Greeting, everyone! Recently our group switched to Necromunda (and we enjoy it a LOT), but we run into some rule issues with Charge, charge targets (is there one at all?) and 1" rule during charges. I will post some examples and hopefully can find answers here. Picture 1 - can u charge between fighters into back rank? Pic.2 - can u charge around row of fighters? And can u use charge to maneur bodyblocking ganger around, or are you forced to come into BTB with figther if you come in 1" during charge, thus ending it? Thanks everyone!
N18 Which charges are legit?
- Thread starter BelgDude
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1 inch charging rules changes
Honestly, there is no clear-cut answer.
Imo, #1 and #2 are ok. #3 might also be, depending on whether or not the path between the two red fighters is shorter.
The way I understand it:
Imo, #1 and #2 are ok. #3 might also be, depending on whether or not the path between the two red fighters is shorter.
The way I understand it:
- You don't technically declare a target for a Charge but you need to declare (before measuring) the exact point you want the Charge to end (it doesn't have to be in b2b contact with an enemy fighter) and every other fighter you intend to involve in this action (i.e. if your goal is to use the free Fight or Coup de grâce action against an enemy fighter, you need to declare that beforehand)
- The charging fighter has to use the shortest possible path to the destination you have declared (common sense house-rule: if the shortest path is somehow hazardous (includes a jump, a fall, toxic goo all over the floor, etc.), the fighter may choose to use the shortest safe path instead)
- The 1" rule is suspended for the duration of the Charge, but, if you breach a 1" bubble, the Charge must end with the charging fighter Engaged to an enemy fighter (not necessarily every fighter whose bubble was breached though). I use 'Engaged' and not 'b2b contact' here despite the RAW, because it's kinda ridiculous to force a fighter with a Versatile weapon to reach b2b in this case.
Thanks everyone a lot! Helped clarify some issues. Buuut here came another.
Should'nt 'shortest possible' route force Green to come in b2b with front red on 2 and 3? And shouldn't in that case Green status change to Engaged, so his charge stopped?
Should'nt 'shortest possible' route force Green to come in b2b with front red on 2 and 3? And shouldn't in that case Green status change to Engaged, so his charge stopped?
In case 2 the shortest route to the declared destination is as per the green arrow, so he must follow that route.
Case 3 would not be allowed as the green arrow doesn't follow the shortest route, they would need to cut through the gap.
Unless the gap was too small to fit through, or obstructed by a pillar or something.
Yes, that's allowed. As long as he stops in B2B with his target he's allowed to pass through the "control zone" of the other guy.
I agree with Kiro, but I'll add that it's open to interpretation.
My interpretation of the rules implies that it's perfectly legit to charge someone in the back (provided enough movement) even if you start your movement in front of them (since you declare a target destination and not a target fighter, you have to take the shortest route to that destination, even if you could engage the fighter using less movement). That's not something everyone will agree with.
My interpretation of the rules implies that it's perfectly legit to charge someone in the back (provided enough movement) even if you start your movement in front of them (since you declare a target destination and not a target fighter, you have to take the shortest route to that destination, even if you could engage the fighter using less movement). That's not something everyone will agree with.
My issue with this is that, in case #1, the charging fighter may end up being forced to move in b2b with one of the two intercepting red fighters even if they have enough movement to engage their intended target, which is a bit strange.
But honestly, I wouldn't terribly mind either way.
The Charge rules leave a lot to be desired. For one, I agree that it seems you could run around something blocking the path (other fighters, terrain, etc.) but I don't think you could, for example, take a wide arcing route just to allow yourself to Engage from outside the defender's vision arc to get the benefits of Backstabbing. (I don't know, maybe you can...) But why would that be any different?
Another thing I think is unclear is that the 1" rule says you can only pass within 1" of an enemy fighters if making a Charge action AND you end-up in B2B contact with an enemy fighter. So, take Example 1 above. If the Charging fighter fails to reach the enemy in the back row, then, by RAW, he would not be allowed to pass within 1" of the fighters in the front row. So, does he have to stop at the fighters in the front row? But shouldn't his Charge action be able to take him between the front fighters and leave him in the open space between the rows of enemy fighters?
The rules don't support this, but I think it would be better if you had to declare a target of the Charge and the path you are going to take. For one, if allowing the fighter to pick a different target after rolling the die and finding out that he doesn't have enough range to get there, that's equivalent of pre-measuring.
One thing I do think is clear is the Versatile thing. Charge says you get a free Fight action if you are Engaged at the end of the Move. Versatile says you are Engaged if, during your activation, you are within the range of the weapon. So even if your Charge falls short of B2B, if you are within range of your Versatile weapon you are definitely Engaged and entitled to a free fight action. GW doesn't get much more unambiguous than that.
