Chargers are not moved however the charge reaction is done and that part of the charging process. Since you reasonably cannot get past the other unit before their charge reaction I don't believe you can declare the charge at the unit behind it. Because you have to declare the charge then get a charge reaction and I don't believe its reasonable to charge the second unit because you know for certain you are going hit the first unit. Unless you attempt to wheel hard around the unit however with my understanding of the setup that would make the charge impossible on the target behind you are aiming at...
The poor sportsmanship thing was edited out and I did attempt to edit out before anyone saw it because I didn't want this to turn into a debate over that issue. But quit simply forcing a unit to take a terror charge that you can't reasonably charge before of the interposing model seemed to be like a twisting of the rules. I still feel that way however not as strongly as when I first typed it. So if you don't mind I would like to leave the sportsmenship discussion at that and continue on the techical merits of the charge issue itself.
I have a roadtrip tommorrow to a closing game store (going to buy some terrain boards and such for my club). I will be the passenger so I will have time to review the rulebook on this and attempt to sort this out for myself and post some more detailed arguements.
But in general I think my reasoning is sound for not allowing the charge.
Large Target's Charging
Moderator: The Dread Knights
Bonemagus wrote:Chargers are not moved however the charge reaction is done and that part of the charging process. Since you reasonably cannot get past the other unit before their charge reaction I don't believe you can declare the charge at the unit behind it. Because you have to declare the charge then get a charge reaction and I don't believe its reasonable to charge the second unit because you know for certain you are going hit the first unit. Unless you attempt to wheel hard around the unit however with my understanding of the setup that would make the charge impossible on the target behind you are aiming at...
So what makes it different to if you have a friendly chaos spawn in the way? Spawn are move AFTER charge reactions so the charge would be blocked before AND after charge reactions are made. Surely by your argument this is even worse. And yet it is seen as a perfectly fine tactic.
The poor sportsmanship thing was edited out and I did attempt to edit out before anyone saw it because I didn't want this to turn into a debate over that issue. But quit simply forcing a unit to take a terror charge that you can't reasonably charge before of the interposing model seemed to be like a twisting of the rules. I still feel that way however not as strongly as when I first typed it. So if you don't mind I would like to leave the sportsmenship discussion at that and continue on the techical merits of the charge issue itself.
I agree it would be extremely bad sportsmanship if this tactic was used to force a terror test on a unit that it can't charge. Handily though, terror tests are only taken when the charge is found to be in range. If the large target can't get in, no terror test is taken. So this tactic can't be used to do this.
I have a roadtrip tommorrow to a closing game store (going to buy some terrain boards and such for my club). I will be the passenger so I will have time to review the rulebook on this and attempt to sort this out for myself and post some more detailed arguements.
But in general I think my reasoning is sound for not allowing the charge.
Ash010110 wrote: I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).
(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)
To finish the discussion on the main topic of discussion in this thread, I have found the answer and it is indeed illegal to declare the charge against the Bolt thrower.
It is indeed illegal to declare a charge against the Bolt Thrower Crew behind the archers.
In the Frequently asked questions document found on the GW Website in the Section Enemy in the way.
Obviously by the wording of this statement enemy troops in the way can cause a failed charge. So you can not reasonably assume you can make the first charge on the bolt thrower because the enemy in the way will cause your charge to fail.
Enemy in the way rules of course take effect after a unit flees but from the wording of the rules there and in other places it implies you can't charge through a unit.
If you think they will flee then you have to charge the unit, they have to flee then you need to redirect into the Bolt thrower unit.
Then to reply to Ant's post
First off, You can't charge through a space occupied by a Chaos Spawn. They move after the chargers and thus if you charged and you would run into a Chaos Spawn the Charge is failed. So if you knew you couldn't get around the Spawn you can not declare the charge because its not reasonable to assume you can successfully make the charge.
Because if I am not mistaken Chaos Spawn move randomly during the normal part of the movement phase... From my understanding they roll their movement during the normal part of the movement phase then if they happen to hit something it counts as a charge... I don't play Chaos so if they do indeed move as Complusary movement instead refer to my statement below...
