The Charge Move in Warhammer The Old World

Perhaps in a few months we will all be playing with cavalry, monsters and skirmishers.. perhaps one infantry block charging another is a thing of the past... but until then... how do make sense of the charge move in Warhammer the Old World and what is the best way to measure it?
(Main rulebook p126)
#warhammertheoldworld #warhammerfantasybattle #warhammerfantasy

[@Waaagghhh]

100% agreed the free wheel needs a return to the game

[@ryandoughty7671]

Exactly. Even some of the ‘good’ bat reps are doing it wrong. In a nutshell, when declaring a charge, if the charging unit could move straight forward to make contact, that would be your min charge roll needed. Any surplus movement is used in a wheel to maximise contact. Then the free align. However, you can always declare a charge by measuring the closest distance, but if you couldn’t just move straight forward into contact, you’d need to factor in the cost for a wheel, to get the ‘minimum’ contact. Again, surplus goes into the maximising wheel move. Then the free align. BUT, if you fail to roll enough to get the min wheel off, it’s a failed charge! It’s design to be tactically hard to get a big wheel charge off. It’s why they don’t allow for any other movement types, turn etc. Also encourages accidental contact with other units and terrain. Also also, the endeavour to maximise contact stops the charging unit avoiding characters on purposes.

[@MiscastTable]

I think you put forward a well reasoned concern for the game. It doesn't look, nor feel right when you get those two units that are so clearly eager to fight each-other, but due to circumstances are only touching the very edges of each unit. Personally, I think my main issue is that it's simply time consuming and opens the door for further problems as you basically have to move the unit to actually see how far it's able to go by wheeling it and if the charge would fail, you then get a problem of figuring out where it should go instead because of the first rule which then seemingly comes into play again (since you should try to maximize the failed charge and you don't get the exception in italics). You basically have to measure multiple times to answer: Can I maximize the charge, if not; can I even make the charge; and if I can't do that either; where do I actually end up? This problem is then further exacerbated when you have to make a move around terrain or interfering units. Then again, TOW is fun to play and this doesn't seem to come up all that often. I don't think it's a major issue, but it sure would be nice to get some nice clarifications and examples to adhere to.

[@DrBlaxill]

That's excellently expressed- several measurements are required to settle in a final formation which respects as many of the principles as possible. I think a lot of people who haven't seen it coming up much are playing casually and consensually. Which is great of course- but when it gets more competitive suddenly the ambiguities become important. A particular call might mean a charge succeeding or failing, or indeed being awkwardly maximised (or not) in a way that might expose or protect it from a countercharge.

[@triplecrownwargaming]

I think you’re right that it can be difficult to accurately measure the minimum charge distance when units aren’t directly in front of eachother. I do prefer “paying for the wheel” rather than 8th’s closest to closest in terms of realism (as real as you can get in a fantasy game anyway!) but 8th certainly made it quicker and more user friendly

[@britainbetterthanyou]

do you really think it's "realistic" that 10 soldiers find it so difficult to move lazily to their left a little?

[@triplecrownwargaming]

@@britainbetterthanyou given the game is attempting to represent units moving in formation, yeah I do. From what I understand, groups of troops staying in formation when moving was generally very difficult and I imagine when they’re charging towards an enemy it was even harder

[@benneem]

Great video. Here's a very funny one to think about: Page 155, Give Ground involves "moving 2" directly away from, the enemy unit(s) without turning, pivoting or otherwise changing its facing" Page 92, Directly Toward & Directly Away makes a very specific definition of what "directly" is supposed to mean. "draw an imaginary line between the centre of the moving unit and the centre of the unit or object it is moving towards or away from. As the unit moves, its centre moves along this line." Give Ground in most combats is therefore somewhat diagonal and in the extreme corner-to-corner case almost crab-like. The examples in the book that show Give Ground moving straight backward are only applicable in the very rare special case where the unit centres are exactly lined up perpendicular to the engaged facings. Flee or Fall Back are of course also centre to centre, but I think everyone's already familiar with that. However, pursue moves are also listed as "directly toward" which makes catching a unit that fled or fell back at an odd angle quite difficult! The pursuing unit is compelled to move not toward the closest point buy toward the centre.

[@samgibbs8194]

Agree with the video (and a great presentation thanks!) - I think the reason for the first point in terms of maximising is to stop someone deliberately clipping in this fashion (perhaps a unit of 1 attack infantry vs some multi-attack monsterous infantry). So you have to maximise the number of models on both sides if possible. So the charge is always straight forwards if it can be. If the charging unit can increase the number of models in contact by wheeling, without causing a failed charge, it must do so. If the unit cannot charge straight forwards, it must measure a minimum wheel so that it could complete the charge. If this doesnt use up the movement then the wheel can be increased to maximise. We have made this work by using the tape measure to extend the 'side' of the unit until it is in line with the unit it is attempting to charge. The measure the distance between this line and the unit being charged. This gives the minimum wheel and makes it easier to calculate the charge range. 'In universe' I think the wheel is preferable to units doin closest to closest as it represents units trying to do more complex charges or manouvers, realising that they have left their friends behind and staggering to a halt as they dont fancy charging a unit by themselves. I understand there are different opinions and that this mechanism is more complicated than the 8th ed approach though.

[@NoProcrastinationMiniatures]

Please do a video re: the various post combat movements and how they work in practice when there's weird charge aligments and multicharges

[@GilthosDrakoniss]

There is a re-form for the unit falling back in good order. Also, when a unit falls back in good order, and the winner chooses to charge them again, they often have enough distance on their pursue role to wheel and engage more models in base to base because the unit fleeing is only using one dice, and the pursuer is using two dice.

