This happened in a game last night, I allowed it because my opponent was only 11 years old (and life's too short). Anyway I said I'd try to get it clarified.

The goblins charged in order 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

Essentially I want to know if goblin 1 was allowed to charge Gandalf, but pass through his control zone and end up slightly behind him. Or did he have to charge directly at him. It took more or less his full move to do the charge, so going around the control zone wasn't an option.

And finally, once 1 had charged, the control zone is neautralized so 2 and 3 can charge and land wherever they please, right?

Thanks

_________________
Instagram @abbmodels

Yes that's fine. Once you enter a model's control zone you have to charge it but you can move around the control zone to charge it wherever you want as long as you have enough movement to reach.

It's a very common and clever tactic and adds another tactical element to SBG - if goblin 1 charged Gandalf in the front first, goblin 3 probably wouldn't be able to reach the back of Gandalf to trap him making the order you move your models very important.

Of course assuming he casts Terrifying Aura in the first turn like normal there's no hope they'll all charge him anyway!

Thanks for the diagram, made the situation very easy to understand.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

Damn right I did terror but the little B****** still managed to pass courage tests. In fact goblin 3 was the goblin king, hence my brother making appropriate room rather than have him as spear support.

Thanks for the clear up.

_________________
Instagram @abbmodels

Ah, the old "charging slide" discussion.

Feel free to read more about here:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=24520&p=301108&hilit=charge+slide#p301108

And here:

http://www.thelastalliance.com/viewtopi ... t=charging

Even though there isn't an official response from GW (at least I don’t think there is) most people allow it

_________________
“There's a savage beast in every man, and when you hand that man a sword or spear and send him forth to war, the beast stirs.”

I have never played this way. Although I do understand the 'circle about' mentality, I have never seen two armies start individual dance around each other in any depiction, just clash and hack at each other. I know in SBG that this allows (is being use for) people to 'trap' a person who would normally not be trapped (or trappable) because he has his mate nearby that would take on the guy trying to get round the flank... if you are going to cite 'realistic' circling about, then the realistic guy next to the combat is going to slit the guys throat when his back is to him.
I have always played that the first guy has to directly charge with shortest direct route once he enters the control zone. Then and only then has the control zone been neutralized. Afterward, other friendless of either side can pass through the combatant control zones, thus allowing trapping or getting past to obtain an objective (or board edge).
I think this 'purposeful misinterpretation of the rules' being done allows too many trapped combats (which is why people who use it want to keep using it and make it legal). I think that even if GW gave blessing allowing it, I would still not play that way and follow the rule to the letter and declare that with my opponents in advance.

It is nice that people like to use the phrase 'adding tactics' to the game, but enforcing the rule the other way adds tactics just as much since the opponent will have to think how best to neutralize control zones to be able to slip past to either trap, or get to an objective. Wheeling around a model is not adding a tactic in my eye, it is taking them away and allowing free-for-all pile ups on models. IMO It is not a game changer, but my opinion is what it is.

_________________
http://www.sithious.webs.com

Moving through control zones (while obviously getting into contact with that figure eventually as well) is rather essential when charging multiple enemies as well. If you move in a straight line towards the closest target, you will never be able to charge two models.

Furthermore, only when one army is vastly outnumbering the other (at least 3vs1) and there are many gaps in the line, can this be used a lot. And yes, one side will have a major disadvantage and die quickly in that case.. as it should be. Getting seperated is lethal, staying together will not result in the situation above.
You can like or dislike it, choose to not use it for whatever reason, but it's not just perfectly legal, it's intended to be that way (not some loophole). Control zones still play a very large part, and cancelling them is often essential to reach especially juicy targets. Indeed, while you may be able to charge both some captain and a banner at once by moving on a bit after entering that captain's control zone, it's probably better to distract the captain, and use a second model to get rid of the banner.

I spoke with Simon Grant at doubles earlier this year (he writes the FAQ's etc) because like you, we played it as you charge to the closest point. He informed us that as long as you don't move further than permitted and you charge the model in question then you may charge anywhere on the base (if that makes sense). It's not logical but GW games are never follow logic.

_________________
12th GBHL 2013.
13th GBHL 2014
9th GBHL 2015


Mid Sussex Wargamers

Assuming I understand you correctly it's the other way around. If you play Rules as Written you CAN use this 'sliding' tactic, the rules don't at any point state you have to charge in a straight line. Having to charge the shortest distance is not RAW, it's your interpretation of the intention of the rules

For the record I actually agree with you that the rule SHOULD be that the first model to charge an opponent has to move the shortest possible distance to do so.

However, the rules are pretty clear, as Coenus points out it's not a loophole and it's certainly not "purposeful misinterpretation" on the part of players, like myself, who play it that way.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

I don't see any problem with sliding and charging at all. The rules say that's how it works (or at least that you can do it), so do it! And, if you want to argue about realistic-ness, I would wait and charge to the side of an enemy if I had palls coming with me. I sure wouldn't charge head on before they can back me up. Also, there are a ton of things that have been discussed a lot that are not realistic about SBG...

Oeh, I know this one: is it the presence of dragons?

Well it would explain why hero and monster armies are not taken as often, since your enemy can just trap you often.

I do understand why people do it, and I also understand the mechanics of how you would prevent it if it was (is)allowed. Yeah, try not to leave gaps, never get away from your group (assuming you are using an army that is a group and not having fun with your own style of army like 1 balrog of 5 wraiths, or the white council).
I am just stating that I always played it, well, my way, and I am not the only one who interpreted the rules that way. There is not a GW or even a store playing LOTR/Hobbit for hours drive from me, so getting a staffer's almost cannon opinion over the 13 years would not be easy for me, thus I have only had me and my opponents interpretation of the rules.

