FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Moderator: Anger Worm

Re: FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Postby -poxous » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:07 am

The answer is #4 by the rules.

David,

I'm not trying to have a flame war with you. I have Ed for that. 8)
-poxous
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:03 pm

Re: FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Postby xmbk » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:09 am

Look, there's a reason that GW's online examples are mythical. If you really want to come up with weird situations that are not covered by the rules, it's easy to do so. And while preparing ahead of time in order to avoid in-game discussions is admirable, the fact is that the truly unusual stuff doesn't come up very often.

But it really is helpful to listen to the veterans. While we are indeed playing under 7th edition rules, the game has developed over a much longer period, and GW is not very good at writing rules for newcomers (or anyone else, for that matter). Drawing in on the flank during a charge is a flatout no-no. I don't believe there is an experienced player out there who thinks this legal. If GW wanted to change this, even they would have known to explicitly spell out that change.

The tactical charge is meant to allow for alignment against skirmishers, and nothing else that I'm aware of. The key to charging multiple units is that it be "inevitable". If it's possible to maximize against 1 unit without contacting or drawing in the other, then you should do so.

If the choice is between drawing in a skirmisher screen or aligning the charged unit, I don't believe the rules are crystal. My inclination would be to align the charged unit, but certainly if my opponent felt otherwise I wouldn't argue.
Not caring adds a whole new dimension to the game.
xmbk
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:06 pm

Re: FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Postby -poxous » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:14 am

Sub,

You are applying the mulit-charge rule to something that is not a multi-charge. By picking #1 you break the rules for charging and the rules for aligning. The multi-charge appendix is there when you have a charge that conects front to front and niether side can form a battleline, or a straight combat line, without touching another unit. You are assuming because that appedenix covers a weird spot in the game that it superceeds the rules for charging and it does not. The Appendix gives examples of weird stuff that can happen and how to solve it. No appendix covers the drayd example at all. There USED to be an appendix that covered that and it was removed from the rules. Now all we have is the charge rules and the align rules and they do apply to the drayd example.
-poxous
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:03 pm

Re: FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Postby Bauhaus » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:17 am

I certainly agree that having a defending unit in your flank doesnt make much sense from a tactical point of view, but Im approaching this problem from wanting to make the charge and what happens, intentionally or not, with units being drawn into combat.

My conclusions certainly involve rules pertaining to multiple and awkward charges but Id like to avoid moving units away from combat. That defending unit worked to get where it is, to assume that its not involved in protecting its fellow units seems a waste.

So, even with Mr. Papa Ginos very convincing argument Id choose 1. His unit of green gobs gets a charge in the front and in the flank. (Why hes charging with goblins or even playing O&G for that matter is a mystery.

Under 6th he would have had to align his unit as best he could without contacting the unit in his flank but in 6th he could have been 1/16th of an inch away and the unit wouldnt be drawn in.

All this of course would be moot if someone shows me a rule or FAQ that says you cannot be drawn into the flank. Under those circumstances the debate is on again, but for now, Im done.
Blood for the Blood God!
User avatar
Bauhaus
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:30 am

Re: FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Postby mattbird » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:20 am

Dave, I double dare you to try that flank thing at the club. ;)
jer732 wrote:Birdoff makes me want to rage quit life
mattbird
 
Posts: 5595
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Postby -poxous » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:22 am

Rules say what you CAN do. You can not make up something and tell me to show why you can not do it!

Also, I just reread the appendix on multi-targets and there is no way it could ever apply to any of this. I'd suggest having another look and reading the whole thing.
-poxous
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:03 pm

Re: FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Postby Ring87 » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:44 am

I knew this was going to happen:b . You just got dinged for going over the minute mark....so just slide that chariot over and roll some dice...;)
Ring87
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:12 pm

Re: FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Postby subversive » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:53 am

Well, neither Poxous nor I have convinced one another despite our best efforts.

For what it's worth*, somebody in my club called GW. After the first guy said "move the treeman," someone overheard him, and they had a debate amongst themselves. They finally decided that it was, indeed, correct to side-swipe the dryads, impact hits and all. Which, of course, means that it's automatically wrong, since GWs rules boys say it's right, so I'm now hanging my head in shame for having had the same opinion as the rules boys :o ;)

* purely entertainment value, that is
subversive
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:20 am

Re: FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Postby jchrisobrien » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:20 am

Rulez Boyz FTW!

sub: If we ever play, hopefully you'll agree to d6 the decisions.

The real decision is are you coming to the Colonial, because Nidal wants to know who's in charge of the hookers. That, as I understand it, would be you! :hat

dave: I would point you to the rule on p21. The charger aligns against it's enemy (the enemy it declared against). if it's impractical to align properly due to other models, move the charged unit. The rules say "other models", it makes no distinction between friends or foes. If there is an enemy on the flank that keeps your from aligning to the unit you charged, then you stop and the charged unit aligns in.

This is less about convincing anyone, and just backing up why I think the way I do.
"Play the game!" --KevinC
User avatar
jchrisobrien
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:59 am

Re: FAQ Appendix: awkward/multiple charges (cont. from chariots)

Postby subversive » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:13 pm

jchris: In all honesty, I don't care about how I play the rule. I've had plenty of fun games without this rule so it's neither here nor there whether we use it if we get to play. I get into rules discussions like this because I like to know what the rules actually are. For any given game, I really don't care if people want to play one way or the other, I just like to know all the variations so I can adapt if required.

The problem with your rules interpretation is that the appendix is a clarification of exactly the rule that you're quoting. So going by that, and not considering the appendix is only using half the rule. The OTHER half of the rule says that enemy models in the way would not cause the charged unit to realign, they'd be considered a multiple charge. The real crux of the argument is whether it's possible for an alignment to carry your flank into combat. Some people say no, some people say yes. I'm of the opinion that if you read the charging rules carefully and logically, they don't make a distinction between front and flank, and it's only convention that makes people think that only the front can engage.

re: Colonial, I'm still undecided. I'm renovating my house and money is pretty tight. If Nidal wants to pay me a pimp fee, maybe I can swing it :hat
subversive
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Warhammer Fantasy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron