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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Are you saying that HBs can charge if a unit is up to 15" away, but that they can only charge a unit that is up to 12" away?

Yes, this is exactly what the Acrobatic rule does. Though the "HBs can charge if a unit is up to 15" away" part of the rule only kicks in if they Advance.

No, they can declare a charge if an enemy unit is within 15" away, and as demonstrated by the Overwatch rules, you declare a charge against a unit. Declaring a charge is not just selecting a unit that is charging, you are also selecting the unit that it charges. Therefore, it gets the 15" charge. I outlined this in my post previous to this one.

If a codex/unit specific rule. It’s not written in error. Codex
Has always trumped brb in cases like this. Codex are advanced rules.

It’s pretty simple really, and is not game breaking. Box cars on the dice roll and +3 is not going to happen very often.

 doctortom wrote:
No, they can declare a charge if an enemy unit is within 15" away, and as demonstrated by the Overwatch rules, you declare a charge against a unit. Declaring a charge is not just selecting a unit that is charging, you are also selecting the unit that it charges. Therefore, it gets the 15" charge. I outlined this in my post previous to this one.

Except nothing allows it to select a unit beyond the 12" permitted in the BRB

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
No, they can declare a charge if an enemy unit is within 15" away, and as demonstrated by the Overwatch rules, you declare a charge against a unit. Declaring a charge is not just selecting a unit that is charging, you are also selecting the unit that it charges. Therefore, it gets the 15" charge. I outlined this in my post previous to this one.

Except nothing allows it to select a unit beyond the 12" permitted in the BRB

It doesn't matter - you get permission to declare a charge against an enemy within 15" with Acrobatic. From Overwatch - "Each time a chage is declared against a unit", so part of declaring a charge is selecting the unit that you get to declare the charge against. As Acrobatic lets you declare a charge against an enemy within 15", part of that charge declaration is declaring which unit is being charged. Declaring a charge covers both steps 1 and 2 (as indicated by step 3 - Overwatch), so anything like Acrobatic which modified the distance for declaring a charge modifies it for both steps (choose unit to charge with) and 2 (choose target).

 doctortom wrote:
As Acrobatic lets you declare a charge against an enemy within 15",

No. It. Doesn't. Nothing in the rule allows you to declare a charge against an enemy 15" away. It allows you to declare a charge IF there are enemies 15" away, but does not change the 12" limit from the BRB.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
No, they can declare a charge if an enemy unit is within 15" away, and as demonstrated by the Overwatch rules, you declare a charge against a unit. Declaring a charge is not just selecting a unit that is charging, you are also selecting the unit that it charges. Therefore, it gets the 15" charge. I outlined this in my post previous to this one.

Except nothing allows it to select a unit beyond the 12" permitted in the BRB

It doesn't matter - you get permission to declare a charge against an enemy within 15" with Acrobatic. From Overwatch - "Each time a chage is declared against a unit", so part of declaring a charge is selecting the unit that you get to declare the charge against. As Acrobatic lets you declare a charge against an enemy within 15", part of that charge declaration is declaring which unit is being charged. Declaring a charge covers both steps 1 and 2 (as indicated by step 3 - Overwatch), so anything like Acrobatic which modified the distance for declaring a charge modifies it for both steps (choose unit to charge with) and 2 (choose target).

That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

This is the complete opposite of the truth. doctortom is literally making up rules.

The Rule says you can declare a charge even after advancing as long as an enemy is within 15".

It does not say you may select a unit as a charge target if its more than 12" away.


As i said earlier, the INTENT was clear, but the actual rules as written do not allow you to charge something more than 12" away.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
As Acrobatic lets you declare a charge against an enemy within 15",

No. It. Doesn't. Nothing in the rule allows you to declare a charge against an enemy 15" away. It allows you to declare a charge IF there are enemies 15" away, but does not change the 12" limit from the BRB.

Acrobatic lets you. I gave you a rules quotation that shows that declaring a charge includes choosing the targets you are declaring a charge against. Any special rule that modifies declaring a charge also modifies the distance for choosing the target. Given the rules quotation that indicates that declaring a charge includes selecting the unit being charged, your citing the BRB is invalid, since the rule you are relying on gets modified. You have to provide evidence that declaring a charge does not include choosing a target, in order to try to counter what it says in overwatch about declaring a charge against a target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The Rule says you can declare a charge even after advancing as long as an enemy is within 15".

