|
Post by anechrome on Jul 23, 2021 1:00:25 GMT
Ah, now I think I get where you're coming from! You're saying that it is the declaring of the charge that makes the rest of the unit restricted, right? I read it as it is the actual moving out of the unit that has that effect, i.e. If a charge is declared but no charge is made, then the unit is not restricted from charging.
Maybe I should explain that better? My interpretation in brackets.
BRB p. 101 states: ”A character can charge out of a unit (this is the action), by declaring a charge (this is the means by which the action is allowed to be taken) in the relevant phase (when, but that's not really in play here) – in which case (referring to the action of charging, not the means - the declaration of the charge), he will move and his unit will stay still.
Compare to the following: Proffesor Plum can kill dr. Lucky, by using a candlestick, at night - in which case he will be arrested. It's not the means, using the candlestick, that gets him arrested. It's the killing. Or am I reading this wrong?
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Jul 23, 2021 6:18:18 GMT
Another epistemological discussion like for move/be moved? Thanks, but no thanks. The BRB is a rulebook, not a philosophical treatise. If some have questions like these 11 years after the book was written, perhaps the fault is not to be found with the BRB, but with themselves and their Cartesian anxiety. Without going into philosophy I do think some of the word in the book is unnecessary ambiguous. There are room for improvements. Also some references is found in other parts of the book or elsewhere like faqs. Everyone is not as good as reading rules in foreign languages like you. And clearer wording would help to clear up some things for less fortunate and cause less discussions. We already know this. The Warhammer rules are many things; tightly and comprehensively written are not among them. That's why we have this whole section of the forum - and so does every other Warhammer Forum past, present, and future.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 23, 2021 7:50:36 GMT
Ah, now I think I get where you're coming from! You're saying that it is the declaring of the charge that makes the rest of the unit restricted, right? = That is correct. "Charge" is a term of the game register, and refers to (the whole or part of) the charge process consisting of 1. Declaring a charge 2. Declare & resolve the charge reaction 3. Roll charge range & resolve the charge Remember that only after all of your charges have been declared and reacted to, you get to make the charge rolls and resolve the charges. Hence, once a character has initiated a charge process by declaring a charge, the rest of the combined unit cannot start another a charge process (by declaring a charge). And even if the charge fails, the character will leave the unit.
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Jul 23, 2021 8:35:17 GMT
Ah, now I think I get where you're coming from! You're saying that it is the declaring of the charge that makes the rest of the unit restricted, right? = That is correct. "Charge" is a term of the game register, and refers to (the whole or part of) the charge process consisting of 1. Declaring a charge 2. Declare & resolve the charge reaction 3. Roll charge range & resolve the charge Remember that only after all of your charges have been declared and reacted to, you get to make the charge rolls and resolve the charges. Hence, once a character has initiated a charge process by declaring a charge, the rest of the combined unit cannot start another a charge process (by declaring a charge). And even if the charge fails, the character will leave the unit. Please elaborate - Where does it say that the word Charge in the rulebook = Every part of the charge-phase? Don't get me wrong, this may very well be the case, I've just never considered that before and I can't find the game register that you mention. Is there a page number or are you referring to something else?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 23, 2021 8:54:04 GMT
Register is used here in its sociolinguistic sense, i.e. a variety of language used for a particular purpose or in a particular communicative situation, in this case a specific game. WFB (like almost any other game) uses certain words and phrases in a way and with a meaning that are specific to the game.
If you go to page 16, the whole chapter is called "Charge" and the process is explained thus:
"In this sub-phase, you'll choose one of your units and declare the charge you want it to make. Your opponent will then have the chance to have his unit hold its ground or react to the charge [= to declaring the charge, since that is the only thing that has happened so far. FvS], either by standing and shooting or fleeing.
Once the charge reaction has been resolved, you can nominate another of your units to declare a charge, and so on, until all of your charges have been declared and reacted to — then you get to make your charge rolls and resolve the charges."
The side note on the same page has a
CHARGE SUMMARY
i. Declare a charge ii. Resolve charge reaction. iii. Go back to step i. until all units you wish to charge have done so. iv. Move all charging units, in any order you like.
Indeed, a character charges out of a unit by declaring a charge - but he will not actually move out of the unit, until all the charges have been declared and reacted to; and even then, he may still have to wait his turn, because other charges may be resolved first.
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Jul 23, 2021 10:02:16 GMT
Yes, I know how charging works, I'm just not sure if the word Charge is equal to all parts of the charge-phase consistently throughout the game. I thougy maybe there was a glossary somewhere I missed. It sounds a bit like you're making an assumption here. Which may absolutely be right, I'm just not 100% convinced that is so. One reason for this is that if Charge is supposed to be read as you descibe it, then the whole sentence on p101 gets very weird and the second part about "..., by declaring a charge,..." gets totally superfluous. It's like saying "A person can drive a car, by driving a car, in the relevant car-driving-phase". What sane person would make a sentence like that? I'll have to check a few more places where Charge is used, but at this point it seems like a bit of a stretch...
