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.

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.

I'm not sure I follow you mauleed.
"If the units move is insuficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed."
What's wrong with that?
Once the unit makes a move and it contacts one enemy unit it has successfuly charged, regardless of how many units it wished to charge in the first place.

Ignore my previous comment Zubbie, it was off base.

Regardless, what you've proved is that you can declare a charge against multiple units with a single model.

However you have not proven that they can actually charge.

Your argument fails to address the section of the rules that say:

1. You can only charge what you can contact

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

...and in fact your conclusion is in direct conflict with those rules.

I'm still looking for any argument that doesn't ignore those two rules, as all of these seem to.

 

My argument isn't in conflict with those rules at all since I've taken care of contact, ie. you need only contact one enemy unit not all of them.
I've also handled the 1" rule since you're charging a second (or third) unit that you meet all of the other reqirements needed to charge save contact which, as I've illustrated, isn't required beyond the first unit.

Why do you keep saying you only need to contact one enemy unit and not all of them? It's key to your argument, but not explicitely in the rules.

Posted By derekatkinson on 06/20/2006 1:09 PM
Just shoot the damn squad :p

That's right genestealers/bloodletters/Assault Terminators/Hormagaunts/Avatar......just shoot them instead!

Why do you keep saying you only need to contact one enemy unit and not all of them? It's key to your argument, but not explicitely in the rules.

RB p38. "If the units move is insuficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed."

That's why.

Posted By Zubbiefish on 06/20/2006 1:16 PM

Why do you keep saying you only need to contact one enemy unit and not all of them? It's key to your argument, but not explicitely in the rules.

RB p38. "If the units move is insuficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed."

That's why.

The reverse is not necissarily true. That is just one possible stop to the charge. A second problem would be discovering that the second unit was not possible to come in contact with because of model placement which would also cause a failure, even though the distance was enough. That above quote just means that not reaching any targets auto fails (obviously). 

As was said, the reverse of a statement is not necessarily true.

If you can't reach one unit, the charge fails does not mean that if you reach just one it succeeds. Simple logical error there my friend.

If you can't land one punch, you lose the fight. Landing one punch means you automatically win. Obviously this is false. And that's essentially what you're arguing.

Posted By mauleed on 06/20/2006 7:35 PM

If you can't land one punch, you lose the fight. Landing one punch means you automatically win. Obviously this is false. 

Unless you're Mike Tyson in his prime.  Anyone else remember the Tyson-Spinks fight?  Over in 90 seconds.

Your example sucks Ed.  Try another.

His example is fine, not in all cases does landing one punch mean a win.

Reaching one unit guarantees a successful charge, if you are charging one unit. Just like one punch wins the match in the Mike Tyson fight you are referencing.

Posted By snooggums on 06/20/2006 9:56 PM
His example is fine, not in all cases does landing one punch mean a win.

I don't know. This one time I hit a guy really hard, and then he fell down and I ran away, but I think I won.

Dude, this thread is six pages?! Why? Why must this debate go on. Obviously no side is going to concede to the others point of view so why waste the time repeating the same crap for 3 pages, sighting irrelevant examples, lame analogies, etc. Sometimes I think you guys are missing the big picture here. Firstly, the likelyhood of this occuring in a game is limited since you are fogetting the almighty shooting phase. And if someone wanted to be a dumba$$ and pull this stunt, then I would make him pay dearly for it in the shooting phase. So again the likelyhood of this continuing to occur during a turn or the course of the game is severely reduced. Remember most dedicated assault units still have a capacity to shoot before they assault.

Capt K

P 37. Charging units must attempt to engage as many opposing models as possible with as many of thier models that can reach the fight.

You don't have to actualy engage all of them you must only try.
You fail if you don't get to one unit but if you get at least one you're OK.
That's why I keep harping on the same thing. I posted the wrong quote before...
Is that what you're looking for?

You continue to neglect to reference "in all cases, you can't be within 1" of a unit you didn't charge" (not declared a charge against, but charged)

Until your argument deals with that, it will be false.

I am sorry Mauleed you misquoted...

BGB p.37 "You may not move models within 1" of enemy models from any unit they are not charging."

And here is the passage you are forgetting...

BGB p.38 "If a unit's move is insufficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed."

You have not proven that charging = base-to-base. In fact the only time they mention Base-to-base is when you move the first model the shortest route.

Here are the facts:

1) Charges happen between units not models

2) A unit may declare a charge against multiple units

3) The first or single model must make it to Base-to-base

4) All other models in the unit must move in as much as possible to engage as many enemy models as possible.

5) The only condition for failing a charge is that you don't reach at least one unit.


It is obvious in the rules that in order to have a sucsessful charge you need only reach one unit of the several you are charging.

Mahu, you seem to forget page 36:

"A unit may charge any enemy unit that can be reached by at least one of its models..."

You can charge units you can reach. Period.

That is of course unless your definition of "reach" is vastly different from mine.

Seriously people, at this point, if you are arguing this point, I'd suggest actually reading ALL the assault rules. There is no ambiguity here, just alot of very foolish people trying to make a point based on half the rules.

