Page 95 Codex: Craftworlds wrote:Acrobatic: This unit can Advance and charge in the same turn. In a turn in which it Advanced, you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it, and you can add 3 to the resulting charge roll.

Page 192 BRB wrote:Once you have chosen an eligible unit, select one or more enemy units within 12" of them as the target(s) of the charge. Each target unit can then attempt to fire Overwatch.

Is it just me, or does the Acrobatic rule not actually allow you to select a unit further than 12" away? All it says is that you can declare charges after they advance only if there are enemy units within 15", not that they can select a unit beyond the 12" permitted by the BRB.

I was positive that I saw something from GW that said if you had this kind of ability that you could declare charges from further away, but I can't find it in the index, rulebook, or craftworld faqs.

the intent is clear, even though RAW techniqually you are correct.

Here we go again...

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Page 95 Codex: Craftworlds wrote:Acrobatic: This unit can Advance and charge in the same turn. In a turn in which it Advanced, you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it, and you can add 3 to the resulting charge roll.

Page 192 BRB wrote:Once you have chosen an eligible unit, select one or more enemy units within 12" of them as the target(s) of the charge. Each target unit can then attempt to fire Overwatch.

Is it just me, or does the Acrobatic rule not actually allow you to select a unit further than 12" away? All it says is that you can declare charges after they advance only if there are enemy units within 15", not that they can select a unit beyond the 12" permitted by the BRB.

Check page 170 i think the little part with Core and Advanced rules.

Now does the howling banshee ability it's an advanced rules?

Does this ability *build upon the core rules, add to or provide variation* ?

Seems clear to me. They can charge units within 15".

 Lemane0116 wrote:
Seems clear to me. They can charge units within 15".

Except the rule doesn't say that? All it says is that it may declare charges if there are units within 15" after they advance. It doesn't allow them to target a unit beyond the 12" granted by the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Perversor wrote:
Check page 170 i think the little part with Core and Advanced rules.

Now does the howling banshee ability it's an advanced rules?

Does this ability *build upon the core rules, add to or provide variation* ?

I am not sure what you are talking about. Page 170 is talking about rules further on in the rulebook, it's not talking about codexes at all. Even if you say it's "building on the core rules", nothing in the Acrobatic rule allows for me to declare a charge against an enemy unit that is more than 12" away.

By all means feel free not to charge your Howling Banshees up to 15". Meanwhile, I will charge 15". Carry on.

It's Groundhog Day!

Seriously though, read the rule and apply it. What does it say you can do? Declare Charges up to 15" instead of 12". There is no doubt as to intent or how to play this rule.

If you've feedback on rules wording precision the appropriate place is the official GW FAQ email address. Send it direct to GW rather than making a YMDC thread. It'll potentially have more effect and elicit less annoyance.

RAW, there is nothing that allows you to actually declare a charge against a target more than 12" away, because of the manner in which the Howling Banshee special rule cleverly avoids actually allowing the unit to do so.

Wonderful.

 MinMax wrote:
RAW, there is nothing that allows you to actually declare a charge against a target more than 12" away, because of the manner in which the Howling Banshee special rule cleverly avoids actually allowing the unit to do so.

Wonderful.

To the GW FAQ email for you as well then! ;-)

It literally says "you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it", how can you think this isn't modifying " select one or more enemy units within 12" of them as the target(s) of the charge"?

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It literally says "you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it", how can you think this isn't modifying " select one or more enemy units within 12" of them as the target(s) of the charge"?

Because it isn't modifying it. It's literally saying "you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it" not "you can declare a charge move against enemy units that are 15" away".

What it is saying is that you may charge after you advance, but only if there are enemy units within 15" of you.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It literally says "you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it", how can you think this isn't modifying " select one or more enemy units within 12" of them as the target(s) of the charge"?

A thumbs up doesn't change what the rules say...

RAW, no, they have to choose a unit within 12" like always.

But, I'll chalk this up to other RAW problems like advancing and shooting with Assault weapons, firing pistols within 1" of an enemy, etc etc.

In other words, not even worth talking over with your opponent before the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
RAW, no, they have to choose a unit within 12" like always.

But, I'll chalk this up to other RAW problems like advancing and shooting with Assault weapons, firing pistols within 1" of an enemy, etc etc.

In other words, not even worth talking over with your opponent before the game.

So can I assume that if we were to ever play I could declare all my units move 50" and automatically hit and wound? After all, if you're going to ignore one rule, why can't I ignore the rest?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
RAW, no, they have to choose a unit within 12" like always.

But, I'll chalk this up to other RAW problems like advancing and shooting with Assault weapons, firing pistols within 1" of an enemy, etc etc.

In other words, not even worth talking over with your opponent before the game.

So can I assume that if we were to ever play I could declare all my units move 50" and automatically hit and wound? After all, if you're going to ignore one rule, why can't I ignore the rest?

Yes, you could declare that. The ramifications of which would depend entirely on the game in question, but I won't tell you what you can and can't say or do. I'm not the rulebook.

Heck, as long as I get to declare that my models never actually suffer wounds from yours, you can declare whatever you want. I'd question if it was worth it playing the game in the first place, but I'd ask exactly the same question of someone who said that Howling Banshees can't declare charge targets outside12", so you're screwed either way, BCB

The difference is, I would be following the rules about Banshees, you would not be. That's the benefit of being a RaW purest, you're always correct.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The difference is, I would be following the rules about Banshees, you would not be. That's the benefit of being a RaW purest, you're always correct.

Correct is not the same thing as right.

And that's the benefit of being a human being and not an unthinking machine that parses colloquial English like it was written in C++.

Reading rules that make perfect sense wrong isn't fun for anyone.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Reading rules that make perfect sense wrong isn't fun for anyone.

I agree, which is why Banshees charging 15" isn't fun for anyone!

Luckily this is a situation that shouldn't come up very often. Even with +3" declaring a charge against a unit 11" away is a gamble, much less 12-15".
Banshees are too fragile to be left out in the open. And with the 3" disembark distance, 7" move + Advance, it is unlikely for a Banshees target unit to be outside 12' away.

Making a 13-15" 'hail Mary' charge is so unlikely that if you just let the player roll the distance (and fail) your won't really need to "invoke" this rules technicality. The only thing that might change this is the opponent overwatching....which they cannot do against Banshees anyway.

-

"you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it"
"you can declare a charge move against enemy units that are 15" away"

You're willfully making a distinction between these statements that isn't there.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The difference is, I would be following the rules about Banshees, you would not be. That's the benefit of being a RaW purest, you're always correct.

