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.

 don_mondo wrote:


Actually, you only have to analyze 12".

No, because it is possible that with 12" you do not move through difficult terrain and with some other result you do. Only the initial charger needs to move in shortest possible route, the others don't have to. That's why 12" move may allow some models go around difficult terrain, while lesser result forces them to go through it.


And yes, it is bizarre that while they changed many other rules to work mode by model basis, they did not change this one, even though that would've been an easy way to avoid this mess.

 Crimson wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:


Actually, you only have to analyze 12".

No, because it is possible that with 12" you do not move through difficult terrain and with some other result you do. Only the initial charger needs to move in shortest possible route, the others don't have to. That's why 12" move may allow some models go around difficult terrain, while lesser result forces them to go through it.


And yes, it is bizarre that while they changed many other rules to work mode by model basis, they did not change this one, even though that would've been an easy way to avoid this mess.

That's why you MUST follow the guidelines laid out for launching an assault when measuring. I personally can't think of a situation where 12" would put you in B2B with as many models as possible and not go through terrain but 10" or less or whatever would cause you to go through the terrain to meet the same guys in B2B.

 Kevin949 wrote:

That's why you MUST follow the guidelines laid out for launching an assault when measuring. I personally can't think of a situation where 12" would put you in B2B with as many models as possible and not go through terrain but 10" or less or whatever would cause you to go through the terrain to meet the same guys in B2B.

What? That is actually quite common situation. Some of the enemies are behind a small piece of terrain while others are in front of it. Now if with high enough charge move your models can go around this piece of terrain to reach the guys behind it, but with a lower result they can't and they have to go through the terrain.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

That's why you MUST follow the guidelines laid out for launching an assault when measuring. I personally can't think of a situation where 12" would put you in B2B with as many models as possible and not go through terrain but 10" or less or whatever would cause you to go through the terrain to meet the same guys in B2B.

What? That is actually quite common situation. Some of the enemies are behind a small piece of terrain while others are in front of it. Now if with high enough charge move your models can go around this piece of terrain to reach the guys behind it, but with a lower result they can't and they have to go through the terrain.

Ok, so lets say that situation occurs...you still have to roll for difficult terrain because of the possibility of going through it but if you happen to roll high enough and don't have to go through it you're not suffering the initiative penalty.

But the rule asks if each model can do it using the shortest possible route, no?

 Mannahnin wrote:
But the rule asks if each model can do it using the shortest possible route, no?

No. Only thre initial charger has to use shortest possible route.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But the rule asks if each model can do it using the shortest possible route, no?

No, but it's implied. As it says you must move into b2b with a model that is not already in b2b if it is within reach and within coherency of another model that has already charged. If it can't, it must move into b2b with a model that has a charging model in b2b with it already. It goes on, but you get the drift.

So it doesn't actually say shortest distance possible but having to maintain coherency and moving models within coherency of the first charger. So that could limit your options and does kind of imply shortest distance, but does not necessitate it for any but the first charging model.

Good call, thanks.

I think that since strict RAW requires time travel, there's considerable leeway in solutions here. I think just ignoring the movement impediment (but not the I penalty) is the best one, because checking for all possible routes beforehand is incredibly tedious.

 Crimson wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:


Actually, you only have to analyze 12".

No, because it is possible that with 12" you do not move through difficult terrain and with some other result you do. Only the initial charger needs to move in shortest possible route, the others don't have to. That's why 12" move may allow some models go around difficult terrain, while lesser result forces them to go through it.


And yes, it is bizarre that while they changed many other rules to work mode by model basis, they did not change this one, even though that would've been an easy way to avoid this mess.

See, there's your mistake in the bold. You have to check shortest route for ALL models. Might want to check the FAQs.

Page 22 ¬ Charge Move, Charging Through Difficult Terrain.
Change the first sentence to read “If, when charging, one or
more models have to move through difficult terrain in order to
reach the enemy by the shortest possible route, the unit must
make a Difficult Terrain test (see page 90).”

And that's why you only have to figure it out using a 12" potential charge.

Ah I see. They changed that. That simplifies things somewhat.

Aha! Thought I read it somewhere. Thanks, Mondo!

Indeed, thanks for that mondo.

 don_mondo wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:


Actually, you only have to analyze 12".

