I did a search for this on Dakka, and couldn't find anything, but perhaps I wasn't using the right search words. Regardless, the topic speaks for itself.

Basic situation: Squad 1 is standing in a tight circle, base to base. Squad 2 is surrounding them, also in a circle and base to base. Both Squad 1 and 2 are also base to base. Base sizes are less than an inch across, like most GW round infantry bases.  Can you assault  Squad 2?  If yes, how? If not, why not?

I'm not really interested in whether the tactic is cheesy or not, rules lawyering or not (I believe any good tournament judge would say it's stupid and disallow it anyways). I'd personally never do it, but it's sparked some debate I'm semi-involved in and I'm genuinely curious.

Thanks for your time.

This has been toted about on various forums. The general concensus tends to be either

1: By the RAW you can not assault this unit, but nobody in their right mind would enforce it or

2: You can in fact assault them, by simply declaring the assault against both units. The only pre-requisite is that you do not move within 1" of a unit you are not assaulting. It doesn't matter whether you actually reach both units, so long as you declare the assault against both.

Thanks, Insaniak. I've also seen this argued in other forums, but never really got involved. Your split is basically the way the discussion is going as well, though the claim is that the RAW does indeed support assaulting both squads. Is this the case? When you get the chance, could you break the RAW down for me to prove or disprove? Thanks again.

thx10050:

It comes down to your definition of charging. If you believe that "charging" means simply to declare a charge on a unit (even if you don't actually end up moving any models into base contact), then you could assault in your example.

If you think the definition of "charging" includes actually getting a model into base contact with that enemy unit, then you would not be able to assault in your example.


This question is included on the Dakka FAQ and is certainly muddy enough to warrant a discussion with your opponent before the game begins. If he likes this kind of rules minutia you should definitely both be aware that the game is going to be played like that right from the beginning.

Thanks, Yakface, that's basically the way I saw it as well, hence I said in my own discussion that I could see the argument going either way. I've never actually played against someone who tried this, nor, as I said, would I do it myself, but I was curious about it, since I've seen it often discussed in threads pertaining to dirty tricks to pull in the game and the like.

Posted By yakface on 06/13/2006 7:59 PM

If you think the definition of "charging" includes actually getting a model into base contact with that enemy unit, then you would not be able to assault in your example.

If you use that definition of charging, then you could never actually get to assault anything, as you wouldn't be able to move within 1" until you actually get base to base.

edited out due to misread

Maybe I'm missing something. Squad 2 is on the outside, surrounding Squad 1. If so... then heck yeah you can assault Squad 2.

Maybe I'm missing something. Squad 2 is on the outside, surrounding Squad 1. If so... then heck yeah you can assault Squad 2

The argument arises because the assault rules state that you can't move within 1" of a unit you are not charging. As a standard 25mm slotta base is less than an inch across, you can't charge unit 2 without coming within 1" of unit 1.

Hence my answers 1 and 2 up the top of the thread.

I, for one, would allow it.
I'm obvoiusly in the camp that says that you don't have to get there to be charging.
I'm very happy it's included in the DakkaFAQ.

This question arose originally because various European translations of rules (FIGS) use 3cm as the basic unit of distance measurement. The closest approach distance is 3cm not 1 inch. 3cm is wider than a standard infantry base.

So here's a related question:

You want to charge the unit with a single model (say a daemon prince). You can't both move in by the shortest route and stay an inch away from the unit you aren't assaulting. So what do you do?

In practice I always let the other guy make the charge. But I very, very often use these rules to force him to charge two units (when he has two or more models....so that he has to eat twice as many terminator powerfists). But if he only has one model, I'll let him move it in on one unit, even if it'll be within 1" of the other unit.

 

I think that is the best way to play it.

Though you can put me in the "chargeing" does not equal "base to base" crowd. And alas, I don't feel like argueing it again.

Hello folks. As far as I see the unassaultable formation just doesn't work.

You can declare a charge against whatever you like be they units opposite side of the board or seperated by impassible terrain or whatever. Even if its blatently impossible to get at or out of range you're allowed to declare and then check if its possible, being unable to premeasure means thats the only way you're allowed to do it - this is the part that lets you attempt the impossible when you declare the assault against the inner unit.
The charge succeeding or failing has nothing to do with the declaration. Thats why you can declare on both units in the so called "The impossible to assault trick," the declaration cancels both 1" excusion zones letting you attempt to move into base contact with your target (otherwise you couldn't assault at all ever).

Thus you move closest to closest first, which is easy as your front guy moved upto the nearest model in the outer squad. As soon as you do this your charge has 'suceeded' which is the only requirement for getting everyone else in and being able to start hitting people. The assault on the inside unit fails but thats somewhat irrelevent since you've already got into combat with something.

If you follow the steps for the assault phase in the order they're given instead of hopping aboutthen theres no no real problem.

If you only have a single model to assault with then it becomes a bit questionable as you can't really contact two units with one model as you're supposed to move in a straight line directly at the nearest (and can't shuffle around to the side). Technically it is allowed to declare against multiple units, which might be useful if someone is actually trying the so called impossible assault trick.

I would attack this on a physical measurement standpoint. We are talking about .016" of an inch on the diameter or .008" on the radius. (that less than 3 hairs) First of all I'm sure no GW base is made to these kind of tolerances, Second of all unless your opponent has calipers on him there is no way the red measuring sticks or tape measures he has on hand can even reliably measure these kind of distances. This is neglecting the complications of having physical models on the bases. For a game of 40K 25mm is effectively 1" to within the toleraces of your measuring equipment. That being said if you opponent does show up with calipers you know what to look out for.

First of all I'm sure no GW base is made to these kind of tolerances,

GW's bases are polystyrene (which has extremely minimal shrinkage while setting) and cast in steel molds (so no warpage of the mold during casting)... so they're all about as close to identical as any two series of the Amazing Race...


And there's no need to be able to measure them exactly. Bung them on a tape measure, and they are clearly less than an inch across. For this exercise, that's all you need to know.

