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

rigeld2 wrote:

There's no mention of making contact in a charge? Are you sure?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

When you focus on one sentence, you fail to take all of the rules into account. Your assertions are, in fact, contrary to what the rulebook actually says as the actual rules require contact - not simply distance.

I am sure that there is no mention of making a contact at the time you measure range or determine whether the unit can be reached or not.

Contact is what happens after the dices are rolled and the distance is confirmed to be sufficient as the rule you've quoted points out.

Here are the relevant bits from the book:

To resolve a charge, use the following procedure:

• First, pick one of your units, and declare which enemy unit it wishes to charge.
• Then, the target enemy unit gets to make a special kind of shooting attack called Overwatch (see below).
• Once Overwatch is resolved, roll the charge distance for the unit and, if it is in range, move it into contact with the enemy unit – this is sometimes called ‘launching an assault’.

Once this has been done, you can either choose to declare a charge with another unit, or proceed to the Fight sub-phase.

Then there is the rule you think could prevent a charge on a busy level of a ruin:

Choose a unit in your army that is declaring a charge and nominate the enemy unit(s) it is attempting to charge. A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm. This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

And the word usually that Kriswall noted, a word that occurs in the following sentence:

This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

In which sentence this word means that in most cases, 12" is the maximum charge range for most models. It says usually because Ang'Grath charges 3d6 inches and there are other exceptions.

Also, as Kriswall kindly pointed out, "Usually" means that in the case when you cannot come to B2B, you cannot declare the charge

 BlackTalos wrote:
Also, as Kriswall kindly pointed out, "Usually" means that in the case when you cannot come to B2B, you cannot declare the charge

Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:

And the word usually that Kriswall noted, a word that occurs in the following sentence:

This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

In which sentence this word means that in most cases, 12" is the maximum charge range for most models. It says usually because Ang'Grath charges 3d6 inches and there are other exceptions.

der soulstealer wrote:
And the word usually that Kriswall noted, a word that occurs in the following sentence:

This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

In which sentence this word means that in most cases, 12" is the maximum charge range for most models. It says usually because Ang'Grath charges 3d6 inches and there are other exceptions.

I agree with your assessment that there are other exceptions.

One of those other exceptions would be when a unit is unable to reach its intended target. My stance remains that if no model is able to achieve base to base contact with its intended target, it is unable to reach that target. To use a video game analogy, this is a pathing issue and not a distance issue. Their exists no viable path from point A to point B that results in the unit wishing to declare a charge reaching its intended target. As such, no charge may be declared.

"The rules for vertical "good enough" were really the best option, although probably abused..."
They were. Not bothering to measure the distances because it was "good enough" or assaulting floors that were more than the charge distance away, or balancing a trygon on aledge 1/100 of a millimeter in size, so on and so forth. That specific rule out of that specific rulebook may have been closer than what we have now, but it was by no means perfect.
But again, we are off topic, The question is specifically the larger monsters such as the trygon or knight fighting guys standing out in the open on a ledge where realisticly (yeah, I know that has no place in wargaming lol) itwould be easy to fight and likely easier to fight without moving the bases together. The marine head in the trygon's mouth is a good example.of course in those situations, stomps would be out of the question I would think.

der soulstealer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There's no mention of making contact in a charge? Are you sure?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

When you focus on one sentence, you fail to take all of the rules into account. Your assertions are, in fact, contrary to what the rulebook actually says as the actual rules require contact - not simply distance.

I am sure that there is no mention of making a contact at the time you measure range or determine whether the unit can be reached or not.

Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The actual rules (unlike your assertions) do require that contact is made. Multiple times.
You've asserted that all that is required is that distance rolled is high enough. That's demonstrably false - the rules require contact.

If you cannot make contact, you cannot make the charge.

 Kriswall wrote:
I agree with your assessment that there are other exceptions.

One of those other exceptions would be when a unit is unable to reach its intended target. My stance remains that if no model is able to achieve base to base contact with its intended target, it is unable to reach that target. To use a video game analogy, this is a pathing issue and not a distance issue. Their exists no viable path from point A to point B that results in the unit wishing to declare a charge reaching its intended target. As such, no charge may be declared.

But from our previous discussion of the beasts on the ground floor of a 3 story ruins you admitted that the beasts could make a path past the infantry on the second floor to the third floor.

I know that people hate to admit that the rules ever fail to completely describe a situation, but this is one example where that happens.

Ruins.

The rules for ruins are now 2 sentences long and tell us only 2 things: They're difficult terrain. They give a 4+ cover save.

The rules for assault completely ignore the existence of ruins and in doing so create this situation where the rules fail to completely describe the situation of assaulting units on the upper floors of ruins. To say that they do, either explicitly or implicitly, is a fallacy.

