N18 Body Blocking Charges

Dat boi

New Member
Apr 8, 2018
1
0
1
Somewhere
Greetings denizens of the sump, I have a problem I was hoping you guys could help me out with that came up in a game last night in my first campaign arbitrating.

I have prepared a diagram to illustrate the problem. My apologies for my seeming inability to draw things on an accurate scale.


The issue involved a situation where GANGER A (Yellow) wished to charge GANGER Z (Green). There is sufficient space for GANGER A to move between enemy GANGERS X & Y in order to do this. The issue raised was whether or not GANGER A would be unable to perform the charge to violating the no moving within 1" of enemy fighters rule. For this there has been a Rules As Written (RAW) argument and Rules As Intended (RAI). Our group favours the RAI approach if possible.

The key point of the diagram is that GANGER A must move within 1" of GANGERS X & Y if they wish to make it to GANGER Z.

RAW
The 1" rule has the specific exception that a fighter making a charge action may "move within 1" of one or more enemy fighters, provided that they end their movement in base to base contact with one or more enemy fighters". As this does not specify that this exception only applies to the enemy that is ultimately engaged by this charge action I believe on RAW GANGER A is indeed permitted to charge GANGER Z despite the fact this will will cause them to move within 1" of GANGERS X & Y whilst moving to the ultimate destination of GANGER Z (at which point they will no longer be within 1" of GANGERS X & Y).

This was generally agreed upon by the group as the appropriate RAW interpretation.


RAI
This was a little more complicated. We had points for the charge being valid and those against it.

FOR CHARGE BEING VALID
-The 1" rule exists to restrict being engaged to only being possible through a charge action. It does not exist to give gangers a base that is functionally 1" bigger in radius. Body blocking through using this bubble is clearly against the spirit of the rules.
-If the same charge was attempted using a versatile weapon with a long enough range to allow GANGER A to engage without having to move through GANGERS X & Y then there would be no issue (this sounds unrealistic but 5" versatile weapons do exist).
-If the 1" bubble really does allow charge blocking like this then gluing a juve to your back or sides would functionally make you charge proof as unless an enemy fighter charge both of you at once (which I'm not entirely sure is legal) as the respective 1" bubble of the non-targeted fighter in the duo would make the charge invalid.

AGAINST THE CHARGE BEING VALID
-The 1" rule exists the represent the idea that people will push away people who get too close. To this end it functionally makes the bases of gangers 1" bigger in radius for determining if a fighter has enough room to move their base past them.
-Body Blocking in this way is an intentional mechanic designed to provide a defence against being charged.


As is probably obvious I personally believe that the charge is perfectly valid from both a RAW and RAI perspective. Additionally, the consequences of the alternative make the difficulty of making a charge MUCH greater, which really isn't necessary in my opinion and would only encourage people to sit back and camp with guns, which is boring and already the safest choice. That being said, I wish to check with others to make sure I am not being tyrannical and imposing unfair rules onto my group.

What are your guys thoughts on both my RAW and RAI analysis and how would you group rule it?

Additionally, would GANGER A be allowed to perform the move if instead of charging they were simply going to move with 2" of GANGER Z and fire a gun at them?

Apologies for the long post.
 

Scavvierising

Gang Champion
Honored Tribesman
Aug 3, 2016
393
727
153
London
Similar thread here https://yaktribe.games/community/threads/charging-and-cheesy-counters.9929/page-3#post-221700

Personally I see it that during the charge move the 1" rule is not in use. It kicks in again after the move is finished. So if you got within an inch but didn't quite get in b2b contact you shuffle back slightly.
If you finish your charge in b2b with someone the 1" rule does not imply to you as well. So theoretically if you make it into b2b with someone you can also be in b2b with others as well.
But as you will see from the thread a few ideas exist and there isn't much of a consensus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S

Galtarr

Gang Champion
Mar 1, 2017
403
587
118
As per my response to the linked thread RAW the charging action is an exception to the rule provided the fighter ends in base to base with 'an enemy fighter'. So provided you end in base to base it doesn't matter.

However if you don't manage to make it to the declared fighter can you engage another or do you get pushed back further? rules aren't clear and you need to agree a judgement between you.
 

Scabs

Ganger
Feb 4, 2014
203
277
63
San Diego. CA, USA
RAW...Imagine the distance between A and Z is within A's normal movement . Why would A not be able to move between X and Y, unless charging Z? Why wouldn't A be able to "run" between X and Y. Either charging or moving, A would move the same distance in the same amount of time. Why would charging make it possible, but moving not?

RAI...Imagine X and Y are base-to-base. A would not be able to charge X without moving to within 1" of Y. Without the Charging exception of the 1' rule, A could not charge X. That is why the rule exists. Not so that A can charge between X and Y to get to Z. There is no "Intercepting Chargers" like in other games. The 1'" prohibition is Necro's version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Galtarr

Gang Champion
Mar 1, 2017
403
587
118
RAW is just that. maybe the effects are intended maybe not. The game is an abstraction. if you don't like it - Houserule that target priority counts on charges too. .

Personally I prefer this issue to the one Kiro raised in the other thread where putting a fighter behind the target makes charging impossible.

RAI is always debatable. It may primarily exist to ensure the pin mechanic to prevent charges etc.. I prefer to discuss RAW or house rules anything else is too arm wavy.
 

Ben_S

Hive Guilder
Honored Tribesman
Jul 26, 2015
4,564
7,221
158
Southampton, UK
Pedantic point: If X and Y are 3" apart, as in the picture, then A (if on a 25mm base) should be able to squeeze between their 1" bubbles anyway.

Let's suppose it's either slightly less than 3" or that A is on a 32mm base. Well, the rules say that you can move within 1" of other fighters, provided you end up engaging someone, so this seems to be allowed. Perhaps it doesn't make much sense that A can charge past X but not move past X, but those are the rules.

(I think the 1" is really just to keep it clear who is engaged and who is not, though on this basis I don't know why it is applied during moves and not only at the end of moves, which would simplify matters a bit.)
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Dec 29, 2017
2,876
2,691
153
Kristiansand
You can't charge through a line of fighters! That's why they are set up like that, to deny charges against the 2nd line. A can still charge, but must choose between X and Y. Z is not an option. I would never accept fighter A to charge Z. RAI is crystal clear in my opinion. Or at least what RAI (and optimally) RAW should be.

Some other games would specifically allow A to charge Z, but then A would suffer "reaction attacks" for running away from X and/or Y (depending on ppath and melee range). So that would introduce a calculated risk by charging a more valuable target Z.

Edit: This is the same as "intercepting chargers" as Scabs described.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S

Ben_S

Hive Guilder
Honored Tribesman
Jul 26, 2015
4,564
7,221
158
Southampton, UK
It's possible that the 1" is intended to stop A charging past X but, if that is the intention, it fails to achieve what's intended (especially since the hardback rules, which allowed chargers to ignore 1" bubbles so long as they engage someone).

It'd be perfectly easy to add rules for interception, or charging target priority, or to say that the charger must engage the first model whose bubble they enter, or whatever. Therefore, we must conclude either (i) the writers didn't actually intend these things or (ii) they are incompetent at conveying their intentions.

This is why I'm ordinarily wary of assuming that there's some intention other than what the rules say - it's not very charitable to the writers. However, perhaps in the case of N17/N18, we can make an exception...
 

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Dec 29, 2017
2,876
2,691
153
Kristiansand
Failed to achieve what's intended, you found the sub-title for the game. Fixing large parts of the problems would be super easy (for example having the same profile for lasgun 2 places in a book), yet GW is unable to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben_S