It does not say you may select a unit as a charge target if its more than 12" away.


As i said earlier, the INTENT was clear, but the actual rules as written do not allow you to charge something more than 12" away.

See above. I agree that the intent is clear. I disgree that the RAW doesn't allow you to. You have to show me that declaring a charge does not include choosing the target; I have given a rules quotation that shows that it does - modifying the distance you can declare a charge includes modifying the distance to the target units. Your problem is that you are assuming that declaring a charge includes only selecting the unit that will be making the charge, but I have shown it includes selecting the unit being charged.

Nvm

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The Rule says you can declare a charge even after advancing as long as an enemy is within 15".

It does not say you may select a unit as a charge target if its more than 12" away.


As i said earlier, the INTENT was clear, but the actual rules as written do not allow you to charge something more than 12" away.

The intent is what matters. RaW cannot account for every case of people reading rules in bad faith. This is what is happening here.
I am with tom.
Moreover, I feel that RaW is as clear as RaI - what is left out of the RaW is as important as what is in RaW.
What is NOT written is a something like this: "Note that the charging unit cannot charge any unit that is more distant than 12" at the time of the charge declaration."
This is not added because the RaW represents the RaI to anyone who is not reading in bad faith - this being that the RaW is supposed to have a practical effect on the table, and the only way for this to be the case is if it is possible for the charging unit to declare a charge against and to possibly succeed in a charge against a unit up to 15" away.

It seems as clear as day that this rule lets you charge a unit 15" away.

Imagine a scenario: Banshee unit with a single enemy unit on the table. This unit is 15" away. The banshees can declare a charge, and as there is only one eligible unit, it can declare the charge against that unit. As somebody has already stated, the action of declaring the charge includes the step of selecting the target unit, and in this case, is modified beyond the core rule by this ability.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
However, there's literally NO reason for GW to give them this rule without them being able to select a unit within 12" also. Therefore, your correctness is about as relevant as me saying that space is big.

Yes, there is. It allows them to charge after advancing.

Not to mention that +3" to charge distance makes them quite a lot more likely to succeed on the charge roll (average distance is 10", up from 7", and they've got a 28% chance of making a max-distance charge, up from 2.8% for units without the +3").

May I suggest the "Chaos Boon" Stratagem in the Death Guard Codex as the basis of the next dumpster fire thread? A result of a 12 allows you to create a Daemon Prince, but there's no model with this name in the Codex, so RAW you clearly have to use an Index or Codex: CSM Daemon Prince. It's not in the FAQ so RAI is obviously RAW, and saying otherwise is literally making rules up. Am I doing it right?

Banshees can definitely, 100% select and Charge units up to 15" away using the rule in the OP or it simply wouldn't exist. Pick the verbiage apart all you like (and do email GW FAQ hotline instead of just wasting air here) but the meaning is very clear and how to play it is very clear. Good luck trying to tell your opponent mid-game it doesn't function. You'll be laughed off the battlefield as you keep claiming it doesn't work along with something about your Conscripts being T20... just don't do it! The rule does allow longer Charge declaration and movement. It simply does.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
May I suggest the "Chaos Boon" Stratagem in the Death Guard Codex as the basis of the next dumpster fire thread? A result of a 12 allows you to create a Daemon Prince, but there's no model with this name in the Codex, so RAW you clearly have to use an Index or Codex: CSM Daemon Prince. It's not in the FAQ so RAI is obviously RAW, and saying otherwise is literally making rules up. Am I doing it right?

Banshees can definitely, 100% select and Charge units up to 15" away using the rule in the OP or it simply wouldn't exist. Pick the verbiage apart all you like (and do email GW FAQ hotline instead of just wasting air here) but the meaning is very clear and how to play it is very clear. Good luck trying to tell your opponent mid-game it doesn't function. You'll be laughed off the battlefield as you keep claiming it doesn't work along with something about your Conscripts being T20... just don't do it! The rule does allow longer Charge declaration and movement. It simply does.

