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.

Saying you can opt to hold still doesn't make it the magic designation of "charge reaction." We know units can do that. Just because it lists charge reaction above doesn't mean everything that happens under is that. Releasing hidden fanatics isn't a charge reaction.

I don't know how it would happen, but if the unit was destroyed, before the charge, that also wouldn't be a charge reaction, which is a specific game term.

Like I said I think I am giving you guys raw on this, however I have never seen it played this way at any GT's or smaller tournaments. I even did some google searches for this argument. It seems this is a contested subject and there are two camps, hold is a charge reaction, and hold is not a charge reaction. I guess in the absence of an FAQ for as long as the question has been asked the stupidity of the RAW must prevail. It's strange when most the world is doing it wrong.

tgf wrote:
Like I said I think I am giving you guys raw on this, however I have never seen it played this way at any GT's or smaller tournaments. I even did some google searches for this argument. It seems this is a contested subject and there are two camps, hold is a charge reaction, and hold is not a charge reaction. I guess in the absence of an FAQ for as long as the question has been asked the stupidity of the RAW must prevail. It's strange when most the world is doing it wrong.

It's a bit arrogant to claim to know how most of the world is playing.
One of the reason their are two camps is 20 years worth of Hold being a charge reaction.
If everyone started playing in 8th edition, and everybody read the whole ruleset, it wouldn't be much of an issue.

-Matt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

tgf wrote:Just leaving this here to end this once and for all with the best proof anyone could come up with. RAW. Literally. p.17, top left.

A unit might well be called upon to make
several charge reactions over the course of a
Charge sub-phase, if it is charged by several
enemy units.
A unit can only Stand and Shoot once in a
Charge sub-phase - there is no time to reload.
This is not to say that the Stand and Shoot must
be used against the first charging unit - the
chargee can opt to Hold against the first charge
and Stand and Shoot against the second charge.
It could even then elect to Flee! in reaction to a
third charge if it wished!
A unit that Flees! once in a Charge sub-phase
will have to keep fleeing if it has more charges
declared against it, as described earlier

Again several charge reactions one of them being hold.

This is no different than being charged once.
You charge, I declare a charge reaction. If I choose not to declare one of the two reactions, I opt to hold.
You charge me again, and I go through the same process again (except you can only stand and shoot once, and once I Flee, I will Flee again from every charge).
The process is the same, they are only showing you that you are limited to a single Stand and Shoot, and once you flee, you keep fleeing. This doesn't make Hold a charge reaction.

-Matt

tgf wrote:
yes i have read that, the problem is, hold is a declared charge reaction is several other parts of the book including about 2 cm down from

See, I stopped reading here. You need to read. Carefully. Very, very carefully. Nowhere does it say that Hold is charge reaction. Nowhere. In all of the text passages you have yet shown us, nowhere does it say that Hold is a charge reaction. Period. It's about the clearest issue we had in YMDC for quite a while.

As above. In addition tgf you are ignornig that you are claiming that the game halts if a Random Movement creature successfully charges a unit - as they cannot make any reaction.

RAW is actually very, very clear, even if their placement of title headings is not so clear

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. In addition tgf you are ignornig that you are claiming that the game halts if a Random Movement creature successfully charges a unit - as they cannot make any reaction.

RAW is actually very, very clear, even if their placement of title headings is not so clear

The placement kind of makes sense even.
Where would you put Hold?
It has to come after an enemy declares the charge, and before the enemy moves his models. That's right where they have it in the rules.

-Matt

I'd habe put Hold as the third point as it's not a charge reaction...aka first mention Stand&Shoot, then Flee and then Hold as Hold only takes place when you cannot or do not want to take a charge reaction.

Anyway, it's very clear. See my last post

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. In addition tgf you are ignornig that you are claiming that the game halts if a Random Movement creature successfully charges a unit - as they cannot make any reaction.

RAW is actually very, very clear, even if their placement of title headings is not so clear

I am not claiming that, didn't claim that anywhere. Not even sure what relevant content you had added to this discussion.

If you claim that Hold is charge reaction, you automatically claim that...

Especially considering garrisoned units, which cannot make either of those reactions but do have to take the terror test.

