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.

 Swan-of-War wrote:
Please explain the relevance of enemies within 15” after an advance if one cannot charge them? Why would they bother stating that?

To make sure you don't accidentally think "may charge after advancing" means you can declare a charge where no enemies are within 15". It also doesn't matter if that "part" of the rule doesn't make "sense". It's a legitimate and working rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Swan-of-War wrote:
Please explain the relevance of enemies within 15” after an advance if one cannot charge them? Why would they bother stating that?

To make sure you don't accidentally think "may charge after advancing" means you can declare a charge where no enemies are within 15". It also doesn't matter if that "part" of the rule doesn't make "sense". It's a legitimate and working rule.

You're kidding us, right? Allowing Banshees to charge if there is enemy with 15" of them after advancing is to prevent them from declaring a charge if there isn't an enemy within charge range? And you're stating that range is 12" despite the rule itself saying they can declare a charge if the enemy is outside if charge range (15")?

 alextroy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Swan-of-War wrote:
Please explain the relevance of enemies within 15” after an advance if one cannot charge them? Why would they bother stating that?

To make sure you don't accidentally think "may charge after advancing" means you can declare a charge where no enemies are within 15". It also doesn't matter if that "part" of the rule doesn't make "sense". It's a legitimate and working rule.

You're kidding us, right? Allowing Banshees to charge if there is enemy with 15" of them after advancing is to prevent them from declaring a charge if there isn't an enemy within charge range? And you're stating that range is 12" despite the rule itself saying they can declare a charge if the enemy is outside if charge range (15")?

The rule itself says no such thing.

"In a turn in which it Advanced, you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it,"

Nothing in that line says that the 12" limit is changed. It says you can declare a charge move, not that the limit for the move is increased.

I made the thread to see if anyone else had noticed this, since I know for a fact a lot of people have been playing that Banshees can charge 15" when they cannot.

You are missing my point. You stated and I quoted your assertion that the reason GW added the enemy within 15" clause to Charge after Advancing was to prevent players from thinking they could charge if there are no targets within the, according to you, maximum declarable charge target range of 12".

That is flat out ludicrous. If GW didn't want them to charge a target more than 12" away, the rule would say enemy within 12" to reinforce the existing rule. Adding an additional 3" to the legal distance implying the ability to make a longer charge just doesn't hold any water. To follow your logic, a unit of Howling Banshee's can advance to be 13" away from the closes enemy unit and be able to charge per Acrobatic and unable to charge per the Charge rules.

 alextroy wrote:
You are missing my point. You stated and I quoted your assertion that the reason GW added the enemy within 15" clause to Charge after Advancing was to prevent players from thinking they could charge if there are no targets within the, according to you, maximum declarable charge target range of 12".

That is flat out ludicrous. If GW didn't want them to charge a target more than 12" away, the rule would say enemy within 12" to reinforce the existing rule. Adding an additional 3" to the legal distance implying the ability to make a longer charge just doesn't hold any water. To follow your logic, a unit of Howling Banshee's can advance to be 13" away from the closes enemy unit and be able to charge per Acrobatic and unable to charge per the Charge rules.

GW works in mysterious ways. Regardless of what the intent of the rule might have been in some alternate universe, the rule we have now is crystal clear.

By your logic, the Banshees wouldn't even be able to complete the charge, just declare one - the rules do not specifically say that they can Make the Charge Move after advancing.

 Swan-of-War wrote:
By your logic, the Banshees wouldn't even be able to complete the charge, just declare one - the rules do not specifically say that they can Make the Charge Move after advancing.

Erm, yes, they do? The BRB rules cover what happens after you declare a charge.

BaconCatBug wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
Banshee rule states it can declare a charge 15" away... so it's allowed

Did you not read the thread? The whole problem is that the banshees rule DOESN'T say it can.