Another thing I think is unclear is that the 1" rule says you can only pass within 1" of an enemy fighters if making a Charge action AND you end-up in B2B contact with an enemy fighter. So, take Example 1 above. If the Charging fighter fails to reach the enemy in the back row, then, by RAW, he would not be allowed to pass within 1" of the fighters in the front row. So, does he have to stop at the fighters in the front row? But shouldn't his Charge action be able to take him between the front fighters and leave him in the open space between the rows of enemy fighters?
The rules don't support this, but I think it would be better if you had to declare a target of the Charge and the path you are going to take. For one, if allowing the fighter to pick a different target after rolling the die and finding out that he doesn't have enough range to get there, that's equivalent of pre-measuring.
One thing I do think is clear is the Versatile thing. Charge says you get a free Fight action if you are Engaged at the end of the Move. Versatile says you are Engaged if, during your activation, you are within the range of the weapon. So even if your Charge falls short of B2B, if you are within range of your Versatile weapon you are definitely Engaged and entitled to a free fight action. GW doesn't get much more unambiguous than that.
Oh yeah! Speaking of The 1" Rule and Versatile weapons... I still have a hard time reconciling Versatile weapons with a 1" range. So the weapon is usable if you are within 1", but you can't be within 1" unless you get into B2B on a Charge. So what good is Versatile?
1" versatile is broken raw. The easiest fix while maintaining the 1" rule is 1.1" versatile for all the weapons with 1"
Versatile 1” only works if you stop exactly 1” away from the fighter to use it.
The 1” rule prevents you from moving “within 1 inch” but allows/makes you stop exactly 1” away.
The versatile rule allows you to engage a fighter that is “equal or less than” the specified distance, so a 1” versatile weapon can hit someone exactly 1” away.
It’s a bit of an oddity but specifically the word “within” doesn’t include the actual limit but a lot of people think that it does.
I have two problems with that:
It seems way more likely that it's yet another case of them not thinking this through.
- It's practically impossible to have a fighter stop exactly 1" away from anything, and if it was, it would be practically impossible to measure that exact distance.
- More importantly, it assumes that those writers know, use, and assume the player will recognize the difference between 'within X"' and 'equal or less than X"', which is a pretty big leap of faith imo
It seems way more likely that it's yet another case of them not thinking this through.
"Within X inches" is universally taken to include X" exactly.
The situation is, IMO, the charge rule says "stop 1" away" because it's shorter and less 'fluffy' than "stop just beyond 1 inch" and the devs just didn't think.
What it leads to is a permanent self referencing loop where they're always within 1" but never pushed outside of it.
I think 1" is intended as the same thing for the same reasons.
The situation is, IMO, the charge rule says "stop 1" away" because it's shorter and less 'fluffy' than "stop just beyond 1 inch" and the devs just didn't think.
What it leads to is a permanent self referencing loop where they're always within 1" but never pushed outside of it.
I think 1" is intended as the same thing for the same reasons.
The term “within” gets read both ways depending on the context it gets used in, but in the context of the 1” rule it is kind of irrelevant as the rule clearly states that if you can’t make it into base contact that you are placed exactly 1” away and would therefore be able to use a 1” versatile weapon.
@Thorgor I agree that it is almost impossible to exactly measure 1” but in the same vein it is almost impossible to exactly measure the 24” long range of a lasgun and know that you are in range of someone is right on the cusp. In practical terms you state your intention and make best efforts.
As for assuming the writers know the difference between the two terms I don’t know but if they wanted the same interpretation for both rules they should have used the same terms.
@Kiro The Avenger as stated above the 1” rule states to place the charger exactly 1” away if you don’t make base contact which RAW works with versatile 1”. It’s not that they have shortened it to make it more fluffy, it’s that they want the model exactly 1” away.
@Thorgor I agree that it is almost impossible to exactly measure 1” but in the same vein it is almost impossible to exactly measure the 24” long range of a lasgun and know that you are in range of someone is right on the cusp. In practical terms you state your intention and make best efforts.
As for assuming the writers know the difference between the two terms I don’t know but if they wanted the same interpretation for both rules they should have used the same terms.
@Kiro The Avenger as stated above the 1” rule states to place the charger exactly 1” away if you don’t make base contact which RAW works with versatile 1”. It’s not that they have shortened it to make it more fluffy, it’s that they want the model exactly 1” away.
I get that... but they're still within 1" so the 1" rule triggers again. But they're still within 1" so the rule triggers again. It never satisfies itself.
Sure, but we have multiple examples of them doing the exact opposite, sometimes for the same thing, sometimes in the same book.
Those writers cannot be trusted with words. A slight difference in wording evidently means nothing to them, and should mean nothing to us.
I agree that Versatile 1" working at exactly 1" is the RAI, but I disagree that the actual rules as written support it.
Similar threads
