Order of Assault Phases Charge Sub-phases... totally re-written in the Assault Reactions?

[TheNineteenth]

So, the Charge Sub-Phase presents a 4-step sequence of events that happens per charging unit. AoDRBv2 p180

 

The Assault Reactions are stipulated to go off after all Charge roles are resolved, but somehow before any models have moved.  AoDRBv2 p160

Effectively, the use of an Assault Reactions imposes a totally different step order for the Charge Sub-Phase.

How do you house rule around this in your area/play group?

[SkimaskMohawk]

We've just been doing it in the same sequence as overwatch from 1st. Seems the most likely, especially with how they tried to fix return fire.

[Gorgoff]

8 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

We've just been doing it in the same sequence as overwatch from 1st. Seems the most likely, especially with how they tried to fix return fire.

I second that.

 

[General Zodd]

For those of us less familiar with 1st ed, would you mind expanding on that? Thanks!

[Gorgoff]

10 hours ago, General Zodd said:

For those of us less familiar with 1st ed, would you mind expanding on that? Thanks!

Sure.

 

1. Declare to charge with one of your units against unit X of your enemy.

2. Resolve Overwatch (or not. Enemies choice to do so)*

3. Roll charge range. 

4. Charge move.

5. Declare next charge or finish Charge Sub-phase.

 

*units could make one Overwatch per Charge Sub-phase so a little bit of decision making was necessary here. 

 

That's it and I guess that's how it is intended in 2ed as well. 

[General Zodd]

13 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Sure.

 

1. Declare to charge with one of your units against unit X of your enemy.

2. Resolve Overwatch (or not. Enemies choice to do so)*

3. Roll charge range. 

4. Charge move.

5. Declare next charge or finish Charge Sub-phase.

 

*units could make one Overwatch per Charge Sub-phase so a little bit of decision making was necessary here. 

 

That's it and I guess that's how it is intended in 2ed as well. 

Gotcha, so treating each charge, reaction window and charge resolution as one continuous process before moving onto the next one. Cheers!

[dickyelsdon]

On 11/13/2022 at 5:14 PM, Gorgoff said:

Sure.

 

1. Declare to charge with one of your units against unit X of your enemy.

2. Resolve Overwatch (or not. Enemies choice to do so)*

3. Roll charge range. 

4. Charge move.

5. Declare next charge or finish Charge Sub-phase.

 

*units could make one Overwatch per Charge Sub-phase so a little bit of decision making was necessary here. 

 

That's it and I guess that's how it is intended in 2ed as well. 

 

With the rule stipulating reaction 'may choose to expand reaction' after the roll, ive seen a few places treat it like this (swapping steps 2 and 3) allowing reacting player to ignore failed charges.

 

1. Declare to charge with one of your units against unit X of your enemy.

2. Roll charge range. 

3. Resolve Overwatch (or not. Enemies choice to do so)*

4. Charge move.

5. Declare next charge or finish Charge Sub-phase.

 

[Gorgoff]

48 minutes ago, dickyelsdon said:

 

With the rule stipulating reaction 'may choose to expand reaction' after the roll, ive seen a few places treat it like this (swapping steps 2 and 3) allowing reacting player to ignore failed charges.

 

1. Declare to charge with one of your units against unit X of your enemy.

2. Roll charge range. 

3. Resolve Overwatch (or not. Enemies choice to do so)*

4. Charge move.

5. Declare next charge or finish Charge Sub-phase.

 

I agree.

[TheNineteenth]

On 11/15/2022 at 5:43 AM, dickyelsdon said:

 

With the rule stipulating reaction 'may choose to expand reaction' after the roll, ive seen a few places treat it like this (swapping steps 2 and 3) allowing reacting player to ignore failed charges.

 

1. Declare to charge with one of your units against unit X of your enemy.

2. Roll charge range. 

3. Resolve Overwatch (or not. Enemies choice to do so)*

4. Charge move.

5. Declare next charge or finish Charge Sub-phase.

 

Certainly a nice house rule idea; love to see this in the official FAQ (or see one from a big event that people start treating as standard), baffled they didn't fix this fairly core rules conflict. I know the UK population thinks the rest of the world is too critical (and pushes a sort of toxic positivity fanboy's view of FW/GW), but personally, it strikes me that they're really WAY too forgiving on these technical writing editing issues.