Nonsense, their cooling times could be different, the injection pressure different, the flash produced different, there are a hundred different things that could cause size variations on a plastic part, none of which GW controls for (nor should they need to). If your not trying to control for .008" tolerance you are not going to hit it, especially on a slotta base which has an opening prone to opening and closing and warpage. What you are arguing is that the base is .992" away and not 1.000" And I am saying there is no way to prove that with a tape measure, the smallest gradation on which is almost ten times bigger than the distance you are trying to discern. That is all you need to know for this exercise.

And I am saying there is no way to prove that with a tape measure, the smallest gradation on which is almost ten times bigger than the distance you are trying to discern.

The first person to actually get into this much detail/waste of time in a game with me will be my new best friend for life.

That's exactly my point the whole thing is a waste of time, the person making the claim couldn't even prove there was a violation!

And I am saying there is no way to prove that with a tape measure, the smallest gradation on which is almost ten times bigger than the distance you are trying to discern.

Well of course there is. You put the base on the tape. If it doesn't reach the one inch mark, it is less than one inch across.

For the record, I'm not advocating absolute measurement in a game. It just doesn't work, as there are too many variables involved. Merely pointing out that finding out whether something is less than an inch across isn't exactly rocket science.

hmm... you don't seem to appreciate the distance you are nitpicking about. The lines on a std. tape measure are about .010" across. The tolerance between the lines on a tape measure are probably no better than 1% (+/-.010" ). so your measurment error is already in the vicininty of .030" The distance you are trying to discern (ruler probably from about 3" away, with a figure in between) is about .2 mm or .008". Equivalent to trying to show from the top of a 75' building that that a guy holding a wooden yardstick above his head is actually standing in a 35.5" circle and not a 36" one. The argument is over before it begins because you can't even measure it well enough to show that you are indeed violating his 1" area. An alternative way to look at it is to get a set of precision calipers set it alternatively to 25 mm and 25.4 mm and have everyone you know blind measure it with a tape measure or god forbid a GW red measuring stick. The difference is so minute it is effectively lost in the noise of the measurment.

I can see how the question might arise if the standard is 3cm instead of 1" as mentioned earlier, this seems like a legitimate bone of contention (though of course only one sensible way to play it) It's nonsensical to argue it when the standard is 1" though like it is in the UK and US versions.

This is one of the things that isn't really going to be used by anyone. Even the most tiresome powergaming ruleslawyer is going to notice the horrific vunerablitities to blast/template weapons or even basic shooting has at making this idea unusable (a few holes in the outside unit and the whole thing falls down).

Perhaps for the sake of the point at hand its worth accepting that bases are uniformly 0.4mm too small to be an inch. After all the debate here is in the rules not wether people play 40K using a micometer.

Perhaps for the sake of the point at hand its worth accepting that bases are uniformly 0.4mm too small to be an inch. After all the debate here is in the rules not wether people play 40K using a micometer.

Exactly. However you choose to measure, the base is 25mm, which is less than an inch. From a purely RAW perspective, that's all that matters.

How you actually play it is another matter entirely.

If they want to get that cozy to avoid a fight, let them eat battle cannon rounds. That'll learn 'em.

I agree with Crawling Chaos. I still have a couple of Plasma Cannons in my army (though everyone else thinks they're passe'). Let'm eat a couple of those for their trouble of trying to exploit this loophole.

Posted By KiMonarrez on 06/14/2006 7:43 PM
I agree with Crawling Chaos. I still have a couple of Plasma Cannons in my army (though everyone else thinks they're passe'). Let'm eat a couple of those for their trouble of trying to exploit this loophole.

Yup, there is always a solution for any problem. I too keep a couple PCs in my DA list, just to keep my opponents honest.

Well, that, and to wipe out entire squads of deepstriking grey knights in one hit. Thats a pretty sight.

 

So whats the big deal? There is a way to prevent a single model from charging a single unit when that unit its backed up by another. So what? Learn to deal with it. Learn to work around it. You might think its cheesy and amoral, but it is legal according ot RAW. The only way to defeat such tactics is to learn their weaknesses and exploit them. It doesn't really matter if you or your friends would never use such a tactic, because some people will, and eventually you will be faced with it in a setting in which you can't simply walk away from it (read: tournament).

It has its major drawbacks and its not a perfect defense. If you're an assaulty army, then simply maneuver so that you can charge both units. If you are a shooty army, drop some templates. If your opponent is an uber tactician and has placed the two units such that they cannot be assaulted at all, then assult something else! Its not like you won't see it coming. If he wants to position his forces this way, they will have to be deployed closely together and will have to remain close together for the entire game. You'll be able to see it from the beginning, so simply adjust your strategy to compensate for it.

Actually what you should do is measure all the opponents bases who is trying to do this with a pair of calipers, a large portion of them will likely be less than 25mm, and thus illegal by the rules.

My point is this, how do you know a standard base is 25mm?  You actually don't.  It is likely off by a small amount.  That amount is normally insignificant, but it is not when you are trying to discern the difference between 1" and 25mm.  If an opponent is trying to pull this BS unassaultable squad business the onus is on him to prove his case.  He cannot because he can't measure the distance well enough to be able to.  This is a more valid way to argue it (an argument based on physical reality) should it come up then have a discussion about a rule that can be interpreted two ways. 

Posted By asmith on 06/15/2006 8:29 AM
Actually what you should do is measure all the opponents bases who is trying to do this with a pair of calipers, a large portion of them will likely be less than 25mm, and thus illegal by the rules.

Not if those smaller bases were in fact supplied with the models they are used for. There is no "base size standard" in the BGB. The only limitation is that you must use a base no smaller than the one physically supplied with the model. If that supplied base happens to be the size of a pinhead, its legal. Like wise, if your model was supplied with a 4'x4' sheet of plastic for its base, you're SOL if you want to mount him on a smaller one.

40k bases sizes run on the honor system.

Yet another reason you shouldn't assume the base your opponent has is actually 25mm ... like I said argue the point all you want for whatever version has 3cm as the standard, for a 1" standard it's ludacris to even bring it up.

But it doesn't matter how big the base is.

You declare your charge against multiple units (in this case the two interspaced units).

