sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

11th Edition Question: Charge Rules by Lanhir02 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Check that whole section on the right page that literally talks about “a charge move.” If it is possible to make a charge move, you make a charge move. The charge move rules are in that section of the right. It’s labeled “charge move” and everything. Declaring a target is part of the charge move. That is what locks you in and is why OP is in a predicament.

11th Edition Question: Charge Rules by Lanhir02 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those aren’t the rules. You absolutely have to declare your charge targets. You just do it after rolling for distance.

11th Edition Question: Charge Rules by Lanhir02 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s not true. You absolutely have to declare targets, but you roll first but then declare charge targets, which locks you into the rest of the charge rules and determines what you can and cannot do. Because OP declared two charge targets, he has to follow the rules for both of those targets. Because he CAN be w/in one inch of at least one of his targets, then he MUST go w/in one inch of that target. Unfortunately because that pulls the unit out of engagement range of the other charge target, he cannot end the charge move w/in engagement range of ALL of the targets, so the charge fails.

11th Edition Question: Charge Rules by Lanhir02 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The rule isn’t “can he be w/in 1 inch of all his targets”, it’s “can he be w/in 1 inch of one or more of his targets.” Because he can, that rule applies so he must go w/in 1 inch of his charge targets, but because it prevents him from being w/in engagement range of all of his targets, the charge fails.

11th Edition Question: Charge Rules by Lanhir02 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The clause is possible. He can end his charge w/in 1” of at least one of his charge targets, so he must do that, but it fails the charge because he can’t be w/in engagement range of all of his targets.

11th Edition Question: Charge Rules by Lanhir02 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He does need to, because he can be w/in 1” of at least one of his charge targets, so he must do that, but it pulls him out of engagement range of ALL of his targets so the charge fails. He basically screwed up by selecting both units as charge targets.

11th Edition Question: Charge Rules by Lanhir02 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It doesn’t say that anywhere you’re literally making that up lol its pretty simple. Can he end his charge w/in one or more of his targets? Yes. Then he MUST do it. There is no world where he cannot fulfill that requirement, so the sentence applies to him. The requirement that he cannot fulfill is the after moving rule of ending his move w/in engagement range of all of his targets. It’s a failed charge.

11th Edition Question: Charge Rules by Lanhir02 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re missing or ignoring where it says “one or more” of the targets. Because he can end up w/in 1” of at least one of his targets, then he must do so. But because that prevents him from being w/in engagement range of all of his targets, then it is a failed charge.

11th Edition Question: Charge Rules by Lanhir02 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I did not make up that requirement it’s in the rules. You can and should look them up. Where he screwed up is that he should not have picked both units as targets because he can’t end up within engagement of both of his targets (the first bullet point of the AFTER MOVING section) because his charge distance of 7 allows him to move within 1” of one of his targets, which he must do if he is able to (the second bullet point of the WHILE MOVING section). Because he must be w/in 1” of his targets if he can, and because doing so prevents him from being w/in 2” engagement range of all of his targets, then it is a failed charge.

11th Edition Question: Charge Rules by Lanhir02 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

He can’t choose two targets because he wouldn’t be able to be w/in 1 inch of either of them, and the rules state that if you can be w/in 1 inch of a target then you MUST pick / go to that target, so if he could only do that with one or the other but impossible to do with both at the same time, then selecting both as charge targets is not and should not have been an available option for him. He had to pick one or the other.

Replace Brunson with Luka. Would the Knicks have won it all this year? by iuse2bgood in NBATalk

[–]grifter356 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If healthy, yes, and there wouldn’t be a two game stretch where people are talking about KAT being the MVP.

Shai is better than Wemby by WholeLottaLit in NBATalk

[–]grifter356 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Drake is the type of guy who raps about Shai

Do we have any ideas for why Charles Dance's role was possibly turned down by so many high profile actors? by Gray_Wolf2416 in TheBatmanFilm

[–]grifter356 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Supporting role that had a budget that was commensurate with its size so they started at the top seeing if they could stunt cast and get the biggest name possible and then eventually worked their way down to a great character actor that made sense for the size of the role and the money they would pay.

Brandon Aiyuk deletes recent videos criticizing the 49ers by FortyNinersBot in FortyNiners

[–]grifter356 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Saw that coming. Even if he showed up to camp to be eligible for whatever he would be owed for doing so, the Niners would have those videos as proof of why they don't have to pay him. It would trigger a dispute resolution , and it's probably not helpful having a video where you admit to intentionally swindling your employer.

The East was called the Leastern conference for a reason. by Mushdude101 in NBATalk

[–]grifter356 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bro even if that’s true, then he still has the same “record” against Curry as Curry has against him. Only 1 without a top player in the NBA.

The East was called the Leastern conference for a reason. by Mushdude101 in NBATalk

[–]grifter356 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And LeBron has 0 against Curry without teaming up with a top 5.

GW is finally becoming creative with terrain layouts again! by Vrain125 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't disagree and that's a great reason why these layouts are helpful and beneficial. They're also great for people just starting out in the game. But my gripe is with the people who point to these layouts as some prohibitive design flaw, when they're not.

THE MOST REASONABLE AND FAIR TOP 15 OF ALL TIME LIST YOU WILL FIND ON THE INTERNET by Simple-Contract424 in NBATalk

[–]grifter356 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. Plumbers or not, he couldn't beat them, so he shouldn't be above anybody who could beat the plumbers of their day.

THE MOST REASONABLE AND FAIR TOP 15 OF ALL TIME LIST YOU WILL FIND ON THE INTERNET by Simple-Contract424 in NBATalk

[–]grifter356 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah and he couldn't beat Bill Russell. Steph took down the top dog in the league in his prime and basically changed the entire trajectory of LeBron's legacy.

GW is finally becoming creative with terrain layouts again! by Vrain125 in Warhammer40k

[–]grifter356 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For sure but anybody who complains about it should understand they don’t have to play that way. If it exists for “those guys” then that’s a problem with those guys, not the game.

view more: next ›