PDA

View Full Version : Declaring Illegal Charges in order to succeed on a legal charge



ForestZ
04-17-2012, 01:01 PM
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z253/fukifino/charge_vectors.jpg

Model A wants to charge model B. The green vector represents a legal charge, placing model A exactly 1/2" from model B at the end of the charge. The blue vector is a legal charge that will fail as model A will contact model C on the way there. The red vector is an illegal charge, as the charge rules state you *must* move along a line that will place your target in your melee range.

As the player of model A, I survey the board, *think* I can squeek by model C and declare the charge. As the player of model A, I have no way of knowing, just by looking at the board, when I turn my model to face a given direction, if it will meet the legality criteria of a charge. If I aim my model along the red vector, eyeballing the board and thinking that should squeak me past model C and into melee range of model B, I have no way of knowing it's an illegal charge until I check the end position.

Once we find that vector is illegal, the game state rewinds and I try again.

My question is, what in the rules (other than me potentially being a jerk and wasting my opponents time) prevents me from trying the Red Vector, finding out it's illegal, adjusting my angle ever so slightly creating a new vector somewhere in between the Red and Green vectors, finding out that's illegal, and repeating until I reach the Green vector, and thus a legal, successful charge?

Assuming nothing in the rules prevents me from attempting this, in order to prevent me wasting the previously mentioned time, is acceptable to simply state my intention to *attempt* to charge at the maximum legally allowable limit to the left of models B and C (ie. the Green vector), placing a placeholder near model B, measuring that placeholders melee range thus calculating the maximum legal location a charge could occur, drawing the line between A and the placeholder, the moving model A along that line until he either contacts something (thus failing the charge) or makes it to the end position?

Chopsworth
04-17-2012, 01:19 PM
I don't know about the legality of this, but at my meta we use the side of a tape measure (number side facing away from both players) to check, in the cases of questionable charge lanes, and see if a model even has a legit vector to it's target.

Tanglethorn
04-17-2012, 01:36 PM
Wouldnt he be able to move the charged model, then realize it was a failed charge thus ending that model's activation in the spot he has marked? We have never rewound a failed charge at our meta and in this situation that's what this seems to amount to.

ForestZ
04-17-2012, 01:46 PM
Tanglethorn: No. The rules say you *must* charge along a line that will, at some point, bring you into melee range with your target. You just flat out aren't even allowed to charge along the red vector in my diagram. It's an illegal charge, not a failed charge. But because you can't determine the legality of a charge beforehand, the rules are open, at least as far as I can determine, to the situation I outline above.

Khador_Warrior
04-17-2012, 01:59 PM
Get a laser-line. $5 online to see if you can even succeed.

Or if you want to go nuts, you can spend $300 on this one.
http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arctic_Series-96-37.html

Tanglethorn
04-17-2012, 02:18 PM
Tanglethorn: No. The rules say you *must* charge along a line that will, at some point, bring you into melee range with your target. You just flat out aren't even allowed to charge along the red vector in my diagram. It's an illegal charge, not a failed charge. But because you can't determine the legality of a charge beforehand, the rules are open, at least as far as I can determine, to the situation I outline above.

I guess I'm confused because we do failed charges all the time on purpose to get that extra movement after we force a beast to use his animus.

Nevermind, I see the difference between a failed charge and an illegal charge now. Failed charges are following a direct line to the target, where as an illegal charge is not.

Laser guided Sea Bass it is then.

Sorry!

Crate123
04-17-2012, 02:39 PM
If you try it at a tournament you might get in trouble with the TO/judges OR you might end up using an entire rounds worth of time with all your moving the model, measuring and then rewinding.

Kypt
04-17-2012, 02:40 PM
Yeah, in our meta we have 2 lasers availablef or us most of the time. So when LOS or charge questions come up, we go ahead and laser up!

wazatdingder
04-17-2012, 02:51 PM
This seems to over think it. In my meta, you do your best, if it is out, you fail, end of discussion. There is not take backs as an illegal charge. All you need to declare is LOS, once declared the charge must go, if it fails, it fails. Sure you can argue the legality of it, but does this help any. The enemy is not getting anywhere they could not legally go with a run. There is no benefit to the person charging for doing this and failing. I guess I don't get the reason for getting your panties in a bunch over this...

