flee roll is essentially irrlevant - it is the position of the fleeing unit when it comes to resolving charges that determines whether the unit is caught.

On this subject I agree entirely with Atrahasis. Crazy, huh? :evilgrin:

lparigi34
26-04-2007, 23:03
I think this is what Atrahasis is explaining.

Unit A charges the skirmishers unit S in the starting position S0. S escapes the charge and moves to position S1. Both A and S move in the direction indicated by the arrows. Unit B also declared a charge against S that flees now to position S2, also escaping from unit B, but ending up in a position where they could have been reached by the first chargers, unit A. :confused:

Note that S is only one unit, not three the numerals and colours are there to emphasize its position during the phase.

Atrahasis
26-04-2007, 23:10
That's part of the problem, yes, but not the latest one ;)

Chicago Slim
27-04-2007, 04:11
As often happens, it's worth reminding ourselves of how the Movement Phase breaks down:
1) Declare charges (and then responses)
2) Rally Fleeing Troops
3) Compulsory Moves
4) Move Chargers
5) Remaining Moves

In lparigi34's hypothetical: A declares a charge against S. B declares a charge against S. S declares a response to the charges (flee). During compulsory moves, S flees directly away from whichever unit was larger, dice off if A and B have the same US (BRB 19, column 2 paragraph 2).

In move chargers, A attempts to charge to S' current position. If able to charge there, then A catches and destroys S, while completing a full charge move (unless that full charge move runs into B, or any other impassable terrain, in which case A stops 1" short of the obstacle). IF A catches S, then B automatically fails its charge, and makes a failed charge move (can't charge something that isn't there!) IF A does not catch S, then B attempts to do so.


So, that's all pretty straightforward: S gets one response to how ever many charges are declared against it, and flees once, away from the largest charging unit (again, that's VERY clear, on Page 19).



The earlier hypothetical is more interesting; I've changed the unit designations to (I hope) make it easier to keep units straight:
Assume a perfectly linear setup:

A>>>>>R--S<<<<<B

In Declare Charges, A declares a charge against R. B then declares a charge against S. R and S both choose to flee.
In Compulsory Moves, R flees through S (possibly causing a panic test, which, even if failed, will not change the direction that S flees, see Exception on Page 49). S then flees away from B. At the end of Compulsory Moves, the situation is:
A>>>>S----R<<<<B

In Move Chargers, A attempts to complete its charge against R, but finds S in the way. A has two choices: fail to charge R, stopping 1" before S, or declare an EitW charge against S.
This is where it gets a bit fuzzy: EitW rules on Page 23 says that "the target must make a charge reaction as normal." The FAQ says that "units that are charged against through this process do not get a new charge reaction."
I think that the reasonable way to read this is to limit "this process" to the sort of "double EitW" described in the FAQ. I readily acknowledge that this is just ONE way of resolving the ambiguity of the FAQ, and that other interpretations are equally reasonable. I also posit that this ambiguity isn't the end of the world, as the hypothetical here is pretty contrived, and will be a rare instance in actual gameplay.

In any case, under the reading I've suggested:
In Move Chargers, A attempts to complete its charge against R, but finds S in the way. A declares EitW on S, forcing S to flee (as the "normal charge response" of a fleeing unit is to flee).
There's a significantly branching decision tree at this point:
If S flees through R, then A cannot catch S, but may be eligable to declare EitW against R, who will NOT flee any further (per the FAQ), and may (or might not) be cut down by A. It's also possible that A will have enough distance to catch BOTH R and S, in which case both are destroyed (per the FAQ).
If S does NOT flee through R, then A can catch S. If they do so, they might also catch R, whose most recent action was to flee from A, and so R is destroyed when A catches it.
As a rule of thumb, I suggest that, if you're going to follow my reading of the FAQ, then a unit will be allowed to flee, unless its last action was to flee from the currently moving unit. So far, in this hypothetical, only A has moved (because Move Chargers requires that you do things in the order charges were declared, so resolving charges involving A *never* involves the fact that B is about to resolve-- it makes no difference if B declared charges or not...)

In any case, we resolve A's charge move. Time to move B.
Assuming that S has NOT fled through R, but that both R and S outdistanced A's charge move, B will face the same dilemma as above, declaring EitW on R, which will flee (by MY reading)...
IF S was destroyed by A, then B will fail its charge (can't charge a unit that no longer exists.) However, it's possible that the failed charge move will bring it into contact with R, which will trigger EitW (and a flee action from R, which may drive it into A, which will be fatal to R if A is at least US 5...)

As I say, a highly contrived (though interesting) scenario...

Masque
27-04-2007, 08:09
At last! An ally!


A>>>>>R--S<<<<<B

In Declare Charges, A declares a charge against R. B then declares a charge against S. R and S both choose to flee.
In Compulsory Moves, R flees through S (possibly causing a panic test, which, even if failed, will not change the direction that S flees, see Exception on Page 49). S then flees away from B. At the end of Compulsory Moves, the situation is:
A>>>>S----R<<<<B

You made a slight mistake at this point. The Exception on Page 49 you pointed out only applies to a unit that has declared a hold. I do think it would be an extremely good house rule to have it apply to a unit that declared flee as its response also.


In Move Chargers, A attempts to complete its charge against R, but finds S in the way. A has two choices: fail to charge R, stopping 1" before S, or declare an EitW charge against S.
This is where it gets a bit fuzzy: EitW rules on Page 23 says that "the target must make a charge reaction as normal." The FAQ says that "units that are charged against through this process do not get a new charge reaction."
I think that the reasonable way to read this is to limit "this process" to the sort of "double EitW" described in the FAQ. I readily acknowledge that this is just ONE way of resolving the ambiguity of the FAQ, and that other interpretations are equally reasonable. I also posit that this ambiguity isn't the end of the world, as the hypothetical here is pretty contrived, and will be a rare instance in actual gameplay.