Well said!

Also, I'm not even sure Warhammer 40k can even be played at all since nowhere in the rulebook is "roll a dice" defined.

 Larks wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
May I suggest the "Chaos Boon" Stratagem in the Death Guard Codex as the basis of the next dumpster fire thread? A result of a 12 allows you to create a Daemon Prince, but there's no model with this name in the Codex, so RAW you clearly have to use an Index or Codex: CSM Daemon Prince. It's not in the FAQ so RAI is obviously RAW, and saying otherwise is literally making rules up. Am I doing it right?

Banshees can definitely, 100% select and Charge units up to 15" away using the rule in the OP or it simply wouldn't exist. Pick the verbiage apart all you like (and do email GW FAQ hotline instead of just wasting air here) but the meaning is very clear and how to play it is very clear. Good luck trying to tell your opponent mid-game it doesn't function. You'll be laughed off the battlefield as you keep claiming it doesn't work along with something about your Conscripts being T20... just don't do it! The rule does allow longer Charge declaration and movement. It simply does.

Well said!

Also, I'm not even sure Warhammer 40k can even be played at all since nowhere in the rulebook is "roll a dice" defined.

Yep, agree with you both. I can't even conceive of anybody I play against raising this is a rules query. Do people who do things like this get any enjoyment out of the game at all? It must be a bloody nightmare playing a game with that mindset!

Jimperial wrote:
Yep, agree with you both. I can't even conceive of anybody I play against raising this is a rules query. Do people who do things like this get any enjoyment out of the game at all? It must be a bloody nightmare playing a game with that mindset!

Why yes, I do enjoy playing the game by the rules. I do not enjoy the game when people break the rules. Is that so hard to understand?

More than "following the rules" making a game fun, the most important thing is for both players to be following the *same* rules, with the same interpretation thereof.

If one player is parsing the HB rule correctly and declares a Charge at 14", and their opponent is tilting at windmills and insists that isn't allowed, then it's not fun for either player.

And in this totally hypothetical matchup, the one not following the rules would be the guy claiming RAW prevents the thing the Acrobatic rule literally gives you special permission to do. Which is... yeah, weird and utterly incorrect and in terrible spirit.

Luckily, 99% of folk aren't that completely hypothetical guy and understand how the rule works. Namely that HB can declare and attempt charges on units up to 15" away. Which is what the rule says, in not very complex English.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If one player is parsing the HB rule correctly and declares a Charge at 14", and their opponent is tilting at windmills and insists that isn't allowed, then it's not fun for either player

Did you mean Incorrectly? Because that is what that player is doing. The player suggesting they play by the rules is in the right.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Jimperial wrote:
Yep, agree with you both. I can't even conceive of anybody I play against raising this is a rules query. Do people who do things like this get any enjoyment out of the game at all? It must be a bloody nightmare playing a game with that mindset!

Why yes, I do enjoy playing the game by the rules. I do not enjoy the game when people break the rules. Is that so hard to understand?

The problem here is that you're lying. SImple as that. You don't play the game by any of these nonsensical "grammatical errors". You're lying to the forum when you say so. You're simply bringing up consistent nonsense threads to show to the internet how savvy you are at reading words and misconstruing their intent. That's fine. More power to you, go enjoy that momentary feeling of superiority.

 Elbows wrote:
The problem here is that you're lying. SImple as that. You don't play the game by any of these nonsensical "grammatical errors". You're lying to the forum when you say so. You're simply bringing up consistent nonsense threads to show to the internet how savvy you are at reading words and misconstruing their intent. That's fine. More power to you, go enjoy that momentary feeling of superiority.

I assure you I am sincere. When I play board games I play them by the rules. That is what I enjoy. I created this thread for two reasons. One was to discuss the wording, the other was to inform people in case they have been unintentionally playing this rule wrong and breaking the rules as a result.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If one player is parsing the HB rule correctly and declares a Charge at 14", and their opponent is tilting at windmills and insists that isn't allowed, then it's not fun for either player

Did you mean Incorrectly? Because that is what that player is doing. The player suggesting they play by the rules is in the right.