No, because it is possible that with 12" you do not move through difficult terrain and with some other result you do. Only the initial charger needs to move in shortest possible route, the others don't have to. That's why 12" move may allow some models go around difficult terrain, while lesser result forces them to go through it.


And yes, it is bizarre that while they changed many other rules to work mode by model basis, they did not change this one, even though that would've been an easy way to avoid this mess.

See, there's your mistake in the bold. You have to check shortest route for ALL models. Might want to check the FAQs.

Page 22 ¬ Charge Move, Charging Through Difficult Terrain.
Change the first sentence to read “If, when charging, one or
more models have to move through difficult terrain in order to
reach the enemy by the shortest possible route, the unit must
make a Difficult Terrain test (see page 90).”

And that's why you only have to figure it out using a 12" potential charge.

Well the shortest route would be to the closest model for every single charging unit, which would mean no 3d6 if everyone could get to the closest model without crossing, regardless of whether they cross difficult terrain to base the second closest model.

 don_mondo wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:


Actually, you only have to analyze 12".

No, because it is possible that with 12" you do not move through difficult terrain and with some other result you do. Only the initial charger needs to move in shortest possible route, the others don't have to. That's why 12" move may allow some models go around difficult terrain, while lesser result forces them to go through it.


And yes, it is bizarre that while they changed many other rules to work mode by model basis, they did not change this one, even though that would've been an easy way to avoid this mess.

See, there's your mistake in the bold. You have to check shortest route for ALL models. Might want to check the FAQs.

Page 22 ¬ Charge Move, Charging Through Difficult Terrain.
Change the first sentence to read “If, when charging, one or
more models have to move through difficult terrain in order to
reach the enemy by the shortest possible route, the unit must
make a Difficult Terrain test (see page 90).”

And that's why you only have to figure it out using a 12" potential charge.

Okay this thread has made things more confusing for me. So if the back half a squad is in cover, but the front half of the target squad is not in cover, and the shorts distance for all charging models is measured to where? If it is to the closet model then it does not matter as all those are not in cover. If it is not, then what is the shortest route?

Now that Mondo's re-quoted the errarta'd rule, how are we saying we play it? It still reads to me as you draw a line from each charging model to the (nearest) enemy, and if you cross DT with any of them roll 3D6, otherwise 2D6. I don't believe you have to start a complex analysis of possible paths for the actual Charge Move that is about to take place.

If, in the course of maximizing contact with unengaged models as normal (assuming the shortest possible route to each), ANY of the charging models would go through terrain, you have to roll 3d6.

This is much the same as it was in 5th, but now you have to work with the possibility of a 12" charge, instead of a 6" charge.

 Mannahnin wrote:
If, in the course of maximizing contact with unengaged models as normal (assuming the shortest possible route to each), ANY of the charging models would go through terrain, you have to roll 3d6.

This is much the same as it was in 5th, but now you have to work with the possibility of a 12" charge, instead of a 6" charge.

Its far more than just that. We are using simple scenarios. You have to figure models and distance. Rolling a 12" may bypass all terrain, while a 10 wouldnt, but a 4" is too short to hit terrain. I only have 4 models charging, which could base the enemy with a 7" charge without going through DT, but a 5" charge wouldnt allow it.

Or I dont have enough models that could base the enemy and still go into DT, do I still have to roll 3d6 even though I cannot get into DT by charge rule ?

Checking DT to closest makes the most sense, since Maximizing contact can result in crazy formulas to get there.

If any combination of rolls/total distance would result in a model passing through difficult to obey the normal charge requirements, then you'll have to roll the third die.

Or I dont have enough models that could base the enemy and still go into DT, do I still have to roll 3d6 even though I cannot get into DT by charge rule ?

Of course not.

Fragile wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If, in the course of maximizing contact with unengaged models as normal (assuming the shortest possible route to each), ANY of the charging models would go through terrain, you have to roll 3d6.

This is much the same as it was in 5th, but now you have to work with the possibility of a 12" charge, instead of a 6" charge.

Its far more than just that. We are using simple scenarios. You have to figure models and distance. Rolling a 12" may bypass all terrain, while a 10 wouldnt, but a 4" is too short to hit terrain. I only have 4 models charging, which could base the enemy with a 7" charge without going through DT, but a 5" charge wouldnt allow it.

Ummm, did you miss the FAQ I posted? You do NOT get to try and go around terrain to avoid taking the DT test. Straight line, per the FAQ/Errata. So there is no " 12" may bypass all terrain, while a 10 wouldnt".