If it is how people are playing, I am not surprised, it just is not how I would interpret the rules for this game especially with so many great options for small hero forces and small scenarios (the original way the game was played) instead of standard 40-50 model armies per side warfare with shield walls and very few gaps anyway. And I do appreciate that in large battles that breaking through a line would allow this rule to whittle down the split forces and I can see how it is very interesting for those large force battles as a tactic.

_________________
http://www.sithious.webs.com

I've always viewed it as combatants circling each other before striking

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

I'm with Sithious - my group used to play the standard slide rule, but switched to the direct charge rule years ago and found our games were much, much better as a result. It means that there's still tactical interest, even if one or both sides are down to just a few models (whether that's in one spot on the battlefield or overall).

But also, straight charges just don't always work. Sometimes there a piece of wall in between (but you can still walk around and charge the model normally), or another combat is in between.
And besides, provided you have enough movement left, you could just walk up to his 'flank' while staying outside his control zone, and then move into his control zone and charge. This doesn't seem unrealistic to me either.

I've always played it that whilst you can charge anywhere on the enemy base as you move in, you can't move the whole way around the enemy control zone unless the control zone is taken away or you have the movement to negotiate around it. Not that you can slide all the way around Am I wrong?

_________________
Subscribe to the GBHL YouTube for daily SBG content http://Www.youtube.com/gbhlpodcast
*5th in 2014 GBHL

See how many of us read the rules the same way on both sides... Many use the slide around and many don't. I think that says a lot about GW rules writing.
I think I play the same way that defending a barrier is presented. See a barrier only extends the control zone of the defender, but the barrier itself would normally not even phase a movement, so why is it that you don't slide around the defender and attack from the other side? Well in this case the barrier makes it seam obvious so people don't. remove the barrier and that is how I look at every charge, you can't slip around someone and gang up on them... the person you are attacking would also be 'circling around' and would keep dogging left and right (control zone) to keep you from getting around his flank, so you can have two people come up and charge your front. but, unless they have a long enough move to stay out of your control zone, they cannot move around to surround you. The first guy breaks the zone and ties up the opponent, then he cannot dodge left and right anymore to protect his flanks as he is engaged, so his zone is gone. The first enemy cannot slip around, he is now engaged as well, other enemies are now free to move about the zone and get round the flanks. this makes absolute sense to me and is always how I have played it, regardless of what GW says long after the fact about the rule. It is obviously a contested interpretation.
I am not saying that the other interpretation is actually wrong as per rules, it is just not how I interpreted them so it seams foreign to me to allow it. I don't want people to think I am saying my way is right, it is just how I saw the rule and why I think it makes sense to me that way.

_________________
http://www.sithious.webs.com

I thought the rules were quite clear and it represents the way that animals like wolves will surround an mob prey.

No reason why the model/combatant couldn't keep facing the opponent while walking past him, circling his prey - and distracting him, so that a friend can attack his rear!

And once more: how would multiple combats be possible, if you just move straight at the first guy whose control zone you enter?

This.

I presume that those who interpret the rules in the 'charge the shortest distance' way can't allow a model to charge two models at the same time. Instead their multiple combats could only be of the kind where you charge an enemy model and then charge another of your models into the same enemy.

This marks another tactical change for the game as you can no longer use a single one of your models to hold up/tie up two enemy models to prevent them from claiming an objective/attacking one of your valuable models.

It also presumably makes your characters less effective as they can't charge two models in the hope of killing both but instead have to charge the nearest one and hope they get counter-charged which, of course, they won't.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

I cannot find a reference anywhere in the rulebook where they show this done, nor in any GW battle report. So it is hard to say that it can be done just because it doesn't say you cannot.

At least I was able to find the EFGT points PDF which is awesome. I didn't know they did that. Guess that defeats the complaints of the profiles not being in the box. That is the second positive GW experience I have had this month. Good for them.

In the charge/move example in the rule book the model clearly goes straight into the enemy to neutralize the control zone so that his friend can slip past to the orc behind him. I can't find an example of the slip around method nor anywhere that it says that after you enter the control zone you can move about the zone as you please. I only see that once you enter the zone you have to commit to charge into base contact. It is an awesome debate, I am sure wolves getting around prey is not the same as battle with trained armed warriors who would not let someone past him since he knows that would be dangerous (trapping).

As for multiple combats. Yes you can charge and make your base touch two bases, by charging in between, it is still a straight shot. And also, after you charge a line, most often the next player moves his 'free' models into the combats to make them multiple combats. I refuse to accept that I am an Idiot because I interpreted the rules different from anyone else, it is contrary to my entire life. I am not trying to insult anyone's interpretation, but my interpretations is entirely valid based on how the rules are presented. If we are just allowing it because it doesn't say you can't, well that is valid I suppose, but it doesn't say you can either.

I give up anyway. Since I will never play anyone on here ever in a match, I will just keep playing my way, which has been great for 13 years, lots of fun, and still with plenty of trapping, objective taking, multiple combats, and loads of entertainment. I know, it must be a burden to enjoy playing without being able to interpret the rules the same as everyone else, but we manage.

Give me a BC game any day of the week, 15 models per side tops, awesome games, and almost never a shield wall in sight.

_________________
http://www.sithious.webs.com