The rules for assault say that you roll your charge range and if you're in range your charge succeeds. Yes. It also says you must move your model into base to base - in the context of a flat table ignoring the existence of ruins.

So we have a choice. We can interpret these incomplete and broken rules to say that 4 feeble guardsmen on the second floor of a ruined building can prevent a pack of demons from thundering through the spindley ramshackle remains of wood and stone, or we can say that common sense prevails and they engage in desperate hand to hand combat to defend themselves.

Both of these options are fine and both are up to the people playing since the rules do not provide enough guidelines to prevent this kind of debate.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I agree with your assessment that there are other exceptions.

One of those other exceptions would be when a unit is unable to reach its intended target. My stance remains that if no model is able to achieve base to base contact with its intended target, it is unable to reach that target. To use a video game analogy, this is a pathing issue and not a distance issue. Their exists no viable path from point A to point B that results in the unit wishing to declare a charge reaching its intended target. As such, no charge may be declared.

But from our previous discussion of the beasts on the ground floor of a 3 story ruins you admitted that the beasts could make a path past the infantry on the second floor to the third floor.

In that scenario, the Beasts weren't actually stopping on the 2nd floor. They wouldn't have been able to as there was no room to place the model, or have the model "be stood", as the rules call it

I know that people hate to admit that the rules ever fail to completely describe a situation, but this is one example where that happens.

Ruins.

The rules for ruins are now 2 sentences long and tell us only 2 things: They're difficult terrain. They give a 4+ cover save.

The rules for assault completely ignore the existence of ruins and in doing so create this situation where the rules fail to completely describe the situation of assaulting units on the upper floors of ruins. To say that they do, either explicitly or implicitly, is a fallacy.

The rules for assault say that you roll your charge range and if you're in range your charge succeeds. Yes. It also says you must move your model into base to base - in the context of a flat table ignoring the existence of ruins.

This is an incomplete reading of the rules. The rules first tell you that you must be able to reach your target to be able to declare an assault. Assuming you follow this rule, then yes, rolling a sufficient charge range will result in a successful charge. Declaring an assault when you have no viable way to reach your target violates the first part of the rules on declaring an assault.

So we have a choice. We can interpret these incomplete and broken rules to say that 4 feeble guardsmen on the second floor of a ruined building can prevent a pack of demons from thundering through the spindley ramshackle remains of wood and stone, or we can say that common sense prevails and they engage in desperate hand to hand combat to defend themselves.

The rules are neither incomplete, nor broken. The only way they break is if you choose to interpret "can reach" as anything other than "can achieve base to base contact with". Given that the first movement related component of an assault is to achieve base to base contact with the intended target, "can reach" seems like it's talking about base to base.

If you take "can reach" to mean "can achieve base to base contact with", then the rules work just fine. You're just always going to have scenarios where narrow or confined terrain spaces can impact a unit's ability to reach another unit. I fall back on the example of two piece of impassable terrain positioned such that the space between is a 30mm wide corridor of open terrain. A model on a 25mm base will have no problem freely moving down this corridor. A model on a 40mm wide base will be unable to declare an assault as it would be impossible for him to reach the target. He's simply too large to fit down the corridor. Tightly confined spaces in a ruins would work the same way and could just as easily "block" an assault. From a tactical standpoint, you rejoice that your opponent is locked in place and shoot them. If you have no shooting capabilities at all, you shake your fist in impotent rage and go off to kill something else or claim an objective. Maybe learn your lesson and bring some friends with guns to the next fight. If your opponent's are always hiding in cover, maybe bring some friends with flame throwers or some other gun that ignores cover.

Also, it seems like you're using fluff reasons to justify your RaW argument. This is a representative rule set and will always have scenarios that would seem silly in "real life".

Both of these options are fine and both are up to the people playing since the rules do not provide enough guidelines to prevent this kind of debate.

As has been demonstrated, the rules work just fine as is. They just create situations where you can't declare a charge against a target that is physically within 12". You may not like that this is possible, but it is. The rules don't really care what you or I think. They are what they are.

Making a house rule is certainly always an option, but isn't required for the rules to function.

If the rules worked just fine you wouldn't have debates about them between two groups of completely level headed individuals who understand the rules so differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
A model on a 25mm base will have no problem freely moving down this corridor. A model on a 40mm wide base will be unable to declare an assault as it would be impossible for him to reach the target.

While this is a beautiful example and illustrates your point very well, it assumes that ruins are impassable.

Unfortunately for your example, we know that ruins are only difficult terrain.

