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.

Yup. The size of the base is irrelevant, since the rules allow you to get around this tactic anyway.

And people finally agree with me

Posted By Mahu on 06/15/2006 12:59 PM
But it doesn't matter how big the base is.

You declare your charge against multiple units (in this case the two interspaced units).

The only requirement for the charge against both units to be successful is one model making it into Base-to-base.

Therefore, the first model (or single model) can come within 1" of a unit they don't make it to Base-to-base with because they are in fact charging the second unit just as much as they are charging the first.

Not a single bit of that is in the rules and in fact they say quite the opposite.

But I've given up on trying to actually argue with you. I'm limiting myself to simply pointing out when you are wrong so that others will not be confused by you.

Posted By mauleed on 06/15/2006 7:48 PM

Posted By Mahu on 06/15/2006 12:59 PM
But it doesn't matter how big the base is.

You declare your charge against multiple units (in this case the two interspaced units).

The only requirement for the charge against both units to be successful is one model making it into Base-to-base.

Therefore, the first model (or single model) can come within 1" of a unit they don't make it to Base-to-base with because they are in fact charging the second unit just as much as they are charging the first.

Not a single bit of that is in the rules and in fact they say quite the opposite.

 

Actually, they say just that. A charge only fails if you don't get base to base with at least one target unit. That is the only thing in the rules that can cause a failed charge.

Actually, they say just that. A charge only fails if you don't get base to base with at least one target unit. That is the only thing in the rules that can cause a failed charge.

Right. But just because the charge was successful against unit A, doesn't mean you successfully charged unit B. And if you don't successfullly charge unit B then you have a problem with this rule:

"You may not move models within 1 [inch] of enemy models from any unit they are not charging."


A Charge may have been declared against unit B, and you may want to actually charge (get models base to base) with unit B, but unless you actually do so, I don't personally see how you are "charging" unit B.

So as I said from the beginning of this thread, it comes down to how you interpret the term "charging".

I can see why you read it the way you do, and that is why the question is included on the Dakka FAQ.

Most importantly of all, I don't think you'll find very many players who will enforce this rule (in the circumstances described above) either way they believe. For example, in my case, even though I disagree with your interpretation I would still never enforce it as I don't personally believe the intent of the rule was to prevent units from charging.

Posted By yakface on 06/15/2006 8:59 PM

A Charge may have been declared against unit B, and you may want to actually charge (get models base to base) with unit B, but unless you actually do so, I don't personally see how you are "charging" unit B.
.

But that interpretation keeps you from charging ANYONE at all, ever. Just tear out the assault section of the rulebook as it is meaningless.

If you aren't charging until you get models base to base, you can never move a model base to base.

But that interpretation keeps you from charging ANYONE at all, ever. Just tear out the assault section of the rulebook as it is meaningless.

If you aren't charging until you get models base to base, you can never move a model base to base.

I like that you can't even give me my own interpretation. . .

No, my interpretation doesn't have that issue. If you charge a model in the unit (get base to base contact) then you are charging the unit. If you don't end up getting any of your models into base contact with the unit, then you haven't charged that unit. You may have declared a charge on that unit and the charge in general may have been successful (against another unit), but unless you actually engage one model from that unit I don't see how you can say that you have charged them (or were charging them).

But the rules don't require you to get into contact with every unit you are charging. They merely state that the charge is unsuccessful if you don't get at least one model in contact with 'the enemy'

If you declare a charge against two enemy units, and only make it into contact with one, you have managed to get a model in contact with 'the enemy' and so the charge is successful.

Again, I agree that the charge in general is/was successful in that instance. But that still doesn't mean you are charging/did charge the unit that was not actually engaged by the charge.

I see the position you are coming from, I just don't personally agree with it. And, I totally play the game the way you guys are suggesting it.

Posted By insaniak on 06/15/2006 10:19 PM
But the rules don't require you to get into contact with every unit you are charging. They merely state that the charge is unsuccessful if you don't get at least one model in contact with 'the enemy'

If you declare a charge against two enemy units, and only make it into contact with one, you have managed to get a model in contact with 'the enemy' and so the charge is successful.

By that logic, couldn't you declare that you are assaulting every unit in the enemy's army.  Then if you make it into contact with one unit, the charge is successful, so the entire enemy army is locked in combat.  That seems kinda silly.

By that logic, couldn't you declare that you are assaulting every unit in the enemy's army. Then if you make it into contact with one unit, the charge is successful, so the entire enemy army is locked in combat. That seems kinda silly.