Leo_the_Rat
04-17-2012, 03:18 PM
I think that you just end up with a failed charge. If you can draw an LoS to the target declaring the charge action is legal (p47 Hordes). All of your attack vectors are legal for you declare a charge since model A can draw a line to model B. If you fail to end up within melee range of your taget then you have failed the charge. If you make an illegal move during your charge then you may have to rewind the movement but you can't renege on your legal charge declaration.

There is no rule that says that you must be able to successfully complete the charge to make it a legal action. If it ends up that you clip an intervening model or your angle of attack takes you outside of your melee range then you're just out of luck.

Sheer_Falacy
04-17-2012, 03:24 PM
There is no rule that says that you must be able to successfully complete the charge to make it a legal action. If it ends up that you clip an intervening model or your angle of attack takes you outside of your melee range then you're just out of luck.

For the first, yes, but you can't even start the charge if the second is true.

ForestZ
04-17-2012, 03:32 PM
Exactly. Prime page 47 says:


After declaring a charge, the charging model turns to face any direction that will bring it to within melee range of its target, ignoring terrain, the distance to the charge target, and other models.

Emphasis is mine, and it's been interpreted multiple times to mean that you must charge along a vector that brings your enemy within melee range and it's illegal to do otherwise. Hence the red vector isn't a failed charge, it's an illegal charge and you can't actually do it, which is what is triggering this whole discussion.

SageofLodoss
04-17-2012, 03:37 PM
The understanding in our meta is you need
1) LOS
2) Be moving in a straight line move towards, rather than away from the target.

If you know you have those two things, you can declare the charge.

If, after this declaration, you find that the charge line makes it so that you can't get the target in your melee reach, then it's a failed charge, and you complete the failed charge movement and then end your activation.

The only time that we would flat out say 'no, you can't even try it' is if the angle was so blatantly not moving towards the target. Your drawing, if we were to only eyeball it with no drawn vectors, looks like a "maybe, but there's a chance of failure," and we'd leave that decision up to the player.

ForestZ
04-17-2012, 03:45 PM
That's certainly fine for your meta, but that's not how the rules are written, at least as far as I can determine.

I see a few people responding with "well, this is how we've decided we're going to do it," and that's fine for you, honestly, but I'm not looking for opinions on how my meta should be house-ruling it.

SageofLodoss
04-17-2012, 03:46 PM
Exactly. Prime page 47 says:



Emphasis is mine, and it's been interpreted multiple times to mean that you must charge along a vector that brings your enemy within melee range and it's illegal to do otherwise. Hence the red vector isn't a failed charge, it's an illegal charge and you can't actually do it, which is what is triggering this whole discussion.

Since you ninja'd this in, figured I'd respond. If you are indeed facing a direction that would seem to put your opponent in melee range, if you can move far enough, then IMO you should be allowed to make a "I'll go/not go" decision, with all the penalties of failure included. You'll notice that it says to ignore intervening models, so you're not supposed to be able to pre-check your charge lane in regards to your melee range. You can verify LOS, and you can measure your melee range where you are now. If you can't eyeball the result, then its a "go/no go" call. If you decide to go and you can't make it, you fail. No resets.

LOS would be something that you would need to verify before moving, but a charge lane's effect on your melee range should be like not knowing if you have enough space to fit between two models.

SageofLodoss
04-17-2012, 03:50 PM
That's certainly fine for your meta, but that's not how the rules are written, at least as far as I can determine.

