Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frenzy per the rulebook:

"If, during the Charge sub-phase, a unit that includes one or more Frenzied models could declare a charge, then it must do so unless a Leadership test is passed. If the Leadership test is failed, the Frenzied unit must declare a charge against the nearest viable enemy."

1A) Since 8E charge distance is random, within what distance "could" a charge be declared? Movement + 12"?
1B) Assuming a Chaos Champion/Warriors (M 4) with the Mark Of Khorne that failed their Frenzy-based Leadership test would be required to declare a charge against the nearest enemy within 16"?

2) IIRC, in previous editions, the "pass Ld test or charge nearest enemy" requirement for Frenzy only applied if the unit did not voluntarily declare a charge. The 8E rulebook wording seems to say that the Leadership test must be made any time an enemy is in range, even if you wanted the Frenzied unit to declare a charge anyway? (This would matter if you were going to charge an enemy other than the closest one.)

1A), yes, could charge distance is movement + 12" (So a Savage orc would have a could charge distance of 16"

1B) yes, see 1A.

2) Yes, they have to test even if they was going to charge anyways. They would have to charge the closest unit if the test is failed.

I don't know, #2 is a good question. If you're declaring a charge already, I don't see why you'd have to make a LD test or charge the nearest. It says, "then it msut do so unless..." You ARE doing so, you're not trying to restrain them.

However, the FAQ says:

Q: Must a unit with Frenzy that is in charge range of an enemy unit
on the first turn of the game, take a Leadership test due to Berserk
Rage if it deployed as Scouts or made a Vanguard move? (p79)
A: No. A Frenzied unit only takes a Leadership test due to
Berserk Rage if it can charge. As it is not allowed to charge,
there is no need to take the test.

Which has a slightly different connotation. It sounds like there you have to take it no matter what.

We have been playing #2 as Do you want to charge? If yes, then no test and charge as normal.

Except this is a change to 8th ed frenzy from 7th - you no longer choose whether to charge or not, if you fail you MUST charge, if you pass you can declare a charge. This is a downside in that if you fail you may not charge the unit you wanted to!

I don't know how to clearly express our reasoning except that if they wanted you to take that leadership test regardless, it should have been in the same sentence or worded differently. You charge and fulfill the obligation. That has to be one of the most poorly written rules phrases in the known universe.

"If, during the Charge sub-phase, a unit that includes one or more Frenzied models could declare a charge, the unit must take a Leadership test. If the test is failed, it must declare a charge at the nearest legal enemy unit." --- How I would write it if they want a LD test regardless.

And yes, we know this is a different edition, but the major change is the fact that in 7th, you had to charge; there was no Leadership test to avoid it. However, Frenzy already has severe drawbacks (mandatory pursue and overrun), so yet another may not have been what they intended.

It is definitely FAQ worthy, especially compared to some thing they decide need FAQs

I don't care either way as I try to avoid Frenzy in my armies anymore. While the benefits (Extra Attack and ItP) are very nice, the drawbacks can cost you the game.

"If, during the Charge sub-phase, a unit that includes one or more Frenzied models could declare a charge, the unit must take a Leadership test. If the test is failed, it must declare a charge at the nearest legal enemy unit."

What is unclear about having to take a LD test no matter what?

If you can declare a charge, you take a LD test, if not, you don't.

DONE.

That was the way I would write the rule.

The actual rule is further up in the thread. I will edit the above to make it clear it is how I would write it.

My mistake!

Yes, definitely needs an FAQ.

Currently, I would play it that you do not need to take a LD test if you declare a charge, as you are already satisfying the requirement.

Your not satifiying the requirement if you don't take a leadership test.

I don't see why a FAQ is needed. It states that during the charge sub-phase a unit with[sic] 1 or more models with frenzied must take a leadership test.

It doesn't say if a frenized unit didn't charge, then it must take a leadership test to see if it will charge. (This is the rule for Bretonnian Knights Errant)

Artee wrote:Your not satifiying the requirement if you don't take a leadership test.

...then it must do so unless a LD test is passed.

It IS doing so. The unless clause is never activated because the condition is already met.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Artee wrote:Your not satifiying the requirement if you don't take a leadership test.

...then it must do so unless a LD test is passed.

It IS doing so. The unless clause is never activated because the condition is already met.

This. You are satisfying the "must charge" part, since you know... you are charging.

Sure you are. It says you must charge unless a leadership test is passed. Furthermore, if you fail the leadership, there is a set of additional requirements to the now mandatory charge.

If you replace "unless" with a definition of itself it will read: "If, during the Charge sub-phase, a unit that includes one or more Frenzied models could declare a charge, then it must do so [except on the condition that] a Leadership test is passed."

Well, I am declaring a charge, so the clause about a leadership test being passed doesn't apply, as I am not trying to use the exception.

"If, during the Charge sub-phase, a unit that includes one or more Frenzied models could declare a charge, the unit must take a Leadership test. If the test is failed, it must declare a charge at the nearest legal enemy unit."--mine Still uses their "template" and clarifies without 5 more sentences.

Gah, this is one of the things I hate with poorly written rules, grammar fights. This is meant to be a game, not an exercise is grammar.

I am happy enough to play it either way, and wait for a FAQ that will probably never occur. I guess we could send it to GW for FAQ consideration. I are lazy American, someone else can do it

*note* I am not making any claims on being a grammar expert. Quite the contrary. I do not trust GW to be precise with their wording to rely on archaic grammar rules to make decisions.

I dont get it. The language is actually clear. If you fail the test you charge the closest model. You take a test if you dont want to charge. It makes sense and is completely clear.

Leith wrote:I dont get it. The language is actually clear. If you fail the test you charge the closest model. You take a test if you dont want to charge. It makes sense and is completely clear.

I think people are over-reading it.
You must declare a charge, unless you pass a leadership test.
So if I declare a charge against the 2nd closest enemy, I've met the Must declare a charge requirement.
The only time you take the LD test is if you choose to not charge at all, and failure of that test forces you into the nearest enemy.

-Matt

It reads to me that the LD test is non-optional.

kirsanth wrote:It reads to me that the LD test is non-optional.

"If you could declare a charge, you must do so unless a leadership test is passed."
The leadership test is a condition of avoiding a charge declaration. The next sentence gives you an additional effect of failing the leadership test.

.-Matt