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.

I totaly agree: (that is what is printed in the RAW)

But if I play someone who wishes to play strictly by the RAW then we will play by the RAW.   Every word! (even the broken ones) I have no probem with this as I believe that the more people are forced to play the whole RAW the less likley i am to face someone who wants to just enforce one rule that they with to use to their adavantage.

PS:  I usualy have a discussion with my opponate to see what type of game he wants to play!

Does this mean that if you agree to ignore one rule your opponent can go ahead and ignore all the rules? Overreaction goes both ways.

Again the whole questions of unassaultable vs. assaultable comes down to a question of the 1" measurement. If there is a single spot between the 2 squads that is assaultable you are forced to move the closest figure there through RAW. The chance you will actually encounter a situation where you can't assault under RAW are extremely remote. In the extreme worst case it will come down to interpreting a measurement, whose worst case result is a roll off.

Posted" by="" snooggums="" on="" 06/16/2006="" 1:30="" pm="">
Does this mean that if you agree to ignore one rule your opponent can go ahead and ignore all the rules? Overreaction goes both ways.

I'm not saying just randomly in the middle of a game ignoring rules.  I usually talk to my opponent and see what he thinks.

To me this falls under there are 2 games:

1.  If he wants to play by the RAW great I can do that.  (But we are playing with all of it, even the parts that are broken)


2. Most of the people I play with agree that the rules have to be worked with and an agreement can be reached by both players.  (not just randomly ignoring rules)


PS: sorry to get off topic on this.  I just think that most of the arguments on the rules will never be decided.  As most people are playing with different expectations!

You are certainly well off topic.

Regardless, what you're saying is that unless someone agrees with you, even if the book doesn't, you'll be a tool.

Go with that. I'm sure it works.

Posted By snooggums on 06/16/2006 12:13 PM

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.

.

No Mauleed was partially quoting from a rule that says that you can't declare a charge on a unit that you can't reach. I was questioning how you decide whether you can 'reach' it or not since 'reach' is not actually defined and has several different meanings. Plus you must declare charges before rolling difficult terrain.

Posted By mauleed on 06/16/2006 12:05 PM

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.

Let's see...Argument by analogy and Straw Man falacies from you... Granted, you're the master of Straw Men.

Now, try to find a rule in the book where declares the point at which a unit is considered to be 'charging'.

Sorry, double post.

What definition of "reach" could possibly be applicable besides "contact"?

Do you mean to say you can only assault units that you can make an important emotional connection with?

Or do you mean that since the model can't move it's own arms, it can't "reach" anything?

 

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.

Declaring a charge doesn't make them locked in combat. Only getting a model into base to base does that. Charging them simply allows you to move within 1" of them.

No, it doesn't.

Why?

Because you may only charge what you can reach, as the rules very clearly say. You can't charge what you can't reach. And in "all cases" if you didn't charge it, you can't be within 1" of it.

This is silly though. If someone doesn't put it in proper format though, we're all wasting our time. There's no ambiguity here folks.

Slipping off topic here... can the models in a unit that don't make it in to BtB be within 1"?

As for the rest of the topic. RAW, you can not assault the squad. Even with the measuring tape that Jesus used to make the holyest of gaming tables.

Because you may only charge what you can reach, as the rules very clearly say. You can't charge what you can't reach. And in "all cases" if you didn't charge it, you can't be within 1" of it.

Nevertheless you're still ignoring the order of the asasult phase. Lets take a different example and say that the units are one slightly behind the other such that both are within range without problems of getting in base contact or anything. You'd move closest to closest first moving the front assaulting model into the closest unit; at this point your charge has fullfilled the requirements for succeeding and not yet measured range or even tryied to contact the second unit. After this you might measure range on the further away yet and be able to move in on or find that your charge against them fails.

The difference with the ringed units is that its blatently obvious that the charge on the inner unit is going to fail but the RAW don't know that and won't know that until you attempt to contact them which occours after the first model moves into the outside unit and makes the charge succeed.

As long as you're following the rules of the assault phase in the order that they're given there isn't a problem, the issue only comes up if you try to enforce the 1" rule retrospectively and rewind the assault phase to make it apply. You wouldn't do this any more than you would attempt to take morale tests at the start of the shooting phase; before you know which units have taken 25% casualties.

You're right that there is no ambiguity though; the impossible to assault trick simply doesn't work.

That's great, but that's not what it says. When you move the first model in, and it is within 1" of a unit you aren't going to charge (not declare a charge, but charge), you've clearly broken the rules.

Your argument is based on there being some sort of artificial sequence that must be obeyed when moving them models that would also then completely trump the rest of the rules in the assault section, and it simply isn't there.

You must follow ALL of the rules. You must follow the basic sequence listed AND you must reach every unit you will charge AND you you must stay 1" away from any model you aren't going to charge.

Sometimes I curious if I've got a different printing of the rulebook or something, because people keep finding concepts (though without rules quotes of them) that aren't in my rulebook anywhere.

Um... my rulebook is still being held hostage (I might be getting it back in July)... but I seem to recall a specific order being given at the begining of the section on assaulting. Relying on memory, of course... but wouldn't that be the "order" you find in question?

What ever happend to this being a game for fun? I guess I missed out on it.

