Charging oneself?

[Dirial]

Just read over the (2) Charge action because of the Executioner discussion in the Guild category. This silly question came to my mind:

 

Can a model charge itself? Shouldn't be possible, but is it forbidden by the rules?

 

Charge is a Tactical Action, which can target the model itself. Then, you move the model in a straight line. This move has to end with the charged model in the engagment range of the charging model.

 

The real question is therefore: Is a model in its own melee range? Shouldn't be, but I couldn't find conclusive evidence.

 

Follow-up question: If I'm wrong and you can charge youself, what happens to the melee attacks? Those are Attack Actions, which can not be targeted at the model itself.

[hypoking]

Sounds about right.

[AgrilusHunter]

But I didn't give you any money what did I pay with.

Did too.

[The Godlyness]

So if everyone agrees why would need a faq. Or an errata. No person who is playing this game would do this no one would teach another person to do this so why the hell are we even discussing it? Discussing it brings to light something that that should forever be kept in darkness. Like he who should not be named. Same concept. Let this thread be buried in the bottom less pit of the forum and be done with it.

And if a player Waacs out and trys this just blankly stare at them till their head explodes or they stop.

[hypoking]

Because this game has rules, and ideally you'd want those to be self sustaining in and of themselves rather than held together by peer pressure and good intentions. Fixing it with a faq means it can't be trudged up in a casual game to ruin somebody's day because the answer would be there in plain black and white. 

[Hateful Darkblack]

If the rules were translated into C code without any other changes or corrections, this would be a failure to sanitize data, and the results would be implementation-dependent.

 

In tournament play, I would expect that almost any TO would say no, you can't charge yourself.

 

In casual play, you'd have to be very pushy to insist that you can charge yourself.

 

But in Theoryfaux, you can totally charge yourself. You just might go blind from it.

[mattyboy22]

So if everyone agrees why would need a faq. Or an errata. No person who is playing this game would do this no one would teach another person to do this so why the hell are we even discussing it? Discussing it brings to light something that that should forever be kept in darkness. Like he who should not be named. Same concept. Let this thread be buried in the bottom less pit of the forum and be done with it.

And if a player Waacs out and trys this just blankly stare at them till their head explodes or they stop.

Because if there's one thing about the internet it's that people like to argue on it. My worry is that arguments like this thread and the hostility that comes out of them these forums will become like another, very popular forum I likes to read. I say "liked" because you can't get more than three posts into any thread (not just rules debates) without insults flying, name calling, etc. Honestly I remember when it started to change and it was with the volatility we've seen on here in the past month or two......

[mattyboy22]

So if everyone agrees why would need a faq. Or an errata. No person who is playing this game would do this no one would teach another person to do this so why the hell are we even discussing it? Discussing it brings to light something that that should forever be kept in darkness. Like he who should not be named. Same concept. Let this thread be buried in the bottom less pit of the forum and be done with it.

And if a player Waacs out and trys this just blankly stare at them till their head explodes or they stop.

Because if there's one thing about the internet it's that people like to argue on it. My worry is that arguments like this thread and the hostility that comes out of them these forums will become like another, very popular forum I likes to read. I say "liked" because you can't get more than three posts into any thread (not just rules debates) without insults flying, name calling, etc. Honestly I remember when it started to change and it was with the volatility we've seen on here in the past month or two......

[HalcyonSeraph]

So if everyone agrees why would need a faq. Or an errata. No person who is playing this game would do this no one would teach another person to do this so why the hell are we even discussing it? Discussing it brings to light something that that should forever be kept in darkness. Like he who should not be named. Same concept. Let this thread be buried in the bottom less pit of the forum and be done with it.

And if a player Waacs out and trys this just blankly stare at them till their head explodes or they stop.

 

Because the FAQ exists specifically to clean up errors like that in the rules. And because the fact that no one here would try to use that rule doesn't mean it wouldn't confuse new players who don't read the boards religiously like we do. 

 

Our wonderful community that wouldn't let this fly in a game is not a reason to let sloppy wording slide forever, basically.

[Barnaberible]

Because the FAQ exists specifically to clean up errors like that in the rules. And because the fact that no one here would try to use that rule doesn't mean it wouldn't confuse new players who don't read the boards religiously like we do. 

 

Our wonderful community that wouldn't let this fly in a game is not a reason to let sloppy wording slide forever, basically.

Trouble is then FAQ then eventually becomes too massive and awkward.

With things like this I think it's pretty obvious to 99% of gamers that this shouldn't be allowed, even if it is technically, and if that 1% happens to be the TO that I consulted I would be most surprised. I honestly can't see this coming up in casual play, and if things like this did become an issue in casual play then I would change my opponents.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Trouble is then FAQ then eventually becomes too massive and awkward.

With things like this I think it's pretty obvious to 99% of gamers that this shouldn't be allowed, even if it is technically, and if that 1% happens to be the TO that I consulted I would be most surprised. I honestly can't see this coming up in casual play, and if things like this did become an issue in casual play then I would change my opponents.

 

The FAQ only gets massive and awkward if the ruleset is bad to begin with, which this one I like to think is not. Adding "Can you Charge yourself?" "No." to the FAQ will not make it too large. 

 

If you refuse to put dumb stuff like this in the FAQ you wind up like GW, with a FAQ that is functionally useless because they err on the side of "you guys can figure it out" rather than actually answering questions at which point why do you even have a FAQ?