You're not locking anyone you're not in contact with.

Yak, you contend that you can't claim to be charging a unit you never contact, right?
The problem with your position is that you have to complete the act of charging to be considdered charging.
That is, unfortunately, rediculous. It's akin to saying that you have to be running somewhere to be considdered to be running.
If I just take off out my front door full tilt boogie and run across the street am I only running if I reach the other side? No. I'm running the moment I set one foot in front of the other. If I crash into a bicycle courier before I get to the other side wasn't I still running even though I intended to get to the opposite curb? I sure was.
This rule is no different and it's written that way. Any other interpretation is a misread at best.

Zubbie. How many times do I have to type this?

I did not say the unit is not considered charging. And yes, in your example you are certainly running.

But the rule doesn't just specify that your unit has to be charging, it has to be charging that particular unit in order to move within 1" of models of that unit.

So yes, a charging unit is "charging" if it successfully charges unit A, but unless it can actually get a model into base contact with an enemy model from unit B then it isn't charging THAT unit (unit B).


In your example, yes you were running, but you certainly didn't run to the other side. Your intention was to run to do so, but you didn't do so.

And I'm of the opinion that there are two possible results to a charge declaration-Charging and Failed Charge, and a charge only fails if you don't get base to base with at least one enemy unit.

And that is a fair assumption based on what is given in the rules.

I just don't think you can dismiss out of hand that there is another entirely plausible interpretation.

Did everyone (except Yak) forget this little piece of the rules:

"A unit may charge any enemy unit that be reached by at least one of its models making an assault move."

So what can you charge? Units you can reach with an assault move.

Sure, the part before that lets you declare a charge against anyone or anything. But that's irrelevant because the rules then go on do define what you can actually charge.

I'm not sure where people got this notion that simply declaring a charge is a charge. It's certainly not in the rules. But I like that interp. It should affect everything with 6" of movement, so I declare I'm charging your wife, so the charge must happen. So have her washed and dried and brought over to my place dressed in something suitably suggestive. I'll have her back by monday.

Yak,

Zubbie. How many times do I have to type this?

Svfourteen-teen.
For reasons previously stated I reject your line of reasoning. I accept that it can be interpreted as you say but you have to make more assumptions than I do to get there and that, sadly, is where we will probably have to agree to disagree.
I went to town arguing this the last time (time before?) it came up. I know that I can't convince those that don't agree with me but I'm going to keep trying. Internet debates are won by persistance.

mauleed,

"A unit may charge any enemy unit that be reached by at least one of its models making an assault move."

I don't think anyone forgot this. Just because you can doesn't mean you will. See running.

I'm not sure where people got this notion that simply declaring a charge is a charge. It's certainly not in the rules. But I like that interp. It should affect everything with 6" of movement, so I declare I'm charging your wife, so the charge must happen. So have her washed and dried and brought over to my place dressed in something suitably suggestive. I'll have her back by monday.

The rules tell you when a charge fails and when it doesn't. You must contact one (or more) enemy models to successfully charge. Not one from each unit, one from Bangladesh or one by telephone.

The wife thing while amusing doesn't have any bearing as you fail to contact one (or more) enemy models and your charge fails.

Besides, it'll be her charging you, it's how we earn extra income since my meth lab exploded.

I'm not sure I get your meaning. The book tells you that you may charge any unit you can reach. There's not much more to it than that. It clearly debunks any sort of "I'm charging but not charging because I can't reach you" argument immediately.

We know:

1. You can charge what you can reach.

2. You can't get within 1" of what you don't charge.

Hence, you can't charge something within 1" of something you can't reach.

It's all very cut and dry and I'm amazed anyone is trying to argue otherwise.

At this point I'd be interested in seeing a properly composed argument for why you jokers think you can charge things within 1" of something you can't reach. So lay it out fellas, two premises and a conclusion. It's friday, we have time.

Seriously people, mauleed is absolutely correct here. You can't actually charge if it isn't possible to reach so you cannot declare a charge against an unreachable opponent and still end up within 1" of them per RAW. Most people have said this rule gets worked around this limit by ignoring it in special cases beause it doesn't appear to be intended to deny a charge.

RAW: can't charge. If you play someone they will probably agree to let it slide if it gets in the way of a charge. If someone actually interspersed units to deny a charge with this rule I doubt people will be playing them more than once.

And let us not forget the "in all cases" portion of the rule that doesn't let you get within 1".

Again, I have yet to see any argument that would ever allow you to be within 1" of a unit you didn't charge.

