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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
See, I read that as "Charge Roll" not Charge Distance. As everyone has said, talk about it before hand.

The charge roll gives you the charge distance.

If the charge roll is the charge distance, then anything that affects the charge distance is a modifier to the charge roll. So by that reading, the rules do support that Keen Senses negates Tanglefoot Grenade!

 DeathReaper wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
See, I read that as "Charge Roll" not Charge Distance. As everyone has said, talk about it before hand.

The charge roll gives you the charge distance.

And the Move characteristic gives you the move distance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
See, I read that as "Charge Roll" not Charge Distance. As everyone has said, talk about it before hand.

The charge roll gives you the charge distance.

If the charge roll is the charge distance, then anything that affects the charge distance is a modifier to the charge roll. So by that reading, the rules do support that Keen Senses negates Tanglefoot Grenade!

This is the pre-FAQ logic ('move characteristic gives you the move distance'). As sensible as that logic is, GW has given a clear indication it's not where they're going.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
We actually don't know what Charge distance is in 9th Edition since it is not defined in the rules. It could be the Charge roll. It could also not be the Charge roll.

The rules actually do cover it.

P. 19 PDF rules, CHARGE PHASE section, right column, Charges sub-section wrote: You then make a charge roll for your unit by rolling 2D6 This is the maximum number of inches each model in the charging unit can now be moved if they can make the charge move.

So the maximum number of inches each model in the charging unit can be moved is the charge distance.

As I've said, the move characteristic gives you the move distance. Yet GW has said those are to be treated separately. The same is true here.

Audustum wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
We actually don't know what Charge distance is in 9th Edition since it is not defined in the rules. It could be the Charge roll. It could also not be the Charge roll.

The rules actually do cover it.

P. 19 PDF rules, CHARGE PHASE section, right column, Charges sub-section wrote: You then make a charge roll for your unit by rolling 2D6 This is the maximum number of inches each model in the charging unit can now be moved if they can make the charge move.

So the maximum number of inches each model in the charging unit can be moved is the charge distance.

As I've said, the move characteristic gives you the move distance. Yet GW has said those are to be treated separately. The same is true here.

There is no reference in the 9th Edition Core Rules to "move distance" nor "charge distance". They are both meaningless under the rules. Therefore you can conclude nothing about either with the support of the rules. You can only use them colloquially until GW defines them.

 alextroy wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
We actually don't know what Charge distance is in 9th Edition since it is not defined in the rules. It could be the Charge roll. It could also not be the Charge roll.

The rules actually do cover it.

P. 19 PDF rules, CHARGE PHASE section, right column, Charges sub-section wrote: You then make a charge roll for your unit by rolling 2D6 This is the maximum number of inches each model in the charging unit can now be moved if they can make the charge move.

So the maximum number of inches each model in the charging unit can be moved is the charge distance.

As I've said, the move characteristic gives you the move distance. Yet GW has said those are to be treated separately. The same is true here.

There is no reference in the 9th Edition Core Rules to "move distance" nor "charge distance". They are both meaningless under the rules. Therefore you can conclude nothing about either with the support of the rules. You can only use them colloquially until GW defines them.

Partially true. Move distance is now a term in the rules (via the FAQ). The only definition we have for it is 'is not Move characteristic'.

Not saying I agree with GW's distinction, but that's what they've written.

RAW it think it is is unclear and a FAQ would be nice.

RAI, base on the Deathguard FAQ, I think Charge distance is distinct from the charge roll.

I agree with the above advice to discuss with your opponent/TO before the game.

The way I see it, and HIWPI, move distance and charge distance aren't the same as the Move stat and the charge roll. The move stat/Chrge Roll tells you the maximum a unit can move/charge (subject to certain restrictions and modifications eg advance, dangerous terrain etc.) The Move/charge distance is how far the unit actually moves. A SM has a Move stat of 6", but if I only moved him 2" then the move distance is 2". If there is a rule that says the maximum Move distance is 4", then I can only move the unit up to 4" irrespective of what the Move stat is. The move stat itself is not modified.

Similarly if my charge roll is 10, but I only move the unit 7" then my charge distance is 7". A cap can be applied to the move/charge distance without being a modifier to the stat/charge roll.

Aash wrote:
RAW it think it is is unclear and a FAQ would be nice.

RAI, base on the Deathguard FAQ...