In any case, under the reading I've suggested:
In Move Chargers, A attempts to complete its charge against R, but finds S in the way. A declares EitW on S, forcing S to flee (as the "normal charge response" of a fleeing unit is to flee).
There's a significantly branching decision tree at this point:
If S flees through R, then A cannot catch S, but may be eligable to declare EitW against R, who will NOT flee any further (per the FAQ), and may (or might not) be cut down by A. It's also possible that A will have enough distance to catch BOTH R and S, in which case both are destroyed (per the FAQ).
If S does NOT flee through R, then A can catch S. If they do so, they might also catch R, whose most recent action was to flee from A, and so R is destroyed when A catches it.
As a rule of thumb, I suggest that, if you're going to follow my reading of the FAQ, then a unit will be allowed to flee, unless its last action was to flee from the currently moving unit. So far, in this hypothetical, only A has moved (because Move Chargers requires that you do things in the order charges were declared, so resolving charges involving A *never* involves the fact that B is about to resolve-- it makes no difference if B declared charges or not...)

So, we interpret the the FAQ a bit differently, but far more closely than Atrahasis and others I think. You would prevent a unit from fleeing twice in a row from the same charger. I would prevent a unit from fleeing twice from the same initial charge. You're reading might be a bit simpler to apply but I think mine is closer to the intent.


In any case, we resolve A's charge move. Time to move B.
Assuming that S has NOT fled through R, but that both R and S outdistanced A's charge move, B will face the same dilemma as above, declaring EitW on R, which will flee (by MY reading)...
IF S was destroyed by A, then B will fail its charge (can't charge a unit that no longer exists.) However, it's possible that the failed charge move will bring it into contact with R, which will trigger EitW (and a flee action from R, which may drive it into A, which will be fatal to R if A is at least US 5...)

As I say, a highly contrived (though interesting) scenario...

If S is gone before B makes its charge do you think B makes its failed charge toward the last place S was or straight ahead?

Chicago Slim
27-04-2007, 12:03
At last! An ally!



You made a slight mistake at this point. The Exception on Page 49 you pointed out only applies to a unit that has declared a hold.

Yoikes! Okay, thanks and good point. As I recall, the last time that point came up, the consensus opinion was that S is already immune to panic when R flees through them, because S is considered to be fleeing beginning in Declare Charges, when S declares that it'll flee from B.




You would prevent a unit from fleeing twice in a row from the same charger. I would prevent a unit from fleeing twice from the same initial charge.

It's not how I would have said it, but it's a functional equivalent to how I read it, I think. I think my way has the advantage of having specific linkages between the charging unit and its target:
A is charging R. B is charging S. Each gets one flee move.
A is charging S. One flee move. A may catch either R or S, since both are fleeing from A.
B moves into S, who has already fled from B. B's has declared a charge against S, so B can run S down.

There's a logic to it: You can flee if you haven't already fled from these guys. They can cut you down if they've declared a charge against you.



If S is gone before B makes its charge do you think B makes its failed charge toward the last place S was or straight ahead?

Interesting question. Probably the last place S was, as it's more true to the situation that the rules are trying to model, but I would have no problem with an opponent wanting to play it as straight ahead.

Masque
27-04-2007, 12:15
Yoikes! Okay, thanks and good point. As I recall, the last time that point came up, the consensus opinion was that S is already immune to panic when R flees through them, because S is considered to be fleeing beginning in Declare Charges, when S declares that it'll flee from B.

Now that you point it out I totally agree. S is immune to panic because it is already fleeing regardless of the fact it hasn't actually made a flee move yet.


It's not how I would have said it, but it's a functional equivalent to how I read it, I think. I think my way has the advantage of having specific linkages between the charging unit and its target:
A is charging R. B is charging S. Each gets one flee move.
A is charging S. One flee move. A may catch either R or S, since both are fleeing from A.
B moves into S, who has already fled from B. B's has declared a charge against S, so B can run S down.

There's a logic to it: You can flee if you haven't already fled from these guys. They can cut you down if they've declared a charge against you.

I'm not sure if your example is how you would handle things or how you think I would handle things. You say your was has an advantage but your example seems to be the way I would do it as opposed to how you would do it. I doubt it makes much difference to play your way or mine as these situations don't come up all that often.


Interesting question. Probably the last place S was, as it's more true to the situation that the rules are trying to model, but I would have no problem with an opponent wanting to play it as straight ahead.

Exactly how such situations should be handled, I think. :)

Atrahasis
27-04-2007, 14:18
EitW pretty clearly states that you deal with the unit's attempted charge against any and all foes in the way before moving on.Quotation? I don't think its clear that it says that at all, but I may be missing something.

Chicago Slim
27-04-2007, 14:58
No quotation, but: What EitW says is that, if while moving your currently-active unit towards the current target of its charge, you encounter an enemy unit, then you may either fail your charge, or declare a new charge against the encountered enemy. It also says that this is a repeated process.

So, "any and all foes" can be exemplified here:
A>>>>R-S-T

A charges R, who flees during Compulsory Moves. During Move Chargers, A attempts to reach R, but encounters S. A declares an EitW charge against S. S flees from A. A continues to move towards S, but encounters T. A declares an EitW charge against T. If S and R have fled past T, and T stands, then A cannot catch nor destroy either of the earlier targets.

I think that Masque's shorthand ("you deal with the unit's attempted charge against any and all foes in the way before moving on") is a functional description of this process.

lparigi34
27-04-2007, 14:59
There's a logic to it: You can flee if you haven't already fled from these guys. They can cut you down if they've declared a charge against you.