The only requirement for the charge against both units to be successful is one model making it into Base-to-base.

Therefore, the first model (or single model) can come within 1" of a unit they don't make it to Base-to-base with because they are in fact charging the second unit just as much as they are charging the first.

Yup. The size of the base is irrelevant, since the rules allow you to get around this tactic anyway.

And people finally agree with me

Posted By Mahu on 06/15/2006 12:59 PM
But it doesn't matter how big the base is.

You declare your charge against multiple units (in this case the two interspaced units).

The only requirement for the charge against both units to be successful is one model making it into Base-to-base.

Therefore, the first model (or single model) can come within 1" of a unit they don't make it to Base-to-base with because they are in fact charging the second unit just as much as they are charging the first.

Not a single bit of that is in the rules and in fact they say quite the opposite.

But I've given up on trying to actually argue with you. I'm limiting myself to simply pointing out when you are wrong so that others will not be confused by you.

Posted By mauleed on 06/15/2006 7:48 PM

Posted By Mahu on 06/15/2006 12:59 PM
But it doesn't matter how big the base is.

You declare your charge against multiple units (in this case the two interspaced units).

The only requirement for the charge against both units to be successful is one model making it into Base-to-base.

Therefore, the first model (or single model) can come within 1" of a unit they don't make it to Base-to-base with because they are in fact charging the second unit just as much as they are charging the first.

Not a single bit of that is in the rules and in fact they say quite the opposite.

 

Actually, they say just that. A charge only fails if you don't get base to base with at least one target unit. That is the only thing in the rules that can cause a failed charge.

Actually, they say just that. A charge only fails if you don't get base to base with at least one target unit. That is the only thing in the rules that can cause a failed charge.

Right. But just because the charge was successful against unit A, doesn't mean you successfully charged unit B. And if you don't successfullly charge unit B then you have a problem with this rule:

"You may not move models within 1 [inch] of enemy models from any unit they are not charging."


A Charge may have been declared against unit B, and you may want to actually charge (get models base to base) with unit B, but unless you actually do so, I don't personally see how you are "charging" unit B.

So as I said from the beginning of this thread, it comes down to how you interpret the term "charging".

I can see why you read it the way you do, and that is why the question is included on the Dakka FAQ.

Most importantly of all, I don't think you'll find very many players who will enforce this rule (in the circumstances described above) either way they believe. For example, in my case, even though I disagree with your interpretation I would still never enforce it as I don't personally believe the intent of the rule was to prevent units from charging.

Posted By yakface on 06/15/2006 8:59 PM

A Charge may have been declared against unit B, and you may want to actually charge (get models base to base) with unit B, but unless you actually do so, I don't personally see how you are "charging" unit B.
.

But that interpretation keeps you from charging ANYONE at all, ever. Just tear out the assault section of the rulebook as it is meaningless.

If you aren't charging until you get models base to base, you can never move a model base to base.

But that interpretation keeps you from charging ANYONE at all, ever. Just tear out the assault section of the rulebook as it is meaningless.

If you aren't charging until you get models base to base, you can never move a model base to base.

I like that you can't even give me my own interpretation. . .

No, my interpretation doesn't have that issue. If you charge a model in the unit (get base to base contact) then you are charging the unit. If you don't end up getting any of your models into base contact with the unit, then you haven't charged that unit. You may have declared a charge on that unit and the charge in general may have been successful (against another unit), but unless you actually engage one model from that unit I don't see how you can say that you have charged them (or were charging them).

But the rules don't require you to get into contact with every unit you are charging. They merely state that the charge is unsuccessful if you don't get at least one model in contact with 'the enemy'

If you declare a charge against two enemy units, and only make it into contact with one, you have managed to get a model in contact with 'the enemy' and so the charge is successful.

Again, I agree that the charge in general is/was successful in that instance. But that still doesn't mean you are charging/did charge the unit that was not actually engaged by the charge.

I see the position you are coming from, I just don't personally agree with it. And, I totally play the game the way you guys are suggesting it.

Posted By insaniak on 06/15/2006 10:19 PM
But the rules don't require you to get into contact with every unit you are charging. They merely state that the charge is unsuccessful if you don't get at least one model in contact with 'the enemy'

If you declare a charge against two enemy units, and only make it into contact with one, you have managed to get a model in contact with 'the enemy' and so the charge is successful.

By that logic, couldn't you declare that you are assaulting every unit in the enemy's army.  Then if you make it into contact with one unit, the charge is successful, so the entire enemy army is locked in combat.  That seems kinda silly.

By that logic, couldn't you declare that you are assaulting every unit in the enemy's army. Then if you make it into contact with one unit, the charge is successful, so the entire enemy army is locked in combat. That seems kinda silly.

You're not locking anyone you're not in contact with.

Yak, you contend that you can't claim to be charging a unit you never contact, right?
The problem with your position is that you have to complete the act of charging to be considdered charging.
That is, unfortunately, rediculous. It's akin to saying that you have to be running somewhere to be considdered to be running.
If I just take off out my front door full tilt boogie and run across the street am I only running if I reach the other side? No. I'm running the moment I set one foot in front of the other. If I crash into a bicycle courier before I get to the other side wasn't I still running even though I intended to get to the opposite curb? I sure was.
This rule is no different and it's written that way. Any other interpretation is a misread at best.

Zubbie. How many times do I have to type this?

I did not say the unit is not considered charging. And yes, in your example you are certainly running.

But the rule doesn't just specify that your unit has to be charging, it has to be charging that particular unit in order to move within 1" of models of that unit.

So yes, a charging unit is "charging" if it successfully charges unit A, but unless it can actually get a model into base contact with an enemy model from unit B then it isn't charging THAT unit (unit B).


In your example, yes you were running, but you certainly didn't run to the other side. Your intention was to run to do so, but you didn't do so.

And I'm of the opinion that there are two possible results to a charge declaration-Charging and Failed Charge, and a charge only fails if you don't get base to base with at least one enemy unit.

And that is a fair assumption based on what is given in the rules.

I just don't think you can dismiss out of hand that there is another entirely plausible interpretation.