(But even if that isn't the case It can be but not always be fairly reasonable to assume that the spawn would move out of the way if it moves before the charges or while the chargers move. But the situations is entirely different because the spawn moving has nothing to do with the charge reactions or enemy in the way rules we are dealing with in the main discussion. People in this thread keep bringing up rules that rely on charge moves affect by dice rolls not pych tests, opponents charge reaction, or enemy in the way rules which is what we are dealing with )
Second where do you get the idea that if a charge is failed by a terror causing creature you don't have to take a terror test? I can find that no where and I was wondering how you came to that conclusion.. It is indeed illegal to declare a charge you can't reasonably succeed at but no where can I find a statement that says if a terror causing creature fails its charge you don't have to make a check...In fact under terror it says when the charged unit makes a check when the charge is declared and if failed changes their reactions to flee. This all happens before the measurement is even taken...
It is indeed illegal to declare a charge against the Bolt Thrower Crew behind the archers.
In the Frequently asked questions document found on the GW Website in the Section Enemy in the way.
o
Q: The rules for Enemy in the Way on Page 23 only cover the case of enemy units getting in the way of the chargers. What happens if you declare a charge and then, as you move the chargers realize there are other things other than enemies in the way of your charge?
A: The Failed Charge Rules on page 21 state that when a unit may fail a charge because 'the enemy has fled out of reach or if you have estimated your charge incorrectly' This includes situations when a unit declares a charge and then finds out that the charge can not be completed for reasons other than enemy in the way.
Obviously by the wording of this statement enemy troops in the way can cause a failed charge. So you can not reasonably assume you can make the first charge on the bolt thrower because the enemy in the way will cause your charge to fail.
Enemy in the way rules of course take effect after a unit flees but from the wording of the rules there and in other places it implies you can't charge through a unit.
If you think they will flee then you have to charge the unit, they have to flee then you need to redirect into the Bolt thrower unit.
Then to reply to Ant's post
First off, You can't charge through a space occupied by a Chaos Spawn. They move after the chargers and thus if you charged and you would run into a Chaos Spawn the Charge is failed. So if you knew you couldn't get around the Spawn you can not declare the charge because its not reasonable to assume you can successfully make the charge.
Because if I am not mistaken Chaos Spawn move randomly during the normal part of the movement phase... From my understanding they roll their movement during the normal part of the movement phase then if they happen to hit something it counts as a charge... I don't play Chaos so if they do indeed move as Complusary movement instead refer to my statement below...
(But even if that isn't the case It can be but not always be fairly reasonable to assume that the spawn would move out of the way if it moves before the charges or while the chargers move. But the situations is entirely different because the spawn moving has nothing to do with the charge reactions or enemy in the way rules we are dealing with in the main discussion. People in this thread keep bringing up rules that rely on charge moves affect by dice rolls not pych tests, opponents charge reaction, or enemy in the way rules which is what we are dealing with )
Second where do you get the idea that if a charge is failed by a terror causing creature you don't have to take a terror test? I can find that no where and I was wondering how you came to that conclusion.. It is indeed illegal to declare a charge you can't reasonably succeed at but no where can I find a statement that says if a terror causing creature fails its charge you don't have to make a check...In fact under terror it says when the charged unit makes a check when the charge is declared and if failed changes their reactions to flee. This all happens before the measurement is even taken...
-
Rork
- Lord of Khorne
- Posts: 8432
- Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:29 pm
- Location: Leading the revolution (and in the chat).
Bonemagus wrote:First off, You can't charge through a space occupied by a Chaos Spawn. They move after the chargers and thus if you charged and you would run into a Chaos Spawn the Charge is failed. So if you knew you couldn't get around the Spawn you can not declare the charge because its not reasonable to assume you can successfully make the charge.
Because if I am not mistaken Chaos Spawn move randomly during the normal part of the movement phase...
Spawn move in the compulsory moves phase, which is after charges are declared but before chargers are moved.