IMO, this is the core of the question. EitW says "note that units that are charged againg through this process do not get a new charge reaction"

"through this process", very specific*, and it seems to indicate that is only "through this process" you do not get a new flee move, but you will through other processes.

So, is the EitW move of another unit the same process or another process?

IMO, after you finish resolving one charge, and then start resolving another, you just started a new process, so the already fleeing units may get a new flee move from the fresh chargers (but only once in this new process).

So, how many times can you flee move during the chargers phase? A: Many, as long as you keep scaping from each charger.

This may apply in other phases too (magic), since you can flee move twice or more from magically moving (allowed to charge) enemies.

*note that this all is against my position that there should be of only one flee reaction per phase, but unfortunately I believe is the correct interpretation of the rules.

Chicago Slim
27-04-2007, 17:06
"through this process", very specific*, and it seems to indicate that is only "through this process" you do not get a new flee move, but you will through other processes.

Agreement.



So, is the EitW move of another unit the same process or another process?


I read it as the EitW CHARGES of each charging unit creates another process. (there is no EitW move. The movement involved in EitW is charge movement, and must be spent in a way that attempts to complete a charge by a unit against a specific target or, in rare cases, set of targets).

It's like a computer program; only the relevant bits are coded here.
<Move Chargers>
For n = 1 to last: Move towards target <unit n>
If n reaches target, target is destroyed
If n cannot reach target, test EitW
EitW <unit n>

EitW is like a subroutine, with an input of <unit n>. Once unit #1 finishes moving, unit #2 may have its own EitW issues, which are resolved through a new loop through the process. The EitW subroutine has no memory of what the target or EitW have done before.



IMO, after you finish resolving one charge, and then start resolving another, you just started a new process, so the already fleeing units may get a new flee move from the fresh chargers (but only once in this new process).

Agreement.



*note that this all is against my position that there should be of only one flee reaction per phase, but unfortunately I believe is the correct interpretation of the rules.

Agreement. I think it's the correct interpretation, as well.

I reiterate, though, that it's a bit of a sketchy piece of rules, and in the rare case that it came up, I'd happily allow that my opponent may have a wildly different and equally reasonable interpretation.

Atrahasis
27-04-2007, 18:56
No quotation, but: What EitW says is that, if while moving your currently-active unit towards the current target of its charge, you encounter an enemy unit, then you may either fail your charge, or declare a new charge against the encountered enemy. It also says that this is a repeated process.

So, "any and all foes" can be exemplified here:
A>>>>R-S-T

A charges R, who flees during Compulsory Moves. During Move Chargers, A attempts to reach R, but encounters S. A declares an EitW charge against S. S flees from A. A continues to move towards S, but encounters T. A declares an EitW charge against T. If S and R have fled past T, and T stands, then A cannot catch nor destroy either of the earlier targets.

I think that Masque's shorthand ("you deal with the unit's attempted charge against any and all foes in the way before moving on") is a functional description of this process.

That's all lovely speculation, but the rules say that charges are resolved in declaration order. EitW allows you to declare a new charge and gives no exception to the rule that charges are resolved in declaration order.

Chicago Slim
28-04-2007, 00:46
That's all lovely speculation, but the rules say that charges are resolved in declaration order. EitW allows you to declare a new charge and gives no exception to the rule that charges are resolved in declaration order.

Interesting reading. It's quite true that EitW doesn't make any modification to the first paragraph of Move Chargers (pg 20), "Charges are resolved one at a time, in the order that they were declared."

However, EitW creates an interruption in the resolution of the active charging unit's move. I think it is unwieldy and unreasonable to expect that that charge move would be interrupted for more than the brief period needed to resolve the new target's reaction. There's too much room for error in keeping track of how much movement the charging unit has already expended, while the rest of the charging units move.

In short, I think that my reading (EitW is part of the resolution of the active unit's charge) is as supportable as yours (EitW ends the resolution of the active unit's charge, and creates a new charge for the same unit, at the bottom of the list), simply in terms of the language used in the book. I posit, though, that my reading is functionally much simpler and superior.

That's not to say that I'm unequivicably right-- just that I'm going to keep playing it the way I describe, and be completely confident that I'm at least as right as you are.

Atrahasis
28-04-2007, 10:10
There's too much room for error in keeping track of how much movement the charging unit has already expended, while the rest of the charging units move.EitW charges are declared bedore the unit moves at all, so this objection is groundless.

Masque
28-04-2007, 11:10
That's all lovely speculation, but the rules say that charges are resolved in declaration order. EitW allows you to declare a new charge and gives no exception to the rule that charges are resolved in declaration order.

I think I've discovered the part of the equation you're missing. Read the last sentence of EitW and/or the first sentence of the answer to the infamous FAQ.

'...until the situation comes to either a successful charge or a failed charge.'

If EitW process only lets you declare a charge but not actually resolve it right now then it will never come to a successful or failed charge. You will then be stuck in a dead end of EitW until hell freezes over and you might as well just pack up your minis and go home.

Atrahasis
28-04-2007, 11:16
If EitW process only lets you declare a charge but not actually resolve it right now then it will never come to a successful or failed charge. You will then be stuck in a dead end of EitW until hell freezes over and you might as well just pack up your minis and go home.False. Just because you resolve it after any previously declared charges does not mean it is never resolved.

Masque
28-04-2007, 11:24
False. Just because you resolve it after any previously declared charges does not mean it is never resolved.

EitW effectively says 'Keep doing X until Y.' It does not say 'Do X. Do Z. Reapeat unless Y.'