If you're going to play pedantic games, then you should actually read everything.

mchammadad wrote:It's in FAQ under 'stepping into W40k'

Q: A unit has a special rule that says, for example,
‘add 3" to the dice roll(s) for determining the charge
distance of the unit’. Does that mean my unit can move
15" if I roll a double 6 on 2D6?
A: Yes. Note though that you can only ever declare
a charge against an enemy unit you are within
12" of, unless the charging unit has an ability that
says otherwise.

Banshee rule states it can declare a charge 15" away... so it's allowed

So, you're essentially arguing that the phrase "declare a charge" has a meaning distinct from "select a unit as a charge target." It's an odd obsession with exact language from a poster who generally gleefully points out how sloppy GW is with language, but whatever.

Even if you decide that the phrase "declare a charge" means simply choose a unit to charge, not the combination of selecting the charging unit and any target(s), you still run into a problem. The FAQ specifically states "Note though that you can only ever declare a charge against an enemy unit you are within 12" of, unless the charging unit has an ability that says otherwise. " GW itself is using the term "declare a charge" in place of "choose a unit as a charge target," which is, you know, pretty much how everybody speaks. Because Acrobatic does allow a a unit to declare such a charge, you're left arguing for an incredibly tortured interpretation of plain language that this is little more than an exercise in proving how clever you are.

It says they may declare a charge if a unit is within 15", not that they may declare a charge against a unit more than 12" away. The problem is the banshee rule does NOT say "otherwise".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Swan-of-War wrote:
By your logic, the Banshees wouldn't even be able to complete the charge, just declare one - the rules do not specifically say that they can Make the Charge Move after advancing.

Erm, yes, they do? The BRB rules cover what happens after you declare a charge.

No, it doesn't. declaring a charge is actually never defined. The steps are:
1) Choose a charging unit
2) Choose a target

Interestingly, overwatch is the first time the word declare shows up: "Each time a charge is declared against a unit, the target unit can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker."

Again, this suggests that declaring a charge is the two step process of choosing both attacker and target.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It says they may declare a charge if a unit is within 15", not that they may declare a charge against a unit more than 12" away. The problem is the banshee rule does NOT say "otherwise".

Again, the term "declare a charge" is not defined in the rules, but is consistenly used to mean selecting both a unit that charges and it's target. "Declaring a charge" is not the same as selecting a unit to charge, and GW's usage always shows that it means both parts.

I really think BCB at this point is intentionally trolling. Cause the amount of irrefutable evidence that contradicts his statement is staggering.

Most other people would just leave it be and realize that they made a mistake. Those are the people who become better for it, and in return make this community better as a reflection.

people who stubbornly hold on to their statement.... well

Except BCB is right. The RAW is broken.

Now, RAI is clear. HIWPI is allowing Banshees to charge a unit 15" away. I don't think anyone would say "Well, RAW says you can't, so I won't let you!"

But that doesn't mean the RAW is same as RAI.

I wonder what the percentage of overlap between rules purists and “TFG”s is. Likely high. What is the point of the 15” clause in the banshee rule if not to indicate a difference from the core rules? At some point you have to decide if you want to play a game or be a jerk. I suppose for some being that way is a fun game.

RAW OP is likely correct, but i can’t imagine this scenario coming up in a game and argued over. If you want to bog down a game and argue about this then 40k as a whole is just a treasure trove of arguments waiting to happen, which leads me to believe a game against that type of person basically gets forfeited to prevent further anger and wasted time.

I think we all know what the point of the 15" clause is, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't say what it was intended to say. This is all too common a problem with GW, and BCB apparently enjoys pointing it out.

In the end, wouldn't we all want rules that say what they're supposed to say and don't create loopholes, misunderstandings and game-interrupting arguments? I know I would.

And the intention is often a lot less clear than in this case; it just seems GW's writers don't think through their wordings all that much.

 Swan-of-War wrote:
Please explain the relevance of enemies within 15” after an advance if one cannot charge them? Why would they bother stating that?

