Charging into/outta darkness

[UnderhiveBerzerker]

Hello fellow underhivers

I have a Q regarding how the community would use the darkness rules, like "Genetarium" boon and "Into the dark"

It states that a fighter can only target an enemy with an ranged attack if it is within 3 inch or has an mozzle flare/balze marker. Photogoggles or infrared sight enables the fighter to target an enemy with 12 inch.
charging isnt stated to be allow unless the fighter is within 3 inch, regardless of other conditions

but RAW the fighter dosnt declare an target for an charge, just moves the distance and is allow to reach base contact and engage an model. or does the "darkness" rule change this mechanic?

also RAI should you be allow to charge within 12 inch if you are wearing photogoggles

How are is your gaming group handling these rules ?

 

[ten_kage]

It is a very unpopular opinion apparently, but I think taht you ARE supposed to declare an objective for a charge before you do it. A lot of things make more sense if the rule where that way (Fearsome being the main example).

 

[necrobot]

I agree RAW you can charge from beyond 3". RAI is not as clear in this case. But if it's dark and you can't see, logically it makes no sense to be able to charge somebody you don't know is there.

I'd take ten_kage's comment one step further and say that many rules problems can be solved if looking at things logically and not strictly RAW. But I understand why that doesn't really work nor is it desirable to have to use a lot of interpretation.

 

[Thorgor]

Yeah, either the Charge rules need a complete rewrite or Fearsome and the Pitch dark limitation simply do not work.

I think Charge is in the wrong here, but if you rewrite it to use a target, then you also need to write what happens when the charge fails. One may think 'well, it's simple, just move as far as you can towards the target' but then you need to determine a path for the fighter to follow which is not always trivial in a multi-level game with dangerous terrain features. Should the fighter always follow the shortest path even if it means jumping down a few levels or swimming through toxic sludge? Probably not, but then you need rules for that too. Can you fail a charge trying to backstab your target when you could reach them from the front? This, and other similar questions, would also need to be addressed.

Anyhow, the Pitch black rules preventing fighters from charging what they can't see doesn't really make sense to me in a system that allows fighters to charge enemies they can't see in other situations (namely, nothing stops you from charging around a corner or at a hidden fighter.)

 

[TopsyKretts]

It could make as little sense as you say to charge someone you can't see, but it could in some situations also make sense. If one fighter sees the other fighter moving in the open, but then lose LOS when moving behind a container, it's not incomprehensible for that fighter to make a decision to charge behind that container. But if the fighter about to charge was basically "blind" in the dark, the other fighter moving behind the container was never seen initially.

 

[Thorgor]

Yeah, but the rules do not track what each fighter has seen or not (with good reason, that would be a bookkeeping nightmare) and you may still charge at this guy behind the container even if you never saw him move there. I agree it's more likely to happen in the dark though.

I think the Pitch black rules makes more sense as a balancing feature. Close combat may be too good in the dark if you can charge full distance but can only fire 3" away, making the scenario completely unwinnable for ranged gangs who didn't load up on night vision wargear or template weapons. It could also represent fighters not being willing to run in the dark (for obvious safety reasons), but then the Sprint skill should also be affected.