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.

Well, there isn't a requirement per se...

It's just that it tends to be a very STRONGLY emphasized recommendation.

What I Find most interesting about this thread is that there are 53% for, and 47% against, but it seems the "against" crew are the most vociferous.

I do find a flaw in your "you're just TFG" arguments though. Tournaments seem to rarely have softscores to indicate that you were a bad sportsman, (furthermore it seems like it's a relatively slim chance that you'll even be soft-score dinged)

If all you are is a tournament player, you don't care about being TFG.

I agree wholeheartedly that this is an aggressive interpretation of the rules. Argumentativley the only time I think it would be *wrong* though is if you allowed yourself to do it, after allowing your opponent to fail a charge unkowingly earlier in that same battle..

If both players have it as a tool in their pocket, and agree beforehand that the rules surrounding the clarification isn't clear and in fact nebulous... It's not wrong if both players use it.

Also: A model can and in fact must pivot if the pivot would bring more models into contact on the charge,

If you don't pivotcharge you bring 0 models into contact. If you go to 11.99 inches and pivot, you bring one model into contact.

Jin wrote:Well, there isn't a requirement per se...

It's just that it tends to be a very STRONGLY emphasized recommendation.

If GW says it's a rule, then I think it's actually a rule that one may reasonably expect to be followed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Jin wrote:Well, there isn't a requirement per se...

It's just that it tends to be a very STRONGLY emphasized recommendation.

If GW says it's a rule, then I think it's actually a rule that one may reasonably expect to be followed.

GW's #1 rule is: If you can't find a reasonable ruling, or come to an agreement, dice off for it.

Should we just dice off here at Dakka and call it a wash?

I honestly can't remember a rule that says: You must in all cases be a gentleman. I'm pretty sure they prefer it, I know I do.

"If a dispute does crop up then work out the answer in a gentlemanly manner"

The Most Important Rule

Using all the tools at your disposal is not “un-gentlemanly” or “TFG”, its how you react to rules conflicts that makes these statements applicable. And this applies to both parties playing the game, not just the one using an “extreme interpretation of the rules”.

Ragnar4 wrote:What I Find most interesting about this thread is that there are 53% for, and 47% against, but it seems the "against" crew are the most vociferous.

I do find a flaw in your "you're just TFG" arguments though. Tournaments seem to rarely have softscores to indicate that you were a bad sportsman, (furthermore it seems like it's a relatively slim chance that you'll even be soft-score dinged)

If all you are is a tournament player, you don't care about being TFG.

Non Sequitor. Tournament Player does not necessitate TFG. However, now this is really getting OT, so I'm not gonna get into this more.

I agree wholeheartedly that this is an aggressive interpretation of the rules. Argumentativley the only time I think it would be *wrong* though is if you allowed yourself to do it, after allowing your opponent to fail a charge unkowingly earlier in that same battle..

The main issue here is the "aggressive interpretation" of rules. I think I actually voted that this was _technically_ legal. My complaints are mostly of the people saying, "Oh man! I'm going to pull this trick out in my next game!". But that's also off-topic commentary.

JohnHwangDD wrote:"If a dispute does crop up then work out the answer in a gentlemanly manner"

The Most Important Rule

You can settle dispute in gentlemanly fisticuffs .

What do you mean my TFG argument is Non Sequitor? It was a clean take out.

Argurment a: If you do this you're TFG, so don't do it.

Counterargument: Being TFG doesn't affect me, there's no negative impact around here to being TFG, and in fact there are a lot of people not impacted by being TFG and situations where being TFG is in fact not harmful.

Declaring the TFG argument nonimpactful is totally sequitor...

Ok, I concede that I'd forgotten a lot of this discussion has to do with tourney play. Tournaments ARE about winning the game. It is a competitive format. There's no question about that.

HOWEVER, you can be a tournament player without being TFG. There's a big difference between being a competitive player and being an obnoxious competitive player.