Let's examine where and in which context these rules are.

Declare Charges

BGB p. 36 "A unit may charge any enemy unit that can be reached by at least one of its models..."

Move Charging Units

BGB p.37 "You may not move models within 1" of enemy models from any unit they are not charging."

BGB p.38 "If a unit's move is insufficient to reach at least one target unit then the charge does not proceed."

Please examine the tense of the term charging and get back to me when you come up with the logical conclusion.

Mahu:

Cannot you not grasp that there is a difference between charging and charging a particular unit?

That is the crucial difference you are missing.

I see no difference, I may charge any unit in range, I can move within 1" of any unit I am charging and the only thing I need to be able to charge successfully is make it into contact with at least one unit I am charging.

So in this case if the interspaced units are within charge range, I can declare a charge against both units, I am charging both units so I can get as close as I want to, and as long as I reach one, the charge is successful.

So in this case if the interspaced units are within charge range, I can declare a charge against both units, I am charging both units so I can get as close as I want to, and as long as I reach one, the charge is successful.

No you are not charging both units. Unless you can reach at least one enemy model in the unit with one of your charging models you have not charged the enemy unit.

When you declare a charge against both units you have declared a charge against both units; nothing more.

In this particular case, you will not be able to move your models into base contact with the enemy without coming within 1" of an enemy model in a unit that is not being charged (being reached by at least one model in your unit).

So the charge would indeed fail.

I'm still baffled why you ever argue rules Mahu.

I keep saying this and nobody seems to graso this simply concept.

BGB p.37 "You may not move models within 1" of enemy models from any unit they are not charging."

Charging = Present tense, or the act of actually moving the models towards the target unit.

No you are not charging both units. Unless you can reach at least one enemy model in the unit with one of your charging models you have not charged the enemy unit.

I am charging both units (as in I am doing the act of charging), but I have only engaged (somehow you guys think that equals charging) the unit I make it into contact with.

Mahu, you posted the quote yourself that contradicts your arugment:

BGB p. 36 "A unit may charge any enemy unit that can be reached by at least one of its models..."

If your models cannot reach at least one model in the enemy unit they are NOT actually charging that unit.

Move along people, nothing to see here. Again, it seems that nobody is going to concede their points, so agree to disagree and think about the other parts to the story....like the shooting phase. Sometimes these debates get sucked into situational vacuums that may not even occur in a game. Capt K

Posted By yakface on 06/21/2006 8:35 AM

Mahu, you posted the quote yourself that contradicts your arugment:

BGB p. 36 "A unit may charge any enemy unit that can be reached by at least one of its models..."

If your models cannot reach at least one model in the enemy unit they are NOT actually charging that unit.

The only thing that quote says is the restriction upon which units you may charge, not which unit you actually engage. I can charge multiple units, but I only engage those units I make it into Base-to-base with (again with only the first model).

So as I see that people are going to continue with the senseless arguement about what is essentially a rules exploit, I am going to take CaptK's advice and leave this thread. Until the other side starts to argue what the rules actually say, there is no point for me to continue. Agree to disagree, and have fun on the battlefield.

Posted By Mahu on 06/21/2006 9:09 AM

Posted By yakface on 06/21/2006 8:35 AM

Mahu, you posted the quote yourself that contradicts your arugment:

BGB p. 36 "A unit may charge any enemy unit that can be reached by at least one of its models..."

If your models cannot reach at least one model in the enemy unit they are NOT actually charging that unit.

The only thing that quote says is the restriction upon which units you may charge, not which unit you actually engage. I can charge multiple units, but I only engage those units I make it into Base-to-base with (again with only the first model).

So as I see that people are going to continue with the senseless arguement about what is essentially a rules exploit, I am going to take CaptK's advice and leave this thread. Until the other side starts to argue what the rules actually say, there is no point for me to continue. Agree to disagree, and have fun on the battlefield.

I don't know why your panties are all in a wad when all the people saying it is illegal said that they willingly ignore it for playability reasons on the first page of the thread. We are just pointing out that it is illegal by RAW, since you cannot charge a unit that you cannot reach (since that is the only type of unit listed as being eligible to be charged).

Exactly. But those same people are carrying this thread six pages, when it shouldn't have made it past 3. Capt K

Posted By CaptKaruthors on 06/21/2006 10:25 AM
Exactly. But those same people are varrying this thread six pages, when it shouldn't have made it past 3. Capt K

No, people that are ignoring RAW because they want to justify their playing it as possible to charge are dragging it out to six pages.  They are trying to make the RAW fit their approach instead of just admitting that the rule has issues and admit they just work around it.

Indeed. But sometimes, even with RAW, situations like this would only occur once....and even then are not likely to happen since there are other factors that come into play during a turn...like shooting....please...a show of hands....who here would position their models like this? Other than the off chance to potentially block an assault, this positioning exposes not one, but two units to getting hit with template weapons. Not only that, but most dedicated assault units have the ability to shoot before they assault. There are much better ways to deny an assault and quite frankly, this would be the last one I'd choose. Capt K

Effectiveness has nothing to do with legality.