Nominating charges

[Cian]

Hi folk, halfway through my first 8th edition game and my opponent double sixed me with this rule - his lord of contagion nominated to charge my deathwing apothecary 4 inches away AND Azrael 11 inches away and seperated by a 90 degree angle from his lord, so, out came the rule book and after reading the charging rules several times it seems he is right. Both got to fire overwatch at the lord but did no damage and he rolled less than 10 inches but over 3 and so charged my apothecary (who got wiped). I have re- read the rules since and can find no fault with his logic.

Now i have been playing 40k for a long time and never come across this before (since RT to present but missing 4th & 5th).

Split charging with units i have played before but never this, have i been playing it wrong for all these years ?

Is that the correct interpretation of the rules or am i missing something?

 

Cian

Edited July 6, 2017 by Cian

[Lysere]

This is just a recent change and was played correctly. It lets you have options so long as you are willing to take the overwatch.

[ERJAK]

Hi folk, halfway through my first 8th edition game and my opponent double sixed me with this rule - his lord of contagion nominated to charge my deathwing apothecary 4 inches away AND Azrael 11 inches away and seperated by a 90 degree angle from his lord, so, out came the rule book and after reading the charging rules several times it seems he is right. Both got to fire overwatch at the lord but did no damage and he rolled less than 10 inches but over 3 and so charged my apothecary (who got wiped). I have re- read the rules since and can find no fault with his logic.

Now i have been playing 40k for a long time and never come across this before (since RT to present but missing 4th & 5th).

Split charging with units i have played before but never this, have i been playing it wrong for all these years ?

Is that the correct interpretation of the rules or am i missing something?

 

Cian

Don't apply anything from 8th retroactively. Yes you did the rule correctly here, no it wouldn't of worked in 6th or 7th, yes there are dozens of other instances where the rule is totally unique to 8th and has nothing to do with any other edition.

[Cian]

Thanks folk, guess i'd read it but not absorbed it but now i know.

 

 

Many Thanks

Cian

[Atrus]

How is this even possible? Is it an attempt at a charging driveby? Say if he got the charge distance for Azrael, would he have charged the apothecary, stomped him then moved the other 7" to be in combat with Azrael?

This makes no sense...

[MysticTemplar]

How is this even possible? Is it an attempt at a charging driveby? Say if he got the charge distance for Azrael, would he have charged the apothecary, stomped him then moved the other 7" to be in combat with Azrael?

This makes no sense...

It's a logical outgrowth of the weird charge range abstraction - you'd only end up charging one, but it isn't any more illogical than the fact that you don't move at all if you didn't make the distance - you declare both as targets, and then move to one after you see how much distance you got. But you eat overwatch from both targets, so it works from a gameplay perspective, so it makes about as much sense as the charge mechanics ever have.

[Kierdale]

Interesting.

That's not something I had noticed that you could do.

I can think of some situations in which it might be useful, for example in a recent game I had a group of Fenrisian wolves near me and a Wolf Lord a little bit further away. The lord was my actual target (for my sorcerer's charge) but had I known this little trick, I could have nominated both as charge targets, still only eaten the Lord's overwatch as dogs can't shoot :D and if I hadn't rolled far enough on my charge to get to the lord I could have stopped the dogs (and consolidating from that either toward or away from the lord as the situation dictated...).

 

Worth remembering.

[WarriorFish]

This is a good example to help remember how different a beast 8th can be, plus it's something worthwhile to remember during games as it could be very useful. Speculative charges are worth a shot if you can have a closer backup, plus even more reason to if you can bag a target that doesn't have anything to overwatch with

[Cian]

Must admit it threw me and proper p---ed me off during the game but now having realised theat it was my incorrect reading of the rules im a little p---ed at myself.

Still not sure that this is how the rule is supposed to be interpreted but it is how its written and its not like GW would mess up ;-)

 

Cian

Edited July 10, 2017 by Cian

[Zamtro]

That's exactly how it should be interpreted. You can declare both targets and then roll to see what you can actually do, it gives you more options. The downside is, it means you have to eat multiple overwatch. Theres a pro and a con!

[wildweasel]

Interesting.

That's not something I had noticed that you could do.

I can think of some situations in which it might be useful, for example in a recent game I had a group of Fenrisian wolves near me and a Wolf Lord a little bit further away. The lord was my actual target (for my sorcerer's charge) but had I known this little trick, I could have nominated both as charge targets, still only eaten the Lord's overwatch as dogs can't shoot :D and if I hadn't rolled far enough on my charge to get to the lord I could have stopped the dogs (and consolidating from that either toward or away from the lord as the situation dictated...).

 

Worth remembering.

Also consider this: if you just declared the wolves as a target and the Wolf Lord was then able to make a Heroic Intervention to join the combat, you wouldn't be able to allocate attacks to him as he wasn't a declared target. So it's often worth declaring characters in such positions as targets - even if intervening models make it impossible to reach the character on your own.