So you are indeed mistaken.
"Rork.. a wonderful guy
" - Linda Lobsta Defenda+++ Team Mulligans +++
No, it says the completete opposite!!Read your quote again. It actually says that failed charges can occur for reasons other than enemy in the way. The question is about charges failing by being blocked by impassable terrain or friendly units. It has absolutely nothing to do with an enemy unit getting in the way of a charge on another enemy unit, and specifically says so in the part you've highlighted!Obviously by the wording of this statement enemy troops in the way can cause a failed charge.
First off, You can't charge through a space occupied by a Chaos Spawn. They move after the chargers and thus if you charged and you would run into a Chaos Spawn the Charge is failed. Because if I am not mistaken Chaos Spawn move randomly during the normal part of the movement phase... From my understanding they roll their movement during the normal part of the movement phase then if they happen to hit something it counts as a charge... I don't play Chaos so if they do indeed move as Complusary movement instead refer to my statement below...
Spawn DO move in the compulsory phase, so I'll ignore this and comment on the stuff you put in brackets.
But even if that isn't the case It can be but not always be fairly reasonable to assume that the spawn would move out of the way if it moves before the charges or while the chargers move. But the situations is entirely different because the spawn moving has nothing to do with the charge reactions or enemy in the way rules we are dealing with in the main discussion. People in this thread keep bringing up rules that rely on charge moves affect by dice rolls not pych tests, opponents charge reaction, or enemy in the way rules which is what we are dealing with
Here your argument is that it is reasonable to assumea spawn could move out of the way but not reasonable to assume an enemy will flee. Why is one reasonable and the other not just because it involves a decision rather than a dice roll? They both provide the possible outcome of the charge making it in if the right circumstances occur in the future.
Lets look at it another way. Lets for the sake of argument say that the large target charge is declared illegal because it is not reasonable to assume the unit in the way will flee. So I don't declare the charge with the large target, but still declare the charge with the support unit on the blocking unit. If the blocking unit now flees from this charge, he is cheating, pure and simple. This is because I can now say with certainty that it WAS reasonable to assume the unit would flee, because it just has. Now there is nothing in the rules preventing the opponent from fleeing from this charge, so in order to aviod the paradox the original large target charge must have actually been legal.
Second where do you get the idea that if a charge is failed by a terror causing creature you don't have to take a terror test? I can find that no where and I was wondering how you came to that conclusion.. It is indeed illegal to declare a charge you can't reasonably succeed at but no where can I find a statement that says if a terror causing creature fails its charge you don't have to make a check...In fact under terror it says when the charged unit makes a check when the charge is declared and if failed changes their reactions to flee. This all happens before the measurement is even taken...
Read the rulebook. Page 51, under "charged by terror-causing enemies": "test as soon as the terror causing unit is found to be in range"
Ash010110 wrote: I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).
(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)
Read the question not just the answer it talks about enemies in the way rules and goes on to explain other circumstances other than enemies in the way. Which by the wording implies that enemies in the way can cause a failed charge.
On the Paradox preventing that is very simple. The Charge is illegal so a charge is declared against the Blocking unit which flees then a second redirect charge is declared against the Bolt Thrower unit.
Thanks for the Terror check reference. I must have missed that when reading the section so thanks for pointing that out.
I would also like to add I agree with your point that its illegal because when you determine whether or not the unit is charge range (after the reference you provided). Its not going to be because it will run into the unit in front of it thus no terror check will be needed unless the unit does indeed flee and the Stegadon wishes to declare a redirect charge into the Bolt Thrower.
MODERATOR EDIT: Please, oh please EDIT if you have more to say. Dont make a new post. Linda
On the Paradox preventing that is very simple. The Charge is illegal so a charge is declared against the Blocking unit which flees then a second redirect charge is declared against the Bolt Thrower unit.
Thanks for the Terror check reference. I must have missed that when reading the section so thanks for pointing that out.