Atrahasis
28-04-2007, 11:26
No, it doesn't. It says that the process repeats until a successful or failed charge. It does not say that the process repeats uninterrupted nor does it say that it repeates out of the normal sequence of charges in declaration order.

Masque
28-04-2007, 12:03
No, it doesn't. It says that the process repeats until a successful or failed charge. It does not say that the process repeats uninterrupted nor does it say that it repeates out of the normal sequence of charges in declaration order.

Atrahasis,

I'm going to set up a quick situation and see if I can guess how you'ld play it, just to make sure I know how you think it works.

Letters vs Numbers:

B
A C

1 2

Unit 1 declares a charge on A and 2 declares a charge on C.
A chooses to flee and C holds.
A flees past B.
1 finds B in the way and declares on B.
B chooses to flee.
B flees past A.
2 charges C.
1 finds A in the way and declares on A.
If 1 can reach A then A is destroyed.
If 1 can reach B then B is destroyed.
If A is destroyed then 1 charges towards A's last position.
If A wasn't destroyed then 1 makes a failed charge towards A.

That's how you would play it, right?

Atrahasis
28-04-2007, 12:13
Yes, I think you've got it, though the destruction of A or B is sufficient for it not to be a failed charge.

Masque
28-04-2007, 14:46
Yes, I think you've got it, though the destruction of A or B is sufficient for it not to be a failed charge.

Since B fled beyond A it's impossible to catch B without catching A.

Does anyone (or everyone) else agree with how Atrahasis would handle the above example?

lparigi34
28-04-2007, 16:36
Guys, just to see if I finally get it...

Declaration subphase
Unit 1 declares a charge on A and 2 declares a charge on C.
A chooses to flee and C holds.
Compulsory movement subphase
A flees past B.
1 finds B in the way and declares on B.
B chooses to flee.
B flees past A.
Move chargers subphase
2 charges C. (should not this be the last, same order as declarations occurred?)
1 finds A in the way and declares on A.
If 1 can reach A then A is destroyed.
If 1 can reach B then B is destroyed.
If A is destroyed then 1 charges towards A's last position.
If A wasn't destroyed then 1 makes a failed charge towards A.

Observation 1) If after resolving the Compulsory movement subphase for the charge #1, any of the fleeing unit from it gets in the middle path of another fresh charge already resolved or not (chargers haven't moved yet), then it will be entitled to a new flee move from that charger.

Observation 2) If while resolving EitW during the Compulsory movement subphase for one charging unit it declares a charge on a unit already being charged, but still waiting its turn to move. The fresh charged unit can now elect to flee, but the direction will still be from the original chargers, which might now fail its charge due to being outrun or the fact that the fleeing unit will auto flee-move again from the original chargers when its turn come.

Festus
28-04-2007, 16:40
Hi
Observation 2) If while resolving EitW during the Compulsory movement subphase for one charging unit it declares a charge on a unit already being charged, but still waiting its turn to move. The fresh charged unit can now elect to flee, but the direction will still be from the original chargers...
Nope, the flee move is always directly away from the most numerous charger (US wise) it has got nothing to do with the sequence at all...

Festus

lparigi34
28-04-2007, 16:43
...the flee move is always directly away from the most numerous charger (US wise) it has got nothing to do with the sequence at all...
Festus

Ok. Agreed

Masque
28-04-2007, 17:21
Guys, just to see if I finally get it...

It should actually be like this (according to Atrahasis)...

Declaration subphase
Unit 1 declares a charge on A and 2 declares a charge on C.
A chooses to flee and C holds.
Compulsory movement subphase

A flees past B.
Move chargers subphase

EitW subsubphase

1 finds B in the way and declares on B.
B chooses to flee.
B flees past A.
2 charges C. (This is where Atrahasis and I disagree. I think this charge should be handled last as it was the last 'normally' declared charge. It seems you agree with me on this.)
EitW subsubphase

1 finds A in the way and declares on A.
If 1 can reach A then A is destroyed.
If 1 can reach B then B is destroyed.
If A is destroyed then 1 charges towards A's last position.
If A wasn't destroyed then 1 makes a failed charge towards A.


Observation 1) If after resolving the Compulsory movement subphase for the charge #1, any of the fleeing unit from it gets in the middle path of another fresh charge already resolved or not (chargers haven't moved yet), then it will be entitled to a new flee move from that charger.

Observation 2) If while resolving EitW during the Compulsory movement subphase for one charging unit it declares a charge on a unit already being charged, but still waiting its turn to move. The fresh charged unit can now elect to flee, but the direction will still be from the original chargers, which might now fail its charge due to being outrun or the fact that the fleeing unit will auto flee-move again from the original chargers when its turn come.

I think where you are going wrong in both of those observations is that there is only one Compulsory movement subphase not one for each charge. Each instance (subject to certain unagreed upon restrictions) of EitW allows for the unit in the way to declare and execute a charge reaction out of the normal sequence.

lparigi34
28-04-2007, 17:37
I think where you are going wrong in both of those observations is that there is only one Compulsory movement subphase not one for each charge. Each instance (subject to certain unagreed upon restrictions) of EitW allows for the unit in the way to declare and execute a charge reaction out of the normal sequence.

Maybe... I already agreed on being wrong in the second point.

As you laid out the phases, then my first point is wrong too...

As I do like the way you stated better than mine, I'm adopting it. Some confussion remains as what would happen if a unit fleeing from B gets also in the way of charger A... any suggestion? This may also be related as to when to move unit B to its combat, as it might result in that Atrahasis suggestion may be the most logical to follow

Masque
28-04-2007, 17:59
Maybe... I already agreed on being wrong in the second point.

As you laid out the phases, then my first point is wrong too...