Did everyone (except Yak) forget this little piece of the rules:

"A unit may charge any enemy unit that be reached by at least one of its models making an assault move."

So what can you charge? Units you can reach with an assault move.

Sure, the part before that lets you declare a charge against anyone or anything. But that's irrelevant because the rules then go on do define what you can actually charge.

I'm not sure where people got this notion that simply declaring a charge is a charge. It's certainly not in the rules. But I like that interp. It should affect everything with 6" of movement, so I declare I'm charging your wife, so the charge must happen. So have her washed and dried and brought over to my place dressed in something suitably suggestive. I'll have her back by monday.

Yak,

Zubbie. How many times do I have to type this?

Svfourteen-teen.
For reasons previously stated I reject your line of reasoning. I accept that it can be interpreted as you say but you have to make more assumptions than I do to get there and that, sadly, is where we will probably have to agree to disagree.
I went to town arguing this the last time (time before?) it came up. I know that I can't convince those that don't agree with me but I'm going to keep trying. Internet debates are won by persistance.

mauleed,

"A unit may charge any enemy unit that be reached by at least one of its models making an assault move."

I don't think anyone forgot this. Just because you can doesn't mean you will. See running.

I'm not sure where people got this notion that simply declaring a charge is a charge. It's certainly not in the rules. But I like that interp. It should affect everything with 6" of movement, so I declare I'm charging your wife, so the charge must happen. So have her washed and dried and brought over to my place dressed in something suitably suggestive. I'll have her back by monday.

The rules tell you when a charge fails and when it doesn't. You must contact one (or more) enemy models to successfully charge. Not one from each unit, one from Bangladesh or one by telephone.

The wife thing while amusing doesn't have any bearing as you fail to contact one (or more) enemy models and your charge fails.

Besides, it'll be her charging you, it's how we earn extra income since my meth lab exploded.

I'm not sure I get your meaning. The book tells you that you may charge any unit you can reach. There's not much more to it than that. It clearly debunks any sort of "I'm charging but not charging because I can't reach you" argument immediately.

We know:

1. You can charge what you can reach.

2. You can't get within 1" of what you don't charge.

Hence, you can't charge something within 1" of something you can't reach.

It's all very cut and dry and I'm amazed anyone is trying to argue otherwise.

At this point I'd be interested in seeing a properly composed argument for why you jokers think you can charge things within 1" of something you can't reach. So lay it out fellas, two premises and a conclusion. It's friday, we have time.

Seriously people, mauleed is absolutely correct here. You can't actually charge if it isn't possible to reach so you cannot declare a charge against an unreachable opponent and still end up within 1" of them per RAW. Most people have said this rule gets worked around this limit by ignoring it in special cases beause it doesn't appear to be intended to deny a charge.

RAW: can't charge. If you play someone they will probably agree to let it slide if it gets in the way of a charge. If someone actually interspersed units to deny a charge with this rule I doubt people will be playing them more than once.

And let us not forget the "in all cases" portion of the rule that doesn't let you get within 1".

Again, I have yet to see any argument that would ever allow you to be within 1" of a unit you didn't charge.

I have a question for you guys. Suppose two units were fighting in a straight corridor, 1" wide. How many from the charging side would get to fight?

1 (base to base) + however many are within 2" of that model. (probably 2 more) for models in the corridor.

A corridor would have walls that are not passable in most circomstances so they would actually force the models to be in a line. Of course you could legally and pretty much ruin the game's fun by splitting your unit on both sides of the wall to join the fight but that would also be rules abuse.

The model at the front in BTB and the models that are within 2" of that model.

As a note, if you are referring to CoD that can not happen because buildings must be placed at least 2" apart.

Posted By mauleed on 06/16/2006 6:06 AM

Did everyone (except Yak) forget this little piece of the rules:

"A unit may charge any enemy unit that be reached by at least one of its models making an assault move."

Nice Ebonics Ed...

But now, how is 'can be reached' defined in the rules? Is it within the normal assault range (IE 6" away for infantry, 12" for Cav), or something else?

What if the target is in/through difficult terrain? You can't declare a charge if you can't 'reach something', but you don't know if you can reach it until you declare the charge and roll the difficult terrain dice. However, technically, no one can ever get base to base with anyone, as there is nothing in the rules defining exactly when a unit is 'charging' another unit.

You continue to equate "declare a charge" with "charge".

I'll use my same example. Declaring I'm going to bone your sister is a whole lot different that actually boning your sister.

And while I can declare it no matter where you are, the rule is I can't actually bone her if you're within 1" of her.

Regardless, I'll ignore your "no charge can ever happen" argument, as it's absurd and an obvious slippery slope fallacy.

Posted By skyth on 06/16/2006 11:38 AM

 

What if the target is in/through difficult terrain? You can't declare a charge if you can't 'reach something', but you don't know if you can reach it until you declare the charge and roll the difficult terrain dice. However, technically, no one can ever get base to base with anyone, as there is nothing in the rules defining exactly when a unit is 'charging' another unit.

Actually you can follow the same steps as for rolling the difficult terrain:

Declare charge. Measure unit to see if charge is possible. If you cannot reach your target then you fail to charge as explained in the rulebook. Cannot reach opponent = failed charge.

Declare charge at both units. Note that unit 2 is unreachable, and that reaching unit 1 would put you within 1" of unit 2. As you cannot possibly charge without breaking the 1" rule the charge fails.

1 (base to base) + however many are within 2" of that model. (probably 2 more) for models in the corridor.

A corridor would have walls that are not passable in most circomstances so they would actually force the models to be in a line. Of course you could legally and pretty much ruin the game's fun by splitting your unit on both sides of the wall to join the fight but that would also be rules abuse.

By the logic being used on the rest of the thread the answer is actually the first 4.

Posted By asmith on 06/16/2006 12:27 PM

1 (base to base) + however many are within 2" of that model. (probably 2 more) for models in the corridor.

A corridor would have walls that are not passable in most circomstances so they would actually force the models to be in a line. Of course you could legally and pretty much ruin the game's fun by splitting your unit on both sides of the wall to join the fight but that would also be rules abuse.

