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.

Before everyone answers "no", it's not actually in the direct front.  My spawn was in front of a unit but off to the side a ways, almost at 45 degrees.  I directed my spawn to move at a point on the table - namely, the rear corner of the enemy unit, which I was able to see.  I rolled high enough, contacting the enemy unit on its flank.

My opponent insisted that because I was in its front arc [I was, clearly, not right on the 45 degree line or anything], the charge came from the front and thus would be in the front.  I disagree, for a few reasons:

The spawn can't cancel ranks as it's US3, so it doesn't really give it an unfair advantage.

The spawn can't get a flank bonus, again being US3.  Even less of an unfair advantage.

By choosing a point further away than just the front of the unit, I increased my chances of not actually reaching the target point and not actually getting the charge in the first place, which I think makes it a worthwhile risk.

The only good point about coming in on the side in this way is that it frees up the front of the unit for charges by other units of mine coming in following the spawn.  With the spawn in the front, it blocks the way and can delay my support units up to a whole turn, and in fact prevent some units from charging at all as they're unable to make a combined front.

-Spellbound

I have been playing a morghur list for about 4 years now and with that many spawn in play this situation comes up quite frequently. We have always played it that you specify a direction for the spawn and if you make contact you would contact wherever you ended up. Like you said this will increase the distance your spawn will have to travel and decrease the chance that it will make contact. I have never had an opponent dispute this but I think if I did I'd just have it go in the front because it matters very little since spawn don't cancel ranks.

Swoop!

I agree. Pick a direction and roll. It doesn't matter which arc you started in.

I agree because it is a compulsory move, not a charge, so most of the restrictions on charges do not apply.

Actually it makes a difference if you are charging a unit that has spears or something to give your unit an attack from ranks behind.

I agree also that it is not a charge though.

NO

On pages 27 of HoC and 28 of BoC it says:

'counts as charging, following all the normal rules'

All the normal rules includes the arcs., so if you start in the front, you must charge from the front.

I don?t have my book with me at work; can someone quote the whole rules for spawn movement?

My understanding it that it?s an order of operations thing. You nominate a direction, roll, measure, move, and it?s only once it makes contact that it starts counting as a charge. By which point the rules for declaring charges (including the arcs) have been obviated.

If you measure to see whether it?s going to reach, and THEN the spawn declares a charge, I could see an argument for the charge arc rules changing the path of the charge. Still, this seems really odd; making a retroactive change to the movement path.

You:

Select direction

Roll 2D6 for movement

If the movement is enough to contact the enemy unit the Spawn counts as charging, following all the normal rules.  This takes place in the Compulsory Movement.  A unit can respond in any normal way to a charge and counts the 2d6 as the Spawn's move for S&S and fleeing.

Accordingly, I see this as similar to a Frenzy charge, the difference being the variable move distance and the lack of 'failed charge' if you don't get there.

If you start in the front arc, you hit in the front arc.

If you aim at the flank, from the front arc, and do not contact the enemy, then you move 'normally' since no charge took place.

 

I have to disagree with the ArchMagos. I can see where he's coming from, but I, too, dislike the idea of retroactive movement.  I dislike it a lot.

If you aim at the flank and don't reach it, but had enough movement to hit the front (had you been aiming at the front), do you move the spawn into contact with the front? I think we all would say no.  You could have aimed at the front.  You took a chance, and it didn't pan out.  Tough beans.

If you aim at the flank and hit the flank, you count as having have charged... the flank. If you aim at the flank and hit the flank, there is no reason to move the spawn to the front of the unit.  Do we really want to say, "You took a chance, and luck favored you.  Now move your dam' model around to the front where it belongs"?  I don't.  I am comfortable saying, "Take your best shot, you lucky monster!"

After all, spawn can pivot on the spot and then move.  This can effectively result in them charging to their rear. To follow AMA's logic, you would have to say that if the spawn hits the enemy, then it has to back up.  It obviously isn't following the rules for a normal charge, since the enemy wasn't in its charge arc at the beginning of the move.  
 

Fellblade is right.
A spawn can charge without line of sight, through forest, overhill. Its movement is meant to be random and confusing, a spawn goes where it goes, like a stupid model. If a unit of trolls or cold ones ended up going from the front arc to the flank of a unit I'd give them the free align. A flank charge doesnt leave much of an advantage for a spawn anyhow, spears, characters and shields are avoided but most units will still kill it, and (duh) win combat.

I would not go so far as to claim that I am right. Generally, I am a proponent of RAW. What we have in this case is an example of bad rules editing.