As I do like the way you stated better than mine, I'm adopting it. Some confussion remains as what would happen if a unit fleeing from B gets also in the way of charger A... any suggestion? This may also be related as to when to move unit B to its combat, as it might result in that Atrahasis suggestion may be the most logical to follow

My solution is that each unit will flee up to one time from each charger. All units that chose to flee in response to charges declared during the charge declaration subphase will flee during the compulsory move subphase. Any unit found to be in the way as a charger is about to move may flee immediately from that charger if it has not already done so. As each normally declared charge and possible EitW situation is worked out one at a time a unit will never be in the way of more than one charger at a time.

Note that this is only my interpretation. Chicago Slim either agrees with me or believes something very, very similar. Atrahasis and Festus strongly disagree on the order things are worked out and how many times a unit may flee.

lparigi34
28-04-2007, 18:06
Ok, this is my post edited, please your input is neccesary...

Declaration sub phase
Unit 1 declares a charge on A and 2 declares a charge on C.
A chooses to flee and C holds

Compulsory movement sub phase
Resolve all fleeing movements from original chargers before getting into EitW
In this example A flees past B

Start EitW processes See Observations 1 and 2

....EitW sub Phase for A
1 finds B in the way and declares on B.
B chooses to flee
B flees past A

....EitW sub Phase for B
Nothing in this case

....Check if EitW moving units got in the way of other chargers, keep resolving EitW until all fleeing movement is resolved
Nothing in this case

Move chargers sub phase
Move Charger 1
1 finds A in the way and declares on A
If 1 can reach A then A is destroyed
If 1 can reach B then B is destroyed
If A is destroyed then it charges towards A's last position.
If A wasn't destroyed then 1 makes a failed charge towards A.
Move Charger 2 (the last, same order as declarations happened)

Observation 1) If after resolving the EitW sub phase for any charger, any of the fleeing unit from it gets in the middle path of another EitW already resolved or not (chargers haven't moved yet), then it might trigger a new EitW charge and the charged unit will be entitled to a new flee move from that charger (maximum one flee move per charger).

Observation 2) If while resolving the EitW sub phase for one charging unit it declares a charge on a unit already being charged that did elect not to flee can now elect to flee. The direction is from the EitW declaring unit (I think!). The original charger might now fail its charge due to being in a bad position, outrun or the fact that the fleeing unit will auto flee-move again from the original chargers when its turn come.

Masque
28-04-2007, 20:09
Ok, this is my post edited, please your input is neccesary...

Still not quite how I would put it or quite how believe Atrahasis would put it.

Here's how I resolve 'normal' charges declared during the Declare Charges subphase:

Declare Charges subphase
Charges are declared in any order
Charge reactions are declared
Compulsory Moves subphase
Units that declared flee as their reaction flee in the same order as above
Move Chargers subphase
For the first unresolved charge in the same order as above
If there are EitW
Work out EitW (as below)
Go back to Move Chargers subphase
Units that delcared stand and shoot against this charging unit shoot
Units that fled from this charge are destroyed if in charge range
Charging unit makes a charge or a failed charge
Go back to Move Chargers subphase
Here's how I resolve ALL 'abnormal' charges (including but not limited to compulsory movement, the effects of spells or magic items, pursuit into fresh enemy, AND EitW):

The charge is declared
If target unit has not reacted to an unresolved charge by this charging unit
The charge reaction is declared
The charge reaction is resolved (flee or stand and shoot)
If there are EitW
Work out EitW (as below)
Return to whatever you were doing before this charge was declared
Units that fled from this charge are destroyed if in charge range
Charging unit makes a charge or a failed charge

Here's how I would handle EitW

The charging unit may declare a charge against the unit in the way
If the charging unit does not declare a new charge
The charging unit makes a charge move towards the previous target,
but stops 1" away from the unit in the way
I have left out some steps such as frenzy declarations, fear tests, and panic from stand and shoot but I think these three functions cover almost every charge in the game. Note that by using this system a Multiple Chargers situation can only occur through 'normal' charge declaration.

Now to apply this to my overworked example:

B
A C

1 2

Declare Charges subphase
1 declares a charge on A then 2 declares a charge on C
A declares flee and C declares hold
Compulsory Moves subphase
A flees past B
Move Chargers subphase
Resolve 1's Charge
B is an EitW
1 declares a charge on B (this is an 'abnormal' charge)
B has not reacted to an unresolved charge by 1
B declares flee
B fless past A
A is an EitW
1 declares a charge on A (this is an 'abnormal' charge)
A has reacted to an unresolved charge by 1
A may not declare and resolve a charge reaction
There are no EitW
A and/or B is destroyed if in charge range of 1
1 makes a charge or failed charge
Resolve 2's Charge
There are no EitW
2 makes a charge

That took far, far too long to type, edit, and format. Questions, comments, criticisms, and accusations of making this all up are welcome.

lparigi34
28-04-2007, 21:59
I think that both ways of solving it yield almost the same result in most of the situations, but except in one case that comes to my mind:

what would happen if C declared flee instead of holding (of course in a different units layout) and the when it initialy flees from 2 it is not in the way of unit 1, but then, when you resolve EitW for the charge of 2 it gets into what might be the way of unit 1?

As I said for most of the other situations the result will be the same, but how will your method work this out? Like not allowing unit 1 to EitW unit C since you already moved unit 1?

I believe It is a possibility and might be ruled out this way, so I'd be ok if this hapens.

If you follow the order I propose all EitW moves are resolved before moving any charger and as part of the compulsory movement sub phase, this way the before mentioned issue wil never happen.

Chicago Slim
29-04-2007, 05:50
EitW charges are declared bedore the unit moves at all...