By the logic being used on the rest of the thread the answer is actually the first 4.

This is not the thread about wether 25mm bases are smaller than 1".

But it offers a way to directly sidestep what you guys are talking about making everything else a moot point.

OK I can accept that I can not charge the second unit!

This whole thing falls down to who you are playing.

If I play someone who refuses to understand that these stupid RAW rules don't work well and need to be interpreted, then its my problem for playing them.

Personally if I was forced to play someone who was insisting we play this way (GT or otherwise), I would fix there little red (RAW wagon). We have a book in the group store that is filled with the discrepancies, and both sides of the argument for RAW rules. IE: it has the straight ruling from the RAW, and then the one that reasonable people play with.
If you force me to play by this rule, I will then beat you over the head, by making you play with EVERY SINGLE RULE the RAW fracks up.

Then looking at you say" But you wanted to play by the RAW, Cry me a river".

(off the top of my head I don't recall specifics. We don't have to use the book often, just update it. But off the fly I recall something fracked about Ordnance being able to shoot units in vehicles??)

If I play someone who refuses to understand that these stupid RAW rules don't work well and need to be interpreted, then its my problem for playing them.

The rules work perfectly in this instance. The game does not stop. You simply can't do something you want to do.

There is no need for any sort of interpretive gymnastics here. You simply can not assault the unit under the rules.

If you can find opponents who agree with you that the rules should be ignored, knock yourself out. But any problem you have with someone who doesn't agree will come from profoundly un-rightous indignation.

I totaly agree: (that is what is printed in the RAW)

But if I play someone who wishes to play strictly by the RAW then we will play by the RAW.   Every word! (even the broken ones) I have no probem with this as I believe that the more people are forced to play the whole RAW the less likley i am to face someone who wants to just enforce one rule that they with to use to their adavantage.

PS:  I usualy have a discussion with my opponate to see what type of game he wants to play!

Does this mean that if you agree to ignore one rule your opponent can go ahead and ignore all the rules? Overreaction goes both ways.

Again the whole questions of unassaultable vs. assaultable comes down to a question of the 1" measurement. If there is a single spot between the 2 squads that is assaultable you are forced to move the closest figure there through RAW. The chance you will actually encounter a situation where you can't assault under RAW are extremely remote. In the extreme worst case it will come down to interpreting a measurement, whose worst case result is a roll off.

Posted" by="" snooggums="" on="" 06/16/2006="" 1:30="" pm="">
Does this mean that if you agree to ignore one rule your opponent can go ahead and ignore all the rules? Overreaction goes both ways.

I'm not saying just randomly in the middle of a game ignoring rules.  I usually talk to my opponent and see what he thinks.

To me this falls under there are 2 games:

1.  If he wants to play by the RAW great I can do that.  (But we are playing with all of it, even the parts that are broken)


2. Most of the people I play with agree that the rules have to be worked with and an agreement can be reached by both players.  (not just randomly ignoring rules)


PS: sorry to get off topic on this.  I just think that most of the arguments on the rules will never be decided.  As most people are playing with different expectations!

You are certainly well off topic.

Regardless, what you're saying is that unless someone agrees with you, even if the book doesn't, you'll be a tool.

Go with that. I'm sure it works.

Posted By snooggums on 06/16/2006 12:13 PM

Posted By skyth on 06/16/2006 11:38 AM

 

What if the target is in/through difficult terrain? You can't declare a charge if you can't 'reach something', but you don't know if you can reach it until you declare the charge and roll the difficult terrain dice. However, technically, no one can ever get base to base with anyone, as there is nothing in the rules defining exactly when a unit is 'charging' another unit.

Actually you can follow the same steps as for rolling the difficult terrain:

Declare charge. Measure unit to see if charge is possible. If you cannot reach your target then you fail to charge as explained in the rulebook. Cannot reach opponent = failed charge.

.

No Mauleed was partially quoting from a rule that says that you can't declare a charge on a unit that you can't reach. I was questioning how you decide whether you can 'reach' it or not since 'reach' is not actually defined and has several different meanings. Plus you must declare charges before rolling difficult terrain.

Posted By mauleed on 06/16/2006 12:05 PM

You continue to equate "declare a charge" with "charge".

I'll use my same example. Declaring I'm going to bone your sister is a whole lot different that actually boning your sister.

And while I can declare it no matter where you are, the rule is I can't actually bone her if you're within 1" of her.

Regardless, I'll ignore your "no charge can ever happen" argument, as it's absurd and an obvious slippery slope fallacy.

Let's see...Argument by analogy and Straw Man falacies from you... Granted, you're the master of Straw Men.

Now, try to find a rule in the book where declares the point at which a unit is considered to be 'charging'.

Sorry, double post.

What definition of "reach" could possibly be applicable besides "contact"?

Do you mean to say you can only assault units that you can make an important emotional connection with?

Or do you mean that since the model can't move it's own arms, it can't "reach" anything?

 

By that logic, couldn't you declare that you are assaulting every unit in the enemy's army. Then if you make it into contact with one unit, the charge is successful, so the entire enemy army is locked in combat. That seems kinda silly.

Declaring a charge doesn't make them locked in combat. Only getting a model into base to base does that. Charging them simply allows you to move within 1" of them.

No, it doesn't.

Why?

Because you may only charge what you can reach, as the rules very clearly say. You can't charge what you can't reach. And in "all cases" if you didn't charge it, you can't be within 1" of it.

This is silly though. If someone doesn't put it in proper format though, we're all wasting our time. There's no ambiguity here folks.

Slipping off topic here... can the models in a unit that don't make it in to BtB be within 1"?

As for the rest of the topic. RAW, you can not assault the squad. Even with the measuring tape that Jesus used to make the holyest of gaming tables.

Because you may only charge what you can reach, as the rules very clearly say. You can't charge what you can't reach. And in "all cases" if you didn't charge it, you can't be within 1" of it.

Nevertheless you're still ignoring the order of the asasult phase. Lets take a different example and say that the units are one slightly behind the other such that both are within range without problems of getting in base contact or anything. You'd move closest to closest first moving the front assaulting model into the closest unit; at this point your charge has fullfilled the requirements for succeeding and not yet measured range or even tryied to contact the second unit. After this you might measure range on the further away yet and be able to move in on or find that your charge against them fails.

