Alright, here's the gist of things, something that came up today in a game.

3 units of glade guard were roughly in a "line" formation, so that a straight line from the carrion would only be able to hit 1 of the units. The events happened in this sequence:

1: Carrion declare a charge against the right glade guard.

2. The glade guard flee and their roll is enough to get them out of range (16" away, 9" flee)

and here is where the issue came from...

3. The carrion now declare a new charge. My opponent said that since it is a new charge, he can change the direction his unit charges in; essentially making it so that instead of going in the original charge path and having no other targets, the slate is wiped clean.

I questioned whether it was a valid tactic. Since if I had fled with the 2nd unit, he would have changed his charge direction a second time to charge the left unit.

Imagine a clock with the arrow pointing to "5". My opponent believed that he could point the arrow to "6" after I fled, as an EITW charge. Essentially there was no enemy in the way of the charging unit, but there were nearby units within charge range.

My opinion was that EITW meant that if the original target fled, you could prevent a failed charge if another unit could be contacted by the original charge. My opponent said that since it counted as a new charge, it meant that the charging unit could make an entirely new charge in a different direction.

Not sure if this is clear, but does anyone know the answer? Is EITW limited by the initial charge path? Or can the charging unit declare a second (or third) charge as if the first had never been declared at all?

Its actually much more complicated than this (the charging unit was using a movement spell, and was a skirmishing unit with 360' LOS), but for all intents and purposes this doesn't matter.

You don't get to take a new route. The original charging unit has to follow the flight path of the fleeing unit. They only get to charge another unit if said path would cause them to connect with the new unit.

Thats what I thought, as the rule was one of the 7th edition "fixes" of 6th; replacing the confusing "you can redirect into another unit if you couldn't have charged it otherwise". Now it is just "if an enemy flees, you can continue your charge path to hit another valid target".

The confusion comes from the fact that he could charge a unit in the original path (its a closer unit, if that makes any difference), and if he did so with a shift in direction, my flee would let him declare a 2nd EITW against a unit that is at least 80 degrees away from the original charge path.

Edit: Also, since carrion are flying, the "EITW" into a closer enemy is something they could do purely because they can move over enemy units in general. Following the charge path, a ground movement might have been forced to hit the EITW unit to begin with. And since the charge was due to a liche priest move, it raises the question about how such a thing would work with van halens, invo of urgency, and so forth.

Your opponent is confusing 6th ed. 'redirecting the charge' with 7th ed 'enemy in the way'.

However, if contact were to result based on a centre to centre path through the centre of both the charging and fleeing unit, then the new and valid charge declaration would result in a change in the charging units path, just to be clear.

Looking at the board, that brings up an ironic point... if following a center-to-center charge path, even the outermost point of the carrion unit does not intersect with the unit EITW was declared against. Something I think either is the result of the flee move, or both of us being distracted.

As it stands, we compromised and my opponent was sportsmanlike enough to let me change from flee to SoS even after rolling my flee on the 1st EITWed unit. I don't state the name of my opponent as a general policy btw, there's nothing sketchy about the way it was handled aside from both of us being very confident in our views.

I am the opponent in question, respect to dagg for keeping names anonymous. Since nothing malicious was happening here, just rules disagreement its ok to be open. Both of us played the rules as best we know. And with all due respect to Daggoth. This happens frequently, when a player isnt familiar with a rule/tactic mistakes are made in presenting the situation clearly.

these things are easier explained in person but I shall try anyways.

Relevant rules pg 25 EITW

2nd paragraph... "they are allowed to immediately declare a new charge against the enemy in the way"

But really the last paragraph of EITW is all thats needed

"the player must now declare that his unit is charging against the new target, and the target must make a charge reaction as normal. If this second target flees as well, so that another unit lies in the way of the new move of the chargers, this procedure is repeated..."

In summation...

1) declare charge....enemy flees
2) check which enemy units are in your charge lane(determined by outside models)
3) declare NEW charge against any units in charge path
4) NEW charge comes with new flee paths, new charge lanes...if enemy flees
5) go back to step 2

a diagram



a little confusing but...

1) charge #1 is red, closest skirmisher to center of ranked unit is flee path(line with arrow), outside models of charging unit determine eligable EITW targets
2) charge #2 is NEW charge. Closest skirmisher to center of ranked unit is flee path and outside models determine eligable EITW targets
3) charge #3 is NEW charge. Closest skirmisher to center of ranked unit is flee path and outside models determine eligable EITW targets.

