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.

Yeah, sorry Stelek. Possibly useful in another argument, not this one though.

Insaniak, I took a look at your argument, but wasn't convinced with one part.

You reversed the order of 2 and 3. While this doesnt change the rules themselves, isn't the way they're referenced really important?

Im not sure if its the same as Kirsanth was trying to point out but, you're breaking up two rules that follow on from one another.

"A unit may charge multiple enemy units but only if the charging unit can reach them all without losing unit coherency. If the unit fired in the Shooting phase it must start it charge by engaging the unit it shot at "


Taking that rule out of context by assuming its a complete rule by itself I think is a bit misleading. More thoughts please >_< ?

Morticon wrote: While this doesnt change the rules themselves, isn't the way they're referenced really important?

Generally, yes. In this case, it doesn't really make any difference because the rules, no matter which order you take them in, are contradictory.

Read the section that you quoted as a whole and it does indeed seem to be suggesting, without actually saying it specifically, that even if the unit shot it may charge multiple targets. The problem with that is that another section of the rules strictly forbids it.


When you have one rule that allows something and another rule that forbids it, the only approach that doesn't break any rules is to assume that the restriction takes precedence.

You seem to just want to ignore either the rule that says you can only declare a charge against the unit you shot at,

I am not ignoring that. That rule does come into effect, when you are charging only one unit. Since it it given in the area that discussing charging only one unit. I am not ignoring it, just recognizing that it is limited by where it is described. Just like rules that are in the shooting section do not 'contradict' rules in the assaulting section. They apply at different times.

and/or the rule that says you have to stay an inch away from any units you're not charging.

I am not at all ignoring this, and never have. In fact, I have stated the opposite.

Generally, yes. In this case, it doesn't really make any difference because the rules, no matter which order you take them in, are contradictory.

But they are not contradictory. They are from different areas, discussing different situations. This happens in the rules all the time.... A general rule is given for the basic situation, and then additional rules are added for more complex situations.

For casualty removal, the basic description says you must give each model a wound. But then later, when they talk about multi wound models, they say you must keep putting them on one until it dies. "OMG a Contradiction!" No, it just applies to a different situation.

The rules only seem to contradict if you remove them from their respective context.

Look at the first 4 paragraphs: It mentions repeatedly that it is describing one unit declaring one charge against one other unit. *THAT* is the context for those rules. Within those 4 paragraphs, you are not allowed to declare multiple charges.... it is not in the rules. Therefore the rules do not have to detail anything about that.

In paragraph 4, they are talking about being able to declare multiple charges, and what you have to do. *THAT* is the context of that paragraph, 'providing rules for multi charge situations'.

If you take them in the context they are written, there is no contradiction, and all the rules make sense and are useful. If you remove that context, then you get either a contradiction, or a non-nonsensical rule. I am not saying rules have to make sense, but it seems silly to cause them to be senseless by removing their natural context.


Yes, it would have been nice if they would have spelled it out in no uncertain terms. Then we could have ignored context and it would still make sense. But in this case you have to take into account context...

But when you read one line after another, they both break rules?

Isn't the point of the paragraph to offer contradiction in the form of an exception to the rule?

I mean, thats what vast aspects of the game is based on. The exception of the specific to the general?

Still needing more sway to either side >_<

(Out of curiosity- how do most people play it?)

Ive always played it that you can shoot and multicharge.

insaniak wrote:

1) A unit that shot can only declare a charge against the unit it shot at. (page 36, Shooting and Assaulting, first sentence)

2) A unit that shot in the shooting phase must begin its assault by charging the unit it shot at. (page 36, Shooting and Assaulting, 2nd paragraph)

(snip)


While it seems obvious (to me at least) that point 2 is probably supposed to over-ride the restriction imposed by point 1, it falls short of actually doing so. It creates an ambiguity,

It doesn't create an ambiguity/contradiction if you separate out *declaring* a charge (point 1) from actually charging (point 2).

I believe this is the intention, and the literal reading, of the rule: declare on what you shot, but then allowed to charge multiple units.

IIRC, the assault phase in the 4th ed rulebook begins with declaring charges (like in WHFB) but not actually moving chargers. If so, then declaring is clearly different from actually charging.

insaniak wrote:
Sure, but the section that comes after that, which covers how to move your chargers, restricts your charging models to being moved into combat with the units they have declared a charge against.

So if you only declare a charge against the unit at which you shot, then you can not charge another unit, because you can only charge a unit that you have declared a charge against.

I'd have to see this part spelled out--like I say, I don't have access to my rulebook until April.

But it looks to me from what's been quoted so far like the more specific "charging multiple units" rule is an exception to the general "declare charge against a unit" rule.

So how many units does the rules actually say you can declare a charge against?