I have a question for you guys. Suppose two units were fighting in a straight corridor, 1" wide. How many from the charging side would get to fight?

1 (base to base) + however many are within 2" of that model. (probably 2 more) for models in the corridor.

A corridor would have walls that are not passable in most circomstances so they would actually force the models to be in a line. Of course you could legally and pretty much ruin the game's fun by splitting your unit on both sides of the wall to join the fight but that would also be rules abuse.

The model at the front in BTB and the models that are within 2" of that model.

As a note, if you are referring to CoD that can not happen because buildings must be placed at least 2" apart.

Posted By mauleed on 06/16/2006 6:06 AM

Did everyone (except Yak) forget this little piece of the rules:

"A unit may charge any enemy unit that be reached by at least one of its models making an assault move."

Nice Ebonics Ed...

But now, how is 'can be reached' defined in the rules? Is it within the normal assault range (IE 6" away for infantry, 12" for Cav), or something else?

What if the target is in/through difficult terrain? You can't declare a charge if you can't 'reach something', but you don't know if you can reach it until you declare the charge and roll the difficult terrain dice. However, technically, no one can ever get base to base with anyone, as there is nothing in the rules defining exactly when a unit is 'charging' another unit.

You continue to equate "declare a charge" with "charge".

I'll use my same example. Declaring I'm going to bone your sister is a whole lot different that actually boning your sister.

And while I can declare it no matter where you are, the rule is I can't actually bone her if you're within 1" of her.

Regardless, I'll ignore your "no charge can ever happen" argument, as it's absurd and an obvious slippery slope fallacy.

Posted By skyth on 06/16/2006 11:38 AM

 

What if the target is in/through difficult terrain? You can't declare a charge if you can't 'reach something', but you don't know if you can reach it until you declare the charge and roll the difficult terrain dice. However, technically, no one can ever get base to base with anyone, as there is nothing in the rules defining exactly when a unit is 'charging' another unit.

Actually you can follow the same steps as for rolling the difficult terrain:

Declare charge. Measure unit to see if charge is possible. If you cannot reach your target then you fail to charge as explained in the rulebook. Cannot reach opponent = failed charge.

Declare charge at both units. Note that unit 2 is unreachable, and that reaching unit 1 would put you within 1" of unit 2. As you cannot possibly charge without breaking the 1" rule the charge fails.

1 (base to base) + however many are within 2" of that model. (probably 2 more) for models in the corridor.

A corridor would have walls that are not passable in most circomstances so they would actually force the models to be in a line. Of course you could legally and pretty much ruin the game's fun by splitting your unit on both sides of the wall to join the fight but that would also be rules abuse.

By the logic being used on the rest of the thread the answer is actually the first 4.

Posted By asmith on 06/16/2006 12:27 PM

1 (base to base) + however many are within 2" of that model. (probably 2 more) for models in the corridor.

A corridor would have walls that are not passable in most circomstances so they would actually force the models to be in a line. Of course you could legally and pretty much ruin the game's fun by splitting your unit on both sides of the wall to join the fight but that would also be rules abuse.

By the logic being used on the rest of the thread the answer is actually the first 4.

This is not the thread about wether 25mm bases are smaller than 1".

But it offers a way to directly sidestep what you guys are talking about making everything else a moot point.

OK I can accept that I can not charge the second unit!

This whole thing falls down to who you are playing.

If I play someone who refuses to understand that these stupid RAW rules don't work well and need to be interpreted, then its my problem for playing them.

Personally if I was forced to play someone who was insisting we play this way (GT or otherwise), I would fix there little red (RAW wagon). We have a book in the group store that is filled with the discrepancies, and both sides of the argument for RAW rules. IE: it has the straight ruling from the RAW, and then the one that reasonable people play with.
If you force me to play by this rule, I will then beat you over the head, by making you play with EVERY SINGLE RULE the RAW fracks up.

Then looking at you say" But you wanted to play by the RAW, Cry me a river".

(off the top of my head I don't recall specifics. We don't have to use the book often, just update it. But off the fly I recall something fracked about Ordnance being able to shoot units in vehicles??)

If I play someone who refuses to understand that these stupid RAW rules don't work well and need to be interpreted, then its my problem for playing them.

The rules work perfectly in this instance. The game does not stop. You simply can't do something you want to do.

There is no need for any sort of interpretive gymnastics here. You simply can not assault the unit under the rules.

If you can find opponents who agree with you that the rules should be ignored, knock yourself out. But any problem you have with someone who doesn't agree will come from profoundly un-rightous indignation.