So if I wanted to completely annihilate an assault based army, I could simply play on a table with little circles bored into the table that my shooty minis could slide down into nicely, then base to base would always be impossible forever and nobody could ever assault them.

Even better, I could have these little circular divots bored out of the table in groups roughly 6 inches apart so that they could move to knew "un-assaultable" hidey-holes if they needed to move to claim objectives or whatever, then I wouldn't need "un-assaultable" ruins to hide in and I could move my shooty minis around the table with impunity.

As ridiculous as it sounds, that's what the "un-assaultable" group is arguing.

By leaping from an abstract rule to a strict definition of successful charge as ONLY one where you can leave the model standing with it's base physically touching the base of the model it is trying to assault, you could just make really bumpy tables and assault armies would be unplayable.

I've got more simple than boring holes in your table:

Just fight on some large corugated Card-board

 BlackTalos wrote:

Great study!

In terms of RaW V Hypothetical, there one simple assumption as to why everyone wants the charge to succeed, but the RaW is clear on failing the charge:
- Access

Back to the Ork on the Box or the beasts running up the Ruin:
Every situation this will arise in, the Unit that 'got there first', such as the Ork or the unnamed infantry above, must have had a completely 'valid' path in order to get there. Moving from the floor up onto the Box was a very simple move.
Why, then, are the other models suddenly disallowed to repeat the same process due to 'lack of space' ?

Sure, that is RaW: Cannot declare a charge against an enemy you cannot reach. Even if he is 1.1" in front of you, stood on a Box.
I would definitely house-rule (HIWPI) that if 1 Unit got up there, the other should be able to reach the space just as well.

If you need an example of "unreachable but should be able to":
Think of an entire board made out of 1" steps (an entire staircase of a board). Your models and the enemy models would never be able to reach B2B contact, as there would always be a height difference between the Bases. But the board is technically flat (especially if the steps are slanted). What then? a board completely devoid of CC?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In case you needed it as an example: (by RaW, this board would completely disallow any Charges to be declared)

 NightHowler wrote:
As ridiculous as it sounds, that's what the "un-assaultable" group is arguing.

By leaping from an abstract rule to a strict definition of successful charge as ONLY one where you can leave the model standing with it's base physically touching the base of the model it is trying to assault, you could just make really bumpy tables and assault armies would be unplayable.

Yes, that's correct. By the rules, that's what happens.

Saying that means there's a flaw in the argument is incorrect, however.

 NightHowler wrote:
If the rules worked just fine you wouldn't have debates about them between two groups of completely level headed individuals who understand the rules so differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
A model on a 25mm base will have no problem freely moving down this corridor. A model on a 40mm wide base will be unable to declare an assault as it would be impossible for him to reach the target.

While this is a beautiful example and illustrates your point very well, it assumes that ruins are impassable.

Unfortunately for your example, we know that ruins are only difficult terrain.

So if I wanted to completely annihilate an assault based army, I could simply play on a table with little circles bored into the table that my shooty minis could slide down into nicely, then base to base would always be impossible forever and nobody could ever assault them.

Even better, I could have these little circular divots bored out of the table in groups roughly 6 inches apart so that they could move to knew "un-assaultable" hidey-holes if they needed to move to claim objectives or whatever, then I wouldn't need "un-assaultable" ruins to hide in and I could move my shooty minis around the table with impunity.

As ridiculous as it sounds, that's what the "un-assaultable" group is arguing.

By leaping from an abstract rule to a strict definition of successful charge as ONLY one where you can leave the model standing with it's base physically touching the base of the model it is trying to assault, you could just make really bumpy tables and assault armies would be unplayable.

If you can talk someone into playing a game against you on a table like that... more power to you. I suspect you'd never play more than one game against any specific player and per the current rules, it wouldn't be very fun. I know I wouldn't consent to play on a table like that.

And while ruins as a whole are considered difficult terrain and not impassable, there are certainly areas within a ruins that are practically impassable in that you can't physically place a model there. Floating in mid air is one example. Standing on a ledge .000001" wide is another example.

 Kriswall wrote:
If you can talk someone into playing a game against you on a table like that... more power to you. I suspect you'd never play more than one game against any specific player and per the current rules, it wouldn't be very fun. I know I wouldn't consent to play on a table like that.

And while ruins as a whole are considered difficult terrain and not impassable, there are certainly areas within a ruins that are practically impassable in that you can't physically place a model there. Floating in mid air is one example. Standing on a ledge .000001" wide is another example.

This is the problem with the "un-assaultable" argument. It's reading into the rules and creating scenarios that don't exist.

Ruins are not impassable. They are difficult terrain.

Meaning that movement through them is an abstraction. Your models don't magically phase through the walls of a ruin, and they don't leap over it. You pick them up, put them on the other side, measure the distance between where they started and where they ended.