The nature of your poll was more in lines of "Is this a cheesy 'trick' to use on people" judging by the way you worded the poll options. By looking at the poll results, ~3/4 of the people find this 'trick' questionable and unsporting (and1/3 of these still consider it a technically legal move). So while half of the polls consider it a legitimate move, more than half of them don't consider it to be a friendly move, and disagree amongst themselves how they would mark you in a tournament. It was this aspect of the poll that I was addressing, and am continuing to address. You can be a competitive player while still maintaining a friendly atmosphere. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

That being said, if it doesn't affect you, then do what you will. If your opponents don't think it's a questionable move, by all means go ahead and use it. It's your prerogative.

"Chargers move at double thier normal Move rate, but must make the usual deductions for crossing terrain and obsticles." Page 21

"Charges are resolved, one at a time, in the order that they were declared. Remember to resolve any stand and shoot reaction that has been declared against the chargers at this stage, before measuring if the chargers have made it into contact with the intended target" Page 20

"Monsters can pivot on the spot only once during a charge move if a staight move wouldn't hit the target or would not brain as many models as possible into combat." Page 59

Measurement occurs prior to charger movement. Chargers move at a double Move, minus any deductions. A Monster can only pivot if a straight move wouldn't hit the target or bring as many models into combat, not to "gain" extra charge move distance due to base size.

The discussed move is illegal.

Same Said monster MUST pivot if it would bring more models into contact than not pivoting 0 models and 1 model.

Monster at no point moves farther than 12 inches, because pivoting does not cost movement.

Move is distasteful but legal.

Also, how do you measure wheels when charging? do you actually estimate the wheel distance and force your opponents to measure your estimated distance? Or do you allow them to move their models, then wheel, then move their models some more? The argument that you must measure before moving is clunky, and while in this example seems clear cut, sets a standard for the rest of the game that is disturbingly problematic.

0 models in contact is a failed charge. It's not a succesful charge that -then- requires you to have as much base to base as possible. If, at the end of my charge move and I am not in contact, I failed my charge.

If my charge targert is 12.25 inches away and my max charge move is 12 inches, I -cannot- make a succesful charge.

Your wheeling arguement is a red herring. Monsters don't wheel. However, for the sake of arguement, this is how I see it played and play it.

1. assume that charge declared, and accepted with no flee.
2. Measure distance. Unit can charge 8" target is 7" away. If target was 9" away, it is a failed charge.
3. Move chargers. Unit wheels to engage the most models. Unit can only wheel 1". Any furhter wheel would result in a failed charge and is not necessary to take even if it is needed to get more models into combat.
4. combat ensues.

Your interpretation is not distasteful, it's illegal. If it where legal, there is no defined monster base size. "They are normally mounted on a 40mm or larger base" page 7. There is nothing preventing using a 100mm, 200mm, 500mm base for your "pivot charge" if it was legal.

But its not.

I completely agree with shotgun. There is a max move/charge distance, period.

Ragnar4 wrote:Same Said monster MUST pivot if it would bring more models into contact than not pivoting 0 models and 1 model.

No, it *can*, if I am to trust the quotes of the rule here.

I also gather that the second aspect of your sentence on pp. 59 and 62 has been deleted, at least the FAQ (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m470856_Warhammer_FAQ_2008-02_Edition.pdf) implies this.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but IIRC the appendix of the official BRB FAQ has a section on RAW vs RAI. It does not specifically address this particular issue ("pivoting to gain move distance"), but it indicates that they want players to play RAI rather than RAW when it comes to this sort of thing. (IIRC it specifically addresses "clipping").

I realise that some of the rulings that have been passed are more RAW based, and that most judges will tend to take a RAW stance rather than RAI - that said, just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

I realise that not everyone plays the same way that I do, nor do they carry the same values that I do. As such, before playing a game with someone I bring up the subject of the appendix, and clear with my opponent whether we are going to play the game RAW or RAI. So far, not a single player has stated at the outset of the match that they want to play RAW. Only one has reneged on it and suddenly argued with me about whether they could do something (in this case "clipping", which he had expressly agreed to go with RAI instead of RAW), and the TO sided with me as he had witnessed the discussion before the game started.