[Ratty]

TBH I don't think can you charge yourself needs to be in the FAQ. But the more nebulous Question "Do you need to be able to make an Attack at the end of the Charge to be able to declare it?"

[HalcyonSeraph]

TBH I don't think can you charge yourself needs to be in the FAQ. But the more nebulous Question "Do you need to be able to make an Attack at the end of the Charge to be able to declare it?"

 

Well, if the answer to the latter turns out to be "No", then we're right back where we started on the former. 

[solkan]

My guess is that "Is the action part of the charge mandatory?" is tied up in with the other "What happens if the target doesn't have the required action type?" rules interactions.  Ideally, you'd get an errata to the Charge action stating that the first action is mandatory and only preventable by other effects (like fear or whatever).

 

I mean, given pre-measuring for distances, declaration of actions is pretty much deterministic.  If you declare something, you pretty much have to be able to do it without question.  Otherwise, you might as well declare charges against models in the game taking place on on the next table over. 

[Dracomax]

Because the FAQ exists specifically to clean up errors like that in the rules. And because the fact that no one here would try to use that rule doesn't mean it wouldn't confuse new players who don't read the boards religiously like we do. 

 

Our wonderful community that wouldn't let this fly in a game is not a reason to let sloppy wording slide forever, basically.

Well, no, that isn't why the Faq exists. The faq exists to solve questions and rules concerns that are frequent and not easily derived from the rules without confusion. It does not exist to close rules loopholes that nobody sane would use, but to close rules issues that people can't figure out without an official ruling.

 

I nobody thinks it actually workds that way, then there is no real reason to faq it.

[Morgan Vening]

Well, no, that isn't why the Faq exists. The faq exists to solve questions and rules concerns that are frequent and not easily derived from the rules without confusion. It does not exist to close rules loopholes that nobody sane would use, but to close rules issues that people can't figure out without an official ruling.

 

I nobody thinks it actually workds that way, then there is no real reason to faq it.

While I agree on principle, a better solution for these cornercase theoryfaux "there is such a thing as a stupid question" questions, would be an official ruling on the Forum. But the new system of rules clarification doesn't allow that, so it's FAQ or left unresolved.

 

And while most people wouldn't accept it (I know I wouldn't), if the tourney situation evolves like some do, I can see some John Citizen Powergamer trying to pull it, if it gives them a tactical advantage, and significant prize/prestige is on the line. That's one of the reasons I don't do Tourneys. It takes one numbnuts, and I'm done.

[dgraz]

If you refuse to put dumb stuff like this in the FAQ you wind up like GW, with a FAQ that is functionally useless because they err on the side of "you guys can figure it out" rather than actually answering questions at which point why do you even have a FAQ?

The fact that they put out regular FAQs to real problems makes them pretty far away from GW. Even lightly comparing the two companies is a joke.

[HalcyonSeraph]

The fact that they put out regular FAQs to real problems makes them pretty far away from GW. Even lightly comparing the two companies is a joke.

Yes, I was saying they are not like GW because they DO address things, rather than saying "just figure it out".

[dgraz]

Word. But I certainly side with Dracomax.....something so silly, that no one would allow is not something that needs to go in the FAQ.

[Omenbringer]

TBH I don't think can you charge yourself needs to be in the FAQ. But the more nebulous Question "Do you need to be able to make an Attack at the end of the Charge to be able to declare it?"

 

Nothing to add to the main argument but I think the above question was sort of answered with the Brewmaster's Drinking Contest/ Charge interaction which if the Wp duel is failed replaces the Attack Action with the On the House Tactical action (i.e. no Attack action is made) instead.

[The Godlyness]

But it tried to make an attack. It just was changed by another ability.

[Bengt]

While this discussion may have gone a little too long I think it can still be worthwhile to point out things like this to the devs so they can tweak the wording for the next edition or something.

 

Funnily enough the wording in the small rulebook from the previous edition "This model may take the Charge action if it has a target model within its LoS, which is not already in its melee range." precludes charging yourself since you are already in range of yourself.

[Dracomax]

Oh, I think the thread has merit, although it may have gone on a bit too long without anything new. I just don't know that it needs to be in the FAQ, since I don't see it being asked all that frequently. I could be wrong, but that is pretty much my one and only concern for FAQ: Is the question asked often enough that it needs to be clarified in order to keep from seeing at least one thread a month on it?

[Ausplosions]

[HalcyonSeraph]

And questions that get asked every two or three months are just not worthy of answers? I don't understand that reasoning at all. 

[Dracomax]

Well, at some point, you have to define "frequently." If it only comes up every 2 or 3 months, but comes up enough times over a few years, It probably needs to be answered in the FAQ. The FAQ should cover some things that are in the rulebook, if people still frequently have issues with those things.

 

It does not exist to solve every rules dispute, detail, and complex interaction. That is why we have a rules forum, and the flip rule. If we tried, then it would already be long enough to fill a small rules manual by itself. Not because the rules aren't solid, but because every time you idiotproof a rule, someone builds a better idiot. i.e. we could find problems with iron clad legal documents if you turned them into a wargame.

 

I can understand that rules at a tournament level need to be more defined. That's why the gaining ground document exists. It's why I suggested a separate list of rules decisions be produced, not by the designers, but by the TOs for use in tournaments. I just don't think everything needs to be in the faq.

 

Also, changes to disallow charging oneself would almost certainly be errata, rather than FAQ. It should not be in the FAQ, it should be in the errata if it needs to be done at all.