The difference with the ringed units is that its blatently obvious that the charge on the inner unit is going to fail but the RAW don't know that and won't know that until you attempt to contact them which occours after the first model moves into the outside unit and makes the charge succeed.

As long as you're following the rules of the assault phase in the order that they're given there isn't a problem, the issue only comes up if you try to enforce the 1" rule retrospectively and rewind the assault phase to make it apply. You wouldn't do this any more than you would attempt to take morale tests at the start of the shooting phase; before you know which units have taken 25% casualties.

You're right that there is no ambiguity though; the impossible to assault trick simply doesn't work.

That's great, but that's not what it says. When you move the first model in, and it is within 1" of a unit you aren't going to charge (not declare a charge, but charge), you've clearly broken the rules.

Your argument is based on there being some sort of artificial sequence that must be obeyed when moving them models that would also then completely trump the rest of the rules in the assault section, and it simply isn't there.

You must follow ALL of the rules. You must follow the basic sequence listed AND you must reach every unit you will charge AND you you must stay 1" away from any model you aren't going to charge.

Sometimes I curious if I've got a different printing of the rulebook or something, because people keep finding concepts (though without rules quotes of them) that aren't in my rulebook anywhere.

Um... my rulebook is still being held hostage (I might be getting it back in July)... but I seem to recall a specific order being given at the begining of the section on assaulting. Relying on memory, of course... but wouldn't that be the "order" you find in question?

What ever happend to this being a game for fun? I guess I missed out on it.

But if someone really wants to try and pull a stunt like this go this route, take a new terminator model and use it for your commander (bigger base so more people can get around him), use the old style terminators for an elite choice (smaller "not quite an inch base" but the one supplied WITH the model). Pull the base to base trick that was suggested and now you have a termie squad that cant be assaulted due to the "not quite and inch" bases. Although if I was ever unfortuate enough to play an opponent who pulled a stunt like this, I would walk away from the game. Call me a poor sport, but IMHO, the guy pulling the stunt is the bad sport.

Thats exactly what it says, if you actaully read the section titled "move charging units" for a change you might notice a series of paragraphs. Seeing as english is normally read starting at the top and moving down to the bottom of the page this means the paragraphs at the top come before the ones at the bottom. Its one thing to teach people the rules but being required to teach english to people so they can read them is another (reminds me of the people who actaullyed needed the clarfication for GW that you multiply before you add when you have a model with a powerfist and a str bonus at the same time).

Sometimes I curious if I've got a different printing of the rulebook or something,

If it makes you feel happier I'm curious if you have a proper rulebook as well.

Relying on memory, of course... but wouldn't that be the "order" you find in question?

Yes, thats the same order that mauleed doesn't want to believe in.

The order is there. It just doesn't say what you claim it does.

Well at least you've understood that my argument isn't based on an artificial sequence but one that actually exists. Thats some progress I guess. If you'd like to explain in what way it doesn't do what I've said it does instead of just saying "I don't believe you!" I'd be happy to help you understand why it does. Its hard to do without a starting point else I'd just be cut and pasting my previous post - which would be pointless.

Although I must say that I'm confused by your method of trying to argue the rules which instead of being anything to do with the rules seems more based on repeated shouting "I don't believe you!" until the other person goes away. For someone who in his previous post called for more rules quotes, you don't have much intrest in using them yourself.

4 pages, and this is still going on???

Come on guys. If someone tries to pull this stunt on you then he/she is being an unethical pratt. In a tournament determine if the player is actually serious and, if so, call over a judge. If in friendly play then let the baby have its bottle and don't play the person again.

Seems like too much effort is being put into an argument that 99.99% of the time won't come up. Are we really that bored these days?

Posted By kwade on 06/18/2006 8:05 AM
4 pages, and this is still going on???

Come on guys. If someone tries to pull this stunt on you then he/she is being an unethical pratt. In a tournament determine if the player is actually serious and, if so, call over a judge. If in friendly play then let the baby have its bottle and don't play the person again.

Seems like too much effort is being put into an argument that 99.99% of the time won't come up. Are we really that bored these days?

Yes, we really are.  That's just what we do here in YMDC. 

Posted By mauleed on 06/16/2006 1:53 PM

Regardless, what you're saying is that unless someone agrees with you, even if the book doesn't, you'll be a tool.

Ed Maule, the most quotable man on earth...

Hymil, you have to follow ALL the rules. There is nothing in the sequence rules that say "ignore the rest of the rules in this section".

 

It seems things have moved on without me, meant to post this sooner.

P1.1: A unit may declare charges against multiple enemy units.
P1.2: A unit may consist of a single model.
C1: A single model may declare charges against multiple units.

P 2.1: (RB p36. "A unit may charge any unit that can be reached by at least one of its models making an Assault move.")
P 2.2: (RB p38. "If the units move is insuficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed.")
C2: A unit that declares charges is required to declare them against units within charge range but is not required to contact all of the targets.

PC1: A single model may declare charges against multiple units.
PC2: A unit that declares charges is required to declare them against units within charge range but is not required to contect them.
Conclusion: A single model may charge multiple enemy units and is successful so long as it contacts one enemy unit.

P2.1 ruins your argument since a model that it is impossiblet o come into base to base contact with is not elidgible to be charged.

No it doesn't. Can it be reached by making an assault move? If yes, then it's valid.

But it notes in the assault rules that you can not at any time be within 1" of a unit that you are not assaulting.

Zubbie:

C2 does not follow from your premises.

Notice P2.2 says that the unit's move must be sufficient. It doesn't say it's potential move or it's move distance, but it's move.

And when following the other rules for that move (that the first move be by the shortest route and that it not be within 1" of a unit you aren't charging), that move is not sufficient.

Again, all of these arguments are based on ignoring very clear portions of the rules to make a conclusion follow limited premises.

Posted By KiMonarrez on 06/19/2006 1:33 PM
No it doesn't. Can it be reached by making an assault move? If yes, then it's valid.