Jigga-wha? Now you're just making stuff up. I refer you to EitW rules on Pg 23, since you're so fond of direct quotation:

"It may happen that the chargers, as they make their full charge move...run into another enemy that is in the way of their move...If the charging unit runs into another enemy, they are allowed to immediately declare a new charge against the enemy now in their way."

So, EitW is declared ONLY once you actually make contact with the "in the way" unit. Any other reading of the above would require... considerable invention.

Also, I just noticed some more support for my previously-explained interpretation (that EitW is resolved during the active unit's charge move, rather than ending that charge move and creating a new one at the end of the queue. Again, from Pg 23: "this procedure is repeated until the situation comes to either a successful charge or a failed charge." I posit that "the situation" is the charge move of the current unit...

Chicago Slim
29-04-2007, 05:58
erworked example:

B
A C

1 2

Declare Charges subphase
1 declares a charge on A then 2 declares a charge on C
A declares flee and C declares hold
Compulsory Moves subphase
A flees past B
Move Chargers subphase
Resolve 1's Charge
B is an EitW
1 declares a charge on B (this is an 'abnormal' charge)
B has not reacted to an unresolved charge by 1
B declares flee
B fless past A
A is an EitW
1 declares a charge on A (this is an 'abnormal' charge)
A has reacted to an unresolved charge by 1
A may not declare and resolve a charge reaction
There are no EitW
A and/or B is destroyed if in charge range of 1
1 makes a charge or failed charge
Resolve 2's Charge
There are no EitW
2 makes a charge



Well done. I agree almost completely, and the only adjustment I'd make is that I actually move unit 1 incrementally, so as to prove that B (and then A) is actually in the way. (I also mark 1's starting position, so it can be gone back to and/or remeasured...) See my support for this interpretation in my most recent post, above.

Masque
29-04-2007, 11:27
I think that both ways of solving it yield almost the same result in most of the situations, but except in one case that comes to my mind:

what would happen if C declared flee instead of holding (of course in a different units layout) and the when it initialy flees from 2 it is not in the way of unit 1, but then, when you resolve EitW for the charge of 2 it gets into what might be the way of unit 1?

As I said for most of the other situations the result will be the same, but how will your method work this out? Like not allowing unit 1 to EitW unit C since you already moved unit 1?

I believe It is a possibility and might be ruled out this way, so I'd be ok if this hapens.

If you follow the order I propose all EitW moves are resolved before moving any charger and as part of the compulsory movement sub phase, this way the before mentioned issue wil never happen.

If C had fled from the initial charge by 2 then it would flee immediately after A. It could not possibly flee between 1 and 2 moving. If fleeing from an EitW charge causes a unit to get in the way of another unresolved charge then it will be a valid EitW target of that charge and will flee when that charge is resolved.


Jigga-wha? Now you're just making stuff up. I refer you to EitW rules on Pg 23, since you're so fond of direct quotation:

"It may happen that the chargers, as they make their full charge move...run into another enemy that is in the way of their move...If the charging unit runs into another enemy, they are allowed to immediately declare a new charge against the enemy now in their way."

So, EitW is declared ONLY once you actually make contact with the "in the way" unit. Any other reading of the above would require... considerable invention.

Double check the Errata regarding EitW. It modifies/clarifies the timing of EitW slightly (bold added for emphasis):

‘If the charging unit would run into another enemy, they are allowed to immediately declare a new charge against the enemy unit now in their way.’

Also if you look at the EitW diagram from the FAQ you'll see that it says the knights can declare on the spearmen even though they aren't visible. If the knights had moved towards the archers until they bumped into the spearmen before declaring on the spearmen then the spearmen could not possibly be out of sight at that time.

Moving the charging unit part way before declaring an EitW charge will alter the path the unit in the way flees along and the path the charging unit makes it's charge or failed charge along.

lparigi34
29-04-2007, 14:58
If C had fled from the initial charge by 2 then it would flee immediately after A. It could not possibly flee between 1 and 2...




Initial Layout
B
A

C
2
1

Final layout, solved your way: now C might have been EitW for 1

B
A

C
2
1



... If fleeing from an EitW charge causes a unit to get in the way of another unresolved charge then it will be a valid EitW target of that charge and will flee when that charge is resolved...


So, assuming the new scheme... What will happen now that C got into 1 path in a position where it would have been EitW for it, but 1 already moved?


Moving the charging unit part way before declaring an EitW charge will alter the path the unit in the way flees along and the path the charging unit makes it's charge or failed charge along.

IMO this also expands to moving any of the chargers before resolving all the possible EitW movements. As I said before, if you resolve all EitW posible movements in the same order as charges were declared and before you move any charger at all, this situations are avoided.

IMO EitW is should be resolved as part of the compulsory movement phase, right after all the original fleeing units were moved. Chargers should be moved only after all EitWs are solved, and the only thing that should move in this subpahse are the chargers themselves, not fleeing units.

Masque
29-04-2007, 15:13
Initial Layout
B
A

C
2
1

Final layout, solved your way: now C might have been EitW for 1

B
A

C
2
1




So, assuming the new scheme... What will happen now that C got into 1 path in a position where it would have been EitW for it, but 1 already moved?

1 HAS NOT MOVED yet. Even according to your before and after diagram 1 is still in the same spot. Note also that 2 should not have moved yet. 2 will never move before 1 using my method for resolving charges.

By the looks of your diagram A chose to hold and C fled and got in the way of 1. Then 1 will attempt to charge A but find C in the way. Since C is already fleeing the only reaction it can make is to flee. It will flee directly away from 1, probably past A and B who will have to take panic tests and may flee. Then 1 will charge A assuming A did not panic. Then 2 will probably be out of range to catch C but maybe not. If A or B is in the way of 2 chasing after C through a charge or failed charge then 2 may EitW charge the unit in the way. If that unit is already engaged by 1 it will not be able to react. Otherwise it may flee, hold, or shoot as normal.