In 6th ed., there were cases (often movement spells) that had wording that said something like 'if the unit makes contact with an enemy, it counts as having charged, and the enemy can only respond by holding'. Then in 7th ed. GW tried to clean up and simplify things. Now, in almost every case, if a unit is charged, it gets to make a normal charge reaction.

I think that units with random movement, including stupid units, need a special rule that says if they contact an enemy, it counts as having charged, and the enemy can only respond by holding.

But we don't have a rule like that. We have a rule that says all normal charging rules apply. This means the moving unit gets impact hits, gets to strike first, etc. It also means that the contacted unit has to take psychology tests, can choose to flee, can choose to stand and shoot... and it means that you can make an argument that even if you contacted the flank, you should be positioned in the front. It also opens the door for stupid recursive situations where a unit is contacted, decides to stand & shoot, kills the attacking unit- which means the unit never actually contacted them, which means they couldn't stand and shoot... which means they do get contacted after all... ad infinitum.

So. I think the ArchMagos has a very solid position. The only argument I could make would be one based on semantics- are 'counts as charging' and 'declaring a charge' functionally equivalent? To be honest, I don't feel I could make a convincing argument that they are not. So I won't say that I am right, I will just say that I am comfortable playing it my way, and if an opponent objected, I would ask to d6 it. If my opponent refused, I would probably go ahead and do the time warp movement and get on with the game.

This reminds me of a discussion on Warhammer.org a little while ago. Picture this: you have a ranked unit of 20 men. A dragon flies over and lands close to your right flank, out of your charge arc! OH NOES! But wait- a dragon is a large target. Models in the rear ranks can see large targets over the heads of models in front. And I can draw LoS to the dragon from a couple of models in my unit. They don't have missle weapons, but that is not the point. The point is, the charging rules say only that a model in the unit must be able to see the target in order to declare a charge. The wording of the charging rules clearly does not say that the model with LoS must be in the front rank. Which means that, by RAW, the 20 man unit can declare a charge on the dragon, spend all their charge movement in a wheel, and maybe end up hitting the dragon in the flank.
There was a lot of rules-searching and debate, but the consensus became that, by RAW, it was a legal move. It never occured to the people writing the charging rules that there might be this weird interaction with the large target rules.

But I personally think this interpretation is visciously stupid, I won't do, and I would think twice about playing with anyone who would. Everyone in my gaming group has agreed to ignore this interpretation, and keep on playing as we have been.

What we need is for someone to try it on at a Grand Tournament, and get some real pressure on GW for an errata to fix it.

No, i think youre right. Ive decided on an absolute and im sticking to it.
The difference between declare and counts as is that youve skipped all the declaration process, its just a small part of the movement phase anyhow. The phrase "all charging rules apply" makes it arguable that they are the same but then you'd have to go back and figure out whether or not the unit could declare a charge, which pretty much defeats the whole random movement thing.
I dont thing the dragon thing works though since the rules also speak of charge arcs, not just LoS. Of course the other models can see it but its not in the "charge arc." But ill prolly double check that before i get all worked up about it.

I argue that the random movement merely is the same as testing whether a charge is 'failed' or not.  There is no retro-activity.  Rolling the dice is the same as testing if real chargers are in range.  If yes, in either case, all the normal rules for charging apply.

Ah.

"I argue that the random movement merely is the same as testing whether a charge is 'failed' or not."
I disagree. A lot of things occur before you can tell whether a charge succeeds or fails. To start with, you check your arc of sight (see p.8) to determine if you can even declare a charge. Spawn don't do that. Spawn can go backwards ifthey want to, and still count as charging if they hit an enemy.

"There is no retro-activity."
Yes, there is. In fact, you are saying that we sort of have to rewind time, from the compulsory moves phase back to the declare charges phase, but only if the spawn makes it into contact with the target. I don't think we need to so traumatize the fabric of space-time. We have already declared charges, we have already rallied fleeing troops. We are in the compulsory move phase.

If the spawn makes contact, it counts as charging... we don't need to back up and worry about arc of sight and front/flank/rear now, all that has been taken into account by the fact that the spawn reached the unit. (I am saying the spawn movement rules in the army book trump the core charging rules... in other words, I am right back with Mannahnin on the Order of Operations thing).  Now the target unit gets to decide its charge reaction, and if they flee, well, it is still the compulsory move phase, so they roll & run. I f they stand & shoot, they do that now as well, since stand & shoot occurs just before you move chargers.

"Rolling the dice is the same as testing if real chargers are in range."
No it isn't. You don't test to see if 'real chargers' are in range until the very end... after compulsory moves, and after stand & shoot.