It says "can be reached by at least one of the charging models" so if you have a single model you cannot reach more than one target since you won't be able to reach two units with one model. Then again you could just be reading it wrong and thinking that eligibilty = success.

Besides, my statement also covers the line behind which cannot be reached by tthe charging unit because of lack of space between the first line, so they are not eligible to be charged even if you had enough potential movement. Just accept it is not allowed by RAW and that most opponents will not allow it to impede gameplay anymore than the edge of a raised piece of terrain.

Hymirl, you have to follow ALL the rules. There is nothing in the sequence rules that say "ignore the rest of the rules in this section".

Indeed so. Although you seem to think that the one inch rule is more important than (and thus overrides) the rule about having legally got a model into base contact with a target - thus succeeding the charge. Trying to argue that I'm picking and choosing without regard for the rules doesn't stand up when you're doing exactly the same thing yourself.

C2 does not follow from your premises.

Notice P2.2 says that the unit's move must be sufficient. It doesn't say it's potential move or it's move distance, but it's move.

I'm not sure I follow you mauleed.
"If the units move is insuficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed."
What's wrong with that?
Once the unit makes a move and it contacts one enemy unit it has successfuly charged, regardless of how many units it wished to charge in the first place.

Ignore my previous comment Zubbie, it was off base.

Regardless, what you've proved is that you can declare a charge against multiple units with a single model.

However you have not proven that they can actually charge.

Your argument fails to address the section of the rules that say:

1. You can only charge what you can contact

2. You can not be within 1" of what you don't charge.

...and in fact your conclusion is in direct conflict with those rules.

I'm still looking for any argument that doesn't ignore those two rules, as all of these seem to.

 

My argument isn't in conflict with those rules at all since I've taken care of contact, ie. you need only contact one enemy unit not all of them.
I've also handled the 1" rule since you're charging a second (or third) unit that you meet all of the other reqirements needed to charge save contact which, as I've illustrated, isn't required beyond the first unit.

Why do you keep saying you only need to contact one enemy unit and not all of them? It's key to your argument, but not explicitely in the rules.

Posted By derekatkinson on 06/20/2006 1:09 PM
Just shoot the damn squad :p

That's right genestealers/bloodletters/Assault Terminators/Hormagaunts/Avatar......just shoot them instead!

Why do you keep saying you only need to contact one enemy unit and not all of them? It's key to your argument, but not explicitely in the rules.

RB p38. "If the units move is insuficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed."

That's why.

Posted By Zubbiefish on 06/20/2006 1:16 PM

Why do you keep saying you only need to contact one enemy unit and not all of them? It's key to your argument, but not explicitely in the rules.

RB p38. "If the units move is insuficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed."

That's why.

The reverse is not necissarily true. That is just one possible stop to the charge. A second problem would be discovering that the second unit was not possible to come in contact with because of model placement which would also cause a failure, even though the distance was enough. That above quote just means that not reaching any targets auto fails (obviously). 

As was said, the reverse of a statement is not necessarily true.

If you can't reach one unit, the charge fails does not mean that if you reach just one it succeeds. Simple logical error there my friend.

If you can't land one punch, you lose the fight. Landing one punch means you automatically win. Obviously this is false. And that's essentially what you're arguing.

Posted By mauleed on 06/20/2006 7:35 PM

If you can't land one punch, you lose the fight. Landing one punch means you automatically win. Obviously this is false. 

Unless you're Mike Tyson in his prime.  Anyone else remember the Tyson-Spinks fight?  Over in 90 seconds.

Your example sucks Ed.  Try another.

His example is fine, not in all cases does landing one punch mean a win.

Reaching one unit guarantees a successful charge, if you are charging one unit. Just like one punch wins the match in the Mike Tyson fight you are referencing.

Posted By snooggums on 06/20/2006 9:56 PM
His example is fine, not in all cases does landing one punch mean a win.

I don't know. This one time I hit a guy really hard, and then he fell down and I ran away, but I think I won.

Dude, this thread is six pages?! Why? Why must this debate go on. Obviously no side is going to concede to the others point of view so why waste the time repeating the same crap for 3 pages, sighting irrelevant examples, lame analogies, etc. Sometimes I think you guys are missing the big picture here. Firstly, the likelyhood of this occuring in a game is limited since you are fogetting the almighty shooting phase. And if someone wanted to be a dumba$$ and pull this stunt, then I would make him pay dearly for it in the shooting phase. So again the likelyhood of this continuing to occur during a turn or the course of the game is severely reduced. Remember most dedicated assault units still have a capacity to shoot before they assault.

Capt K

P 37. Charging units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of thier models that can reach the fight.

You don't have to actualy engage all of them you must only try.
You fail if you don't get to one unit but if you get at least one you're OK.
That's why I keep harping on the same thing. I posted the wrong quote before...
Is that what you're looking for?

You continue to neglect to reference "in all cases, you can't be within 1" of a unit you didn't charge" (not declared a charge against, but charged)

Until your argument deals with that, it will be false.

I am sorry Mauleed you misquoted...

BGB p.37 "You may not move models within 1" of enemy models from any unit they are not charging."

And here is the passage you are forgetting...

BGB p.38 "If a unit's move is insufficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed."

You have not proven that charging = base-to-base. In fact the only time they mention Base-to-base is when you move the first model the shortest route.

Here are the facts:

1) Charges happen between units not models

2) A unit may declare a charge against multiple units

3) The first or single model must make it to Base-to-base

4) All other models in the unit must move in as much as possible to engage as many enemy models as possible.

5) The only condition for failing a charge is that you don't reach at least one unit.


It is obvious in the rules that in order to have a sucsessful charge you need only reach one unit of the several you are charging.

Mahu, you seem to forget page 36:

"A unit may charge any enemy unit that can be reached by at least one of its models..."

You can charge units you can reach. Period.

That is of course unless your definition of "reach" is vastly different from mine.

Seriously people, at this point, if you are arguing this point, I'd suggest actually reading ALL the assault rules. There is no ambiguity here, just alot of very foolish people trying to make a point based on half the rules.