I thought you could only charge an EITW if your original charge direction would have made contact with a new enemy unit.

Never seen anyone totally change direction before and i think that David has misunderstood the rule. I'm usually wrong though when posting on here so that doesn't mean much though :P

Wait for Captain Decker to answer it, he know's his stufff or you can message a guy on Warhammer.org called Queeq who has a reputation as a rules god he will explain it for sure.

From your Diagram i would have seen it like this:

to Charge unit 1 you would have had to wheel so you wouldn't have made contact with with unit 2. Therfor when unit 1 Flee's you would have just moved a failed charge directly towards the fleeing unit 1.

As i said i'm probably wrong though.

You can't declare a new charge in a different direction thats redirecting. It really is as simple as following a straight line from the original charging position that is as wide as the charging unit.

Actually, if going centre to centre and finding you are clipping something you CAN declare a whole new charge against the new target, so going by that diagram it seems it actually was by the rules, even though it is hard to tell because it is really close calls, both of them.

the units were clipped using the charge lane.

read the last paragraph of EITW

"the player must now declare that his unit is charging against the new target, and the target must make a charge reaction as normal. If this second target flees as well, so that another unit lies in the way of the new move of the chargers, this procedure is repeated..."

is my diagram so bad that it doesnt show unit 2 is in the charge lane of charge 1?

its a less well known, more advanced tactic. You wouldnt see it often, just like you dont see many people use multiple targets rule from pg24

does my diagram not show that unit 2 is in the charge lane of charge 1?

second the charging unit is a skirmisher so no wheeling.

third, wheeling increases the width of charge lane 1 therefore it makes EITW more likely.

fourth, on EITW you dont move your charger until youve settled on a final target of your charge. This could be 5 EITW declarations later than your first charge declaration. So it is important that you maintain the original position of the charging unit until your ready to make your charge move against the final target. At the same time, with non skirmish units you need to wheel to come perpendicular with your targets final flee position which determines your pursuit path to determine EITW targets. Ive seen players wheel several times changing their position on the table, this should be avoided.

I dunno, it still seems quite wrong to me; if this was an issue about h2h or magic or a special rule we'd be calling it rules lawyering, not advanced tactics.

It just seems entirely against both the text and intent to have it be able to shift from line 1 to line 3, relying on a few words out of a paragraph that are questionable; the declare a whole new charge part is immediately followed by the explanation that this means the enemy is able to declare a new response and such.

Perhaps this is a very odd exception, but I agree with v3n.

If the charge path clips a unit in any way, EiTW allows you to declare another charge against that unit. From that declared charge (and starting from the original position) treat it like a normal charge from then on.

Looking at the diagram, it's a legitimate move since step by step each unit was a legal EiTW target.

It might seem like sneaky wordsmithing if taken out of context, having the charge path shift so massively, but look at it sequentially (and open the first rulebook FAQ for some more info).

The first charge is declared, and that unit flees.
The chargers would encounter the second unit as they chase after the first, as they are in the way.
The second unit gets to make a charge reaction.
The second unit chooses to flee, and the chargers would go after them instead.
But then on that same charge path is the third unit- so they can be charged, as they are in the way.

The FAQ even notes that the charger wouldn't need line of sight for the later charges- they just spot the new enemy right in their way and lay into them instead!

right, forgot about that extra bit. I can just imagine the discussion then :)

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=62374

for a little different twist, considering its flying skirmsihers. Ive asked around seems ok.

only for players new to the concept. Overtime you will feel more comfortalbe with it. Everywhere Ive played, skilled players use this and other tactics. Like multiple charges, drawing in skirmishers with 1 unit so second is in range. Some stuff ive shown you.

read last paragraph of EITW. its clearly meant to change charge path.

the EITW section is only like 2 paragraphs long. how many words would it take to convince you?

how does that invalidate anything? New charge = new responses = new charge paths.

rules support for your position?

Having re-read the FAQ i think David is right, it's just one of those situations that doesn't sit right with me but them's the rules!

its a shock to players unfamiliar. But once you get used to it and start using it. It adds more tactical depth to the game

And more combat, which is a good thing against armies that would dare to flee three times in one charge ;)

that too :) slippery WE, how else is m4 WoC supposed to catch them if not for sneakiness

David's scenario looks right to me... but it's such a flukish occurence I wouldn't really worry about it. It needs a) flyers/skirmishers with LoS to the rear unit, B) a unit in between the rear unit and the charger, c) the rear unit to flee, d)the centre of the front unit to align in such a way as to flee toward a third friendly unit, e) that unit to actually flee too, despite knowing they would allow a second Eitw charge and a panic test on thei other rear unit.