Maybe I'm oversimplifying what the rule actually says, but here's the bit I think is most important - " reach the enemy by the shortest possible route". It doesn't say "reach the enemy model that the charging model will be engaging by the shortest possible route". Therefore, I argue that "the enemy" is the enemy model closest in a straight line (or bendy if impassable terrain is in play). This interpretation complete avoids tying yourself in knots over possible charge paths and distances.

"The enemy", in context, can only mean the enemy model it would engage in the process of a normal charge. Which means an unengaged model if possible, or maximizing contact on an engaged model, etc.

No, it could just as easily mean the enemy squad, instead of specific model.

That would leave us with no specified meaning, and pure ambiguity.

The rule must be read as part of the normal assalt rules, which have a clear and specifed process of determining which models a given assaulting model can or must move into, based on a denoted hierarchy and restrictions.

 Mannahnin wrote:
"The enemy", in context, can only mean the enemy model it would engage in the process of a normal charge. Which means an unengaged model if possible, or maximizing contact on an engaged model, etc.

Which means we have to "pre-play" the entire charge move, possibly across different ranges - I'm not sure that assuming a 12" charge is sufficient. I can't help but think this is more complicated than they intended.

Which means we have to "pre-play" the entire charge move, possibly across different ranges -

More or less, yeah. Which we had to do in 5th too. It was just a bit easier.

Most of the time whether Difficult is needed is pretty obvious. Sometimes it's going to be tricky to determine.

Think about it this way. The maximum charge move is usually 12" yes? We can premeasure at ANY time yes? Measure and plot the most direct path from model to model within 12", if any cross DT the roll the 3D6 and if not then don't roll. And just like in the movment phase you can roll so low you fall short of the terrain that caused the test in the first place, its how the mechanic works,its unbias and random. Remember, you can measure whenever you like so you can always try to position ahead of time in the movement phase to try to prevent it but most of the time your not going to be able to. Its just a bonus for defensive deployment and a penalty for charging a unit that is in cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snapshot wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
"The enemy", in context, can only mean the enemy model it would engage in the process of a normal charge. Which means an unengaged model if possible, or maximizing contact on an engaged model, etc.

Which means we have to "pre-play" the entire charge move, possibly across different ranges - I'm not sure that assuming a 12" charge is sufficient. I can't help but think this is more complicated than they intended.

Assuming 12" is the only way to do it. Assuming less, not crossing DT then rolling higher without penalty is cheating, really there's no other way to put it. its literally breaking the rule.

 Bausk wrote:
Assuming 12" is the only way to do it. Assuming less, not crossing DT then rolling higher without penalty is cheating, really there's no other way to put it. its literally breaking the rule.

1. Roll 2D6
2. (Without moving any models) check if that distance would bring everyone into combat without entering DT, following the normal rules for charging.
3. If not, roll 3D6 and start moving models.

Always assuming the worst possible outcome (which is also the least likely outcome along with double 1s) is incredibly biased against CC armies.

Sadly no, it's just following the rules.

No, the rules are completely ambiguous on this. Here's where you leave RAW and start making assumptions:

Page 22 ¬ Charge Move, Charging Through Difficult Terrain.
Change the first sentence to read “If, when charging, one or
more models have to move through difficult terrain in order to
reach the enemy by the shortest possible route, the unit must
make a Difficult Terrain test (see page 90).”

"The enemy", in context, can only mean the enemy model it would engage in the process of a normal charge.

"The enemy" could just as well mean that single Guardsman out of cover, that's closest to the attacking unit. The "shortest possible route" for every attacking model is the one to that Guardsman, and it's not leading through cover.

But let's not even get into that and say your definition is correct. An attacking model must reach "the enemy model it would engage in the process of a normal charge" without going through cover.
The point is: You don't know which enemy model you would engange, without knowing the charge distance.

Example: There is an unengaged model 8 inches away (behind cover) and an already enganged model 5 inches away (out of cover). You roll a 7 for charge distance, can't reach the first one and therefore have to move in base contact with the second one.

Now you say, you have to assume 12 inch charge distance to work that out. This is assumption #2 and defined nowhere in the rules.


IMO:
RAW is a complete mess on this question and requires either time travel or Eldrad Ulthran as a referee. I think, making two rolls as I described above is the best way to solve the dilemma.