But if someone really wants to try and pull a stunt like this go this route, take a new terminator model and use it for your commander (bigger base so more people can get around him), use the old style terminators for an elite choice (smaller "not quite an inch base" but the one supplied WITH the model). Pull the base to base trick that was suggested and now you have a termie squad that cant be assaulted due to the "not quite and inch" bases. Although if I was ever unfortuate enough to play an opponent who pulled a stunt like this, I would walk away from the game. Call me a poor sport, but IMHO, the guy pulling the stunt is the bad sport.

Thats exactly what it says, if you actaully read the section titled "move charging units" for a change you might notice a series of paragraphs. Seeing as english is normally read starting at the top and moving down to the bottom of the page this means the paragraphs at the top come before the ones at the bottom. Its one thing to teach people the rules but being required to teach english to people so they can read them is another (reminds me of the people who actaullyed needed the clarfication for GW that you multiply before you add when you have a model with a powerfist and a str bonus at the same time).

Sometimes I curious if I've got a different printing of the rulebook or something,

If it makes you feel happier I'm curious if you have a proper rulebook as well.

Relying on memory, of course... but wouldn't that be the "order" you find in question?

Yes, thats the same order that mauleed doesn't want to believe in.

The order is there. It just doesn't say what you claim it does.

Well at least you've understood that my argument isn't based on an artificial sequence but one that actually exists. Thats some progress I guess. If you'd like to explain in what way it doesn't do what I've said it does instead of just saying "I don't believe you!" I'd be happy to help you understand why it does. Its hard to do without a starting point else I'd just be cut and pasting my previous post - which would be pointless.

Although I must say that I'm confused by your method of trying to argue the rules which instead of being anything to do with the rules seems more based on repeated shouting "I don't believe you!" until the other person goes away. For someone who in his previous post called for more rules quotes, you don't have much intrest in using them yourself.

4 pages, and this is still going on???

Come on guys. If someone tries to pull this stunt on you then he/she is being an unethical pratt. In a tournament determine if the player is actually serious and, if so, call over a judge. If in friendly play then let the baby have its bottle and don't play the person again.

Seems like too much effort is being put into an argument that 99.99% of the time won't come up. Are we really that bored these days?

Posted By kwade on 06/18/2006 8:05 AM
4 pages, and this is still going on???

Come on guys. If someone tries to pull this stunt on you then he/she is being an unethical pratt. In a tournament determine if the player is actually serious and, if so, call over a judge. If in friendly play then let the baby have its bottle and don't play the person again.

Seems like too much effort is being put into an argument that 99.99% of the time won't come up. Are we really that bored these days?

Yes, we really are.  That's just what we do here in YMDC. 

Posted By mauleed on 06/16/2006 1:53 PM

Regardless, what you're saying is that unless someone agrees with you, even if the book doesn't, you'll be a tool.

Ed Maule, the most quotable man on earth...

Hymil, you have to follow ALL the rules. There is nothing in the sequence rules that say "ignore the rest of the rules in this section".

 

It seems things have moved on without me, meant to post this sooner.

P1.1: A unit may declare charges against multiple enemy units.
P1.2: A unit may consist of a single model.
C1: A single model may declare charges against multiple units.

P 2.1: (RB p36. "A unit may charge any unit that can be reached by at least one of its models making an Assault move.")
P 2.2: (RB p38. "If the units move is insuficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed.")
C2: A unit that declares charges is required to declare them against units within charge range but is not required to contact all of the targets.

PC1: A single model may declare charges against multiple units.
PC2: A unit that declares charges is required to declare them against units within charge range but is not required to contect them.
Conclusion: A single model may charge multiple enemy units and is successful so long as it contacts one enemy unit.

P2.1 ruins your argument since a model that it is impossiblet o come into base to base contact with is not elidgible to be charged.

No it doesn't. Can it be reached by making an assault move? If yes, then it's valid.

But it notes in the assault rules that you can not at any time be within 1" of a unit that you are not assaulting.

Zubbie:

C2 does not follow from your premises.

Notice P2.2 says that the unit's move must be sufficient. It doesn't say it's potential move or it's move distance, but it's move.

And when following the other rules for that move (that the first move be by the shortest route and that it not be within 1" of a unit you aren't charging), that move is not sufficient.

Again, all of these arguments are based on ignoring very clear portions of the rules to make a conclusion follow limited premises.

Posted By KiMonarrez on 06/19/2006 1:33 PM
No it doesn't. Can it be reached by making an assault move? If yes, then it's valid.

It says "can be reached by at least one of the charging models" so if you have a single model you cannot reach more than one target since you won't be able to reach two units with one model. Then again you could just be reading it wrong and thinking that eligibilty = success.

Besides, my statement also covers the line behind which cannot be reached by tthe charging unit because of lack of space between the first line, so they are not eligible to be charged even if you had enough potential movement. Just accept it is not allowed by RAW and that most opponents will not allow it to impede gameplay anymore than the edge of a raised piece of terrain.

Hymirl, you have to follow ALL the rules. There is nothing in the sequence rules that say "ignore the rest of the rules in this section".

Indeed so. Although you seem to think that the one inch rule is more important than (and thus overrides) the rule about having legally got a model into base contact with a target - thus succeeding the charge. Trying to argue that I'm picking and choosing without regard for the rules doesn't stand up when you're doing exactly the same thing yourself.