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.

Alright so I posted the relevant rule and where it should be if it applied to enemy units in my opinion, plus the fact that they use the word enemies...

So the question is, can I fire on enemy engaged units that I charged this turn?

Yes obviously I need to be height 2 or on a side that the charging unit isn't on so I have LOS, but my buddy and I are trading this rule differently.

It obviously applies to my troops, we both agree there, but he believes I cannot fire at his engaged models either. I can see his viewpoint, my models are enemy models to his models, but why would they call my models enemy models when talking to me? Why would this not be under the checklist area where it would be undeniably understandable and why wouldn't it be written as, "engaged models cannot make ranged attacks nor can they be fired upon without express permission?"

And again, why would it not be in the checklist spot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess "fired upon" might be poor word choice, "or be the target of a shooting/magic attack unless otherwise specified"

Which as you'll see 2/3 beneficial spells allow...I don't know, I just feel saying engaged and putting it in the check list would have been the correct call if my buddy is right about their intent.

Which is why, I don't believe that is their intent.

in base contact with enemies = engaged

I get that it could mean that, but again, wouldn't they say that? Where else in the book/rules do they call the controlling players models enemies? No where I can find. They always reference the controlling players models as friendly... So why in this one instance is the rule using verbage they didn't use before or since, placing it not where it should be, and not using a word they created that would 100% explain the situation better?

Is it a holdover from first edition that should have been self explanatory had I read it last edition with different verbiage?

I don't understand your problem...

It seems clear to me. Is the target in base contact? If so then you cannot shoot them UNLESS you have permission (Bane Chant).

When you charge a unit, you have to make base contact... this means you cannot shoot the unit you charged even if you have horse archers that can shoot over your men etc.

I guess because nowhere else in the book are the controllers armies referred to as enemies.
Or because it's not in the picking your target area.
Or because they don't say "engaged models" which would mean both friendly and enemy units.

Which were the reasons I have to begin with.

When shooting spells this is one of the exceptions to the rules of normal shooting: (had to use online version because I have no access to book atm). The only time you can target a friendly model is with spells, which the book has special rules for. Hence why shooting attacks says enemies etc.

Some spells can only target a friendly unit
– this is marked as ‘friendly unit only’.
Note that such spells cannot normally
target the wizard itself and cannot target
friendly allied units – so a wizard from
your main force can’t bane chant an allied
unit for example, and a wizard from your
allied force can’t heal a unit from your
main force

FratHammer wrote:
I get that it could mean that, but again, wouldn't they say that? Where else in the book/rules do they call the controlling players models enemies? No where I can find. They always reference the controlling players models as friendly... So why in this one instance is the rule using verbage they didn't use before or since, placing it not where it should be, and not using a word they created that would 100% explain the situation better?

Is it a holdover from first edition that should have been self explanatory had I read it last edition with different verbiage?

They're enemy unit from the perspective of the unit you're trying to target. The wording is perfectly fine.

Swaz, yes I even posted a picture above which shows the only exceptions to their own rules are on friendly engaged models.

Swaz and Fang, notice they didn't say, the enemy of your enemy models are allowed to have certain beneficial spells cast on them. Why? Because it makes no sense. Also, since only enemy units can ever be in base contact with you should mean the word enemy is even more superfluous, unless it was there to identify something... Which in my opinion it is.

I wish Mantic would answer the question. I emailed them last night and they said, we spoke with a rules writer and obviously you didn't know they are engaged in a charge, which is the only way 2 units can ever be in base contact with one another.

I was like...duh? Can you answer the question?
Obviously that's not what I said, but it was what I was thinking. I mean did I not phrase my question correctly and use book examples enough? If they wrote engaged models, it wouldn't be a question, but referring to your own units as the enemy of my enemy is not a good way to write a rule

The problem is we (I assume we) don't actually know what the question is....

Can you explain the question as you would to a simple 5 year old for me? Maybe I am missing something but im not sure what it is you are actually trying to say... and I have read your OP a few times now.

Can I make a ranged attack against a unit in the same turn I charged in the movement phase with another unit.

Keep in mind I play ogres. Lets say hypothetically I'm shooting over goblins who have just charged. Or assume I'm firing into their flank when they are being charged from the front by warriors.

My thoughts on why it's a yes I think I've made clear, but my buddy and Fang say no, because they believe the above passage is not referring to my enemies, but the enjoyed of my enemies, which is me... Which is where I lose them.

As I've said, why not put it in the box that you check when choosing a target, and why not say, "engaged units"... Yet Fang and my buddy seem to think it's quite clear...

I just think of they meant both engaged units, they would have just said, engaged units.

No you cannot shoot into melee, unless you are specifically allowed (bane chant and heal).

Sorry dude... it seems clear what the answer is (the answer everyone is saying). I don't see it any other way.

Cool cool,I guess I'm the only person who thinks calling my own units enemies is odd.

I'll send a request in to Mantic that they word it without calling your own units enemies. I appreciate the feedback guys.

It's perfectly normal to call units friends or enemies based on the viewpoint of the unit that is the subject of the sentence, not the viewpoint of the reader. This is how it's done everywhere, including WHFB.

Pretty much.

The first photo'd set of rules is referring to units belonging to both sides ("can't shoot" belong to the player whose turn it is, "can't be shot" belong to the other player). The unit, not the player is the target of the sentence, so "enemies" is relative to whichever unit is being considered.

This isn't a case of bad or ambiguous wording, so I don't think you're going to get the sort of response you're looking for on this.

Any unit that is in base contact with a unit from the other side (they've either charged or been charged this turn):

1. Cannot make any ranged attacks
2. Cannot be targeted by ranged attacks

...unless specified otherwise.

It's that simple and the same as many other games. The meaning of "friendly units" and "enemy units" is pretty clear (and self-explanatory) as is the context in which they are used.

The only way in which you can both shoot a target and attack it in melee in the same turn is with either surge or an overrun after killing an individual. (Unless you're casting heal / bane chant on a friendly unit)

Behold my paint skills!.

FratHammer wrote:
Alright so I posted the relevant rule and where it should be if it applied to enemy units in my opinion, plus the fact that they use the word enemies...

You're overthinking it - it's pretty simple. Check it out, this is the quote in question:

"Units that are in base contact with enemies cannot use or be targeted by ranged attacks unless specifically allowed."

Your Unit has charged Other Unit. They are enemies to each other. This is the physical situation that exists:

Your Unit is in base contact with an enemy - Other Unit, so cannot use or be targeted by ranged attacks unless specifically allowed.
Other Unit is in base contact with an enemy - Your Unit, so cannot use or be targeted by ranged attacks unless specifically allowed.

Both exist simultaneously, as both are enemies to each other and are each in base contact with each other so the rule applies to both equally.

It's that simple.

Matt, were it written in the rules as you wrote it I wouldn't have had a problem.

Judge, calling my units the enemy of my enemy was the confusing part. But, yeah, everyone but me thinks that's normal so I acquiesced.

Again, I just feel that if it were put in the picking targets spot, and worded how matt put it, I would have immediately understood. Even how judge put it is fine, just longer.