The only way for you to literally determine this, if you can't eyeball it, would be with a blank base and a line/laser, as you suggest in your first post. But this involves a degree of pre-checking that wouldn't sit well with a lot of people. I guess we can ask for infernal clarification if we must; LOS and cover could be abused before the errata. *shrugs*

rydiafan
04-17-2012, 03:55 PM
My question is, what in the rules (other than me potentially being a jerk and wasting my opponents time) prevents me from trying the Red Vector, finding out it's illegal, adjusting my angle ever so slightly creating a new vector somewhere in between the Red and Green vectors, finding out that's illegal, and repeating until I reach the Green vector, and thus a legal, successful charge?

Well, in a tourney you'd be wasting your own time, not your opponents. No TO would let you stop the clock to do this. Other than that, you are correct on the legality. Each time you attempt an illegal action you rewind to before it happened, and proceed anew.


Assuming nothing in the rules prevents me from attempting this, in order to prevent me wasting the previously mentioned time, is acceptable to simply state my intention to *attempt* to charge at the maximum legally allowable limit to the left of models B and C (ie. the Green vector), placing a placeholder near model B, measuring that placeholders melee range thus calculating the maximum legal location a charge could occur, drawing the line between A and the placeholder, the moving model A along that line until he either contacts something (thus failing the charge) or makes it to the end position?

This is how players in my area often do it.

ForestZ
04-17-2012, 03:56 PM
That's kind of my point, Sage. The rules tell you that you must do something, but then don't necessarily give you a way to determine it. There was some confusion, for example, previously on Line of Sight. The rules say you must have LOS to something to declare it a target, and there was some confusion on what happens if you declare an attack on something, then find you don't have LOS to it. And it seems like two major clarifications came from that: 1) You cannot declare without LOS and thus if you did, it's illegal and you'd rewind the game state to before the declaration and 2) you can check your LOS between 2 models at any time, for any reason.

Here, I see a similarly ambiguous rule: You must charge along a path that would (given nothing in the way and an infinite line) bring you into melee, but there's no way to determine that before you actually charge, thus making what I've outlined above a valid sequence of events.

Leo_the_Rat
04-17-2012, 04:44 PM
Exactly. Prime page 47 says:



Emphasis is mine, and it's been interpreted multiple times to mean that you must charge along a vector that brings your enemy within melee range and it's illegal to do otherwise. Hence the red vector isn't a failed charge, it's an illegal charge and you can't actually do it, which is what is triggering this whole discussion.

Your interpretation of this rule would mean that cavalry couldn't declare a charge through an enemy unit with the intent of using an impact attack to clear away the obstacle. The blue line is a perfectly legal option for a cavalry model to pick. If the attack doesn't remove the intervening model from the board are you then going to declare an illegal charge since his vector didn't bring him within melee range of his charge target? I doubt it.

All the charge rules state is that to be able to make a charge declaration your model needs a line of site. If your model can not fulfill this objective, no matter what the reason then it doesn't make the declaration illegal it just means the charge failed. What you are doing is making the movement part of the charge rule part of the declaration portion of the charge rule.

It's a multi-step process when you follow the rules. First you check to see if you can declare a charge (is the target in LoS of your model). If yes, then turn your model to face any direction that will bring you into charge range. Then move your model, etc.. Don't forget that changing the facing of your model is part of the charge movement. If after moving your model it is not within melee range of the target it is a failed charge. The only way a charge can be illegal is when the model can not draw LoS to the target anything after that just makes it a failed charge. Just because you can't get to the target after you declare the charge doesn't make it illegal just illadvised.

juckto
04-17-2012, 04:44 PM
+Edit. I don't think there is an ideal solution. Technically I think you could just keep nominating vectors far to the left of Model C, finding out they're illegal, rewinding and nominating a new vector a fraction of an inch closer, until you find the ideal one that just gets you into melee range.
But I wouldn't play against you twice.

rydiafan
04-17-2012, 04:58 PM
Your interpretation of this rule would mean that cavalry couldn't declare a charge through an enemy unit with the intent of using an impact attack to clear away the obstacle.

No it doesn't. The rules say not to take models or terrain into account when determining your charge lane.