As far as I can see the rules on p.36 you seem to only declare a charge against one enemy unit wether you have shot or not.

"In his own assault phase, a player can declare a charge with any of his units that he belives are within assault range of an enemy unit and not already in close combat."

Thats all singularis.

The multiple charge rules state:
"A unit may charge multiple enemy units,"

It does not state it may declare a charge against multiple enemy units, just that it may charge multiple units as long as it can reach it without breaking unit coherency.

It is at this point the rather odd (if a unit that shot may not charge multiple units) line defining who a shooting unit must start its charge against.

Thus to charge say unit A, B and C do I have to or am I even allowed to declare a charge against unit A, B and C?

To me it seems like the rules state that you declare a charge against a single enemy unit, check to see if you have range to that unit and then if charge move allowes you may charge close by models as part of your charge move.

The 1" movement rule after all states only that you may not move within 1" of an enemy in the movement phase p.15.

The rule stating you may not move within 1" of an enemy on page 37 states you may not move within 1" of an enemy you are not charging.

Remember that the 1" movement rule is there "To make this distinction clear"

Would it not be possible that you can only declare a charge against one unit, this being the unit you check charge distance to, but then you may actually charge any unit you can move into BtB with following the charge move rules, again to make it clear wich units you are charhing and wich you are not you may not move within 1" of units you choose not to charge?

This would meen that if you shoot in the shooting phase you may only declare the charge against the unit you shot at but once you have been found to have the charge distance then charge move rules is all that matters.

To me this makes most sence.

Yep. Like the rules say. you declare one charge. move one model into contact, and then move the rest of the charging units into contact with as many models from as many units as you please.

thus the multiple charge rules after stating that a unit must charge the unit it shot.

the rules work a lot better in gestault than as random pieces dissected for abuse. oddly enough.

fester wrote:Would it not be possible that you can only declare a charge against one unit, this being the unit you check charge distance to, but then you may actually charge any unit you can move into BtB with following the charge move rules, again to make it clear wich units you are charhing and wich you are not you may not move within 1" of units you choose not to charge?

Nope, because, once again, the rules for moving your charging units only allow you to move into contact with the enemy unit (or units) against which you have declared a charge.

So if you can only declare a charge against one enemy unit, (which I agree is what the rules seem to be saying) you can only ever move charging models into contact with one unit.



Just to clarify once again here: I'm not suggesting this is the way it should be played. Just that the rules on multiple assaults are a bit of a mess.

insaniak wrote:
Nope, because, once again, the rules for moving your charging units only allow you to move into contact with the enemy unit (or units) against which you have declared a charge.

Can you back this up with a rule, Insaniak?

If this is true, then you are certainly right. But this is the one rule/conclusion I haven't seen yet in any of the quotes on this thread.

Again, sorry that I don't have access to my rulebooks until April.

Crikey, we never have his trouble on any game I have been a part of.

There are 'Conscripts' or some such in IG armies, and the squads can be somewhere around the 40+ mark(I think!). They can only charge 1 unit?(With all of the suggessted scenarios clearly laid out by other posters) Hmmmm

Can you seriously suggest, after the rules were laid out clearly by fester, there can really be any doubt? Of course multiple charges are allowed.(Look at the Battle of Rourks Drift for a good scenario)

If there is, D6 the mongrel and move on. GW rules are ambiguous at the best of times.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Can you back this up with a rule, Insaniak?

Page 37. First sentence:
"Charging units must now move into close combat with the unit (or units) they have declared charges against."

Second paragraph, second last sentence:
"Next, move each model in the charging unit in turn up to their Assault move distance, toward the unit or units they have declared a charge on."

akira5665 wrote:Crikey, we never have his trouble on any game I have been a part of.

Nor have I, because the general assumption made is the one that is suggested by the (rather ambiguous) rules: that charging multiple units after shooting should be possible.


Once again, I'm not advocating that you should play any given way... just pointing out (as we tend to do here on YMDC) a situation where a poorly written rule doesn't wind up meaning what people assume is the way the game is supposed to be played.

Can you seriously suggest, after the rules were laid out clearly by fester, there can really be any doubt?

Of what? That the rules are poorly written? I have no doubt of that. That multiple charges should be allowed? Again, I have no doubt of that. I thought I made that clear earlier in the thread. My apologies if that's not the case.

insaniak wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:Can you back this up with a rule, Insaniak?

Page 37. First sentence:
"Charging units must now move into close combat with the unit (or units) they have declared charges against."

Second paragraph, second last sentence:
"Next, move each model in the charging unit in turn up to their Assault move distance, toward the unit or units they have declared a charge on."

Yah, so again the disagreement is about the interaction of a couple of different rules, and this is basically the same dispute that has been coming up regularly for the past few years. This one is actually cleared up by the closed world assumption (the permissive rule thing), but I'm not sure if you'll be convinced by my argument. I'll give it a try anyway and see what you think.