So that small model in that narrow alleyway is in the same path that the larger model uses abstractly to move from point A to point B. To say that he can't assault it is to read that abstract rule literally.

Likewise, saying that it's impossible to assault a unit on the second floor of a ruin because you can't place the model on that thin sliver of ledge remaining is like saying that you can't move your models through the ruin unless you crush them through a door or punch physical holes in the walls of the ruin - it's taking an abstraction and placing literal limitations on it.

Moreover, those literal limitations are based on one of two possible interpretations of those abstract rules.

To claim that it's the only possible one is incorrect and where my fault with the "un-assaultable" group's argument lies.

I'm not saying that assaulting is possible and I'm not saying that it's impossible. I'm saying that these rules can be interpreted either way quite easily and dismissing the use of wms to explain how an assault IS NOT possible is just as wrong as saying that wms clearly means that it IS possible. Taking either stance as firm RAW requires that you read into the abstraction.

rigeld2 wrote:

der soulstealer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There's no mention of making contact in a charge? Are you sure?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

When you focus on one sentence, you fail to take all of the rules into account. Your assertions are, in fact, contrary to what the rulebook actually says as the actual rules require contact - not simply distance.

I am sure that there is no mention of making a contact at the time you measure range or determine whether the unit can be reached or not.

Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The actual rules (unlike your assertions) do require that contact is made. Multiple times.
You've asserted that all that is required is that distance rolled is high enough. That's demonstrably false - the rules require contact.

If you cannot make contact, you cannot make the charge.

Please use quotes from the BRB when implying that it contains something.

Once Overwatch is resolved, roll the charge distance for the unit and, if it is in range, move it into contact with the enemy unit – this is sometimes called ‘launching an assault’.

The rules say that if your charge distance is good, you move into contact.
At no point do the rules even consider the possibility of not moving into contact, in the main rules.
However, further down the line, as pointed out previously, the rules tell us what to do in every single case where GW considers contact to be impossible.

Until somebody finds a rules excerpt that tells us explicitly that an assault would fail if models cannot be placed into base contact, there is no valid point for the side of the argument that you favor.

The only thing that has been put forward so far is this:

A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm. This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).

Which clearly talks about charge distance and charge range and line of sight, nothing else.

A note on the corrugated table. The issue is not whether or not a person will do it. It is a matter of it being possible. Whether or not you will play on it is up to you. You could also say "I wont play unless you give my guys a 20" movement rate and always hits on 1+ rule" and it would be just as valid. of course, should you show up and find that table at a tourney (however unlikely), you dont have a choice beyond forfieting the game or not participating.
Despite the claims of some, the rules are incomplete and broken just as they have been in all previous versions) in that they just do not take into account all possibilities. Thus creating situations as we are discussing (the knight swinging his weapon at a guy on a ledge right in front of it or the trygon not being allowed to close it's jaws on the marine head.
This is why we as players are forced to come up with solutions of our own working on proposed rules (or house rules) as we have been doing since page one here. Of course, many oppose that because it allows for greater loopholes to be exploited.
Waiting to see a tau army standing on their feet wearing their 30 mm bases as hats in order to be unassailable onless an opponent is able to lay their models onthei sides and get their bases to maintainconstant contact with the tau hats, because the RAW allow for that loophole.

der soulstealer wrote:
Please use quotes from the BRB when implying that it contains something.

I did, in a post you quoted. Repeating a rules quote benefits no one. In addition, was I incorrect in anything I said?

Once Overwatch is resolved, roll the charge distance for the unit and, if it is in range, move it into contact with the enemy unit – this is sometimes called ‘launching an assault’.

The rules say that if your charge distance is good, you move into contact.
At no point do the rules even consider the possibility of not moving into contact, in the main rules.

In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

However, further down the line, as pointed out previously, the rules tell us what to do in every single case where GW considers contact to be impossible.

Until somebody finds a rules excerpt that tells us explicitly that an assault would fail if models cannot be placed into base contact, there is no valid point for the side of the argument that you favor.

If in the process of attempting an action you cannot follow a rule, do you have permission to complete the action? Simple question - it seems you're asserting the answer is yes.

Which clearly talks about charge distance and charge range and line of sight, nothing else.

No, that's entirely your assumption. Nothing in that quote limits it to charge distance.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
If you can talk someone into playing a game against you on a table like that... more power to you. I suspect you'd never play more than one game against any specific player and per the current rules, it wouldn't be very fun. I know I wouldn't consent to play on a table like that.