The Deathguard FAQ is talking about a model’s Move characteristic. There is no such thing as a charge characteristic, so I do not see how the Deathguard FAQ is relevant at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:
RAW it think it is is unclear and a FAQ would be nice.

RAI, base on the Deathguard FAQ...

The Deathguard FAQ is talking about a model’s Move characteristic. There is no such thing as a charge characteristic, so I do not see how the Deathguard FAQ is relevant at all.

Which is exactly why I think a FAQ is required. I think the Deathguard FAQ demonstrates intent as it is a similar (albeit different) situation.

Aash wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:
RAW it think it is is unclear and a FAQ would be nice.

RAI, base on the Deathguard FAQ...

The Deathguard FAQ is talking about a model’s Move characteristic. There is no such thing as a charge characteristic, so I do not see how the Deathguard FAQ is relevant at all.

Which is exactly why I think a FAQ is required. I think the Deathguard FAQ demonstrates intent as it is a similar (albeit different) situation.

I do not think the Deathguard FAQ demonstrates anything, as the Deathguard FAQ talks about a characteristic, so it has no bearing on the charge roll at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:
RAW it think it is is unclear and a FAQ would be nice.

RAI, base on the Deathguard FAQ...

The Deathguard FAQ is talking about a model’s Move characteristic. There is no such thing as a charge characteristic, so I do not see how the Deathguard FAQ is relevant at all.

Which is exactly why I think a FAQ is required. I think the Deathguard FAQ demonstrates intent as it is a similar (albeit different) situation.

I do not think the Deathguard FAQ demonstrates anything, as the Deathguard FAQ talks about a characteristic, so it has no bearing on the charge roll at all.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

The way I see it, the Death Guard FAQ establishes that "Move characteristic" is distinct from "the distance a model can move". I think this is relevant because although I agree that the "move characteristic" is not the same as the charge roll, I see the two as analogous, which is where RAI comes in. My interpretation clearly doesn't match RAW, since nowhere does it say in the rules that these two are analogous, but I infer that they are. From reading this thread it seems that I am not alone in this. Whenever RAW and RAI don't seem to match up, a FAQ would be nice to clear things up.

Aash wrote:
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.
The way I see it, the Death Guard FAQ establishes that "Move characteristic" is distinct from "the distance a model can move". I think this is relevant because although I agree that the "move characteristic" is not the same as the charge roll, I see the two as analogous, which is where RAI comes in. My interpretation clearly doesn't match RAW, since nowhere does it say in the rules that these two are analogous, but I infer that they are. From reading this thread it seems that I am not alone in this. Whenever RAW and RAI don't seem to match up, a FAQ would be nice to clear things up.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains that the Death Guard FAQ is talking about a Move characteristic, and there is no charge characteristic. The charge roll is not a characteristic so it can not be analogous. The two things are not similar at all.

The Death Guard FAQ simply does not apply. If there was a charge characteristic I would be inclined to agree with you, but since there is not, what you are saying makes no sense.

But you are right on one point, "a FAQ would be nice to clear things up."

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.
The way I see it, the Death Guard FAQ establishes that "Move characteristic" is distinct from "the distance a model can move". I think this is relevant because although I agree that the "move characteristic" is not the same as the charge roll, I see the two as analogous, which is where RAI comes in. My interpretation clearly doesn't match RAW, since nowhere does it say in the rules that these two are analogous, but I infer that they are. From reading this thread it seems that I am not alone in this. Whenever RAW and RAI don't seem to match up, a FAQ would be nice to clear things up.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains that the Death Guard FAQ is talking about a Move characteristic, and there is no charge characteristic. The charge roll is not a characteristic so it can not be analogous. The two things are not similar at all.

The Death Guard FAQ simply does not apply. If there was a charge characteristic I would be inclined to agree with you, but since there is not, what you are saying makes no sense.

But you are right on one point, "a FAQ would be nice to clear things up."

The similarity between "move characteristic" and "charge roll" is that both establish the maximum distance a unit can move under specific circumstances. The fact that one is a "characteristic" and the other is not has no bearing on this.

But as you say, we do agree on one point.

Aash wrote:
The similarity between "move characteristic" and "charge roll" is that both establish the maximum distance a unit can move under specific circumstances. The fact that one is a "characteristic" and the other is not has no bearing on this.

False, it has everything to do with it. The Death Guard FAQ is dealing with a certain situation that deals with a characteristic.