That doesn't matter from a RAW perspective. It's why we differentiate between RAW and RAI. RAI your argument makes sense of course, and is why almost everyone will allow the charge at 15 inches

This attempted lawyer-level word dive fails anyway, as GW only uses the wording "a charge is declared" in the Overwatch section - step 3 of the Charge Phase.

From this we know that "declare a charge" is their colloquial wording for what happens in steps 1 and 2, and the Banshee Strat works RAW to allow charging a unit up to 15" away.

The alternative is that "declaring a charge" has no rules basis, is just "reminder text" and all Stratagems mentioning declaring charges are null and void. And my Conscripts have 20W or something.

Someone burn this thread with promethium as it's fething pointless.

 Cream Tea wrote:
I think we all know what the point of the 15" clause is, but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't say what it was intended to say. This is all too common a problem with GW, and BCB apparently enjoys pointing it out.

In the end, wouldn't we all want rules that say what they're supposed to say and don't create loopholes, misunderstandings and game-interrupting arguments? I know I would.

And the intention is often a lot less clear than in this case; it just seems GW's writers don't think through their wordings all that much.

This. It is like when in a previous edition they had the rule where the number of psychic powers a psyker could cast was proportional to their mastery level, without ever defining that proportionality. Sadly, GW often uses overly complicated language (proportional vs equal to, for example) in order to try and make their rules seem smarter than they actually are.

All this over a hail mary of a charge, which nearly no one would try to make and even fewer would successfully roll to make.

Oh my.

 Cream Tea wrote:

In the end, wouldn't we all want rules that say what they're supposed to say and don't create loopholes, misunderstandings and game-interrupting arguments? I know I would.

Sure. But I really don't think that the rules need to be written to take this level of wilful misunderstanding into account.

 Crimson wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:

In the end, wouldn't we all want rules that say what they're supposed to say and don't create loopholes, misunderstandings and game-interrupting arguments? I know I would.

Sure. But I really don't think that the rules need to be written to take this level of wilful misunderstanding into account.

Hear, hear. Would that this section were about making the rules work and finding consensus.

For stuff like the OP's wording issue, the appropriate action is to email the GW FAQ hotline. Not adopt a contrary position and argue with anyone who is rational and knows what the rule is saying.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that logic Rowboat Girlyman can buff THOUSAND SONS, because "It's a game. Not a legal contract. It's not written to be dry perfectly worded legal-like clauses. It's written to be friendly, fun and easy to grasp."

When I play a board game, I expect the rules to be followed.

So do you adhere to the RAW of the things you point out in your sig, which you have claimed is also the RAI since that is what the RAW is? Or do you House rule, indicating that you don't expect all the rules as written to be followed?

So... you can declare a charge at 15 inches... but not actually make one.

Am I getting it yet?

Except BCB is right. The RAW is broken.

But is the RAW really broken if 99% of all people automatically play it as it should be played? I definitely don't want GW to start using lawyer speak in their rules, it would make the game a lot harder to learn for most people, and there would still be loopholes anyway.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
By that logic Rowboat Girlyman can buff THOUSAND SONS, because "It's a game. Not a legal contract. It's not written to be dry perfectly worded legal-like clauses. It's written to be friendly, fun and easy to grasp."

When I play a board game, I expect the rules to be followed.

So do you adhere to the RAW of the things you point out in your sig, which you have claimed is also the RAI since that is what the RAW is? Or do you House rule, indicating that you don't expect all the rules as written to be followed?

Also there's no Datasheet called "Rowboat Girlyman", so he must be using homebrew units too!

It literally says, you may declare charge an enemy within 15" that's a clear indication you can charge something over 12 inches away. Not to mention. Advanced rules cover how this over rides the brb.

Your point has been disproven a number of times. I'm pretty sure now you are just arguing to argue and probably don't actually play the game just argue rules all day.