Well, tbf, they have special rules explicitely stated in the BRB

Yes - except that under the Terror rules they shouldn't even test, if Hold is not a charge reaction.

tgf wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. In addition tgf you are ignornig that you are claiming that the game halts if a Random Movement creature successfully charges a unit - as they cannot make any reaction.

RAW is actually very, very clear, even if their placement of title headings is not so clear

I am not claiming that, didn't claim that anywhere. Not even sure what relevant content you had added to this discussion.

Cheers, lovely attitude there

You have claimed that Hold is a charge reaction. Units hit by random movement CANNOT MAKE A REACTION. The game halts, as you are claiming Hold is a reaction, meaning there is nothing they can do.

Your failure to see the consequences of your position isnt our fault.

Well, there is a caveat that a unit which does not make a charge reaction (such as in random moves) automatically holds.
This is not the same as sayint that Hold is not a charge reaction. It could just as easily be that when they can't make a reaction, they flee. This would not change flee to "not a charge reaction* either.

I do love people not reading the rules in the rulebook but then making comments about them :*

Niteware wrote:
Well, there is a caveat that a unit which does not make a charge reaction (such as in random moves) automatically holds.
This is not the same as sayint that Hold is not a charge reaction. It could just as easily be that when they can't make a reaction, they flee. This would not change flee to "not a charge reaction* either.

Yet the rules explicitly, and without possibility of misunderstanding, state that "Hold" is NOT a charge reaction. It is what you do if you do NOT declare a charge reaction.

Yeah, otherwise the rules break as things like Random Movement that don't allow for charge reactions. The charged unit wouldn't be able to do anything.

I know that they explicitly state that. I also know that they talk about it throughout as a charge reaction.
Possible conclusions: it both is and is not a charge reaction. The guys writing the books were not good at talking to each other / remembering their own rules. The cake is a lie.

Given that there is an explicit example of a situation in which a unit that can only declare Hold has to take a terror test and that the description of when not to Terror test talks about other situations (rathrr than unit types), I would suggest that GW were quite muddled when thinking of the Terror and Panic rules and that there is no single explicit RAW.

Niteware wrote:
I know that they explicitly state that. I also know that they talk about it throughout as a charge reaction.

Sorry, but...

GODDAMN THEY DO NOT.

JESUS! >.<

Can we like, idk, stop spreading misinformation in a YMDC thread? Thanks.

Ok, happy to stop spreading misinformation... how would you characterise the examples above? Listing it as the first item under charge reactions, saying that it must be chosen as a charge reaction etc?

Setting that aside, given that garrisoned units can only hold, yet must take Terror tests, how do you square that with the Terror rule if Hold is not a charge reaction? Is it not the same wording that is used for War Machines reaction to charges?

OT, whether or not Hold is strictly a charge reaction, it is treated so for the purpose of Terror checks for garrisoned units. I would suggest that the same holds true for War Machines.

The exceptions to Terror checks look to me like they are intended to stop it being too good for the attacker; Charge, Terror, kill, overrun, Terror etc. Ofc, this is not explicit (as few things are), but this makes sense to me. War Machine crews not taking a test would be downright weird, if a huge monster was running towards them. It is slightly weird that overrun / random movement doesn't cause Terror checks, but it makes sense from a diminishing the strength of Terror point of view.

Niteware wrote:
Ok, happy to stop spreading misinformation... how would you characterise the examples above? Listing it as the first item under charge reactions, saying that it must be chosen as a charge reaction etc?

Setting that aside, given that garrisoned units can only hold, yet must take Terror tests, how do you square that with the Terror rule if Hold is not a charge reaction? Is it not the same wording that is used for War Machines reaction to charges?

Units in buildings can take a charge reaction. They are allowed to stand and fire. (page 128).
Since they can take a charge reaction (or hold) they are taking terror tests. They just happen to have a special building rule about what happens when they fail the terror test (they hide inside the building).

-Matt

Nite - except that where they list it makes sense organisationally; it does not state it is a reaction. It also never states it must be chosen as a reaction. It does not use that phrasing.

The rules are 100% clear on this, and only 20 years of considering if a charge reaction is causing people issues.

Ok Am reconvinced, thanks all.