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.

You have two separate units in base to base contact with each other. One unit is charged by an enemy unit. The enemy unit cannot end its move out of base to base contact with the unengaged unit, because the models are
positioned in such a way that to engage one they come into b2b with the other. Is this allowed, or do they have to declare a disordered charge?

In the extremely unlikely event of that happening, you would have to declare a disordered charge, as you are not allowed to finish a charge move in base contact with a model from a unit you are not assaulting.

 insaniak wrote:
In the extremely unlikely event of that happening, you would have to declare a disordered charge, as you are not allowed to finish a charge move in base contact with a model from a unit you are not assaulting.

I'm going to disagree here (slightly) from what you said.

Since the rules for moving charging models state that you cannot end a move in base contact with an enemy model from a unit you are not charging, my interpretation is that (even with the initial charging model who has to move by the shortest possible route) if you declare that you're ONLY charging enemy unit A (and not unit B) then you would be forced to move your initial charging model by the shortest possible route that would not result in him finishing in base contact with an enemy unit he is not engaging.

So while I'm basically saying the same thing as you, I do think that this could allow the first charging model to essentially divert its charge to the enemy model in the unit he's charging that doesn't (at first glance) appear to be the closest to him, but is the closest model he can engage without coming into base contact with an enemy model from a unit that the chargers are not engaging.


A good example of this would be two enemy units intermingled behind (touching) an Aegis Defense Line (we'll call them enemy unit A & B). The charging unit only wants to charge enemy unit A, but as contacting any portion of the ADL by a charging model will count as coming into base contact with all enemy models within 2" of that point along the wall, charging the closest enemy model to the initial charger would result in the charger effectively moving into base contact with an enemy model from a unit that the charging unit has not declared they are charging.

So in this example, if the charing unit declares they are only charging enemy unit A, then they would need to find some model in enemy unit A that can be contacted along the wall without being within 2" of a model from enemy unit B. If such a model exists, then THAT would be the valid target for the initial charging model. If no such valid target exists, then yes, the only choice then would be to declare a disordered charge and go after both enemy units A & B or choose not to charge at all.

Yup, I don't disagree with any of that... I was going off the idea that it was impossible to move into contact with any model from the target unit without also basing a model from the other unit, which is how I read the example given.

Which is an unlikely scenario, but one that would require a disordered charge.

 insaniak wrote:
Yup, I don't disagree with any of that... I was going off the idea that it was impossible to move into contact with any model from the target unit without also basing a model from the other unit, which is how I read the example given.

Which is an unlikely scenario, but one that would require a disordered charge.

It's not terribly unlikely, I find it comes up quite often in my games (especially when I'm discouraging a charge on my own units by stacking them up in B2B... with bike bases it's quite easy to acheive this)
but usually I've been just allowing the single charge not to be a douche.

I thought that the first model to move could *only* move into btb with the primary unit, and none other? I could be wrong

In that case, if there are *no* models in the target unit that can be based without also basing another unit, would that not prevent the charge?

Pretty much, yeah.

So, an inter-mixed unit against an ADL is impossible to charge from the front? I'd have to house-rule against that.

No, as you are allowed to be in base contact if you are touching the ADL

Pyrian wrote:
So, an inter-mixed unit against an ADL is impossible to charge from the front?

Why?

 insaniak wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
So, an inter-mixed unit against an ADL is impossible to charge from the front?

Why?

I assume he means be cause by rule the charging model, once it makes BTB with the ADL would be considered to be in b2b with any models within 2" of the charging model.

An additional question:

If a model is locked in a challenge and is a single-model unit, can an enemy unit still charge into combat?

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:
An additional question:

If a model is locked in a challenge and is a single-model unit, can an enemy unit still charge into combat?

Iranna.

no, the Challengers are considered to in BTB only with each other. Therefor any one else trying to join in cannot ever make it into BTB with the single model unit because he is "considered to be in BTB" ONLY with the other Challenger model.

 Iranna wrote:
If a model is locked in a challenge and is a single-model unit, can an enemy unit still charge into combat?

Nope.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thought that the first model to move could *only* move into btb with the primary unit, and none other? I could be wrong

In that case, if there are *no* models in the target unit that can be based without also basing another unit, would that not prevent the charge?

While this was completely and clearly true in 5th edition, I don't think it is the case anymore in 6th edition.

In 5th edition, you were only able to charge the enemy unit you declared a charge against with your first model, and only then with subsequent charging models could you create a multi-unit charge scenario (by moving some of the subsequent models into B2B contact with other enemy units beyond the original).

In 6th, you now declare which units you are going to charge ahead of time. Yes, you need to move the initial charging model into contact with the closest model in the enemy unit being charged...but in the case of a ADL, for example, it is entirely possible to follow this rule and end up in base contact with the closest model and also count as being in base contact with an enemy model from another unit...which would only be allowed if you declare a disordered charge against both those units ahead of time.

If you choose NOT to declare a disordered charge in this case, then I believe the only valid move for the initial charger model is to find the closest enemy model in the one enemy unit you are charging that can be contacted without also being in base contact with an enemy model from another enemy unit.

Page 28: "That said, a charging model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in the primary target."

Page 104: "For the purposes of charge moves, models that are both in base contact with a barricade and within 2" of each other are treated as being in base contact."

This silly RaW could make charging mixed units behind ADL's rather difficult, although I'm not convinced the first quote necessarily applies to the first model, so not impossible.

While I agree on the RAW of it, I think you are entirely overthinking the wording on the ADL

Overthinking the ADL? It's a simple rule. And frankly, I don't think it's the problem rule, either.