In other words, the stars and planets aligned for David in that game. Try and do it to the same opponent twice... :D

All bang on, and nothing underhanded about it. Once you understand the rules, you know what to expect and what to plan for.

And knowing is half the battle! heh.

the army in question was tombkings and carrion. This situation ws not an accident, you can spread carrion out to do this trick in most games where soft enemy units are clumped.

Awareness of this rule is necessary because between your opponent and you. Someone has a good chance of pulling this off even with normal armies. You dont want to miss the opportunity, nor do you want to declare a flee that will cause another unit be EITW.

The charge is by all means correct, I wouldn't call it rule lawering at all, but then again I'm a very "RAW" person, since I do not think that "not playing raw" is a good idea. I play with all the rules, or with none of them ;)

Very valid and nicely set up charge if i may say so. Setting up redirects has become a mainstay of my gameplan as of late.

I'd submit that its not terribly clever or advanced unless Daggoth makes the mistake of not using Stand and Shoot (which he did, then didn't :D ). I say this only because planning for other's mistakes is not a great way of ensuring success.

Allow me to put on my internet warhammer snob hat (the one I wear when I wasn't there, am operating completely off hearsay, need to make snap judgements, and am feeling spunky). . .

Really, who's afraid of fighting carrion? You've most likely got numbers, better WS, same strength, might even get a wound on the way in (5s and 4s?). The only problem would be a failed fear check, but at the worst you probably lose by 2. If your general and BSB are nearby your chances of running aren't even that high.

Or, at worst, you lose your archers and next turn you turn around and wipe out the carrion with your other archer units. You certainly can't have them running around behind your units, regardless. Sometimes you have to break some eggs to make and omelet.

http://nerduo.com/thebattle/?ref=hive

Yo Joe! :D

No EITW charge is valid in the above example for several reasons, mostly
due to not looking at the rules concerning flying charges. The carrion in the
example fly directly over unit#2 in your example they are not in the way at
all. Unless the flyer is using his ground movement he will not hit a new unit.

As further evidence of this look at the rules for flyers fleeing and pursuing.
The rulebook says that flyers will flee and pursue over units in there flee/pursuit
path. ie they will not be destroyed by fleeing though another unit unless they
land directly on top of said unit.

objection overuled. case dismissed.

Unfortunately that's completely incorrect.

EITW allows a charger to declare a new charge against a unit in their PATH towards a fleeing original chargee.

The fact a flyer can choose to fly over opponents either during a charge or flee move does not REQUIRE them to fly over opponents in an EITW situation.

Actually that is incorrect. Flyers who are flying can not choose not to
fly. Only units that the flying unit would land directly on are in the way.
A flying unit can catch a unit that flees behind another unit. Just like
a fleeing flyer can fly over the unit of hounds you strategically placed
behind them ( as per the rulebook concering fleeing flyers) .

Nothing is really in the path of a flying unit as they ignore units and
terrain between them and the unit they are charging (as per the
rulebook). Check the section on flying charges and let me know what
you think. I am willing to debate this one but at least as I read
this seems to be pretty clear.

If the unit in the example were a 20 wide unit of cavalry then they
would have played the example correctly. Of course ......ive never
seen a 20 wide unit of cavalry.

Napoleon would say otheriwise.


Hoof&Mouth, there is only one path. There is no 3dimensional other path for flyers. They can choose to charge the EITW new target or complete their full charge over them. Other units need to charge or stop 1" short minimum due to not being flyers.

Thats the only difference.

agree with Talonz the rules reflect one path nothing more or less.

Here is the part of the EITW section that I think prevents what we are
talking about.