And while ruins as a whole are considered difficult terrain and not impassable, there are certainly areas within a ruins that are practically impassable in that you can't physically place a model there. Floating in mid air is one example. Standing on a ledge .000001" wide is another example.

This is the problem with the "un-assaultable" argument. It's reading into the rules and creating scenarios that don't exist.

Ruins are not impassable. They are difficult terrain.

Meaning that movement through them is an abstraction. Your models don't magically phase through the walls of a ruin, and they don't leap over it. You pick them up, put them on the other side, measure the distance between where they started and where they ended.

So that small model in that narrow alleyway is in the same path that the larger model uses abstractly to move from point A to point B. To say that he can't assault it is to read that abstract rule literally.

Likewise, saying that it's impossible to assault a unit on the second floor of a ruin because you can't place the model on that thin sliver of ledge remaining is like saying that you can't move your models through the ruin unless you crush them through a door or punch physical holes in the walls of the ruin - it's taking an abstraction and placing literal limitations on it.

Moreover, those literal limitations are based on one of two possible interpretations of those abstract rules.

To claim that it's the only possible one is incorrect and where my fault with the "un-assaultable" group's argument lies.

I'm not saying that assaulting is possible and I'm not saying that it's impossible. I'm saying that these rules can be interpreted either way quite easily and dismissing the use of wms to explain how an assault IS NOT possible is just as wrong as saying that wms clearly means that it IS possible. Taking either stance as firm RAW requires that you read into the abstraction.

I agree that movement is somewhat abstract. The endpoints, however, have the requirement that a model can "be stood", i.e. placed. Sure, a model can move through a wall in a ruins, but he can't end his movement such that he would be inside that wall. In that sense, there are places within a ruins that a model can't move to.

This is what I meant. I wasn't implying that portions of a ruins are impassable. I mean to say that portions of a ruins are not viable spots that a model can move to. Examples would include inside a wall, somewhere another model is standing, mid-air and ledges that are too small for the model to be successfully placed on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

der soulstealer wrote:
The rules say that if your charge distance is good, you move into contact.
At no point do the rules even consider the possibility of not moving into contact, in the main rules.
However, further down the line, as pointed out previously, the rules tell us what to do in every single case where GW considers contact to be impossible.

Until somebody finds a rules excerpt that tells us explicitly that an assault would fail if models cannot be placed into base contact, there is no valid point for the side of the argument that you favor.

The rules also say that if you can't reach the target, you can't declare a charge.

The rules don't need anything telling us that inability to make base to base contact results in a failed charge as the requirement to be able to reach the target to declare an assault in the first place ensures that ALL declared charges can get into base to base.

You only run into an issue if you ignore the requirement that you be able to reach the target and declare a charge anyways.

rigeld2 wrote:
In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Assuming that "non-abstract" base contact is "required" is just as much of an assumption as assuming we can following the rules strictly which say if you're in range you're good.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's entirely your assumption. Nothing in that quote limits it to charge distance.

It's humorous to me that you fail to see the assumptions you're making while accusing others of making assumptions.

The rules are actually pretty clear that the distance is the most important part. Want to see? Shall I quote them for you?

DECLARE CHARGE
A unit can never declare a charge against a unit it cannot reach... This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models...)

But wait. There's more:

Failed Charge
If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

Nowhere. And I mean literally nowhere, does it it say "If the model cannot be placed in physical base to base contact with the unit being charged, the charge fails." But it does say if the unit being charged is outside the charge range the charge fails. It's funny, don't you think? That they would talk about range so much and only mention moving into base contact as one of the steps? Unless maybe range was important?

Again. It's pretty easy to defend either side.

What's hard is admitting that these rules aren't perfect. I get that. But in this case there's a loophole - and a big one - and you can either use that loophole to say, "your models in that ruin can never be assaulted by anyone ever and if your opponent didn't bring a shooty army with him, well tough luck for him, he should go buy a different army." Or you can say, "my assault army can go anywhere and you can't stop me." Or you can say, "the rules aren't very clear, but I think this is how it should be played, if you disagree we should roll for it."

Of these three examples only the third one is appropriate until a clarifying FAQ is released. And that may be a while.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Assuming that "non-abstract" base contact is "required" is just as much of an assumption as assuming we can following the rules strictly which say if you're in range you're good.

So you're saying you've met the rule if you end the initial charger move with your initial charger model not in base contact. Is that correct?

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's entirely your assumption. Nothing in that quote limits it to charge distance.

It's humorous to me that you fail to see the assumptions you're making while accusing others of making assumptions.

The rules are actually pretty clear that the distance is the most important part. Want to see? Shall I quote them for you?

DECLARE CHARGE
A unit can never declare a charge against a unit it cannot reach... This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models...)