Sure. You can also take a nice oat-bag, strap it around the muzzle of that high horse and give it a good brushing while you're walking your models out to the car and putting them in the trunk when no one plays you. So, good...for you? I guess.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
"you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it"
"you can declare a charge move against enemy units that are 15" away"

You're willfully making a distinction between these statements that isn't there.

Those sentences are not the same thing.

"Charge Move", by definition is limited to 12". Nothing in the rule changes this. All acrobatic does is allow you to charge after an advance, so long as there are models within 15". It does NOT change the definition of charge move.

So from how I read it, the Howling Banshee rules overwrites step 1 in the charge phase and allows you to activate a unit to declare charges if there is an enemy within 15". However, in step 2, the HB rule doesn't grant permission to declare a target farther than 12" inches away. BCB is correct in his assertion, but I think it's a case of RAW vs Intent and I wouldn't disallow anyone the opportunity to select a unit to charge at 13-15" away.

Okay, BaconCatBug, you are 100% technically correct.



However, there's literally NO reason for GW to give them this rule without them being able to select a unit within 12" also. Therefore, your correctness is about as relevant as me saying that space is big.

 Yarium wrote:
However, there's literally NO reason for GW to give them this rule without them being able to select a unit within 12" also. Therefore, your correctness is about as relevant as me saying that space is big.

Yes, there is. It allows them to charge after advancing.

He's referring to the "if there are any enemy units within 15" of it," clause, which is pointless if you don't think it modifies the rule that it very obviously modifies.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
He's referring to the "if there are any enemy units within 15" of it," clause, which is pointless if you don't think it modifies the rule that it very obviously modifies.

It isn't pointless. It doesn't let them declare a charge after advancing if there are no enemies within 15". Nothing allows them to actually declare a charge at 15". You're free to make up rules if you want, but the majority of us play by the normal rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
He's referring to the "if there are any enemy units within 15" of it," clause, which is pointless if you don't think it modifies the rule that it very obviously modifies.

It isn't pointless. It doesn't let them declare a charge after advancing if there are no enemies within 15". Nothing allows them to actually declare a charge at 15". You're free to make up rules if you want, but the majority of us play by the normal rules.

Actually, I'm fairly certain the "majority of us" would let Banshees declare a charge at a target within 15", just like the "majority" of us still thinks that the side who deploys first only gets a +1 on a roll-off rather than automatically going first in the BRB missions.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
He's referring to the "if there are any enemy units within 15" of it," clause, which is pointless if you don't think it modifies the rule that it very obviously modifies.

It isn't pointless. It doesn't let them declare a charge after advancing if there are no enemies within 15". Nothing allows them to actually declare a charge at 15". You're free to make up rules if you want, but the majority of us play by the normal rules.

Actually, I'm fairly certain the "majority of us" would let Banshees declare a charge at a target within 15", just like the "majority" of us still thinks that the side who deploys first only gets a +1 on a roll-off rather than automatically going first in the BRB missions.

Neither of those are following the rules though, so by definition you can't be the majority, otherwise the game wouldn't exist.

lets not forget that because GW wrote what it wrote about Banshees and RAW = RAI, it clearly wasn't GWs intent to allow Banshees to charge at 15''. Anything else is fake news.

And thank you for being an unending fountain of entertainment, BCB.

We'd all be unable to play this game and have fun while doing it without your wisdom.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
He's referring to the "if there are any enemy units within 15" of it," clause, which is pointless if you don't think it modifies the rule that it very obviously modifies.

It isn't pointless. It doesn't let them declare a charge after advancing if there are no enemies within 15". Nothing allows them to actually declare a charge at 15". You're free to make up rules if you want, but the majority of us play by the normal rules.

Actually, I'm fairly certain the "majority of us" would let Banshees declare a charge at a target within 15", just like the "majority" of us still thinks that the side who deploys first only gets a +1 on a roll-off rather than automatically going first in the BRB missions.

Neither of those are following the rules though, so by definition you can't be the majority, otherwise the game wouldn't exist.

What does this mean?

Do you think a game is defined by its rules and nothing else? So if you don't follow the rules, you're not playing the game?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
He's referring to the "if there are any enemy units within 15" of it," clause, which is pointless if you don't think it modifies the rule that it very obviously modifies.

It isn't pointless. It doesn't let them declare a charge after advancing if there are no enemies within 15". Nothing allows them to actually declare a charge at 15". You're free to make up rules if you want, but the majority of us play by the normal rules.

What? How is that not pointless? You already can't charge if there's no enemies within 15". That clause does nothing under your faulty idea of what RAW means.

Actually, I'm fairly certain the "majority of us" would let Banshees declare a charge at a target within 15", just like the "majority" of us still thinks that the side who deploys first only gets a +1 on a roll-off rather than automatically going first in the BRB missions.

He's trying to give his arguments a sense of faux-intellectualism. Doesn't work, obviously.

Yes, RAI is obvious, and it's not that the Banshees can't make a charge up to 15"

I'm pretty sure BCB doesn't actually play the game.

That's as may be, but let's everyone stick to the actual topic.

Thank you.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
He's referring to the "if there are any enemy units within 15" of it," clause, which is pointless if you don't think it modifies the rule that it very obviously modifies.

As much as I feel this discussion is ridiculous, I have to agree with BaconCatBug. That particular clause does let them declare a charge after advancing if an enemy is within 15", but it doesn't actually let you chose a target outside 12".

-

 Galef wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
He's referring to the "if there are any enemy units within 15" of it," clause, which is pointless if you don't think it modifies the rule that it very obviously modifies.

As much as I feel this discussion is ridiculous, I have to agree with BaconCatBug. That particular clause does let them declare a charge after advancing if an enemy is within 15", but it doesn't actually let you chose a target outside 12".

It's pretty cut and dry how I read it. I think GW meant the rule to say "HBs can declare a charge if within 15" of an enemy unit AND choose an enemy target within 15" of the declared charging HB unit" However, they didn't. So BCB is correct... but everyone's HBs will continue to assault units within 15" because it's the only way the rule make sense.

Huh, there's an extremely technical gap in the rules here. So you need to be within 12" to declare a charge (which howling banshees ignore), but then you can only declare a charge against a unit within 12" (which acrobatic does not explicitly allow).

Of course, since the rules don't say what happens if a charging unit has no viable targets, technically the game just "crashes."

I suppose more technically, the BRB has two steps:
1) must be within 12" to make a charge move
2) must target a unit within 12"

Acrobatic doesn't verbatim allow either: it says that a unit can "declare a charge" if within 15" of an enemy unit. That means that the verbiage either means:
1) make a charge move, and target a unit, or,
2) Nothing, and the whole phrase is nonsense.

So, congratulations, OP. You discovered an error in GW's rules writing.