I would also like to add I agree with your point that its illegal because when you determine whether or not the unit is charge range (after the reference you provided). Its not going to be because it will run into the unit in front of it thus no terror check will be needed unless the unit does indeed flee and the Stegadon wishes to declare a redirect charge into the Bolt Thrower.
MODERATOR EDIT: Please, oh please EDIT if you have more to say. Dont make a new post. Linda
Read the question not just the answer it talks about enemies in the way rules and goes on to explain other circumstances other than enemies in the way. Which by the wording implies that enemies in the way can cause a failed charge.
I did, and it doesn't. The question says the EitW rule doesn't cover situations where other things are in the way and asks what happens in these cases. The ansewer says to use the failed charge rules on page 21 in these cases, not the enemy in the way rule. The question has no bearing whatsoever on cases where there is enemy in the way since it is specifically about situations where there aren't any EitW.
And in any case, whether enemy in the way can cause a failed charge (incedentally, it can, but you also have the option to declare an EitW charge at the blocking unit- the whole point of the EitW rule) is immaterial to whether a charge can be declared, which is the question here.
On the Paradox preventing that is very simple. The Charge is illegal so a charge is declared against the Blocking unit which flees then a second redirect charge is declared against the Bolt Thrower unit.
You misunderstand. I'll try to explain more clearly. I'll make use of Daeron's diagram on the 1st page of the thread to help. Look at the diagram, and imagine the flankers have a high unit strength than the stegadon.
-What I want to do is charge the infantry with the flankers, which I expect to flee, allowing me to charge the archers with the stegadon.
-You say that it is illegal for me to do this because I can't be rasonably sure that the infantry will flee from the archers.
-I concur and so decide not to charge with the stegadon, I only charge with the flankers.
-You flee from the flankers.
-I say you cheated by disallowing my stegadon's charge because it must have been reasonable to assume you would flee and get out of the way sice you just did.
-Therefore the stegadon charge must have been legal in the first place.
Your solution to this isn't a solution at all. It is an alternative way of charging which doesn't create the paradox. And it doesn't always work, which is the point of using my tactic. If I had done what you suggest: charged the infantry with both, I would not have been able to charge the archers with the stegadon if you fled with the infantry. This is because the infantry would flee away from the charger with the highest unit strength (the flankers) and I would have to follow, away from the archers. I can't decalere an EitW charge at them because they aren't along the line from the steadon to the infantry after their flee move. So I am now screwed, since I haven't hit my intended target and will be flank charged by them myself next turn.
Whereas doing what I want to do, if the infantry fled, I would kill the infantry with the flankers and complete the stegadon's charge into the archers. Or if they held I'd hit the infantry with the flankers and be able to declare an EitW charge on them with the stegadon too with they would be unable to flee from since they would be engaged withthe flankers already and thus ItP.
Ash010110 wrote: I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).
(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)
-
Masterofdarkness
- Malekith's Personal Guard
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:30 pm
If he charges the flankers, and the stegadon into the blockers, they flee. stegadon can now redirect into the archers.
( i suppose this would require that the steg have larger unit strength then the flankers)
If he declares a charge with the flankers first into the blockers and declares a charge against the archers with the steg, unit flees steg goes into the archers, same result
If he declares a charge against blockers with flankers, steg against archers, blocker holds redirect steg into blockers.
On my reading of the rules it seems that yes this is perfectly legal (taking into account the changes in the errata)
besides only time it would make a difference is if the flanking unit is larger then the large target unit.
( i suppose this would require that the steg have larger unit strength then the flankers)
If he declares a charge with the flankers first into the blockers and declares a charge against the archers with the steg, unit flees steg goes into the archers, same result
If he declares a charge against blockers with flankers, steg against archers, blocker holds redirect steg into blockers.
On my reading of the rules it seems that yes this is perfectly legal (taking into account the changes in the errata)
besides only time it would make a difference is if the flanking unit is larger then the large target unit.
Always look for the knife from the shadows.
Wait a minute, how do you hide a +2 flaming longsword in the shadows?