I must be missing something. Where is it "pretty clear" that distance is the most important part? I don't see that in this sentence. I see a statement about something that usually happens, but that's not a declaration that the only thing that matters is distance, as you've asserted.

But wait. There's more:

Failed Charge
If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

Nowhere. And I mean literally nowhere, does it it say "If the model cannot be placed in physical base to base contact with the unit being charged, the charge fails." But it does say if the unit being charged is outside the charge range the charge fails. It's funny, don't you think? That they would talk about range so much and only mention moving into base contact as one of the steps? Unless maybe range was important?

Did I say range is unimportant? Anywhere? Please quote me saying so - you'll find I never have and so you're arguing against something I've literally never said.

What's hard is admitting that these rules aren't perfect.

Oh god no - that's easy. The rules are extremely horribly written and full of horribleness.
I'm not saying - and have never said - that the rules are perfect and should be followed to the letter. I don't always argue the way I would play it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Assuming that "non-abstract" base contact is "required" is just as much of an assumption as assuming we can following the rules strictly which say if you're in range you're good.

So you're saying you've met the rule if you end the initial charger move with your initial charger model not in base contact. Is that correct?

I'm saying it's an abstraction. Just like movement through ruins is an abstraction, assault in ruins is also an abstraction. In that respect, and in light of the fact that it is abstract, yes - if you could move your model far enough that it would be in base to base contact, even if you cannot physically place the model there because it would fall, as long as there are no obstacles that would prevent that movement which the book specifically mentions, THEN yes - the charge was successful and you should place your models as close as possible and agree with your opponent on where the model "actually" is.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, that's entirely your assumption. Nothing in that quote limits it to charge distance.

It's humorous to me that you fail to see the assumptions you're making while accusing others of making assumptions.

The rules are actually pretty clear that the distance is the most important part. Want to see? Shall I quote them for you?

DECLARE CHARGE
A unit can never declare a charge against a unit it cannot reach... This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models...)

I must be missing something. Where is it "pretty clear" that distance is the most important part? I don't see that in this sentence. I see a statement about something that usually happens, but that's not a declaration that the only thing that matters is distance, as you've asserted.

You don't see it? Let me help you out with a simple question that I think you should be able to answer easily. Does that rule mention any other way that you might not reach besides range? Even one? Maybe it mentions base to base contact somewhere? Could you point that out to me?

No?

Then maybe it's pretty clear.

rigeld2 wrote:

But wait. There's more:

Failed Charge
If the initial charger is found to be further than its charge range from the enemy, the charge fails and no models are moved.

Nowhere. And I mean literally nowhere, does it it say "If the model cannot be placed in physical base to base contact with the unit being charged, the charge fails." But it does say if the unit being charged is outside the charge range the charge fails. It's funny, don't you think? That they would talk about range so much and only mention moving into base contact as one of the steps? Unless maybe range was important?

Did I say range is unimportant? Anywhere? Please quote me saying so - you'll find I never have and so you're arguing against something I've literally never said.

You said he was making an assumption that range was the most important thing.

rigeld2 wrote:

What's hard is admitting that these rules aren't perfect.

Oh god no - that's easy. The rules are extremely horribly written and full of horribleness.
I'm not saying - and have never said - that the rules are perfect and should be followed to the letter. I don't always argue the way I would play it.

I'm glad we agree at least on this much.

Pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to, tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to, that boils down to interpretation f rules that wee left open for to interpret on our own instead of spelling out the possibilities. Watch some of the studio games and read their battle reports and you'll find they have no issues of getting into combat in those situations. But thats how those particuler players in the studio interpret the rules. You could likely find them playing in a tournament interpreting them in a different manny to avoid getting assaulted as well. It is not well worded and are left vague for this very reason it seems, for us to interpret them as we wish to get maximum fun out of it and encourage player communication.

I honestly had no idea the thread would turn into this sort of argument over proposed rules. I had just asked if there was a specific rule that pointed out the ability or not of knights to attack a guy stand out in the open on a ledge. Had I known it would turn into 5 pages now of fighting, i woulda just asked somewhere else. lol

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Assuming that "non-abstract" base contact is "required" is just as much of an assumption as assuming we can following the rules strictly which say if you're in range you're good.

So you're saying you've met the rule if you end the initial charger move with your initial charger model not in base contact. Is that correct?

I'm saying it's an abstraction. Just like movement through ruins is an abstraction, assault in ruins is also an abstraction. In that respect, and in light of the fact that it is abstract, yes - if you could move your model far enough that it would be in base to base contact, even if you cannot physically place the model there because it would fall, as long as there are no obstacles that would prevent that movement which the book specifically mentions, THEN yes - the charge was successful and you should place your models as close as possible and agree with your opponent on where the model "actually" is.