 Polonius wrote:


So, congratulations, OP. You discovered an error in GW's rules writing.

But if GW now releases an errata for said rule, then BaconCat will make a new thread about how GW is machinegunning out FAQs and rules fixes, in this suppesodely "most playtested version ever". They really cannot win.

It's in FAQ under 'stepping into W40k'

Q: A unit has a special rule that says, for example,
‘add 3" to the dice roll(s) for determining the charge
distance of the unit’. Does that mean my unit can move
15" if I roll a double 6 on 2D6?
A: Yes. Note though that you can only ever declare
a charge against an enemy unit you are within
12" of, unless the charging unit has an ability that
says otherwise.

Banshee rule states it can declare a charge 15" away... so it's allowed

Guys, if the mods won't bin it just stop validating this thread with responses. We all know the rule allows declaring charges on units up to 15" away.

mchammadad wrote:
Banshee rule states it can declare a charge 15" away... so it's allowed

Did you not read the thread? The whole problem is that the banshees rule DOESN'T say it can.

Page 95 Codex: Craftworlds wrote:
Acrobatic: This unit can Advance and charge in the same turn. In a turn in which it Advanced, you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it, and you can add 3 to the resulting charge roll.

pretty hard not to notice the BOLD text saying it can, if it advanced

mchammadad wrote:
Page 95 Codex: Craftworlds wrote:
Acrobatic: This unit can Advance and charge in the same turn. In a turn in which it Advanced, you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it, and you can add 3 to the resulting charge roll.

pretty hard not to notice the BOLD text saying it can, if it advanced

And nowhere does it say it can declare a charge AT units 15" away, only that it may declare charges if units are within 15".

All the rule does is allow you to charge after an advance, but not if there are no enemy units within 15". Nothing is changing the BRB limit of 12".

So a unit of Howling Banshees can Advance and declare a charge if the closest unit to it is 14" away, just not against that unit?

This argument goes in the pile with the Assault Weapons don't let you fire after Advancing and you can't shoot Pistols at units within 1" of you arguments. Technically right and obviously wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
Page 95 Codex: Craftworlds wrote:
Acrobatic: This unit can Advance and charge in the same turn. In a turn in which it Advanced, you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it, and you can add 3 to the resulting charge roll.

pretty hard not to notice the BOLD text saying it can, if it advanced

And nowhere does it say it can declare a charge AT units 15" away, only that it may declare charges if units are within 15".

All the rule does is allow you to charge after an advance, but not if there are no enemy units within 15". Nothing is changing the BRB limit of 12".

I.... i just..... really?

Why do the mods tolerate this kind of pointless trolling in a rules forum? Genuinely curious.

 alextroy wrote:
So a unit of Howling Banshees can Advance and declare a charge if the closest unit to it is 14" away, just not against that unit?

This argument goes in the pile with the Assault Weapons don't let you fire after Advancing and you can't shoot Pistols at units within 1" of you arguments. Technically right and obviously wrong.

Already proudly in his signature...

 alextroy wrote:
So a unit of Howling Banshees can Advance and declare a charge if the closest unit to it is 14" away, just not against that unit?

This argument goes in the pile with the Assault Weapons don't let you fire after Advancing and you can't shoot Pistols at units within 1" of you arguments. Technically right and obviously wrong.

That's what you get when you hire incompetent writers. Probably just fans who are willing to work for GW for half the salary of standard wage for such position because "it's GW and it's oh my childhood dream to design gw codexes!"

tneva82 wrote:

Probably just fans who are willing to work for GW for half the salary of standard wage for such position because "it's GW and it's oh my childhood dream to design gw codexes!"

I get the distinct feeling that if this were the case, we would actually have BETTER rules, not worse. Fans generally care a bit more to proof read.

But GW bashing aside, I do think 8E is the best edition I've ever played (although I've never played RT, 2E or 3E). I think the main reason for this is that GW is responding to community feedback.
It may be a bit slow for some players (looking at you BCB), but it is technically progress. It would be nice to get complete rules that need no FAQ from day 1, but you have to cut them some slack. They are dealing with multiple products from multiple lines and multiple writers all at once and deadlines need to be met. The fact that they are quick to identify and Errata/FAQ an issue is a fact that should be praised, not condemned.

-

What I think needs to happen here is that GW needs to go back to the tone taken in earlier chapter approved articles. They'd get questions like this and would heavily imply that the person asking the question was being a twit. My favourite one was when the answer was "do we really have to answer that?". In other words, GW at the time wasn't afraid to call people out for being That Guy with rules questions.

People talk about the dumbing down of rules, but GW has always expected a degree of interpretation of intent. Somehow the internet doesn't seem to get that. Or maybe it's just a few individuals like BCB.
It's a game. Not a legal contract. It's not written to be dry perfectly worded legal-like clauses. It's written to be friendly, fun and easy to grasp.

By that logic Rowboat Girlyman can buff THOUSAND SONS, because "It's a game. Not a legal contract. It's not written to be dry perfectly worded legal-like clauses. It's written to be friendly, fun and easy to grasp."

When I play a board game, I expect the rules to be followed.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that logic Rowboat Girlyman can buff THOUSAND SONS, because "It's a game. Not a legal contract. It's not written to be dry perfectly worded legal-like clauses. It's written to be friendly, fun and easy to grasp."

When I play a board game, I expect the rules to be followed.

That's the biggest straw man I have ever seen.

It's literally says you can change after you advance a target 15" away, you were being facetious, just like the majoiry of these questions brought up. At this point it's been proven byond a shadow of a doubt that a banshee can declare and make a change to a unit with in 15 inches of it.

I would humbley ask at this point the thread be locked because at this point it's arguing over if something is pink or pale red.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that logic Rowboat Girlyman can buff THOUSAND SONS, because "It's a game. Not a legal contract. It's not written to be dry perfectly worded legal-like clauses. It's written to be friendly, fun and easy to grasp."

When I play a board game, I expect the rules to be followed.

That's the biggest straw man I have ever seen.

It's literally says you can change after you advance a target 15" away, you were being facetious, just like the majoiry of these questions brought up. At this point it's been proven byond a shadow of a doubt that a banshee can declare and make a change to a unit with in 15 inches of it.

I would humbley ask at this point the thread be locked because at this point it's arguing over if something is pink or pale red.

It literally says the opposite. It does not allow you to declare a charge at a unit 15" away. Please show the line that allows this?

All the rule does is allow a charge after advance, and only if there are enemies within 15". It does not remove the BRB restriction of 12". I am being 100% sincere since I think a lot of people are playing Banshees wrong.

Clearly to the vast majority of posters in this thread, the RAI and HIWPI is, "Banshees can declare a charge target that is within 15."