ForestZ
04-17-2012, 05:03 PM
I never once stated the blue vector was illegal. It absolutely is legal, and is only in my diagram to illustrated the failed charge this situation is attempting to avoid.

rydiafan
04-17-2012, 05:05 PM
ForestZ is correct that, by the rules, you could keep attempting narrower and narrower charge angles until you find the widest possible one. As a rules forum question that is the correct answer.

That said, I see no harm in cutting to the chase with the following method.



Put a melee guage next to the target
Agree that that is the widest possible charge angle.
Move the charging model along that path, seeing if he can make it to the target. If he can't, the charge fails.

juckto
04-17-2012, 05:13 PM
Except that involves premeasuring your melee range.
Why should my opponent be able to measure what the widest charge angle is, eyeball that it is wide enough to avoid getting a free strike, and only then commit himself to that charge vector?

I would go:

Declare you are going to attempt the widest possible charge angle.
Put a melee guage next to target.
Agree that that is the widest possible charge angle.
Move the charging model along that path, seeing if he can make it to the target. If he can't, the charge fails.

rydiafan
04-17-2012, 05:15 PM
Except that involves premeasuring your melee range.

Only insomuch as determining a legal declaration. Measuring 3" into a forest to determine LOS is also premeasuring, but that was determined to be legal to do.

ForestZ
04-17-2012, 09:00 PM
I assumed juckto's step 1 was implied in rydiafan's step by step, but yes, that was the gist of my origina post. It was never meant to be implied that the charge lane would be predetermined, and then the charge cancelled if it was unfavorable.

Tyr852
04-17-2012, 10:03 PM
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?104296-When-can-you-check-charge-lanes-clipping is this not the same thing? It has two infernal posts

Pink Foam!
04-18-2012, 12:10 AM
So I would say declare the charge and if it fails then you fail your charge in base contact with Model C.

Personal suggestion is to buy a thin dowel rod for 30 cents and use it after declaring a charge to see if you will make your charge.

If the charge fails after this, move on your legal line ("through" Model C) until you come into base contact with Model C on the closest line to your original. My understanding is that you CANNOT move your model on an illegal charge lane, and models/terrain are irrelevant when declaring your charge/charge path. Moving along the blue line will eventually put you into melee range with the charge target, so you would move along that as far as possible.

You kind of just have to use your noggin here and talk to your opponent before swinging the above mentioned dowel rod onto the table, which an opponent could very easily view as premeasuring. The only alternative I see is trying again and again until you find out that your charge actually had a successful venue, or you just wasted precious seconds finding out you wasted a models activation.

Would also like to put in that the upside down tape measure also works well for seeing if your charge will work or not.

n00buaddib
04-18-2012, 01:07 AM
Get a laser-line. $5 online to see if you can even succeed.

Or if you want to go nuts, you can spend $300 on this one.
http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arctic_Series-96-37.html


Completely legal laser power - The 1000 mW output power of the blue laser beam is able to burn through balloons, plastic, and much more. In the U.S., it's totally legal to use a laser of any power for appropriate, non-commercial private use.*

I'm not sure your 300$ laser is Warmachine & Hordes legal mate. :D

To offer something constructive to the thread, I don't see the dilema either. You declare a charge, scout out (with a straight stick or tape measure or something) potential legal charge lanes, pick one and resolve the charge. Since you're probably doing this in your turn (unless you're counter charging), it's on your clock so there's no wasting of your opponent's time.

bitmatic
04-18-2012, 02:27 AM
The understanding in our meta is you need
1) LOS
2) Be moving in a straight line move towards, rather than away from the target.

If you know you have those two things, you can declare the charge.

Actually there is absolutely no requirement to move towards the charge target. You only need LOS to declare a charge.

In my meta this is never really a problem, and we also use lasers to gauge LOS and charge lanes. The actual laser that a couple of us have is this one from Maelstrom Games (http://www.maelstromgames.co.uk/index.php?act=pro&pre=lfc_hob_mod_lsr_101_000). I can definitely recommend getting one.