The charge roll is not a characteristic, so the Death Guard FAQ absolutely does not apply, as the "move characteristic" and "charge roll" are completely different things. They are not even used in the same phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:
The similarity between "move characteristic" and "charge roll" is that both establish the maximum distance a unit can move under specific circumstances. The fact that one is a "characteristic" and the other is not has no bearing on this.

False, it has everything to do with it. The Death Guard FAQ is dealing with a certain situation that deals with a characteristic.

The charge roll is not a characteristic, so the Death Guard FAQ absolutely does not apply, as the "move characteristic" and "charge roll" are completely different things. They are not even used in the same phase.

You can't just cherry pick the FAQ. The FAQ also distinguishes distance as a separate concept. Not just in relation to something else but as a thing on it's own.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:
The similarity between "move characteristic" and "charge roll" is that both establish the maximum distance a unit can move under specific circumstances. The fact that one is a "characteristic" and the other is not has no bearing on this.

False, it has everything to do with it. The Death Guard FAQ is dealing with a certain situation that deals with a characteristic.

The charge roll is not a characteristic, so the Death Guard FAQ absolutely does not apply, as the "move characteristic" and "charge roll" are completely different things. They are not even used in the same phase.

The FAQ is inelegantly answered. Inexorable Advance does negate modifiers to an Advance roll or a Charge roll along with those to the Move Characteristic. This leads to the inference that the FAQ answer applies to Dangerous Terrain in all three cases, not just for a Normal Move as determined via the Move Characteristic.

Audustum wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:
The similarity between "move characteristic" and "charge roll" is that both establish the maximum distance a unit can move under specific circumstances. The fact that one is a "characteristic" and the other is not has no bearing on this.

False, it has everything to do with it. The Death Guard FAQ is dealing with a certain situation that deals with a characteristic.

The charge roll is not a characteristic, so the Death Guard FAQ absolutely does not apply, as the "move characteristic" and "charge roll" are completely different things. They are not even used in the same phase.

You can't just cherry pick the FAQ. The FAQ also distinguishes distance as a separate concept. Not just in relation to something else but as a thing on it's own.

I am not cherry picking anything.

The FAQ also distinguishes distance (moved) as a separate concept to the movement characteristic. Charging has no characteristic.

This is relevant for movement, not for charging.

Can you clarify what you are trying to say DeathReaper?

When a "unit makes a Normal Move, Advances, Falls Back or it makes a charge move" its maximum distance each model can move is reduced by Difficult Terrain. The FAQ clarifies that is not a modifier to the Move Characteristic, but a reduction to how far the models can be moved. Therefore IA does not negate the effects of Difficult Terrain in any of these cases.

So how is this not relevant to charging?

 alextroy wrote:
Can you clarify what you are trying to say DeathReaper?

When a "unit makes a Normal Move, Advances, Falls Back or it makes a charge move" its maximum distance each model can move is reduced by Difficult Terrain. The FAQ clarifies that is not a modifier to the Move Characteristic, but a reduction to how far the models can be moved. Therefore IA does not negate the effects of Difficult Terrain in any of these cases.

So how is this not relevant to charging?

I am saying that the FAQ is talking about the Inexorable Advance ability and mentions that it does not interact with the model’s Move characteristic.

Charge is not a characteristic, and Keen Senses is not the Inexorable Advance ability, so the Death Guard FAQ does not apply at all.

I see. You're a strict constructionist on this issue.

Can everyone go back to their corners for a second? I can't tell if Death Reaper and I are on the same side or not. I thought I was on the same side with Audustrum, but now am confused, This keeps going around in circles and everyone keeps shifting.

I believe that the DG Faq creates a new term, that does not exist in the 9th Rule set. That being the case, 8th edition strats that do not mention this term are not affected by rules that mention it. Ie. Tanglefoot (8th Es Strat)is still valid at modifying charge distance against units with IA(9th ed base ability rule w/ faq).

I think we need to clarify our stances on this issue.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can everyone go back to their corners for a second? I can't tell if Death Reaper and I are on the same side or not. I thought I was on the same side with Audustrum, but now am confused, This keeps going around in circles and everyone keeps shifting.

I believe that the DG Faq creates a new term, that does not exist in the 9th Rule set. That being the case, 8th edition strats that do not mention this term are not affected by rules that mention it. Ie. Tanglefoot (8th Es Strat)is still valid at modifying charge distance against units with IA(9th ed base ability rule w/ faq).

I think we need to clarify our stances on this issue.

You and I have been arguing the same position. You're right there