The RAW is different.

And the Tenants #4 state that you should clearly differentiate which you're talking about, and that BOTH are legitimate discussions to have in YMDC about rules.

I would never follow the RAW in this case, and I will always allow an Eldar opponent to use the Banshees as they are clearly intended.

If an Eldar player wanted to nerf himself in this manner, s/he can be my guest. If a non-Eldar demanded that the strict RAW be followed, I'd encourage the Eldar player to play someone else more reasonable, like ME!!

Edit: the point of this forum is to come up with a workable solution for a tabletop situation. Obviously GW materials cannot stand up to the level of grammatical scrutiny exercised in legal cases. If you want to do that, become a lawyer. (My office could use another associate.) Otherwise, the RAW is useful only in so much as it allows you to play the game.

Please explain the relevance of enemies within 15” after an advance if one cannot charge them? Why would they bother stating that?

 Swan-of-War wrote:
Please explain the relevance of enemies within 15” after an advance if one cannot charge them? Why would they bother stating that?

To make sure you don't accidentally think "may charge after advancing" means you can declare a charge where no enemies are within 15". It also doesn't matter if that "part" of the rule doesn't make "sense". It's a legitimate and working rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Swan-of-War wrote:
Please explain the relevance of enemies within 15” after an advance if one cannot charge them? Why would they bother stating that?

To make sure you don't accidentally think "may charge after advancing" means you can declare a charge where no enemies are within 15". It also doesn't matter if that "part" of the rule doesn't make "sense". It's a legitimate and working rule.

You're kidding us, right? Allowing Banshees to charge if there is enemy with 15" of them after advancing is to prevent them from declaring a charge if there isn't an enemy within charge range? And you're stating that range is 12" despite the rule itself saying they can declare a charge if the enemy is outside if charge range (15")?

 alextroy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Swan-of-War wrote:
Please explain the relevance of enemies within 15” after an advance if one cannot charge them? Why would they bother stating that?

To make sure you don't accidentally think "may charge after advancing" means you can declare a charge where no enemies are within 15". It also doesn't matter if that "part" of the rule doesn't make "sense". It's a legitimate and working rule.

You're kidding us, right? Allowing Banshees to charge if there is enemy with 15" of them after advancing is to prevent them from declaring a charge if there isn't an enemy within charge range? And you're stating that range is 12" despite the rule itself saying they can declare a charge if the enemy is outside if charge range (15")?

The rule itself says no such thing.

"In a turn in which it Advanced, you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it,"

Nothing in that line says that the 12" limit is changed. It says you can declare a charge move, not that the limit for the move is increased.

I made the thread to see if anyone else had noticed this, since I know for a fact a lot of people have been playing that Banshees can charge 15" when they cannot.

You are missing my point. You stated and I quoted your assertion that the reason GW added the enemy within 15" clause to Charge after Advancing was to prevent players from thinking they could charge if there are no targets within the, according to you, maximum declarable charge target range of 12".

That is flat out ludicrous. If GW didn't want them to charge a target more than 12" away, the rule would say enemy within 12" to reinforce the existing rule. Adding an additional 3" to the legal distance implying the ability to make a longer charge just doesn't hold any water. To follow your logic, a unit of Howling Banshee's can advance to be 13" away from the closes enemy unit and be able to charge per Acrobatic and unable to charge per the Charge rules.

 alextroy wrote:
You are missing my point. You stated and I quoted your assertion that the reason GW added the enemy within 15" clause to Charge after Advancing was to prevent players from thinking they could charge if there are no targets within the, according to you, maximum declarable charge target range of 12".

That is flat out ludicrous. If GW didn't want them to charge a target more than 12" away, the rule would say enemy within 12" to reinforce the existing rule. Adding an additional 3" to the legal distance implying the ability to make a longer charge just doesn't hold any water. To follow your logic, a unit of Howling Banshee's can advance to be 13" away from the closes enemy unit and be able to charge per Acrobatic and unable to charge per the Charge rules.

GW works in mysterious ways. Regardless of what the intent of the rule might have been in some alternate universe, the rule we have now is crystal clear.

By your logic, the Banshees wouldn't even be able to complete the charge, just declare one - the rules do not specifically say that they can Make the Charge Move after advancing.

 Swan-of-War wrote:
By your logic, the Banshees wouldn't even be able to complete the charge, just declare one - the rules do not specifically say that they can Make the Charge Move after advancing.

Erm, yes, they do? The BRB rules cover what happens after you declare a charge.

BaconCatBug wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
Banshee rule states it can declare a charge 15" away... so it's allowed

Did you not read the thread? The whole problem is that the banshees rule DOESN'T say it can.

If you're going to play pedantic games, then you should actually read everything.

mchammadad wrote:It's in FAQ under 'stepping into W40k'

Q: A unit has a special rule that says, for example,
‘add 3" to the dice roll(s) for determining the charge
distance of the unit’. Does that mean my unit can move
15" if I roll a double 6 on 2D6?
A: Yes. Note though that you can only ever declare
a charge against an enemy unit you are within
12" of, unless the charging unit has an ability that
says otherwise.

Banshee rule states it can declare a charge 15" away... so it's allowed

So, you're essentially arguing that the phrase "declare a charge" has a meaning distinct from "select a unit as a charge target." It's an odd obsession with exact language from a poster who generally gleefully points out how sloppy GW is with language, but whatever.

Even if you decide that the phrase "declare a charge" means simply choose a unit to charge, not the combination of selecting the charging unit and any target(s), you still run into a problem. The FAQ specifically states "Note though that you can only ever declare a charge against an enemy unit you are within 12" of, unless the charging unit has an ability that says otherwise. " GW itself is using the term "declare a charge" in place of "choose a unit as a charge target," which is, you know, pretty much how everybody speaks. Because Acrobatic does allow a a unit to declare such a charge, you're left arguing for an incredibly tortured interpretation of plain language that this is little more than an exercise in proving how clever you are.

It says they may declare a charge if a unit is within 15", not that they may declare a charge against a unit more than 12" away. The problem is the banshee rule does NOT say "otherwise".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Swan-of-War wrote:
By your logic, the Banshees wouldn't even be able to complete the charge, just declare one - the rules do not specifically say that they can Make the Charge Move after advancing.

Erm, yes, they do? The BRB rules cover what happens after you declare a charge.

No, it doesn't. declaring a charge is actually never defined. The steps are:
1) Choose a charging unit
2) Choose a target

Interestingly, overwatch is the first time the word declare shows up: "Each time a charge is declared against a unit, the target unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker."