Wait a minute, how do you hide a +2 flaming longsword in the shadows?
besides only time it would make a difference is if the flanking unit is larger then the large target unit.
Actually, no. It will make a difference whenever the flee direction of the blocker is away from the archers, which is easy to set up and is a common charge redirection tactic. And bear in mind that it is not limite to large targets either. Any unit that can see past the blockers (if they have a wider frontage for example) can do it too. This can be an extremely useful little tactic at times.
Ash010110 wrote: I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).
(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)
-
Furiouscado
- Malekith's Personal Guard
- Posts: 803
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:16 pm
- Location: Penn State
Didn't expect this to get so elaborate.. I didn't have internet over the weekend.
Anyway, Ant I agree with you on all points except one seems to strike me as fuzzy still. With the EitW rule (sorry that I don't have my rulebook at work) when the stegadon declares the charge at the archers, who are behind a redirection unit, wouldn't the result be the same as if the stegadon charges the redirection unit? Let me elaborate:
The stegadon declares the charge at the archers, but a redirection unit is blocking the way. Obviously, if the stegadon charges them, he'll run off in the wrong direction. So, now that you've charged the archers, there is an EitW and thus, you change your target to the redirection unit. can't they still choose flee to which they are now your new target and you would still have to pursue them? I'm relatively certain EitW involves all straight lines, so I suppose you could simply charge foreward and contact the EitW and fight facing the archers should they choose to hold, but it seems like when you delcare the EitW, you're declaring a new target and the flee response would still draw the stegadon off line.
I would love for me to be wrong, but the only way I see that happening is if the EitW isn't a normal charge declaration. If it's truly what it says as "an enemy in the way" and you're trying to continue straight foreward toward the intended target, then you should fight in that straight path and if the EitW flees, then it would make sense that the initial charge would be that the charger didn't recognize the redirection unit as a threat and once it fled, it just ... made sense .. therefore finishing the charge.
I also don't think it is UNREASONABLE, as Ant explains, to assume the unit will flee. The opponent would be lying if they said they were planning to soak the charge, thus it's reasonable to assume that the enemy will be fleeing and that the initial charge declaration to the unit behind it is legal. It's the just the scenario I explained above that seems fuzzy to me.
As far as the rules are concerned, it just seems like it is a new declaration and the charger would end up running sideways after the redirection unit anyways.
As far as the initial topic is concerned it seems all but solved that the archers would never have to take the terror test, but the blocking unit would have the stegadon redirect its charge into them, making them take the terror test instead.
Anyway, Ant I agree with you on all points except one seems to strike me as fuzzy still. With the EitW rule (sorry that I don't have my rulebook at work) when the stegadon declares the charge at the archers, who are behind a redirection unit, wouldn't the result be the same as if the stegadon charges the redirection unit? Let me elaborate:
The stegadon declares the charge at the archers, but a redirection unit is blocking the way. Obviously, if the stegadon charges them, he'll run off in the wrong direction. So, now that you've charged the archers, there is an EitW and thus, you change your target to the redirection unit. can't they still choose flee to which they are now your new target and you would still have to pursue them? I'm relatively certain EitW involves all straight lines, so I suppose you could simply charge foreward and contact the EitW and fight facing the archers should they choose to hold, but it seems like when you delcare the EitW, you're declaring a new target and the flee response would still draw the stegadon off line.
I would love for me to be wrong, but the only way I see that happening is if the EitW isn't a normal charge declaration. If it's truly what it says as "an enemy in the way" and you're trying to continue straight foreward toward the intended target, then you should fight in that straight path and if the EitW flees, then it would make sense that the initial charge would be that the charger didn't recognize the redirection unit as a threat and once it fled, it just ... made sense .. therefore finishing the charge.
I also don't think it is UNREASONABLE, as Ant explains, to assume the unit will flee. The opponent would be lying if they said they were planning to soak the charge, thus it's reasonable to assume that the enemy will be fleeing and that the initial charge declaration to the unit behind it is legal. It's the just the scenario I explained above that seems fuzzy to me.
