Reaction Timing vs Charge

Charge
"When the unit makes a March Move action, it can take a free attack action at the end of the movement…" (p54)

Question: does the opposing player have an opportunity to react at the end of the movement and before the attack, or is Charge all one action and the opposing player can effectively only react to the attack.

I had interpreted it as all one action, which makes Markus so effective with a unit of affen.

Since it refers to the attack as an "action", I would see it as a separate action and that you can still react to the movement. And I don't believe the rules talk about reacting to actions, but instead, talk about reacting at the beginning of movement, the end of movement, and to an attack action. So even if it's all considered "one action", I don't see anything in the rules there to prevent you from reacting to the movement.

But I can see it interpreted either way - something else that needs to go on the next version of the FAQ, from the looks of it.

The wording says that the unit can take a free attack action, so it is not a continuation of the move action, so yes, the unit could take Reaction fire before fighting.

I think the Major is right here, don't see why you couldn't react after the movement action (march action) Prior to the attack action allowed by the special ability. Allows other units within 12" reacting to the movement prior to the target unit reacting.

Reaction before the free attack action. Markus and his apes work well with either a sniper team or artillery to suppress and then attack the flank.

yes agreed with all above. While the unit can make a free attack action it is indeed a seperate attack action, thus a unit could react to the movement within 12 before having to suffer the attack.

I agree that this needs to be addressed in the errata. I'd like to see how it was used in the first place.

Hoping to stimulate an official response.

Dr.Cornelius said:

I read a great book once by an army general entitled, "Hope is not a method."

I don't believe this one needs errata, as the important wording of Charge re: Reactions, reads…

"When the unit makes a March Move action , it can take a free Attack action at the end of the movemen t…"

I emphasized the words which clarify it as two separate actions. The first action to get a charge, must be a declared March Move Action, which may trigger a reaction. Pg 34 Reaction to movement rule…

"The reacting unit can choose to take a single Attack or Move action immediately"

In game rulings in other systems I TO for, the term "immediately" always takes precedence over the phrase "at the end of" in order of effects.

LPG. 34 also reads…

"Units reacting to a Move action are subject to the following restrictions:

• The reacting unit must declare and execute its reaction either before the activating unit moves or after it has completely finished moving."

Charge, to me, is clearly an additional free action at the end of a March Move action. Suppress first, then charge is your friend.

Yeah this rule seems clear to me, not sure why folks would think you didn't get a reaction… except of course that they're hoping (want) the answer to be no reaction

Warboss Krag said:

They already made a big FAQ for you its called a rulebook. Every little question does not need an errata, thats what forums are for.

Azrell, unless a rule is stated clearly and explicitly (I use the term explicitly to avoid the term implicitly, which means implied), then it is subject to interpretation, and we get threads asking questions about it. That is, hands down, my largest gripe with this game, that it uses a format I call "British conversational," where more effort is made in writing the game in a fashion that is easier to read (and write), rather than in clear, precise, case-by-case statements of rules and their specific applications. Warfare is by no means standing alone in this guilt; "British conversational" seems to be the norm for games now-a-days, and I rarely see any games that don't have reams of errata (yes, it is writing errors, not 'Frequently Asked Questions.' The first place I saw that euphamism used was Games Workshop, back in the 90s, and my reaction is the same: Anyone using the FAQ euphamism is basically implying that they don't make mistakes, only their end users make mistakes in interprestion) in this day and age.

For those who want to see game rules writing that does its best to avoid this problem, check out an old Avalon Hill war game, or an old SPI war game, from 1986 or before. Yes, they're no fun to read, but they avoid the pitfall of 'open to interpretation.'

not everyone can stomach such a dry read krag, but i do know what you mean. Gone are the days of textbook style rule systems with vast examples, highlighted key words and jackbooted structure (and i say that will all the warmth i can). Often i cant help but think that for the extra 20 odd pages, almost each and every rule could be given a solid example.

As for forums, while they can help unless an official ruling is made or the problem is very clear, little can be done. I personally voice issues here to ensure FFG spot them and cover them with a solid answer. So far they have done a bloody good job of that.

Like Krag, i would prefere a more clinical rulebook(a good example of recent memory i found to be the magic the gathering extended rules, which is a truely vast document but very VERY clear), as rules issues ive flagged up here thus far often come down to an issue of "oh, well, you could also argue they ment THIS not THAT", and its those issues i like to see resolved. The clearer a rulebook, the better the game traditionally. Unfortunately as with many traditional games, warfare suffers from the book needing a tightening up on its terms.

I miss old AH & SPI so much. And GDW for that matter. The thing I liked and miss most about AH rulebooks were the read 12 pages, play first introductory scenario, read 2 pages, play next scenario, 2 more, then next, and so on. Loved the tutorial rulebook approach. Miss it dearly.

Ah, another old grognard. Yes, I miss them, too. Particularly the staggered approach you mentioned to learning the game; remember Starship Troopers?

For a set of rules that seems so focused on competative play it should keep these types of interprative rules to a minimum. As a gamer whos never been or or wants to play in a tournament it doesnt bother me and I prefer the tone of writing but I can see how it could create 'problems'.

Oh, heavens, yes, As I've said before, the quickest way to encourage people to argue over rules is to make them 'implicit,' requiring interpretation. Stops a game right in its tracks (and even the explicitly-written intent can fail if not explicit enough. I remember a tournament at a convention in '86 where, before Turn 1, Phase 1 had even started, the three-ring binders of official errata came out to start deciding rules questions. The game was Star Fleet Battles).

The problem I have with this is that it states in the definition of charge that the free attack is part of the move. It is a close combat attack. A unit cannot react to close combat with a move action. Everyone says that's why you have to suppress first, but you cannot suppress a tank. So here is my senario, Markus and squad run up and charge the rear armor of a tank. It is not suppressed, so it can simply turn around as a reaction? The whole point of charge is to hit as part of the move. I still do not think that it can be reacted to with a move action. If this is the case Markus is ineffective. How is it that you cannot react to jump jets, and they get to reverse their die roles for rocket fists. But 1 gorilla and his squad cant hit you at the end of their movement with a charge?

I take part of it back, it does not say part of. I still think that it is implied though. It happens at the end of movement. Thats what a charge is, there is no stopping.

I just set Walkers up for Markus by making them react to another threat first, or die to that other threat.

Major Mishap said:

Yes, I agree - this is the way its played out.

However this bring up an interesting question in general.

Lets say the gorillas charged (march move) 12" to get within the 3" melee range.

The target unit then elects to react to the movement and moves 6" directly away from the attack.

Now you would assume according to the rules the gorilla's melee attack could no longer go off.

So with that in mind, consider that the Gorillas still have 6" of fast movement and could have reached them even at this new position. Don't you think it would be nice if the Gorillas (or any other applicable unit) could get any left over movement after the unit reacts as a sort of chase/over-run/consolidation movement. It just seems rough to me that a reacting unit should be able to get away from an attack that they are technically still in range off. You can't get awway from bullets that way - as if you are still in range (and visible) you can still get fired at.

Just a thought. What do you guys think?

I think if you surround a Walker 3" out it's a non-issue.

I already posted in the rules section, that my question was officially answered by FF by email. The charge can be reacted to as a move action. I am going to have to change my list to a better ratio of shooters/apes.