Let's examine where and in which context these rules are.

Declare Charges

BGB p. 36 "A unit may charge any enemy unit that can be reached by at least one of its models..."

Move Charging Units

BGB p.37 "You may not move models within 1" of enemy models from any unit they are not charging."

BGB p.38 "If a unit's move is insufficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed."

Please examine the tense of the term charging and get back to me when you come up with the logical conclusion.

Mahu:

Cannot you not grasp that there is a difference between charging and charging a particular unit?

That is the crucial difference you are missing.

I see no difference, I may charge any unit in range, I can move within 1" of any unit I am charging and the only thing I need to be able to charge successfully is make it into contact with at least one unit I am charging.

So in this case if the interspaced units are within charge range, I can declare a charge against both units, I am charging both units so I can get as close as I want to, and as long as I reach one, the charge is successful.

So in this case if the interspaced units are within charge range, I can declare a charge against both units, I am charging both units so I can get as close as I want to, and as long as I reach one, the charge is successful.

No you are not charging both units. Unless you can reach at least one enemy model in the unit with one of your charging models you have not charged the enemy unit.

When you declare a charge against both units you have declared a charge against both units; nothing more.

In this particular case, you will not be able to move your models into base contact with the enemy without coming within 1" of an enemy model in a unit that is not being charged (being reached by at least one model in your unit).

So the charge would indeed fail.

I'm still baffled why you ever argue rules Mahu.

I keep saying this and nobody seems to graso this simply concept.

BGB p.37 "You may not move models within 1" of enemy models from any unit they are not charging."

Charging = Present tense, or the act of actually moving the models towards the target unit.

No you are not charging both units. Unless you can reach at least one enemy model in the unit with one of your charging models you have not charged the enemy unit.

I am charging both units (as in I am doing the act of charging), but I have only engaged (somehow you guys think that equals charging) the unit I make it into contact with.

Mahu, you posted the quote yourself that contradicts your arugment:

BGB p. 36 "A unit may charge any enemy unit that can be reached by at least one of its models..."

If your models cannot reach at least one model in the enemy unit they are NOT actually charging that unit.

Move along people, nothing to see here. Again, it seems that nobody is going to concede their points, so agree to disagree and think about the other parts to the story....like the shooting phase. Sometimes these debates get sucked into situational vacuums that may not even occur in a game. Capt K

Posted By yakface on 06/21/2006 8:35 AM

Mahu, you posted the quote yourself that contradicts your arugment:

BGB p. 36 "A unit may charge any enemy unit that can be reached by at least one of its models..."

If your models cannot reach at least one model in the enemy unit they are NOT actually charging that unit.

The only thing that quote says is the restriction upon which units you may charge, not which unit you actually engage. I can charge multiple units, but I only engage those units I make it into Base-to-base with (again with only the first model).

So as I see that people are going to continue with the senseless arguement about what is essentially a rules exploit, I am going to take CaptK's advice and leave this thread. Until the other side starts to argue what the rules actually say, there is no point for me to continue. Agree to disagree, and have fun on the battlefield.

Posted By Mahu on 06/21/2006 9:09 AM

Posted By yakface on 06/21/2006 8:35 AM

Mahu, you posted the quote yourself that contradicts your arugment:

BGB p. 36 "A unit may charge any enemy unit that can be reached by at least one of its models..."

If your models cannot reach at least one model in the enemy unit they are NOT actually charging that unit.

The only thing that quote says is the restriction upon which units you may charge, not which unit you actually engage. I can charge multiple units, but I only engage those units I make it into Base-to-base with (again with only the first model).

So as I see that people are going to continue with the senseless arguement about what is essentially a rules exploit, I am going to take CaptK's advice and leave this thread. Until the other side starts to argue what the rules actually say, there is no point for me to continue. Agree to disagree, and have fun on the battlefield.

I don't know why your panties are all in a wad when all the people saying it is illegal said that they willingly ignore it for playability reasons on the first page of the thread. We are just pointing out that it is illegal by RAW, since you cannot charge a unit that you cannot reach (since that is the only type of unit listed as being eligible to be charged).

Exactly. But those same people are carrying this thread six pages, when it shouldn't have made it past 3. Capt K

Posted By CaptKaruthors on 06/21/2006 10:25 AM
Exactly. But those same people are varrying this thread six pages, when it shouldn't have made it past 3. Capt K

No, people that are ignoring RAW because they want to justify their playing it as possible to charge are dragging it out to six pages.  They are trying to make the RAW fit their approach instead of just admitting that the rule has issues and admit they just work around it.

Indeed. But sometimes, even with RAW, situations like this would only occur once....and even then are not likely to happen since there are other factors that come into play during a turn...like shooting....please...a show of hands....who here would position their models like this? Other than the off chance to potentially block an assault, this positioning exposes not one, but two units to getting hit with template weapons. Not only that, but most dedicated assault units have the ability to shoot before they assault. There are much better ways to deny an assault and quite frankly, this would be the last one I'd choose. Capt K

Effectiveness has nothing to do with legality.

can't ... stop myself... must ... throw ... monkey wrench in....

So transports, with embarked troops, are unassaultable (per RAW)? Just checking!

Hmmm...good point Antonin.

Since there's nothing in the rules that makes you remove models from the table when you embark them, then models in a transport will definitely be within 1" of the edge of the transport. I've seen an opponent stack his DE all over a Raider actually, and they are for sure within 1" of the sides. But an assaulting unit would be unable to charge the embarked squad. Therefore the transport cannot be assaulted.

Good catch!

Legal or not, right or not....would any of us pull this stunt? No? Good. Then the debate is over. Would any of us really throw a fit about this if it came up (unlikely as it is)? No? Good. Then the debate is over. Capt K

Really, I think that
all of us arguing the
intent of the rules is just
dumb.

The number of times that people will
holler at you for saying that this
isn't legal is miniscule and
shouldn't be counted on.

The sooner that we
hang up our hats on this and
return to talking about actual rules
errata, the better;
after all, don't we have better things to
discuss?

Think about it!!!

Are Sisters of Battle unassaultable  because of their ceramite panties and bodices?