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Jul 23, 2021 18:11:23 GMT
Ah, now I think I get where you're coming from! You're saying that it is the declaring of the charge that makes the rest of the unit restricted, right? = That is correct. "Charge" is a term of the game register, and refers to (the whole or part of) the charge process consisting of 1. Declaring a charge 2. Declare & resolve the charge reaction 3. Roll charge range & resolve the charge Remember that only after all of your charges have been declared and reacted to, you get to make the charge rolls and resolve the charges. Hence, once a character has initiated a charge process by declaring a charge, the rest of the combined unit cannot start another a charge process (by declaring a charge). And even if the charge fails, the character will leave the unit. Need to clarify something; Is this saying that if a unit (or character) declares a charge he counts as charging nomatter if he actually moves or how far. So a failed charge is still a charge just as long at it has been declared? Also, would it be the same for the recievers? Is a unit considered to be "charged" when the charge is declared or only when the charging unit moves into contact with them?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 24, 2021 9:33:31 GMT
A charge consists of several elements, the first of which is declaring a charge - unless, of course, specifically stated otherwise, like e.g. for Random Movement.
A failed charge is indeed a charge - I should have thought the name itself is a bit of a giveaway. That is why it is subject to Dangerous Terrain tests, just like a successful charge.
A unit is considered charged, from the moment a charge has been declared against it.
BRB p. 17: "As your opponent declares a charge, you can declare a charge reaction for your charged unit."
BRB p. 18: "A unit might well be called upon to make several charge reactions over the course of a Charge sub-phase, if it is charged by several enemy units."
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Jul 24, 2021 23:23:37 GMT
Right, so I had a look around at how the word is used in the rules and found a few examples where the rules get strange if we use the strict descriptions you stated above.
First there is this from Obstacles in BRB p.122. ”If a cavalry, monstrous cavalry or chariot marches, charges, flees, pursues or overruns over an obstacle, or charges an enemy on the other side of an obstacle, it must take a Dangerous Terrain test.” which we then compare to the FAQ p.12 which says ”Q: If a cavalry, monstrous cavalry or chariot unit charges a unit touching the other side of an obstacle how many models need to take a dangerous terrain test ? (p123) A: Any model touching the obstacle must test.”
Here it is clear that it is not enough for a unit to declare a charge in order to take the dangerous terrain test, they actually have to either move over the obstacle or make contact with it as it charges a unit defending it. If the chargers declare a charge and for some reason don't make it into contact with the obstacle, no dangerous terrain test is taken.
This is actually enough to convince me that the word charge is not always used as a way to describe ”the whole part of” the charge process, as you stated before. It still may be used in that way in the text on p.102, but I can't be 100%, without a doubt, certain that is the case (even though I think it probably is).
Then there are a few more places where things get weird if it is assumed a unit is charging as soon as they declare the charge, i.e. before the actually move. I'm not sure about any of these, so I'd love to hear how people play them if anyone is still reading... =)
BRB p.119 Forests and movement ”If a cavalry, monstrous cavalry or chariot model marches, charges, overruns, flees or pursues through a forest, it must take a Dangerous Terrain test.” If we assume that a unit is after all considered as charging from the moment it declares a charge, then what happens in this example: A cavalry unit standing inside a forest and under the effects of the Net of Amyntok declares a charge, but then fails the Strenght test? If they are charging, they should take a DT-test regardless of if they actually move. One could of course have a closer look at the phrasing and say they do not charge through the forest when standing still, but we also know that effects like these from terrain (forests) usually take effect from the moment a units touches the terrainpiece, as in the example above with the obstacle. I've never run into it on the table, but it made me wonder.
Another oddity from the FAQ p12: ”Q: What happens if a unit that is assaulting a building is itself charged? (p127) A: The assault on the building is abandoned (move the unit that was assaulting the building backward 1”) The two units outside the building are now engaged in combat instead and will fight a round of combat this turn.” Here the assulting unit is ”charged”. If a unit is considered charged from the moment the charge is declared, the assulting unit in this example should be moved away from the building regardless of that charge being successful, but in the following sentence, it seems implied that movement will have had to occur to put the chargers into contact with the assulting unit, otherwise it makes little sence that they would be in combat. I may be reading this wrong though, and perhaps an assaulting unit is moved away when a charge is declared, and are just not placed into combat unless the charge is successful? Please chime in if you know.
Then there's the Shieldwall from the Dwars armybook p. 32. ”In a turn in which their unit is charged, all models with this special rule receive a +1 bonus to any Parry save they are eligible to take. Note that this bonus applies even if the unit is charged whilst it is already engaged in close combat. ” Do the dwarves get the +1 bonus against a unit they are already fighting if the charging unit doesn't get into contact with them? If they are ”charged” as soon as a charge is declared, then they should, right? This may be the case, it's just I've never seen it played that way or heard anyone anyone trying to make that argument. Then again, I don't play dwarves so please enlighten me.