Okay, so you do admit base contact is required - awesome. Thanks for that.

You don't see it? Let me help you out with a simple question that I think you should be able to answer easily. Does that rule mention any other way that you might not reach besides range? Even one? Maybe it mentions base to base contact somewhere? Could you point that out to me?

No?

Then maybe it's pretty clear.

I see that it says "usually" and doesn't limit the unusual options to range. So any assertions that "range is the most important" have no basis in fact.

You said he was making an assumption that range was the most important thing.

Yes. Does that mean that range is not important at all? No. It just means that there might be (and, according to the rules, is) something at least as important - base contact.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
In fact, the rules require contact, correct? If you end the charge with your initial model not in base contact, have you fulfilled the following rule?

Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route.

Assuming that "non-abstract" base contact is "required" is just as much of an assumption as assuming we can following the rules strictly which say if you're in range you're good.

So you're saying you've met the rule if you end the initial charger move with your initial charger model not in base contact. Is that correct?

I'm saying it's an abstraction. Just like movement through ruins is an abstraction, assault in ruins is also an abstraction. In that respect, and in light of the fact that it is abstract, yes - if you could move your model far enough that it would be in base to base contact, even if you cannot physically place the model there because it would fall, as long as there are no obstacles that would prevent that movement which the book specifically mentions, THEN yes - the charge was successful and you should place your models as close as possible and agree with your opponent on where the model "actually" is.

Okay, so you do admit base contact is required - awesome. Thanks for that.

Does this prove or disprove something? I never said that you didn't need to be able to move far enough to get into base to base - just that if your model couldn't stay there you could still call it a successful charge.

rigeld2 wrote:

You don't see it? Let me help you out with a simple question that I think you should be able to answer easily. Does that rule mention any other way that you might not reach besides range? Even one? Maybe it mentions base to base contact somewhere? Could you point that out to me?

No?

Then maybe it's pretty clear.

I see that it says "usually" and doesn't limit the unusual options to range. So any assertions that "range is the most important" have no basis in fact.

You said he was making an assumption that range was the most important thing.

Yes. Does that mean that range is not important at all? No. It just means that there might be (and, according to the rules, is) something at least as important - base contact.

The problem I have is not with the individual points. The problem I have with your argument is that you take this disparate points and use them to make the logical leap that it all adds up to you can't assault models in a ruins.

 NightHowler wrote:
I'm saying it's an abstraction. Just like movement through ruins is an abstraction, assault in ruins is also an abstraction. In that respect, and in light of the fact that it is abstract, yes - if you could move your model far enough that it would be in base to base contact, even if you cannot physically place the model there because it would fall, as long as there are no obstacles that would prevent that movement which the book specifically mentions, THEN yes - the charge was successful and you should place your models as close as possible and agree with your opponent on where the model "actually" is.

That is probably the most likely interpretation i'd go by, right after the "cannot reach" not including 'range only' RaW. It follows the issue i have with the "Path" interpretation. There is nothing blocking the path of the charging model but the enemy model you are trying to charge. Which should technically result in a successful charge:
-The enemy moved to his current location
-You are trying to reach the same location
-Only the positioning of the enemy "denies" B2B.

If your base (50mm) is larger than the enemy's base (25mm), or another Unit moved "in the way", or even if the Terrain changed in any way (from difficult to impassable) then sure, i'd agree with all the examples above meaning the charge would fail for another reason than distance.
However the "Path" between your position A, and the enemy at B has not been changed in any way, and it sits ill with me that we would conclude it "blocked".

The above is definitely HIWPI though.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
I'm saying it's an abstraction. Just like movement through ruins is an abstraction, assault in ruins is also an abstraction. In that respect, and in light of the fact that it is abstract, yes - if you could move your model far enough that it would be in base to base contact, even if you cannot physically place the model there because it would fall, as long as there are no obstacles that would prevent that movement which the book specifically mentions, THEN yes - the charge was successful and you should place your models as close as possible and agree with your opponent on where the model "actually" is.

That is probably the most likely interpretation i'd go by, right after the "cannot reach" not including 'range only' RaW. It follows the issue i have with the "Path" interpretation. There is nothing blocking the path of the charging model but the enemy model you are trying to charge. Which should technically result in a successful charge:
-The enemy moved to his current location
-You are trying to reach the same location
-Only the positioning of the enemy "denies" B2B.

If your base (50mm) is larger than the enemy's base (25mm), or another Unit moved "in the way", or even if the Terrain changed in any way (from difficult to impassable) then sure, i'd agree with all the examples above meaning the charge would fail for another reason than distance.
However the "Path" between your position A, and the enemy at B has not been changed in any way, and it sits ill with me that we would conclude it "blocked".