As far as the rules are concerned, it just seems like it is a new declaration and the charger would end up running sideways after the redirection unit anyways.
As far as the initial topic is concerned it seems all but solved that the archers would never have to take the terror test, but the blocking unit would have the stegadon redirect its charge into them, making them take the terror test instead.
when the stegadon declares the charge at the archers, who are behind a redirection unit, wouldn't the result be the same as if the stegadon charges the redirection unit?
This comes down to the order that things have to be done. The important thing to note here is the EitW charges are declared in the move chargers phase, when you go to move the chargers and find it blocked by the enemy.
If the stegadon declared his charge on the archers first, then yes, you are correct, an EitW charge would be declared on the redirector (infantry in the diagram), and the stegadon would be led away.
If however the flankers charged before the stegadon and the infantry fled then when you come to move the stegadon there is no EitW at all. So it would be free to complete its charge into the archers.
And if the flankers charged first but the infantry held the stegadon would be able to declare an EitW charge at the infantry that the infantry would be unable to flee from, since the would be already engaged in combat and so ItP.
Ash010110 wrote: I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).
(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)
-
Furiouscado
- Malekith's Personal Guard
- Posts: 803
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:16 pm
- Location: Penn State
How does this affect the debate? I have been mulling it over in my head as to whether it would prevent declaring the charge or not...
I cross posted this discussion on a another mailing list and this reply came out from a member.
Page 9, Inteposing Models, 3rd Paragraph regarding Large creatures
being able to drawn line-of-sight over norma-sized models:
"Note that this does not allow large targets to charge through any
interposing models, which would object to being trampled by the huge
creature."
So regardless of how sure he is a unit is going to flee he cannot
declare the charge in the first place.
I cross posted this discussion on a another mailing list and this reply came out from a member.
Page 9, Inteposing Models, 3rd Paragraph regarding Large creatures
being able to drawn line-of-sight over norma-sized models:
"Note that this does not allow large targets to charge through any
interposing models, which would object to being trampled by the huge
creature."
So regardless of how sure he is a unit is going to flee he cannot
declare the charge in the first place.
-
Lakissov
- Malekith's Best Friend
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Tallinn, Estonia
- Contact:
it doesn't say that it can't declare the charge, it just says that it can't charge. if, on the other hand, the interposing models are not any more there by the time when the time comes to move chargers (i.e. if the interposing models have fled from another unit that had charged them), then there is no problem for the charger.
Some have made the arguement however that you can not declare a charge that is not able to be completed when its declared. I am starting to believe the charge is legal (though I am glad the terror check issue was addressed earlier).
But a new question is now if the charge declaration is in fact legal but now can't be completed due to the archers standing. I believe its a failed charge because the redirect rules only seem to take effect after the original target flees and the new target is behind said unit. (Neither of which is the case)
But a new question is now if the charge declaration is in fact legal but now can't be completed due to the archers standing. I believe its a failed charge because the redirect rules only seem to take effect after the original target flees and the new target is behind said unit. (Neither of which is the case)
the redirect rules only seem to take effect after the original target flees and the new target is behind said unit. (Neither of which is the case)
No they don't. read the faq I linked to earlier in this thread.
Ash010110 wrote: I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).
(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)
-
Geoguswrek
- Highborn
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: painting the null stone on my archmage
The solution to this method is to argue that it isnt obvious that the redirecting unit will flee the charge, and so your opponent will either
1) Declare the steg into the redirectors in which case you can flee or stand as you see fit because it is an entirely different case than if just the flankers went in
2) Not declare a charge with the steg, in which case you hold with the redirectors and the steg does nothing for a turn. (if you flee your opponent can complain as ant suggested earlier, but if you stand, there's nothing he can do)
If your opponent tries to use this rule and you take this stance, there is no real way he can argue the rules to be allowed to charge.
Though i'm sure someone will prove me wrong.
