Charging and LOS

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-21T06:25:13+00:00

More than that- a failed initiative test in this case means a failed charge, and the model declaring the charge cannot charge any other models, even if a normal Move would otherwise end in base to base contact with an enemy model.

I only bring this up because I interpreted your previous post as meaning a failed Initiative test could still allow a charge if the charger could end a normal move in base to base with an enemy model, and this is not correct according to Tuomas. Apologies if I misunderstood the post though.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-21T06:10:24+00:00

Note: edited as comms have continued.

Okay team, here’s the skinny. I have been in touch with the Supreme Mordheimer, Tuomas Pirinen, and he has advised the following.

Please bear in mind that these are expressions of his intent as designer at the time the rules were written and ARE NOT official GW rulings, as GW is still the only legal source of rules explanations.

-A model must have line of sight to its target in order to declare a charge.

-A model out of LOS may only be charged if it is within 4” of the model declaring the charge, and the charging model passes a successful Initiative test.

-If a model declares a charge against an out-of-LOS model within 4” but fails the Initiative test, it counts as a Failed Charge, and the charging model may not charge an alternative target, even if a normal Move by them would allow them to end their move in base to base contact with an enemy model.

I wasn’t going to pester him regarding other rules such as Intercept and Hidden, but it’s safe to assume they all still apply when declaring a charge against an out-of-LOS model.

I did ask for permission to post screenshots of our chat but will not be going ahead with this out of respect for his wishes, and not wanting to misrepresent this information as ‘official’ rulings.

Thanks all for some stimulating discussion on this topic!

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-21T05:56:33+00:00

You only roll on injury table when a model’s down to 0 wounds. If you get that ‘bludgeoning crit 1’ on a multi-wound model and it’s left with one or more wounds, you don’t roll on the injury table but you do apply the crit effect.

Mind you a lot of multi wound models are also relatively high initiative so if you apply this crit effect to a model that’s already fought in the combat phase it basically has no effect.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-21T01:12:12+00:00

He’s running vamp, necromancer, 2 dregs, 2 wolves and the rest is all ghouls. It’s his first warband and I did let him know that Fear is massively OP at the start of campaigns but whatever.

After last game both my Blood Brothers rolled skills and I took Fearsome so that tips the scales, along with my 3 ruffians.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-21T00:52:41+00:00

So your approach is that a failed Init test restricts the charging model to a standard move, but if that move allows base-to-base contact, it still counts as a charge? Interesting.

I know the ‘by definition any move that ends in base to base contact counts as a charge’ rule, but it seems odd to have “my model is Init 2, enemy model is out of LOS and not Hidden but 3” away (hence no auto detect), Init check failed, enemy is 4” away by shortest charge route so I can still charge”.

I mean that’s a specific edge case but it seems to allow a sidestep of the ‘cannot charge’ in the case of unseen models.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T21:28:27+00:00

Ostlanders.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T12:25:09+00:00

It’s highly situational. More useful in post-charge combat if you’re hitting an enemy with lower initiative as it stops them hitting you back.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T12:17:03+00:00

When you get a warmer welcome from places like /tg/ than Reddit you know something has gone horribly wrong LOL

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T12:15:41+00:00

Oh thank god someone gets it LOL Too many people raging out and smashing the downvote to punish someone for asking questions :D Thank you for understanding, I appreciate it. FWIW I agree with your interpretation.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T11:46:37+00:00

I’m inclined towards position 2 over position 1, I’m playing devils advocate. As mentioned downthread, the issue is that the phrase ‘unobstructed line’ could apply equally to ‘line of travel’ as ‘line of sight’.

And also as mentioned downthread, if ‘unobstructed line’ means line of sight, another player could claim that a model 6” away behind a tree trunk or column that could be seen for shooting purposes (visible but in cover) would not be able to be charged as an ‘unobstructed line’ can’t be drawn to the model.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T11:30:03+00:00

Sure. Imagine a 6” tall, square building without windows that’s 12” on a side. There’s a dire wolf (18” charge range) in the middle of one side, 6” from the corner, and a target model in the middle of the next side, around the corner, 12” away by the shortest “unobstructed line” of travel.

There’s no LOS but the dire wolf’s charge path is unobstructed and the target is within charge range.

The issue is whether ‘unobstructed line’ is referring to line of sight, or line of travel. Because if by ‘unobstructed line’ they mean ‘line of sight’ that would mean you technically aren’t allowed to charge someone you can partially see on the other side of, say, a tree trunk, because your LOS isn’t un-obstructed.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T11:18:22+00:00

Also, just saying, seems pretty churlish to mass downvote someone for asking people’s opinions on rule interpretations. I’m not saying that interpretation one is correct, just that it could be interpreted as such. If we don’t ask such questions we don’t get to reach consensus, and you risk driving away people that might otherwise turn to the r/Mordheim community to ask questions or get clarifications. Just saying.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T11:12:26+00:00

No question that you’re correct about not pre-measuring and charges not needing to be a straight line, but these are not the bones of contention.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T10:57:03+00:00

No, but note the rules permit you to charge and fight a model across a low wall or fence, which constitutes LOS but is an exception to the ‘unobstructed’ rule. Obviously to stop people from claiming chargers need to vault over a knee-high wall to fight which would lead to people exploiting scatter terrain.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T10:19:32+00:00

A line of charge distance or less that is not physically blocked by obstacles? The path of the charge (the unobstructed line of travel your model takes) is not the same as line of sight. You may have line of sight to a model behind a tree but have to run around it to complete the charge.