" Chargers, as they make their full charge move staight after the intended
target, run into another enemy unit that is in the way of their move. " p.23

" The charging flyer moves straight towards the target, over any intervening
terrain or models. "

The initial charge I think requires the typical effort of " endevouring to be
as close as possible to the fleeing unit " ( FAQ, I dont remember which )
Since the Carrion in the example would fly over unit#2 they must endevor
to move straight after the fleeing unit. :ph43r: :ph43r:

Well that's both the Eitw and the flying charges rules. The eitw rules do not reference flyers at all. The flight rules do say "CAN otherwise fly over models and scenery" but. You are right it then gies on to say "straight towards the target over any intervening terrain or models. . . Exactly like any other charging unit." I don't have easy access to the first FAQ that covereed eitw I believe on my iPhone but there may indeed be some pertinent bits. I see the sentence you are hanging your argument on but I am not sure it was intended to take eitw away from flyers.

Theres nothing in the brb faq pt1.

Im open to hoofs argument, but there is another factor here that compells me to believe that flyers can still eitw...although not conclusively.

brb p69
"flyers...can always choose to either fly over an intervening enemy unit or to charge it instead."

This is in relation to pursuits, so the argument is whether charging flyers are compelled to fly over possible eitw targets to chase their original charge target by the charge rules (which would not apply in a pursuit, more or less).

In the flying charges section on p68, it clearly states that you 'can' fly over intervening models...that sounds optional to me.

I think if you can reach the original target, you do so. If you cant, I think you are free to eitw.

@Talonz

You have to fly or use your ground movement......Carrion have a move of 1
I think.

A friend brought up another point though. What if the unit was not carrion but
a shaggoth, or a unit of skirmishers, somewhere around the center of where the
original carrion unit was.

They would be able to see the first unit and charge around the unit between them
to reach the intended unit, if they didnt flee. However they are still compelled to
try to reach the original unit. There charge move would take them around the unit
in between them......right?

after mulling this over with several other guys, they have seen this come up and
seen it played both ways. This may bear a diffinitive answer.

Correct, but not relevant. The question is whether flyers (using flying movement) get to use EITW or not. If they are using their ground movement for some reason, the question wont come up.

Yeah and....? Apples and oranges my friend.

LOL

I think its more like red delicious and granny smith. The point is that if you
declare a charge against a unit than you must endevour to charge them. To
declare a charge one direction and EITW in another is neither the RAW or
intent of the rules.

It breaks down like this anyway.
1. Flyers ignore intervening models and terrain.
2. An enemy cant be in the way if it is not in the way.

Talonz, you are turning into my arch-nemisis.

Let's assume you're right that the flyers ignoring intervening models breaks the issue (I don't think we can confidently claim it must be one way or the other), the flyer issue is a strawman in the overall EiTW issue. You could get the same swapped around EiTW charge with a fast skirmisher unit (let's say rat swarms). With the right unit, they could charge 180 degrees from the direction their initial charge started since step by step, you're correctly applying EiTW.

Actually....assuming I get perfect setup, I could spread a unit of skirmishers so that EiTW must charge 180 degrees away with only a single use of EiTW. Skirmishers are in a semi-circle with the closest model due north. Rat swarms charge a unit due south which flees. Incidental contact activates EiTW charging the semi-circle skirmishers. Closest model is due North even though the contact would happen due South since EiTW causes a charge declaration, not a charge where contact is made.

Correct, unless you declare a new charge on something else, in which case the old charge is irrelevant.

That seems to be completely the point of EITW. Once you declare a new charge via EITW, you must follow the charging rules for the new target, which invariably will result in a new direction, however slight, from the old, as a logical result.

Not entirely, as the repetitive use of 'can' and 'may' and the explicit example of them having the choice of charging intervening models, or not, during a pursuit on p69. The argument therefore is that they can do the same in an EITW situation.

True, unless the charging flyers choose to make them in the way, given the above.

Nah, Im just a rules fiend. Either way, one or both of us (and anyone else reading this) will sharpen our understanding of the rules through these discussions.

Ah. I see. So our fundamental differance in interpretting this is that I
read "can" as:

are able to.

you are reading "can" as:

you have the choice to.

At least in my interpretation this possible ambiguity is cleared up by the later
statement that flyers ignore intervening models and terrain. I may be
misunderstanding your argument, however it seems as though you are saying
that a flyer can make a 20" ground move. The fly move ( at least in my
reading ) is pretty cleary described as a bound over intervening models and
terrain.

Can indicates choice, yes. If they wanted to make the flight over models imperative, a simple replacement of 'can' with 'will' would do what you are asking.

Not sure what the 20' ground move means...

An enemy is EITW if they are in the charge path, which is defined as the width and distance moved of the charging unit. There is no 3rd plane/axis in wfb.