Again, this suggests that declaring a charge is the two step process of choosing both attacker and target.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It says they may declare a charge if a unit is within 15", not that they may declare a charge against a unit more than 12" away. The problem is the banshee rule does NOT say "otherwise".

Again, the term "declare a charge" is not defined in the rules, but is consistenly used to mean selecting both a unit that charges and it's target. "Declaring a charge" is not the same as selecting a unit to charge, and GW's usage always shows that it means both parts.

I really think BCB at this point is intentionally trolling. Cause the amount of irrefutable evidence that contradicts his statement is staggering.

Most other people would just leave it be and realize that they made a mistake. Those are the people who become better for it, and in return make this community better as a reflection.

people who stubbornly hold on to their statement.... well

Except BCB is right. The RAW is broken.

Now, RAI is clear. HIWPI is allowing Banshees to charge a unit 15" away. I don't think anyone would say "Well, RAW says you can't, so I won't let you!"

But that doesn't mean the RAW is same as RAI.

I wonder what the percentage of overlap between rules purists and “TFG”s is. Likely high. What is the point of the 15” clause in the banshee rule if not to indicate a difference from the core rules? At some point you have to decide if you want to play a game or be a jerk. I suppose for some being that way is a fun game.

RAW OP is likely correct, but i can’t imagine this scenario coming up in a game and argued over. If you want to bog down a game and argue about this then 40k as a whole is just a treasure trove of arguments waiting to happen, which leads me to believe a game against that type of person basically gets forfeited to prevent further anger and wasted time.

I think we all know what the point of the 15" clause is, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't say what it was intended to say. This is all too common a problem with GW, and BCB apparently enjoys pointing it out.

In the end, wouldn't we all want rules that say what they're supposed to say and don't create loopholes, misunderstandings and game-interrupting arguments? I know I would.

And the intention is often a lot less clear than in this case; it just seems GW's writers don't think through their wordings all that much.

 Swan-of-War wrote:
Please explain the relevance of enemies within 15” after an advance if one cannot charge them? Why would they bother stating that?

That doesn't matter from a RAW perspective. It's why we differentiate between RAW and RAI. RAI your argument makes sense of course, and is why almost everyone will allow the charge at 15 inches

This attempted lawyer-level word dive fails anyway, as GW only uses the wording "a charge is declared" in the Overwatch section - step 3 of the Charge Phase.

From this we know that "declare a charge" is their colloquial wording for what happens in steps 1 and 2, and the Banshee Strat works RAW to allow charging a unit up to 15" away.

The alternative is that "declaring a charge" has no rules basis, is just "reminder text" and all Stratagems mentioning declaring charges are null and void. And my Conscripts have 20W or something.

Someone burn this thread with promethium as it's fething pointless.

 Cream Tea wrote:
I think we all know what the point of the 15" clause is, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't say what it was intended to say. This is all too common a problem with GW, and BCB apparently enjoys pointing it out.

In the end, wouldn't we all want rules that say what they're supposed to say and don't create loopholes, misunderstandings and game-interrupting arguments? I know I would.

And the intention is often a lot less clear than in this case; it just seems GW's writers don't think through their wordings all that much.

This. It is like when in a previous edition they had the rule where the number of psychic powers a psyker could cast was proportional to their mastery level, without ever defining that proportionality. Sadly, GW often uses overly complicated language (proportional vs equal to, for example) in order to try and make their rules seem smarter than they actually are.

All this over a hail mary of a charge, which nearly no one would try to make and even fewer would successfully roll to make.

Oh my.

 Cream Tea wrote:

In the end, wouldn't we all want rules that say what they're supposed to say and don't create loopholes, misunderstandings and game-interrupting arguments? I know I would.

Sure. But I really don't think that the rules need to be written to take this level of wilful misunderstanding into account.

 Crimson wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:

In the end, wouldn't we all want rules that say what they're supposed to say and don't create loopholes, misunderstandings and game-interrupting arguments? I know I would.

Sure. But I really don't think that the rules need to be written to take this level of wilful misunderstanding into account.

Hear, hear. Would that this section were about making the rules work and finding consensus.

For stuff like the OP's wording issue, the appropriate action is to email the GW FAQ hotline. Not adopt a contrary position and argue with anyone who is rational and knows what the rule is saying.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that logic Rowboat Girlyman can buff THOUSAND SONS, because "It's a game. Not a legal contract. It's not written to be dry perfectly worded legal-like clauses. It's written to be friendly, fun and easy to grasp."

When I play a board game, I expect the rules to be followed.

So do you adhere to the RAW of the things you point out in your sig, which you have claimed is also the RAI since that is what the RAW is? Or do you House rule, indicating that you don't expect all the rules as written to be followed?

So... you can declare a charge at 15 inches... but not actually make one.

Am I getting it yet?

Except BCB is right. The RAW is broken.

But is the RAW really broken if 99% of all people automatically play it as it should be played? I definitely don't want GW to start using lawyer speak in their rules, it would make the game a lot harder to learn for most people, and there would still be loopholes anyway.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that logic Rowboat Girlyman can buff THOUSAND SONS, because "It's a game. Not a legal contract. It's not written to be dry perfectly worded legal-like clauses. It's written to be friendly, fun and easy to grasp."

When I play a board game, I expect the rules to be followed.

So do you adhere to the RAW of the things you point out in your sig, which you have claimed is also the RAI since that is what the RAW is? Or do you House rule, indicating that you don't expect all the rules as written to be followed?

Also there's no Datasheet called "Rowboat Girlyman", so he must be using homebrew units too!

It literally says, you may declare charge an enemy within 15" that's a clear indication you can charge something over 12 inches away. Not to mention. Advanced rules cover how this over rides the brb.

Your point has been disproven a number of times. I'm pretty sure now you are just arguing to argue and probably don't actually play the game just argue rules all day.

To the sane people left stop replying don't feed the troll.

Ushtarador wrote:

Except BCB is right. The RAW is broken.

But is the RAW really broken if 99% of all people automatically play it as it should be played? I definitely don't want GW to start using lawyer speak in their rules, it would make the game a lot harder to learn for most people, and there would still be loopholes anyway.

This plays into what Johnny Hell pointed out, that "declare a charge" isn't clearly defined at the beginning of the Charge Phase rules, so it's really more two interpretations of RAW here. BCB's interpretation, that declaring a charge covers only nominating the unit to be charging, obviously runs into the logical problems that are pointed out. The other RAW interpretation, as JohnnyHell points out, is that declaring a charge is the combination of declaring which unit is charging AND which unit is being charged. With that interpretation of RAW, there are no issues the way there are with the other version. In fact, with the overwatch statement "each time a charge is declared against a unit..." it appears that declaring the target unit must be part of declaring a charge. If only step 1, nominating the unit that will be charging, is the only part of declaring a charge, then you would not be declaring a charge against a unit as they indicate in overwatch, merely declaring a charge and as a later step nominating a target unit. BCB is merely operating under a faulty interpretation of RAW here, and declaring the charge also includes, by RAW, declaring who is going to be charged. Therefore, the RAW is that Banshees can charge units 15" away.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except BCB is right. The RAW is broken.