EDIT: Ant said if you deny your opponent the chance to charge in this circumstance and then flee you are cheating, however, it could be argued that if he declares the charge and you hold he is cheating as it wasn't obvious the charge is in range (you stood) and so he declared a charge that was out of range to gain an underhand advantage (the steg charging the redirecters). So if you hold the steg should be unable to declare a charge.
EDIT 2: in fact, i think ant's argument is flawed in that how i react to one charge is not just based on that charge, it is also based on others, and so the case with just the redirecters being charged by the flankers is entirely different to the case with the charge declared by the steg as well. The problem being i obviously won't flee if you declare the steg charge, so it is obviously illegal, but if you don't then i obviously will. THese are two seperate cases and cannot be allowed to influence one another.
1) Declare the steg into the redirectors in which case you can flee or stand as you see fit because it is an entirely different case than if just the flankers went in
2) Not declare a charge with the steg, in which case you hold with the redirectors and the steg does nothing for a turn. (if you flee your opponent can complain as ant suggested earlier, but if you stand, there's nothing he can do)
If your opponent tries to use this rule and you take this stance, there is no real way he can argue the rules to be allowed to charge.
Though i'm sure someone will prove me wrong.
EDIT: Ant said if you deny your opponent the chance to charge in this circumstance and then flee you are cheating, however, it could be argued that if he declares the charge and you hold he is cheating as it wasn't obvious the charge is in range (you stood) and so he declared a charge that was out of range to gain an underhand advantage (the steg charging the redirecters). So if you hold the steg should be unable to declare a charge.
EDIT 2: in fact, i think ant's argument is flawed in that how i react to one charge is not just based on that charge, it is also based on others, and so the case with just the redirecters being charged by the flankers is entirely different to the case with the charge declared by the steg as well. The problem being i obviously won't flee if you declare the steg charge, so it is obviously illegal, but if you don't then i obviously will. THese are two seperate cases and cannot be allowed to influence one another.
-
Lakissov
- Malekith's Best Friend
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:31 pm
- Location: Tallinn, Estonia
- Contact:
the rule does not say that you have to be absolutely sure that the charge will reach the target in order to declare it. the rule says that it should be reasonable to think that the charge can succeed. if there exists any chance at all that the charge will succeed, then it is allowed to declare it.
otherwise there would be no way to declare charges other than first measuring the distance with a ruler.
otherwise there would be no way to declare charges other than first measuring the distance with a ruler.
Thing is that the stegadon doesn't fly, so it could have never reasonably charged the archers. Had the stegadon been a dragon, there would definitely be enemy in the way-age.
BrB says you cannot declare a charge you cannot reasonably make. It does not say you can declare a charge that you cannot make, and hope to overrun into it via usage of other game rules. Where I can see that the stegadon could have reasonably been instructed to charge them, game mechanics make it difficult for you to have reasonably been able to declare that charge.
BrB says you cannot declare a charge you cannot reasonably make. It does not say you can declare a charge that you cannot make, and hope to overrun into it via usage of other game rules. Where I can see that the stegadon could have reasonably been instructed to charge them, game mechanics make it difficult for you to have reasonably been able to declare that charge.
Lakissov wrote:but you CAN reasonably make it, if the unit in the way, whic you _first_ charge with another unit, flees.
Assuming you are in range, have LoS but you don't fly as there is a unit in the way. I could assume the harpies that are 32" away could charge your Warpfire Cannon.. I mean, I can't measure yet but it could be 20" from me... similar abuse; very gamey at best.
Assuming you are in range, have LoS but you don't fly as there is a unit in the way. I could assume the harpies that are 32" away could charge your Warpfire Cannon.. I mean, I can't measure yet but it could be 20" from me... similar abuse; very gamey at best.
This is of course where the word reasonable comes in. Unless you are tremendously bad at guessing ranges, if the harpies are 32" away it is blatantly obvous that the charge can never succeed, whatever happens during the move chargers phase. In our case however, it is reasonable to assume that, given the correct circumstances, the charge could succeed.
Ash010110 wrote: I completely agree with Ant (Reynolds, I presume?).
(Please note, I am NOT Anthony Reynolds)