Keeping on the same page in the same book but now into a bit vaguer territories; Resolute ”Models with this special rule have +1S during a turn in which they charge into combat.” The wording here gets me just a bit cautios. At first glance it seems obvious it's ment as ”charge and make it into combat”, but if we compare it to the Daemons of Chaos army book p. 26 regarding Daemons of Khorne: ”In addition, on a turn in which a model with this special rule makes a successful charge, it has a +1 bonus to its Strength for the rest of the turn.” Why would they use a different wording for the dwarfs if they mean the exact same thing? Could it be that the ”into combat” part is simply ment as ”charging in towards a combat” which would then give the +1S even if the charge is failed? Seems unlikely since there is not much more to charge in the game apart from into combat, at least that I can think of right now. Or are there objectives in special senarios that can be charged that would then not give the +1 S bonus?? In either case, this is probably also an example of how the wording in the rules are not consistant – two phrases with the same meaning also implies that one phrase can have several meanings throughout the rules. Perhaps because the authers were more focus on getting the text done that checking how something was written in earlier books. Just a thought.
I found a few more but they are strange enough to warrent their own threads.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 25, 2021 7:23:51 GMT
Duh. This is not something I claimed, nor can it be in any way deduced from what I said. Nor did I say it refers to the "whole part of," but on the contrary: "Charge" is a term of the game register, and refers to (the whole or part of) the charge process consisting of 1. Declaring a charge 2. Declare & resolve the charge reaction 3. Roll charge range & resolve the charge But since there is no way your Cartesian anxiety can be satisfied in any case, this will be my last post on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Jul 25, 2021 8:56:30 GMT
Well, it's actually quite simple.
1. If a character is considered to have charged at the time it declares a charge (part 1 above), nomatter if it then moves or not, then only one single character can charge out of a unit. 2. If a character is considered to have charged only after it has both declared a charge AND moved (part 1, 2 and 3 above), then multiple characters in a unit can declare charges as long as only one of them actually moves. This could occur if for example the first character dies from a Stand & Shoot charge reaction before step 3.
If 1. is correct, then a unit declaring a charge against a defended obstacle should take dangerous terrain tests whether or not they move. And this is proved false by the FAQ. And this would leave us with 2. being correct. OR! The meaning of the word Charge (charges, being charged) is not consistant throughout the text which would then grant us the possibility that only 1 character can charge out of a unit and only cavalry touching an obstacle takes dangerous terrain tests. But this also leaves us with the uncertainty of what is ment in every single instance the word is used, unless clarified by an FAQ.
And that's all I'm saying - we cannot be 100% sure.
Edit: Oh, and if it wasn't clear why this matters, it's because of number of charge reactions 1 unit with several characters can cause during a single turn.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 25, 2021 9:35:08 GMT
Well, I'll add this and then hold my tongue.
This is humbug. [Declaring a charge initiates the charge, it does not end it, nor does it somehow subsume later stages of a charge. Your assumption does not follow at all from 1, and the FAQ does not need to prove it false.] As "charge" refers to (the whole or part of) the charge process, it refers here to resolving the charge by moving the charging unit. People (well most) are smart enough to understand which part of the process the context requires. That said, we could even include the "whole part of the charge process" here:
”Q: If a cavalry, monstrous cavalry or chariot unit charges a unit touching the other side of an obstacle how many models need to take a dangerous terrain test ?
then translates into:
Q: If a cavalry, monstrous cavalry or chariot unit having declared a charge, the charge reactions having been declared and resolved, the charge roll having been made, is being moved as part of resolving the charge into contact with a unit touching the other side of an obstacle, how many models need to take a dangerous terrain test?
One could use this phrase every time instead of using the word "charge" by only adjusting the tenses and wording a bit, but one can see why a simple "charge" is preferred.
|
|
|
Post by anechrome on Jul 25, 2021 10:52:46 GMT
This is humbug. The FAQ does no such thing. As "charge" refers to (the whole or part of) the charge process, it refers here to resolving the charge by moving the charging unit. People (well most) are smart enough to understand which part of the process the context requires. That said, we could even include the "whole part of the charge process" here: Then you acknoledge exactly what I'm trying to say: The word has different meanings in different parts of the rules. Sometimes it means only declaring a charge, sometimes it means declaring and moving. Without an FAQ on the phrasing on p.101 we cannot know for certain what is intended there. We can guess, assume or draw parallells to other parts of the text, but still not know if we're right. The problem with saying, as you did, "A unit is considered charged, from the moment a charge has been declared against it." is that it doesn't take into consideration the point I'm trying to make - we cannot be sure it ALWAYS means this. In some instances it seems a unit is considered charged only when they are successfully charged. Also, stating that most people are smart enough to know which part of the process requires is a bit derogatory. I assume you are mainly meaning me, but saying that a person that cannot by themselves figure out from context what part is required is not smart enough to read the rules sounds quite harsh. Different people have different ways of reading the same text. Don't assume everyone reads it as you do, or that your way of reading it is always correct. GW didn't use linguists when writing the rules and just because a term of phrase generally is interpreted in a certain way doesn't mean that is the way the authors ment it.
|
|
|
Post by johngg on Aug 17, 2021 10:59:52 GMT
"A person can drive a car, by driving a car, in the relevant car-driving-phase". What sane person would make a sentence like that? Lawyers FvonSigmaringen you have the patience of a saint
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 17, 2021 11:10:26 GMT
Well, I am a canonised saint, after all...
|
|