IMO this also expands to moving any of the chargers before resolving all the possible EitW movements. As I said before, if you resolve all EitW posible movements in the same order as charges were declared and before you move any charger at all, this situations are avoided.

IMO EitW is should be resolved as part of the compulsory movement phase, right after all the original fleeing units were moved. Chargers should be moved only after all EitWs are solved, and the only thing that should move in this subpahse are the chargers themselves, not fleeing units.

A unit cannot be found to be in the way until just before a charger actually moves. You don't measure to find out if the charging unit is actually in range of it's target until that time.

lparigi34
29-04-2007, 15:53
1 HAS NOT MOVED yet...

You tricked me... not allowed!!! :p

1 already moved towards A and B, both fled and they ended in the positions they are. (otherwise C would be closer to A). Assume C ended where it is after EitW for unit 2 and not as the original flee move (for this one more unit not drawn fleeing from 2 is needed in the diagram, but please assume).

So, how will you work this out?


A unit cannot be found to be in the way until just before a charger actually moves. You don't measure to find out if the charging unit is actually in range of it's target until that time.

I would never measure things here, actually I would not even measure to see if there is an EitW, if it seems to be in range and direction you declare a charge against it, as you would against any viable target, without measuring. You can fail a charge during EitW if the second unit elects to hold and it was not in range.

I only would start measuring when I start to move my chargers, but this far no enemy units should have to move at all...

Masque
29-04-2007, 16:11
You tricked me... not allowed!!! :p

1 already moved towards A and B, both fled and they ended in the positions they are. (otherwise C would be closer to A). Assume C ended where it is after EitW for unit 2 and not as the original flee move (for this one more unit not drawn fleeing from 2 is needed in the diagram, but please assume).

So, how will you work this out?

If 1 has already completed it's charge move, failed or otherwise, then it won't matter where C ends up. As 1 is no longer about to make a charge move it will never check to see if there are EitW.


I would never measure things here, actually I would not even measure to see if there is an EitW, if it seems to be in range and direction you declare a charge against it, as you would against any viable target, without measuring. You can fail a charge during EitW if the second unit elects to hold and it was not in range.

I only would start measuring when I start to move my chargers, but this far no enemy units should have to move at all...

EitW only happens when the charger WOULD contact the unit in the way not if it MIGHT contact the unit. If you don't measure beforehand how could you possibly know for sure? As far as I can tell a charge can only fail due to a bad estimate of the distance if that charge was a 'normal' charge declared during the Declare Charges subphase.

lparigi34
29-04-2007, 16:31
If 1 has already completed it's charge move, failed or otherwise, then it won't matter where C ends up. As 1 is no longer about to make a charge move it will never check to see if there are EitW.

Agreed, if so, it makes more tactically important the order in which you declare the charges.


EitW only happens when the charger WOULD contact the unit in the way not if it MIGHT contact the unit. If you don't measure beforehand how could you possibly know for sure? As far as I can tell a charge can only fail due to a bad estimate of the distance if that charge was a 'normal' charge declared during the Declare Charges subphase.

ummmm... I was not sure about it, but re-reading the rules, you are so right, it is actually a requirement, and that means that EitW must be done after you started moving chargers.

Being all as it is, now you have brought me totally in line with you.

Thanks for the discusion! :)

Masque
01-05-2007, 14:33
Now that lparigi34 (and possibly ChicagoSlim) is on board it's time to get back to trying to convince Atrahasis and Festus...

You do work out charges declared due to magic or pursuit into fresh enemy differently than charges declared in the movement phase, correct? And charges due to compulsory movement, right?

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 14:46
The only spell I can think of that causes a charge declaration in teh magic phase is the TK movement Incantation. All others simply cause charges if contact is made. Even the TK Incantation does not allow multiple charges at once, so the point is moot. If you can think of a magical charge that allows multiple declarations then we'll deal with it.

All of the examples you give are, of course, worked out differently from "normal" charges, but I'd appreciate it if you can further clarify which difference you're trying to highlight. I'm not going to write an essay on all of the differences in an attempt to try and catch your point. :)

Masque
01-05-2007, 15:02
The Wolf Hunts is a declared charge and I would argue that Steed of Shadows and Unseen Lurker are too.

The first difference that I'd like to point out is that troops that choose to flee from any 'special' charge flee immediately rather than waiting until the next compulsory movement phase. I would contend that EitW charges and compulsory movement charges fall into this category. Would you agree?

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 15:25
I would contend that EitW charges

Certainly units that are charged during EitW do not have to wait until teh next compulsory movement phase before fleeing (if they have not already done so this turn).


compulsory movement charges fall into this category.Compulsory movement charges happen during the compulsory movement phase, and the FAQ tells us to move any units declaring a flee response before moving the charger. This is specifically to prevent the charger destroying units that have delcared a flee reaction from it before they get a chance to move (as the player whose turn it is decides the order of compulsory moves).

Masque
01-05-2007, 15:38
If a unit fled past another unit from a magical or other 'special' charge would you allow the charging unit to EitW the second unit?

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 15:40
Such magical charges generally tell us to use all of the rules found i the movement section for charges, so yes.

Masque
01-05-2007, 16:27
Such magical charges generally tell us to use all of the rules found i the movement section for charges, so yes.

With the unnoted but obvious exception of which subphase to perfrom which step of the charge in, correct?

You would also allow EitW for a compulsive move or pursuit into fresh enemy charge where the target fled, right?