With the closed world assumption, you can't assume that a rule contains an "only."

If the p37 rule said "Charging units must now move into close combat *only* with the unit they have declared charges against." then it would be restrictive and would create a contradiction with the other rule that says you can charge multiple units.

But in order for the closed world assumption to work, you can't assume that "only" is present where it isn't explicit. If you start assuming those restrictive "only" conditions, then the assumption breaks and the rules can't be applied anymore.

It's like if you looked at a train schedule and saw that a train arrives at 7:15, and then assumed that meant that trains arrived "only" at 7:15. So it would contradict the other spots in the train schedule that said, for example, that trains arrive at 7:25 and 7:30.

Or if you looked at the place where it says a Space Marine Chaplain can take a power fist, and assumed it meant that "only" a chaplain could take a power fist, then it would contradict the rule that says a veteran sergeant can take one.

So in order for the closed world assumption to work, you can never assume an "only" unless it is specifically stated. Otherwise you create contradictions where there should not be any.

That's a fair point... but doesn't solve the problem.

Even if we assume that the Declare Charges section allows us to decide to charge a unit without having to declare a charge against them, when it comes time to actually move those models into assault, we are only given one way to move them:

"Next, move each model in the charging unit in turn up to their Assault move distance, toward the unit or units they have declared a charge on."

In your closed world assumption (which is required for the game to work at all) you can only do things that the rules allow you to do. In the section of the rules that describes how to move your models into close combat, the only way that the rules allow you to do it is to move them towards the unit or units against which they have declared a charge.

No option is given to move the models in any other direction.

So the very best you can get from that is that you can charge a unit that you have not declared a charge against, but only if they happen to be between the charger and a unit against which they have declared a charge.

insaniak wrote:That's a fair point... but doesn't solve the problem.

Even if we assume that the Declare Charges section allows us to decide to charge a unit without having to declare a charge against them, when it comes time to actually move those models into assault, we are only given one way to move them:

"Next, move each model in the charging unit in turn up to their Assault move distance, toward the unit or units they have declared a charge on."

With respect, Insaniak, you're assuming an "only" in this rule too, as if it said "Next, move each model in the charging unit in turn up to their Assault move distance, *only* toward the unit or units they have declared a charge on."

The rule doesn't say that. It only says how to charge a unit that you have declared a charge on (without making any restrictions about charging units you haven't declared charges on).

insaniak wrote:In your closed world assumption (which is required for the game to work at all) you can only do things that the rules allow you to do. In the section of the rules that describes how to move your models into close combat, the only way that the rules allow you to do it is to move them towards the unit or units against which they have declared a charge.

No option is given to move the models in any other direction.

Correction, the rules give two ways to move models into close combat.

One option is the rule that says "Next, move each model in the charging unit in turn up to their Assault move distance, toward the unit or units they have declared a charge on."

The other option is the rule that says, "A unit may charge multiple enemy units but only if the charging unit can reach them all without losing unit coherency."

Since the second rule doesn't require you to have declared a charge, and since the first rule doesn't restrict you from charging units you haven't declared on (unless you assume the "only") the rules don't contradict. The second rule *is* the rule that gives permission to charge a unit you haven't declared a charge on by describing how to do it, and it doesn't violate anything stated in the first rule.

Just like the rule that says a vet sergeant can have a power fist doesn't violate the rule that says a chaplain can have one. And just like the train coming at 7:25 doesn't mean a train doesn't also come at 7:15.

Okay, unfortunately I have to leave this discussion there for now and go away for spring break. So hopefully my arguments will be able to stand up for themselves until I get back after the 24th.

Happy St. Pat's day guys.

insaniak, you made a good point with the quote from page 37, this has given me alot to think about.

This however does not change the fact that you did not adress my question.

How many units may, according to the rules RAW, one unit declare charges against?

If the answer is not 1 then how do you handle the situation?

If you declare charghe against unit 1, 2 and 3 for example and you cant reach unit 3, does this meen the charge failed?

Do you have to declare wich of the units you are charging is to be the prime target before or after you check range?

What does it meen that you if you have shot have to start your charge by engaging the unit you shot at?

The thing is that declaring multiple charges really makes things messy and complicated while only ever allowing one charge declaration makes it all very simple and smoth running.

Woops, knew that looked familiar. Which is fine by me since I'm in the "no multiple assaults if you shot" camp anyway.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

insaniak wrote:"Next, move each model in the charging unit in turn up to their Assault move distance, toward the unit or units they have declared a charge on."

With respect, Insaniak, you're assuming an "only" in this rule too, as if it said "Next, move each model in the charging unit in turn up to their Assault move distance, *only* toward the unit or units they have declared a charge on."