Lord of ????
04-18-2012, 06:05 AM
Actually there is absolutely no requirement to move towards the charge target. You onlyneed LOS to declare a charge.

read the requirements again.

x3tsniper
04-18-2012, 06:26 AM
Yeah, in our meta we have 2 lasers availablef or us most of the time. So when LOS or charge questions come up, we go ahead and laser up!

One of those is my lazer beams. Pew pew sir.

petegrrrr
04-18-2012, 06:38 AM
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z253/fukifino/charge_vectors.jpg


Easiest way to answer it is:

Blue is a failed charge. You charged on a line that would have ended with you in melee, thus it was a legal charge and you simply failed by running into a model on that line and ending your movement. The rules state that you must charge along a line that would end with you in melee, and blue would have ended with you in melee, so you simply fail the charge.

Green is a legal charge.

Red is an illegal charge, as you chose a line that would not eventually have ended with you in melee, this triggers a rewind.

If Blue happens first, you fail your charge. If Red happens first, you can rewind and try again since it was a non legal move.

Nion
04-18-2012, 06:39 AM
Except that involves premeasuring your melee range.
Why should my opponent be able to measure what the widest charge angle is, eyeball that it is wide enough to avoid getting a free strike, and only then commit himself to that charge vector?
Once you are commited to the Charge action, it stops being premeasuring, and becomes normal measuring. If the measurement turns out to indicate a legal charge, you are now obligated to take that path.

bouncymischa
04-18-2012, 06:39 AM
This seems to over think it. In my meta, you do your best, if it is out, you fail, end of discussion. There is not take backs as an illegal charge. All you need to declare is LOS, once declared the charge must go, if it fails, it fails. Sure you can argue the legality of it, but does this help any. The enemy is not getting anywhere they could not legally go with a run. There is no benefit to the person charging for doing this and failing. I guess I don't get the reason for getting your panties in a bunch over this...

Actually, there is a benefit -- you can cast spells/use animi before performing a charge.

I remember a game once where a Khador player cast spells, then had their warcaster "charge" a model, but moved tangentially in order to use the extra 3" to get their warcaster behind cover. I believe they may have ended up closer to the target than they started (say, starting 12" away but ending up 10" away from the target -- but moving 9" to get behind a convenient obstruction), though.

So, if one doesn't rewind an illegal charge, but simply goes, "Oops, I guess I'm out of melee range! Silly me!", is this a valid tactic?

EDIT: Come to think of it, wasn't there some discussion about this in the past about charging friendly models, which resulted in the errata saying you have to stop once you enter melee range? If you don't rewind illegal charges, is there anything preventing me from charging a friendly model 6" in front of me, but going off to one side so I end up 5" away from him?

bitmatic
04-18-2012, 06:46 AM
read the requirements again.

I know the rules. There is no requirement to move towards the model you charge. You are just required to choose a direction that will get the target in your melee range. There are several situations where that does not mean you must move towards the target.
1. 2 models with circular vision for example can charge past each other, and thus move away from each other during parts of the charge move.
2. If you are already engaging a model, you can actually charge directly away from it, as long as you keep it in your melee range.
3. You can also charge in a direction that is "perpendicular" (is that the correct term...?) to the target, thereby moving away from the target.

There is absolutely no requirement to move towards the charge target.

bouncymischa
04-18-2012, 06:52 AM
2. If you are already engaging a model, you can actually charge directly away from it, as long as you keep it in your melee range.

There is absolutely no requirement to move towards the charge target.

I'd have to doublecheck the wording on the errata, but isn't there the specification that "once your target is in your melee range, they must stay there" in order to prevent charging past the target?

Since you always face the direction of movement, wouldn't turning around to charge away from a target violate that?

bitmatic
04-18-2012, 06:54 AM
I'd have to doublecheck the wording on the errata, but isn't there the specification that "once your target is in your melee range, they must stay there" in order to prevent charging past the target?