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 16:56
With the unnoted but obvious exception of which subphase to perfrom which step of the charge in, correct?

You would also allow EitW for a compulsive move or pursuit into fresh enemy charge where the target fled, right?

Correct on both counts.

Masque
01-05-2007, 17:24
Ok, so, you would agree that all charges declared outside of the Declare Charges subphase are resolved, at least in part, differently than charges declared during the Declare Charges subphase, correct? Why would EitW charges that are the result of charges declared during the Declare Charges subphase be any different than any other EitW charges?

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 17:37
Agreeing that things happen out of sequence in special circumstances does not equate to saying they happen differently. They follow the same process but during a different part of the turn.

An EitW charge in the magic phase will not grant a new charge reaction if the unit has already had one this phase unless the spell specifically grants a charge reaction (and then only if it doesn't say "as in the movement phase" or "as normal"). That wouldn't be a special feature of "EitW in the magic phase" but a special feature of the spell, and I hope we can agree that spells causing special events is not unusual.

Masque
01-05-2007, 17:48
Agreeing that things happen out of sequence in special circumstances does not equate to saying they happen differently. They follow the same process but during a different part of the turn.

An EitW charge in the magic phase will not grant a new charge reaction if the unit has already had one this phase unless the spell specifically grants a charge reaction (and then only if it doesn't say "as in the movement phase" or "as normal"). That wouldn't be a special feature of "EitW in the magic phase" but a special feature of the spell, and I hope we can agree that spells causing special events is not unusual.

I'm not only talking about magical charges. I see no reason why any type of special charge would be handled any differently than any other. Do you?

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 17:55
Can you just make your point rather than dancing around trying to trap me into saying something that will further your argument?

What differences do you think I am supporting that you don't think are valid?

Masque
01-05-2007, 18:08
Can you just make your point rather than dancing around trying to trap me into saying something that will further your argument?

What differences do you think I am supporting that you don't think are valid?

I think you treat EitW charges caused by regular charges differently than all other EitW charges.

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 18:12
How so ?

Masque
01-05-2007, 18:24
You don't resolve them immediately.

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 18:35
So you're surprised that special circumstances are different to normal ones?

The three examples of special charges you have given are charges as a result of compulsory movement, magical charges and pursuit into fresh enemy.

"Normal" charges follow the rule that they are resolved in the order of declaration.

Charges as a result of compulsory movement aren't easy to answer as a category - some follow the normal rules for charges (such as Chaos Spawn) while others may not. Do you have a specific example?

Magical charges, again, can be different from case to case. They are resolved immediately, yes, but they are a special case of out-of-sequence events. Again I ask, is it so surprising that an out of sequence event happens out of sequence?

Pursuit into fresh enemy is resolved immediately beause that's what the rules for pursuit into fresh enemy say - you complete all pursuit before moving on to resolve the next combat.

In short, I treat them differently because the rules tell me to; the normal charge procedure demands that chargfes are resolved int eh order of declaration, so that's what I do. Magical charges follow the rules laid out in the spell and/or item that causes them. Pursuit into fresh enemy follows the rules for pursuit into fresh enemy. Compulsory charges follow their rules.

Special cases can only be dealt with on a case by case basis. They are special, after all.

lparigi34
01-05-2007, 18:44
You don't resolve them immediately.

I'm in... again :D

Masque, I'm lost now. The process you stated doesn't either. You declare charges, flee move enemies that have to and then, in the move chargers sub phase you resolve each EitW in order.

Out of phase you just fully resolve the situation inmediatley.

Masque, just to know, mind you bullet point again the difference between Atrahasis solution and yours?. I'm really lost at this ponit. Thanks.

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 18:49
The difference currently under scrutiny is that when Masque finds an enemy in the way, he does not view it as a new charge declaration and so resolves it before moving onto the next charger.

He resolves chargers in order and not charges.

DeathlessDraich
01-05-2007, 19:00
This thread is too long for any fresh ideas or new contributors and has drifted way past the original question.

I've started a new thread on EITW. Feel free to air your views.

Masque
01-05-2007, 19:03
I think that EitW charges, no matter the circumstances that caused them, are their own subcategory of 'special' charges. Do the rules tell you to handle some EitW charges one way and others another?

Masque
01-05-2007, 19:06
The difference currently under scrutiny is that when Masque finds an enemy in the way, he does not view it as a new charge declaration and so resolves it before moving onto the next charger.

He resolves chargers in order and not charges.

Actually I do view it as a new declaration. But since it is a non-standard charge (not declared during Declare Charges) it is resolved as soon as it is declared.

Atrahasis
01-05-2007, 19:07
I've started a new thread on EITW. Feel free to air your views.Oh no you haven't :D


I think that EitW charges, no matter the circumstances that caused them, are their own subcategory of 'special' charges. Do the rules tell you to handle some EitW charges one way and others another?Yes, they do. Not directly, but they do tell us to resolve charges in declaration order when they happen in "Move Chargers". Nothing in the EitW rules tells us differently, so we follow the normal procedure, which is to resolve charges in declaration order.

eldrak
02-05-2007, 13:15
That could be quite annoying if you have several units which does EitW (perhaps several times per unit). You have to work trough them all several times then.

I will continue to do chargers in order unless I can see clearly that the effect would be different if doing charges in order instead.

Chicago Slim
02-05-2007, 17:05
Atrahasis has made a very useful distinction. And, I'm with Eldrak, on the "chargers not charges" bandwagon. My basis for my choice (grounded in both practicality and my reading of the rules) is fully explained elsewhere...

So, while I'll continue to disagree with Atrahasis' way of doing things, I'm content to let this thread dribble off...