To the sane people left stop replying don't feed the troll.

Ushtarador wrote:

Except BCB is right. The RAW is broken.

But is the RAW really broken if 99% of all people automatically play it as it should be played? I definitely don't want GW to start using lawyer speak in their rules, it would make the game a lot harder to learn for most people, and there would still be loopholes anyway.

This plays into what Johnny Hell pointed out, that "declare a charge" isn't clearly defined at the beginning of the Charge Phase rules, so it's really more two interpretations of RAW here. BCB's interpretation, that declaring a charge covers only nominating the unit to be charging, obviously runs into the logical problems that are pointed out. The other RAW interpretation, as JohnnyHell points out, is that declaring a charge is the combination of declaring which unit is charging AND which unit is being charged. With that interpretation of RAW, there are no issues the way there are with the other version. In fact, with the overwatch statement "each time a charge is declared against a unit..." it appears that declaring the target unit must be part of declaring a charge. If only step 1, nominating the unit that will be charging, is the only part of declaring a charge, then you would not be declaring a charge against a unit as they indicate in overwatch, merely declaring a charge and as a later step nominating a target unit. BCB is merely operating under a faulty interpretation of RAW here, and declaring the charge also includes, by RAW, declaring who is going to be charged. Therefore, the RAW is that Banshees can charge units 15" away.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except BCB is right. The RAW is broken.

Now, RAI is clear. HIWPI is allowing Banshees to charge a unit 15" away. I don't think anyone would say "Well, RAW says you can't, so I won't let you!"

But that doesn't mean the RAW is same as RAI.

This.

It's like YMDC nowadays is populated with people that forget that Terminators didn't wear Terminator armour although IRL I never met anyone that claimed this despite it being in there in black and white in the 4th ed. SM codex.... RAW=/=HIWPI much of the time.

But a certain smarmy Dalek will reply and tell us not to reply, thus pushing this to the top.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It literally says "you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it", how can you think this isn't modifying " select one or more enemy units within 12" of them as the target(s) of the charge"?

Because it isn't modifying it. It's literally saying "you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it" not "you can declare a charge move against enemy units that are 15" away".

What it is saying is that you may charge after you advance, but only if there are enemy units within 15" of you.

How does this happen if the unit to be targeted is not 12-15" away?

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?
?
So, you are reading this to mean that any mention of the 15" is effectively null? No practical relevance, as HBs cannot actually charge anything more than 12" away?
I simply do not understand how you do not see that the intent of the rule is to allow HBs to charge a unit up to 15" away, rather than the standard 12...
Just, impenetrable.

 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.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
So... you can declare a charge at 15 inches... but not actually make one.

Am I getting it yet?

Seems to be the case.
SO, not only do GW staff write bad rules, they add phrases and references to things like 15" charge ranges that should be simply deleted from the the rulebook altogether, because they make zero practical difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Walk me through how this would work.
I am not familiar enough with the Eldar rules.
How does the 15" come into play, exactly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"This unit can Advance and charge in the same turn. In a turn in which it Advanced, you can declare a charge move for this unit if there are any enemy units within 15" of it, and you can add 3 to the resulting charge roll."

So, you mean to say that, the HB's declare a charge if there are any units within 15", which there must be, because they can only charge a unit with is 12" or less, and when they do so, they get to add 3" to the result, meaning that the unit that they charge is effectively 9" away rather than 12"?

As I read it, the HBs can declare a charge against any unit up to 15" away, and add 3 to the resulting dice roll, meaning that 2 d6 could deliver a 15 as a result, meaning that the unit 15" away could be reached... This is why they can declare the charge. If not, then the writers could have simply written that HBs add 3 to every charge roll IFF they Advance that turn as well.

So, are the GW writers sloppy, or stupid, that becomes the question.
I tend to favor both, but given the exclusive or, must go with "sloppy".
You seem to figure that - given the exclusive or - they are stupid.