Since you always face the direction of movement, wouldn't turning around to charge away from a target violate that?

Not if you have circular vision.... That particular example might be a little far-fetched, but the point i'm trying to make stands.

bouncymischa
04-18-2012, 07:08 AM
Not if you have circular vision.... That particular example might be a little far-fetched, but the point i'm trying to make stands.

I was wondering about that. I knew you'd used circular vision in the first case, but you hadn't mentioned it in the second and third.

Still pondering my earlier points, though. If you don't rewind an illegal charge, can you make a charge you know is illegal to get the extra distance after casting spells? If you've got circular vision, can you charge away from an enemy you're not in melee with?

rydiafan
04-18-2012, 07:08 AM
You would definatly rewind an illegal charge, just like any other illegal action.

You could do a known unsuccessful charge after spell casting, but not an illegal one. Your Butcher charge example was not along a path that would have gotten him into melee, so would have been illegal, and thus undone.

bouncymischa
04-18-2012, 07:38 AM
You would definatly rewind an illegal charge, just like any other illegal action.

You could do a known unsuccessful charge after spell casting, but not an illegal one. Your Butcher charge example was not along a path that would have gotten him into melee, so would have been illegal, and thus undone.

Those are my opinions as well -- the incident I described before occurred because I and my brother weren't familiar with charge rules, and realized only afterwards that it had been an illegal move.

I just find myself mulling over the comments by some posters that a charge made along the red line in the OP wouldn't be undone, because it would be considered a "failed charge" as opposed to an illegal one. I can imagine a situation where a Menoth player charges a Vanquisher along the red line, and finds he's outside of melee range after completing the charge. If the rules don't obligate you to move along a path to make a successful charge (the green path), then can the Menoth player simply go "Oops, I misjudged it" and then have a Vassal of Menoth move up and use Ancillary Attack for the thankfully-unengaged Vanquisher to take a shot with its gun?

ForestZ
04-18-2012, 07:40 AM
Well so far this thread has taught me 2 things:

1) The people who understand why the red vector is illegal pretty much agree with the reasoning in the original post.
2) A lot of people don't understand that the red line is an illegal charge, and that you'd have to rewind the game state after attempting it.

Unfortunately, that's not very good news, as trying to make the argument for case 1 is likely to get ugly. Which is why I ask this question in the first place, to get some solid clarification and consensus going. But it seems like a lot of people just plain don't understand this aspect of the charging rules.

ForestZ
04-18-2012, 07:41 AM
I can imagine a situation where a Menoth player charges a Vanquisher along the red line, and finds he's outside of melee range after completing the charge. If the rules don't obligate you to move along a path to make a successful charge (the green path), then can the Menoth player simply go "Oops, I misjudged it" and then have a Vassal of Menoth move up and use Ancillary Attack for the thankfully-unengaged Vanquisher to take a shot with its gun?

While that would be an illegal charge, it wouldn't matter for the second part of your scenario, as you're never in melee with your own models, even if you have just attacked it.

*edit*

But as brought up in earlier comments, those of you who think the red vector is not illegal, but is instead just a failed charge, consider this:

There is no requirement to move towards your charge target in the rules. Therefor, going by your (erroneous) logic, I could charge in *any* direction, even away from my charge target and just say "oops, failed charge!" This is obviously not the case. The stipulation to bring your target into your melee range is there for a reason, and is the guiding factor in determining that the red vector is illegal and thus you *cannot* charge along it, and if you do, you rewind and try again.

DrFish
04-18-2012, 07:48 AM
Given the fallibility of humans, I would say that measuring the melee range of the charge target and putting an empty reference base in the desired legal charge spot would be acceptable. You would have to commit to the action, though, good or bad. So if you then take your laser/straight edge/etc and find that you collide with model C it's tough luck. The point that the OP is making here is that there's nothing specifically stopping the player from knowingly declaring illegal charges until the max melee is reached if you're just eye balling it, so why not just measure melee range and be done with it?