Your last sentence is correct.

However you are deliberately misreading the rules and arguing with anyone who tries to explain where you're going wrong. So that player who's playing by the rules is not you.

As I say, the GW FAQ hotline email exists if you care to use it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
However you are deliberately misreading the rules and arguing with anyone who tries to explain where you're going wrong.

I am using the rules exactly as printed in the codex. There is no ambiguity in this instance.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
However you are deliberately misreading the rules and arguing with anyone who tries to explain where you're going wrong.

I am using the rules exactly as printed in the codex. There is no ambiguity in this instance.

The rulebook also tell you there may be more advanced rules than the basic ones. And those rules may expand, complement or allow further actions than the basic ones in the rulebook yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

 Lord Perversor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
However you are deliberately misreading the rules and arguing with anyone who tries to explain where you're going wrong.

I am using the rules exactly as printed in the codex. There is no ambiguity in this instance.

The rulebook also tell you there may be more advanced rules than the basic ones. And those rules may expand, complement or allow further actions than the basic ones in the rulebook yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

I do not refuse to acknowledge this. There are several rules that allow you to charge after advancing for example, or to ignore the -1 to hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons. There are lots of rules that remove or alter restrictions from the main rulebook. For example, Null Zone denies invulnerable saves despite the rulebook saying you can choose to use your invulnerable save.

The Acrobatic rule does not "expand, complement or allow further actions than the basic ones in the rulebook" beyond allowing a charge to happen after an advance if enemies are within 15". A charge is limited to 12", and the Acrobatic rule does not change this limit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lord Perversor wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
However you are deliberately misreading the rules and arguing with anyone who tries to explain where you're going wrong.

I am using the rules exactly as printed in the codex. There is no ambiguity in this instance.

The rulebook also tell you there may be more advanced rules than the basic ones. And those rules may expand, complement or allow further actions than the basic ones in the rulebook yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

I do not refuse to acknowledge this. There are several rules that allow you to charge after advancing for example, or to ignore the -1 to hit penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons. There are lots of rules that remove or alter restrictions from the main rulebook. For example, Null Zone denies invulnerable saves despite the rulebook saying you can choose to use your invulnerable save.

The Acrobatic rule does not "expand, complement or allow further actions than the basic ones in the rulebook" beyond allowing a charge to happen after an advance if enemies are within 15". A charge is limited to 12", and the Acrobatic rule does not change this limit.

So be allowed to declare a charge at 15" and then resolve it as normal 2d6 and adding 3" to charge don't allow 15" charges?

Because you understand that an advanced rule that allows to declare charges beyond the normal range limitation don't affect somehow the basic rule about charge distance?.

 Lord Perversor wrote:
So be allowed to declare a charge at 15" and then resolve it as normal 2d6 and adding 3" to charge don't allow 15" charges?

The rule does not allow you to declare a charge at 15". It allows you to declare a charge after advancing if there are enemies within 15". You're still limited to the 12" range by the BRB for declaring, though if you roll 2 sixes you'll be able to move 15", the same way Tyranids with Adrenal Glands are still limited to 12" but can move an extra inch.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lord Perversor wrote:
So be allowed to declare a charge at 15" and then resolve it as normal 2d6 and adding 3" to charge don't allow 15" charges?

The rule does not allow you to declare a charge at 15". It allows you to declare a charge after advancing if there are enemies within 15". You're still limited to the 12" range by the BRB for declaring, though if you roll 2 sixes you'll be able to move 15", the same way Tyranids with Adrenal Glands are still limited to 12" but can move an extra inch.

Yes, because it makes perfect sense for GW to add such a rule, and not just word it like Adrenal Glands.

nekooni wrote:
Yes, because it makes perfect sense for GW to add such a rule, and not just word it like Adrenal Glands.

GW works in mysterious ways. Ghazghkull used to be able to outflank with Kommandos. Until they errata it the rule is clear. You might not like it or agree with it, but the rules are the rules. Feel free to "house rule" it if it offends you so. I'll stick to playing by the rules in the rulebooks.

On that note, this discussion seems to be just going around in circles, so it's probably time to put it to bed.