The above is definitely HIWPI though.

Agreed.

And to be perfectly clear - HIWPI is all I'm arguing.

My first premise is that the rules as written are inadequate and that everyone should discuss the terrain with their opponent before they begin a game because it's not clear. I'm only arguing the rules to illustrate that there is more than one equally valid position that can be held with the two primary ways of interpreting this situation.

 NightHowler wrote:
Does this prove or disprove something? I never said that you didn't need to be able to move far enough to get into base to base - just that if your model couldn't stay there you could still call it a successful charge.

When the person is arguing that distance is the most important thing, it's an important fact to establish. And no, I don't believe you are able to hang in mid air, by the actual rules.
As if you're not in base contact you've failed to meet the rule I quoted.

The problem I have is not with the individual points. The problem I have with your argument is that you take this disparate points and use them to make the logical leap that it all adds up to you can't assault models in a ruins.

It's not a logical leap, it's a consequence of the rules. If you have a 24" range weapon and are 30.5" away from a model you want to shoot it's not a "logical leap" to make the statement that you can't shoot that model with a unit that moves 6" a turn.

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Does this prove or disprove something? I never said that you didn't need to be able to move far enough to get into base to base - just that if your model couldn't stay there you could still call it a successful charge.

When the person is arguing that distance is the most important thing, it's an important fact to establish. And no, I don't believe you are able to hang in mid air, by the actual rules.
As if you're not in base contact you've failed to meet the rule I quoted.

Wow. Then you completely failed to comprehend what I wrote. In all fairness to you, it was some pretty high level stuff. If you go back and read it closely you might find some gems in there, but it will take some effort

rigeld2 wrote:

The problem I have is not with the individual points. The problem I have with your argument is that you take this disparate points and use them to make the logical leap that it all adds up to you can't assault models in a ruins.

It's not a logical leap, it's a consequence of the rules. If you have a 24" range weapon and are 30.5" away from a model you want to shoot it's not a "logical leap" to make the statement that you can't shoot that model with a unit that moves 6" a turn.

MmmHmmm. But we're not talking about shooting. We're not even talking about a 24" charge against models that are 30.5" away. We're talking about a 3" charge against models that are 3" away with nothing blocking the path between charger and chargee. But then, I don't see the world in the harsh contrast of black and white, so I guess it's easier for me to understand how abstract rules work.

 NightHowler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Does this prove or disprove something? I never said that you didn't need to be able to move far enough to get into base to base - just that if your model couldn't stay there you could still call it a successful charge.

When the person is arguing that distance is the most important thing, it's an important fact to establish. And no, I don't believe you are able to hang in mid air, by the actual rules.
As if you're not in base contact you've failed to meet the rule I quoted.

Wow. Then you completely failed to comprehend what I wrote. In all fairness to you, it was some pretty high level stuff. If you go back and read it closely you might find some gems in there, but it will take some effort

Wow. Could you be more patronizing/insulting?

No, I didn't completely fail to comprehend what you wrote. I don't see the permission to be that abstract when the rule requires base contact. You're pretending to have base contact. Pretending and actual are not the same thing.

MmmHmmm. But we're not talking about shooting. We're not even talking about a 24" charge against models that are 30.5" away. We're talking about a 3" charge against models that are 3" away with nothing blocking the path between charger and chargee. But then, I don't see the world in the harsh contrast of black and white, so I guess it's easier for me to understand how abstract rules work.

If literally all the charge move rules cared about was an unblocked path, you'd be right.
It's not, however. Demonstrably so, unlike your assertions.

It's not an abstract rule, even if you keep insisting it is. Just like you can't abstractly measure 3".

rigeld2 wrote:
If literally all the charge move rules cared about was an unblocked path, you'd be right.
It's not, however. Demonstrably so, unlike your assertions.

It's not an abstract rule, even if you keep insisting it is. Just like you can't abstractly measure 3".

Demonstrably so? And can you demonstrate the assault rule that stops me from assaulting a unit in ruins? (demonstrate means quote in this case).

its been quoted night... you cant get base contact, then you cannot assault. THere are several pages in the assault section of the rule book, and the requirement for BTB is re stated numerous times in them.

you would have to provide a rule allowing you to assault/participate in combat while not having BTB contact.

please provide that rule.


You are also unilaterally invoking wobbly model for "impossible" to place models, when that rule only allows for exceptions for "hard" to place models, and even then, only when both players agree.

when words are changed, and rules ignored, while it can still be your interpretation of the rules, it makes it an incorrect, non factual, and non rules based interpretation.