If there's no question as to the distance moved (as in the charging model has plenty to reach the target), then I see nothing wrong with it, but the charging player would have to commit before measuring, so a certain amount of eye balling is still involved.

Nion
04-18-2012, 07:59 AM
Going step by step, it would look like this:

1a. Model A declares a charge against model B
1b. Make the minimum measurements required to determine if the charge was legal (Was either model affected by a feat that would prevent the Charge, etc). If illegal, go back to before step 1.

2a. Turn to face a direction that would eventually allow model A to engage model B.
2b. Make the minimum measurements required to determine if model A's facing is legal. If illegal, go back to before step 2.

3. Move model A in a straight line until the Charge rules force or allow it to stop.

If you follow the rules correctly, you should never be rewinding movement. I would allow my opponent any reasonable method of measuring the legality of these steps, such as placing down a string or laser line and checking that it passes close enough to model B. Using a placeholder base at the desired endpoint is even better, allowing for more accurate placement of the string or laser.

bouncymischa
04-18-2012, 08:18 AM
While that would be an illegal charge, it wouldn't matter for the second part of your scenario, as you're never in melee with your own models, even if you have just attacked it.

*edit*

But as brought up in earlier comments, those of you who think the red vector is not illegal, but is instead just a failed charge, consider this:

There is no requirement to move towards your charge target in the rules. Therefor, going by your (erroneous) logic, I could charge in *any* direction, even away from my charge target and just say "oops, failed charge!" This is obviously not the case. The stipulation to bring your target into your melee range is there for a reason, and is the guiding factor in determining that the red vector is illegal and thus you *cannot* charge along it, and if you do, you rewind and try again.

In my hypothetical scenario I'd envisioned that B was, in fact, an enemy model.

I suppose part of why I find this discussion intruiging is that I recently had a game where this sort of situation came into play -- I'd declared a charge by a Cinerator against a Legion warbeast that I felt was just within charge range, but I had another model potentially blocking the lane. I declared that I'd make my charge along the closest possible line to the blocking model, and measured accordingly, but my Cinerator ended up just outside of melee range. At the time, we just declared it a failed charge and moved on, and the Cinerator in fact got in the way of one of my warjacks trying to make a charge later in the turn.

Given this discussion, in hindsight the more accurate result would've been to rewind the Cinerator's charge, having him run into the intervening model in an effort to complete his charge... which might've given me an opening later either I or my opponent could've taken advantage of. It's quite interesting...

NotInKansas1911
04-18-2012, 08:23 AM
This was answered and locked yesterday: https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?104296-When-can-you-check-charge-lanes-clipping
The rules say
"Declare a charge and its target before moving the model. The charging model must have LOS to a model to declare it as a charge target. After declaring a charge, the charging model turns to face any direction that will bring it to within its melee range of its target, ignoring terrain, the distance to the charge target, and other models."

You cannot measure lanes (yet), you can only use LOS and an angle. The easiest thing to do is:
1. have a base the same as your model's
2. place it where you want to charge (without playing the infinite failed charge game so as to avoid model C). Rediculously easy to measure to make sure its within melee (.5 or 2" for reach)
3. Check the lane using the model yet to be moved and the destination base. If you are clear, great! If you hit C, better luck next time.

Valander
04-18-2012, 08:37 AM
A lot of what this thread is discussing is more in the realm of sportsmanship issues, which the rules do not address. The underlying idea, though, is "don't be a jerk."

As for the original "question" of "what in the rules prevents me from trying an illegal action and rewinding," the answer is closer to "the rules don't allow you to do an illegal action in the first place." If you discover something is not a legal action, you should generally try to rewind to the last "legal" state, but this is both players' responsibility, and intentionally trying illegal actions to attempt to get premeasuring, or any other advantage, is a sportsmanship issue.

I think this thread has run its course, so I am locking it. If you have questions about how something actually works in the rules, feel free to start a new thread. If you want to talk about how to possibly abuse the rules, take it elsewhere; that is not the point of the rules forum.