No assumption is necessary, because the rules for moving your charging units don't give them anywhere else to go.

The rule doesn't say that. It only says how to charge a unit that you have declared a charge on (without making any restrictions about charging units you haven't declared charges on).

But without any other rule in the section that details how to move your chargers that allows them to move anywhere else, they can't move anywhere else.

Correction, the rules give two ways to move models into close combat.

One option is the rule that says "Next, move each model in the charging unit in turn up to their Assault move distance, toward the unit or units they have declared a charge on."

The other option is the rule that says, "A unit may charge multiple enemy units but only if the charging unit can reach them all without losing unit coherency."

Nope.

That first 'option' is a rule in the section detailing how to move your charging units.
The second 'option' is a rule in the section detailing how charges are declared. It doesn't tell you how to move your models into assault, it merely states that you can charge multiple units.

The 'Move Charging Units' section is the one that actually tells you how to move the charging unit... and it doesn't give instructions on how to move into combat with a unit you have not declared a charge against.


Whether you're allowed to charge without declaring it therefore becomes completely irrelevant. Allowed or not, there are simply no rules that tell you how to do it.

fester wrote:This however does not change the fact that you did not adress my question.

How many units may, according to the rules RAW, one unit declare charges against?

From the 'Declare Charges' section:
"A unit may charge multiple enemy units..."

'multiple' means 'more than one'

If you declare charghe against unit 1, 2 and 3 for example and you cant reach unit 3, does this meen the charge failed?

No.

You only have to get a single model into base contact for the charge to succeed (page 37, second paragraph)

Do you have to declare wich of the units you are charging is to be the prime target before or after you check range?

There is no 'prime target'

You declare your charges. You move into combat with the units against which you have declared a charge.

What does it meen that you if you have shot have to start your charge by engaging the unit you shot at?

We've already been over that.

By RAW, it's a superfluous rule.
By the rules as most people play it, it's a poorly written rule that that is supposed to make it legal to declare a charge against multiple units even if you have shot in the shooting phase.

The thing is that declaring multiple charges really makes things messy and complicated

It wouldn't be if the rules were written a little more precisely

lambadomy wrote:the GW FAQ seems to have something to say about this:

Sorry, but that FAQ answer is no more relevant now than it was a page ago when Stelek posted it.

So stating that it is legal and possible to charge multiple units, stating only one unit can be declared the target of a charge, ruling that only the first model needs to be in base with the declared target, and then stating how to resolve the ensuing multi-unit combat is what?
random text?
It is cheesy perhaps, and beardy if not, but the RAW state that a unit can charge multiple targets, and deliniate how to do so. Shooting changes only one part of one rule in that, and it negates none. (other than perhaps target choice, but I daresay that was simply made a phade before)

or maybe the whole multiple units btb means enemies cannot charge if they shot . . . which people do not agree with.

rarrr

kirsanth wrote:So stating that it is legal and possible to charge multiple units, stating only one unit can be declared the target of a charge, ruling that only the first model needs to be in base with the declared target, and then stating how to resolve the ensuing multi-unit combat is what?
random text?

Sorry, if you were making a point there I missed it.

It is cheesy perhaps, and beardy if not, but the RAW state that a unit can charge multiple targets, and deliniate how to do so.

Again, I'm missing something. What is cheesy or beardy about charging multiple targets?

Shooting changes only one part of one rule in that,

The most important part, when you're wanting to charge more than one enemy unit...

insaniak-You are a Scholar and Gentleman.

Taking the 'Devil's Advocate' standpoint, even if you disagree with it, makes Dakka all it is supposed to be.
Gamers talking about Gaming, and rules interp.

Even if you disagree/agree with a ruling, you always give us another perspective.

Thanks mate.

Morticon wrote:

And Yak - any chance of getting this into the INAT FAQ one way or another?? >_<

Thanks in advance.

Morticon,

I just wanted to point out to you that regardless of the RAW, if you're using the INAT_FAQ this issue is indirectly covered by RB.37.01 (the question/answer about charging multiple units that are interspersed together), as that ruling specifically makes it clear that players are allowed to declare charges against multiple units if they wish to do so.

Yak - the INAT doesnt cover shooting and charging which is what this discussion is about >_< HELP!

I don't understand why not.

The FAQ makes it clear that you can declare charges against multiple units, but you still must nominate a 'primary' unit which, by the rules has to be the unit you fired at.


I guess I can clean up the wording in the post-adepticon update to make it even more clear that it applies even when the charging unit fired in the previous shooting phase.

Well, 2 pages of arguments here and before have conflicting beliefs on the validity of being able to charge more than one squad after shooting at the primary - for reasons stated. >_< Same question spawned a few pages of arguments in other forums too.