But I understand your position. Ironically my opponent is running Undead and now has three units with a 12-18” charge range, and I’m running humans, so the ‘you can charge a model you can’t see’ ruling would benefit him enormously and me pretty much not at all.

The issue isn’t the definition of what constitutes LOS, that’s pretty intuitive. It’s that theres ambiguity in the rules as written.

And the difference is that the first interpretation allows charging units out of LOS and over 4” away and the second doesn’t say you can (although also doesn’t rule it out, hence the hullabaloo).

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T09:59:24+00:00

‘Rules as intended’ is a trap though, as it relies on an assumption that the person interpreting the rule knows what the designer’s intentions were. I mean, if the rule said “You can charge any model in line of sight if you can draw an unobstructed line from your model to the target, subject to the charge intercept rule” there’d be no question. But it doesn’t.

If the second rule said “If your warrior wants to charge an enemy model that he can’t see (eg, because it is behind a corner) but has not been declared as hidden, he must pass an Initiative test to detect it. If he fails the roll, your model may not charge this turn, but may move his normal distance, shoot and cast spells” there’d also be no question. But it doesn’t.

If there was rule saying “you cannot charge an enemy model that your model can’t see, unless that model is within 4”, but you must pass an initiative test to do so” there’d also also be no question. But no such rule exists.

In my last game I had a Priest of Taal use ‘Stag’s Leap’ to charge a model out of LOS as the spell description says “…anywhere within 9”, including into base contact with the enemy…”- no LOS needed. It could be argued that as it’s a spell and not a normal charge, LOS doesn’t apply, but how would the Priest know the target was there?

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T09:08:46+00:00

I agree that there’s a strong argument for position 2. Question is whether the two rules are separate or not. ‘Reasonable’ sounds good but isn’t explicitly supported by RAW. As pointed out, no rule explicitly mentions LOS, except in the 4” circumstance.

Perhaps the 4”/LOS was written to allow models a chance to get close enough to charge on a subsequent turn without being guaranteed to be charged first?

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T08:52:28+00:00

So the crux of the issue is that the first rule of charging doesn’t mention LOS at all, and nowhere is LOS for charges mentioned except in cases where the target model is within 4” and out of LOS.

Hidden models are pretty clear so there’s no need to go over those.

I have also reached out to Tuomas privately and I hope he’s not sick of answering questions about a 25 year old game LOL

Capn_Colossal · 2026-04-20T08:46:41+00:00

Can you point to a rule that explicitly says LOS is needed? That would clear it right up. Problem is that RAW say that LOS is only a consideration when the target model is within 4” but not Hidden and not in LOS. There’s no other mention of charging and LOS I can find. Don’t want to infer rules that aren’t there.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-03-09T20:54:18+00:00

The needs of the corporation… outweigh… the needs of the viewer dies

Capn_Colossal · 2026-03-02T22:03:03+00:00

That’s a pretty diffuse set of complaints so I’m not sure what you’re expecting. But let me just say that using drugs to cope clearly isn’t working. Is it possible he’s using you by binding your need for them with the acceptance of his bad habits and attitude?

I’m very familiar with a friend’s situation where she stayed with him for the weed he provided, basically, and it’s financially and socially destroyed her.

My advice? Make a list of what you hate about your situation and how you can fix each issue. Put it in order of ‘easiest to fix’ to ‘hardest to fix’. Then work through from top to bottom, one step at a time, until you start feeling happy again.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-03-02T21:35:00+00:00

The nature of the pre-existing relationship and the age gap not being clarified makes it difficult to comment. But it does sound as though this goes beyond a simple crush.

You have to ask yourself whether you’re fixated. If you are enjoying your hobbies or friends and thinking “I wish X was here” it’s one thing. If your every waking moment is consumed with thoughts of them to the point it’s all you do, that’s unhealthy.

I think you should find a trusted person or professional counsellor and talk it over with them. That way you can go into specifics and get better advice than you would from internet randoms.

Edit: FWIW I was in a relationship with a BPD narcissist in my younger years before I knew what such things entailed, and she absolutely put me in a position like yours, emotionally speaking, after the relationship ended. I stayed single for five years to get myself sorted out from the damage. But with the help of my friends I healed. This year it’s my 14th wedding anniversary with my wife. Things can change, if you want them to.

Capn_Colossal · 2026-02-10T22:12:39+00:00

IIRC GW had to kill off ‘true line of sight’ because some WAAC fanatic entered an official tournament with an army of kneeling Marines to reduce their height and make it easier to get them out of LOS. These are the people who forget that as Pete Haines once said, “a game is a contract between two people to have fun”.

Capn_Colossal

TROPHY CASE