Now, RAI is clear. HIWPI is allowing Banshees to charge a unit 15" away. I don't think anyone would say "Well, RAW says you can't, so I won't let you!"

But that doesn't mean the RAW is same as RAI.

This.

It's like YMDC nowadays is populated with people that forget that Terminators didn't wear Terminator armour although IRL I never met anyone that claimed this despite it being in there in black and white in the 4th ed. SM codex.... RAW=/=HIWPI much of the time.

But a certain smarmy Dalek will reply and tell us not to reply, thus pushing this to the top.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It literally says "you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it", how can you think this isn't modifying " select one or more enemy units within 12" of them as the target(s) of the charge"?

Because it isn't modifying it. It's literally saying "you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it" not "you can declare a charge move against enemy units that are 15" away".

What it is saying is that you may charge after you advance, but only if there are enemy units within 15" of you.

How does this happen if the unit to be targeted is not 12-15" away?

Are you saying that HBs can charge if a unit is up to 15" away, but that they can only charge a unit that is up to 12" away?
?
So, you are reading this to mean that any mention of the 15" is effectively null? No practical relevance, as HBs cannot actually charge anything more than 12" away?
I simply do not understand how you do not see that the intent of the rule is to allow HBs to charge a unit up to 15" away, rather than the standard 12...
Just, impenetrable.

 jeff white wrote:
Are you saying that HBs can charge if a unit is up to 15" away, but that they can only charge a unit that is up to 12" away?

Yes, this is exactly what the Acrobatic rule does. Though the "HBs can charge if a unit is up to 15" away" part of the rule only kicks in if they Advance.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
So... you can declare a charge at 15 inches... but not actually make one.

Am I getting it yet?

Seems to be the case.
SO, not only do GW staff write bad rules, they add phrases and references to things like 15" charge ranges that should be simply deleted from the the rulebook altogether, because they make zero practical difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Are you saying that HBs can charge if a unit is up to 15" away, but that they can only charge a unit that is up to 12" away?

Yes, this is exactly what the Acrobatic rule does. Though the "HBs can charge if a unit is up to 15" away" part of the rule only kicks in if they Advance.

Walk me through how this would work.
I am not familiar enough with the Eldar rules.
How does the 15" come into play, exactly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"This unit can Advance and charge in the same turn. In a turn in which it Advanced, you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it, and you can add 3 to the resulting charge roll."

So, you mean to say that, the HB's declare a charge if there are any units within 15", which there must be, because they can only charge a unit with is 12" or less, and when they do so, they get to add 3" to the result, meaning that the unit that they charge is effectively 9" away rather than 12"?

As I read it, the HBs can declare a charge against any unit up to 15" away, and add 3 to the resulting dice roll, meaning that 2 d6 could deliver a 15 as a result, meaning that the unit 15" away could be reached... This is why they can declare the charge. If not, then the writers could have simply written that HBs add 3 to every charge roll IFF they Advance that turn as well.

So, are the GW writers sloppy, or stupid, that becomes the question.
I tend to favor both, but given the exclusive or, must go with "sloppy".
You seem to figure that - given the exclusive or - they are stupid.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Are you saying that HBs can charge if a unit is up to 15" away, but that they can only charge a unit that is up to 12" away?

Yes, this is exactly what the Acrobatic rule does. Though the "HBs can charge if a unit is up to 15" away" part of the rule only kicks in if they Advance.

No, they can declare a charge if an enemy unit is within 15" away, and as demonstrated by the Overwatch rules, you declare a charge against a unit. Declaring a charge is not just selecting a unit that is charging, you are also selecting the unit that it charges. Therefore, it gets the 15" charge. I outlined this in my post previous to this one.

If a codex/unit specific rule. It’s not written in error. Codex
Has always trumped brb in cases like this. Codex are advanced rules.

It’s pretty simple really, and is not game breaking. Box cars on the dice roll and +3 is not going to happen very often.

 doctortom wrote:
No, they can declare a charge if an enemy unit is within 15" away, and as demonstrated by the Overwatch rules, you declare a charge against a unit. Declaring a charge is not just selecting a unit that is charging, you are also selecting the unit that it charges. Therefore, it gets the 15" charge. I outlined this in my post previous to this one.

Except nothing allows it to select a unit beyond the 12" permitted in the BRB

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
No, they can declare a charge if an enemy unit is within 15" away, and as demonstrated by the Overwatch rules, you declare a charge against a unit. Declaring a charge is not just selecting a unit that is charging, you are also selecting the unit that it charges. Therefore, it gets the 15" charge. I outlined this in my post previous to this one.

Except nothing allows it to select a unit beyond the 12" permitted in the BRB

It doesn't matter - you get permission to declare a charge against an enemy within 15" with Acrobatic. From Overwatch - "Each time a chage is declared against a unit", so part of declaring a charge is selecting the unit that you get to declare the charge against. As Acrobatic lets you declare a charge against an enemy within 15", part of that charge declaration is declaring which unit is being charged. Declaring a charge covers both steps 1 and 2 (as indicated by step 3 - Overwatch), so anything like Acrobatic which modified the distance for declaring a charge modifies it for both steps (choose unit to charge with) and 2 (choose target).

 doctortom wrote:
As Acrobatic lets you declare a charge against an enemy within 15",

No. It. Doesn't. Nothing in the rule allows you to declare a charge against an enemy 15" away. It allows you to declare a charge IF there are enemies 15" away, but does not change the 12" limit from the BRB.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
No, they can declare a charge if an enemy unit is within 15" away, and as demonstrated by the Overwatch rules, you declare a charge against a unit. Declaring a charge is not just selecting a unit that is charging, you are also selecting the unit that it charges. Therefore, it gets the 15" charge. I outlined this in my post previous to this one.

Except nothing allows it to select a unit beyond the 12" permitted in the BRB

It doesn't matter - you get permission to declare a charge against an enemy within 15" with Acrobatic. From Overwatch - "Each time a chage is declared against a unit", so part of declaring a charge is selecting the unit that you get to declare the charge against. As Acrobatic lets you declare a charge against an enemy within 15", part of that charge declaration is declaring which unit is being charged. Declaring a charge covers both steps 1 and 2 (as indicated by step 3 - Overwatch), so anything like Acrobatic which modified the distance for declaring a charge modifies it for both steps (choose unit to charge with) and 2 (choose target).

That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

This is the complete opposite of the truth. doctortom is literally making up rules.

The Rule says you can declare a charge even after advancing as long as an enemy is within 15".

It does not say you may select a unit as a charge target if its more than 12" away.


As i said earlier, the INTENT was clear, but the actual rules as written do not allow you to charge something more than 12" away.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
As Acrobatic lets you declare a charge against an enemy within 15",

No. It. Doesn't. Nothing in the rule allows you to declare a charge against an enemy 15" away. It allows you to declare a charge IF there are enemies 15" away, but does not change the 12" limit from the BRB.

Acrobatic lets you. I gave you a rules quotation that shows that declaring a charge includes choosing the targets you are declaring a charge against. Any special rule that modifies declaring a charge also modifies the distance for choosing the target. Given the rules quotation that indicates that declaring a charge includes selecting the unit being charged, your citing the BRB is invalid, since the rule you are relying on gets modified. You have to provide evidence that declaring a charge does not include choosing a target, in order to try to counter what it says in overwatch about declaring a charge against a target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The Rule says you can declare a charge even after advancing as long as an enemy is within 15".

It does not say you may select a unit as a charge target if its more than 12" away.


As i said earlier, the INTENT was clear, but the actual rules as written do not allow you to charge something more than 12" away.

See above. I agree that the intent is clear. I disgree that the RAW doesn't allow you to. You have to show me that declaring a charge does not include choosing the target; I have given a rules quotation that shows that it does - modifying the distance you can declare a charge includes modifying the distance to the target units. Your problem is that you are assuming that declaring a charge includes only selecting the unit that will be making the charge, but I have shown it includes selecting the unit being charged.

Nvm

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The Rule says you can declare a charge even after advancing as long as an enemy is within 15".

It does not say you may select a unit as a charge target if its more than 12" away.


As i said earlier, the INTENT was clear, but the actual rules as written do not allow you to charge something more than 12" away.

The intent is what matters. RaW cannot account for every case of people reading rules in bad faith. This is what is happening here.
I am with tom.
Moreover, I feel that RaW is as clear as RaI - what is left out of the RaW is as important as what is in RaW.
What is NOT written is a something like this: "Note that the charging unit cannot charge any unit that is more distant than 12" at the time of the charge declaration."
This is not added because the RaW represents the RaI to anyone who is not reading in bad faith - this being that the RaW is supposed to have a practical effect on the table, and the only way for this to be the case is if it is possible for the charging unit to declare a charge against and to possibly succeed in a charge against a unit up to 15" away.

It seems as clear as day that this rule lets you charge a unit 15" away.

Imagine a scenario: Banshee unit with a single enemy unit on the table. This unit is 15" away. The banshees can declare a charge, and as there is only one eligible unit, it can declare the charge against that unit. As somebody has already stated, the action of declaring the charge includes the step of selecting the target unit, and in this case, is modified beyond the core rule by this ability.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
However, there's literally NO reason for GW to give them this rule without them being able to select a unit within 12" also. Therefore, your correctness is about as relevant as me saying that space is big.

Yes, there is. It allows them to charge after advancing.

Not to mention that +3" to charge distance makes them quite a lot more likely to succeed on the charge roll (average distance is 10", up from 7", and they've got a 28% chance of making a max-distance charge, up from 2.8% for units without the +3").

May I suggest the "Chaos Boon" Stratagem in the Death Guard Codex as the basis of the next dumpster fire thread? A result of a 12 allows you to create a Daemon Prince, but there's no model with this name in the Codex, so RAW you clearly have to use an Index or Codex: CSM Daemon Prince. It's not in the FAQ so RAI is obviously RAW, and saying otherwise is literally making rules up. Am I doing it right?

Banshees can definitely, 100% select and Charge units up to 15" away using the rule in the OP or it simply wouldn't exist. Pick the verbiage apart all you like (and do email GW FAQ hotline instead of just wasting air here) but the meaning is very clear and how to play it is very clear. Good luck trying to tell your opponent mid-game it doesn't function. You'll be laughed off the battlefield as you keep claiming it doesn't work along with something about your Conscripts being T20... just don't do it! The rule does allow longer Charge declaration and movement. It simply does.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
May I suggest the "Chaos Boon" Stratagem in the Death Guard Codex as the basis of the next dumpster fire thread? A result of a 12 allows you to create a Daemon Prince, but there's no model with this name in the Codex, so RAW you clearly have to use an Index or Codex: CSM Daemon Prince. It's not in the FAQ so RAI is obviously RAW, and saying otherwise is literally making rules up. Am I doing it right?

Banshees can definitely, 100% select and Charge units up to 15" away using the rule in the OP or it simply wouldn't exist. Pick the verbiage apart all you like (and do email GW FAQ hotline instead of just wasting air here) but the meaning is very clear and how to play it is very clear. Good luck trying to tell your opponent mid-game it doesn't function. You'll be laughed off the battlefield as you keep claiming it doesn't work along with something about your Conscripts being T20... just don't do it! The rule does allow longer Charge declaration and movement. It simply does.

Well said!

Also, I'm not even sure Warhammer 40k can even be played at all since nowhere in the rulebook is "roll a dice" defined.

 Larks wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
May I suggest the "Chaos Boon" Stratagem in the Death Guard Codex as the basis of the next dumpster fire thread? A result of a 12 allows you to create a Daemon Prince, but there's no model with this name in the Codex, so RAW you clearly have to use an Index or Codex: CSM Daemon Prince. It's not in the FAQ so RAI is obviously RAW, and saying otherwise is literally making rules up. Am I doing it right?

Banshees can definitely, 100% select and Charge units up to 15" away using the rule in the OP or it simply wouldn't exist. Pick the verbiage apart all you like (and do email GW FAQ hotline instead of just wasting air here) but the meaning is very clear and how to play it is very clear. Good luck trying to tell your opponent mid-game it doesn't function. You'll be laughed off the battlefield as you keep claiming it doesn't work along with something about your Conscripts being T20... just don't do it! The rule does allow longer Charge declaration and movement. It simply does.

Well said!

Also, I'm not even sure Warhammer 40k can even be played at all since nowhere in the rulebook is "roll a dice" defined.

Yep, agree with you both. I can't even conceive of anybody I play against raising this is a rules query. Do people who do things like this get any enjoyment out of the game at all? It must be a bloody nightmare playing a game with that mindset!

Jimperial wrote:
Yep, agree with you both. I can't even conceive of anybody I play against raising this is a rules query. Do people who do things like this get any enjoyment out of the game at all? It must be a bloody nightmare playing a game with that mindset!

Why yes, I do enjoy playing the game by the rules. I do not enjoy the game when people break the rules. Is that so hard to understand?

More than "following the rules" making a game fun, the most important thing is for both players to be following the *same* rules, with the same interpretation thereof.

If one player is parsing the HB rule correctly and declares a Charge at 14", and their opponent is tilting at windmills and insists that isn't allowed, then it's not fun for either player.

And in this totally hypothetical matchup, the one not following the rules would be the guy claiming RAW prevents the thing the Acrobatic rule literally gives you special permission to do. Which is... yeah, weird and utterly incorrect and in terrible spirit.

Luckily, 99% of folk aren't that completely hypothetical guy and understand how the rule works. Namely that HB can declare and attempt charges on units up to 15" away. Which is what the rule says, in not very complex English.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If one player is parsing the HB rule correctly and declares a Charge at 14", and their opponent is tilting at windmills and insists that isn't allowed, then it's not fun for either player

Did you mean Incorrectly? Because that is what that player is doing. The player suggesting they play by the rules is in the right.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Jimperial wrote:
Yep, agree with you both. I can't even conceive of anybody I play against raising this is a rules query. Do people who do things like this get any enjoyment out of the game at all? It must be a bloody nightmare playing a game with that mindset!

Why yes, I do enjoy playing the game by the rules. I do not enjoy the game when people break the rules. Is that so hard to understand?

The problem here is that you're lying. SImple as that. You don't play the game by any of these nonsensical "grammatical errors". You're lying to the forum when you say so. You're simply bringing up consistent nonsense threads to show to the internet how savvy you are at reading words and misconstruing their intent. That's fine. More power to you, go enjoy that momentary feeling of superiority.

 Elbows wrote:
The problem here is that you're lying. SImple as that. You don't play the game by any of these nonsensical "grammatical errors". You're lying to the forum when you say so. You're simply bringing up consistent nonsense threads to show to the internet how savvy you are at reading words and misconstruing their intent. That's fine. More power to you, go enjoy that momentary feeling of superiority.

I assure you I am sincere. When I play board games I play them by the rules. That is what I enjoy. I created this thread for two reasons. One was to discuss the wording, the other was to inform people in case they have been unintentionally playing this rule wrong and breaking the rules as a result.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If one player is parsing the HB rule correctly and declares a Charge at 14", and their opponent is tilting at windmills and insists that isn't allowed, then it's not fun for either player

Did you mean Incorrectly? Because that is what that player is doing. The player suggesting they play by the rules is in the right.

Your last sentence is correct.

However you are deliberately misreading the rules and arguing with anyone who tries to explain where you're going wrong. So that player who's playing by the rules is not you.

As I say, the GW FAQ hotline email exists if you care to use it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
However you are deliberately misreading the rules and arguing with anyone who tries to explain where you're going wrong.

I am using the rules exactly as printed in the codex. There is no ambiguity in this instance.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
However you are deliberately misreading the rules and arguing with anyone who tries to explain where you're going wrong.

I am using the rules exactly as printed in the codex. There is no ambiguity in this instance.

The rulebook also tell you there may be more advanced rules than the basic ones. And those rules may expand, complement or allow further actions than the basic ones in the rulebook yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

 Lord Perversor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
However you are deliberately misreading the rules and arguing with anyone who tries to explain where you're going wrong.

I am using the rules exactly as printed in the codex. There is no ambiguity in this instance.

The rulebook also tell you there may be more advanced rules than the basic ones. And those rules may expand, complement or allow further actions than the basic ones in the rulebook yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

I do not refuse to acknowledge this. There are several rules that allow you to charge after advancing for example, or to ignore the -1 to hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons. There are lots of rules that remove or alter restrictions from the main rulebook. For example, Null Zone denies invulnerable saves despite the rulebook saying you can choose to use your invulnerable save.

The Acrobatic rule does not "expand, complement or allow further actions than the basic ones in the rulebook" beyond allowing a charge to happen after an advance if enemies are within 15". A charge is limited to 12", and the Acrobatic rule does not change this limit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lord Perversor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
However you are deliberately misreading the rules and arguing with anyone who tries to explain where you're going wrong.

I am using the rules exactly as printed in the codex. There is no ambiguity in this instance.

The rulebook also tell you there may be more advanced rules than the basic ones. And those rules may expand, complement or allow further actions than the basic ones in the rulebook yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

I do not refuse to acknowledge this. There are several rules that allow you to charge after advancing for example, or to ignore the -1 to hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons. There are lots of rules that remove or alter restrictions from the main rulebook. For example, Null Zone denies invulnerable saves despite the rulebook saying you can choose to use your invulnerable save.

The Acrobatic rule does not "expand, complement or allow further actions than the basic ones in the rulebook" beyond allowing a charge to happen after an advance if enemies are within 15". A charge is limited to 12", and the Acrobatic rule does not change this limit.

So be allowed to declare a charge at 15" and then resolve it as normal 2d6 and adding 3" to charge don't allow 15" charges?

Because you understand that an advanced rule that allows to declare charges beyond the normal range limitation don't affect somehow the basic rule about charge distance?.

 Lord Perversor wrote:
So be allowed to declare a charge at 15" and then resolve it as normal 2d6 and adding 3" to charge don't allow 15" charges?

The rule does not allow you to declare a charge at 15". It allows you to declare a charge after advancing if there are enemies within 15". You're still limited to the 12" range by the BRB for declaring, though if you roll 2 sixes you'll be able to move 15", the same way Tyranids with Adrenal Glands are still limited to 12" but can move an extra inch.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lord Perversor wrote:
So be allowed to declare a charge at 15" and then resolve it as normal 2d6 and adding 3" to charge don't allow 15" charges?

The rule does not allow you to declare a charge at 15". It allows you to declare a charge after advancing if there are enemies within 15". You're still limited to the 12" range by the BRB for declaring, though if you roll 2 sixes you'll be able to move 15", the same way Tyranids with Adrenal Glands are still limited to 12" but can move an extra inch.

Yes, because it makes perfect sense for GW to add such a rule, and not just word it like Adrenal Glands.

nekooni wrote:
Yes, because it makes perfect sense for GW to add such a rule, and not just word it like Adrenal Glands.

GW works in mysterious ways. Ghazghkull used to be able to outflank with Kommandos. Until they errata it the rule is clear. You might not like it or agree with it, but the rules are the rules. Feel free to "house rule" it if it offends you so. I'll stick to playing by the rules in the rulebooks.

On that note, this discussion seems to be just going around in circles, so it's probably time to put it to bed.