[@ClydeMillerWynant]

Are you finding that that's a good thing (the reform for FBIGO)? On the face of it it seems like it means that falling back in good order can be preferable to only giving ground which doesn't seem right. I realise there are circumstances in which giving ground is clearly better as it feels like it should be, but not sure that it should ever be the other way round at all. As for the bit you've now added after your first sentence that does seem to be a good thing and goes some way to making things look better though perhaps not all that much better if the initial combat was corner to corner and they don't fall back very far.

[@smichael1987]

This is the poorest part of the ruleset, IMO, and leaves the door open for a lot of disputes on competitive tables: the measuring is far too complex and open to inaccuracy. If I could make just two alterations, they would be to 1) bring back the free 90 degree wheel during a charge, and 2) to only permit a unit to increase/decrease its frontage by 5 models (to a max of 10 wide) during a reform.

[@rickisparkles]

since you cant move a model more than its movement value you cant actually reform that wide, unless you are very fast. It might be a model or two more than 5 but not too many

[@smichael1987]

@@rickisparklesa good point, I hadn't realised that. Although I think the max frontage of 10 is still an important limiter so players don't cheese the intention of the rules.

[@sheldan23]

Sounds best to check minimum distance, roll dice, wheel with any extra on the charge result. This helped me cheers. Would have preferred closest distance charging.

[@guehe99]

That’s the way. The ugly almost no touch charges fixes itself in subsecuentes turns and introduce changes in flee and pursuit directions

[@drdiscostu]

I feel like the first rule is important when youre a 1 attack per model unit looking to charge a 2 attacks per model unit. Without it you could game it by deliberately only "clipping" blocks since the 2attack unit can only make 1 supporting attack

[@kevinhull7175]

I feel this has been a bit over complicated, but I do agree clarification is always a good thing. How my friends and I interpret these rules is as follows. In the example in the video, we measure the distance between you, moving directly forward. This tells you if you've made the charge. You have an 8" charge and the distance between you is 5" congrats. The charge is successful. The difference between the distance and your charge (3") is how much you can wheel to bring the maximum number of models to bear.

[@d6wounds]

Yes that's exactly what you should do, assuming you have already made the decision to charge. However quite often your decision to declare a charge is based on how much you need on the dice to complete the charge. You may be worried about failing the charge and being out of position or you may have more than one potential target that you could charge. This means that you need to measure before you start rolling dice and if you need to wheel to get into line with the enemy then this means you need to agree how much you need to wheel with your opponent to calculate the charge distance before you declare it... so yes overcomplicated indeed!

[@brett7773]

Some sort of combat reform or sideways movement is needed (2” in 3rd ed) after a round to stop the extreme cases.

[@newtpondskipper]

What I don't understand is that they added so many new rules, old rules, unit types and so on, yet somehow reforming a unit was a rule they had to get rid of.

[@OmnisKorrecta]

Personally I would remove the italic part and make it so if you can't pay for the wheel to align then you fail the charge. That's how I always used to play it in 6th, regardless if that was right or not. However, it's a very well presented video, and I can see the appeal of the 8th ed closest to closest!

[@ChickenIandlEggs]

Great vid, hope to see a lot more ironing out the various complex parts of the game

[@DrBlaxill]

An excellent video- and such excellent graphics. However, my own view is much stronger- removing the free wheel was madness. It slows the game down, is extremely difficult to measure properly (it technically requires a protractor) and creates absurd situations. It will also lead to arguments in tournaments, especially when establishing hypothetical charge distances which might oblige a frenzied or impetuous unit to charge. I don't know what was gained from it other than a nod to older editions. However, in those days you had to eyeball your charge as there was no premeasuring, so it was part of the skill of estimating a distance to account for the wheel. But given we have premeasuring now, it's pointless. Incidentally, I had assumed those charging rules were a priority list of importance- i.e. 1 was most important and 4 least important. But as there is no hierarchy presented and some of the priorities can contradict each other, what is one meant to do?

[@d6wounds]

Thanks Luke, yes it doesn’t make sense to remove the free wheel especially as it makes charge rule #1 harder to achieve and will not make much difference to who gets to fight anyway. Then again if we are all playing with cavalry and flying monsters then maybe this won’t happen much!

[@ClydeMillerWynant]

The corner to corner outcome from the video is very funny as it's impossible to describe what's supposedly being represented without finding yourself knowingly talking nonsense. Which models are the models not in b2b contact supposed to be attacking? Well obviously according to the rules the ones in the opposing front rank, but there are models in the flank and rear that are much closer to them! And given that they supposedly can attack the models in the front rank then why not move the unit across so we can all believe they could be doing it? I don't like the notion some people have that in the standard front-on 'linehammer' situation the models not in base-to-base are 'wrapping round like in older editions' as wrapping round was something you were able to do as a consequence of winning a round of combat, not just being wider, and if you did it then you brought more of the enemy into contact and they got to attack too (at least that's how I remember it). It's even worse in this situation where it's so clearly just a shuffling across of the front rank only without moving the models - and for no good reason when there's a dirty great space waiting for them.

[@DrBlaxill]

@@ClydeMillerWynant Absolutely. People call it 'wrapping round' but it was called 'lapping round'. If you won combat four guys from rear ranks (2, in each flank) got to move into base to base and were repelled by the defeated enemy winning a subsequent round or a new enemy charging them. They also of course.removed ranks for the purposes of a bonus. So lapping round was a genuine tactical consideration that occured as a result of decisions you took with pros and cons. It wasn't, as you say part of the 'mental simulation'. It was a rules system.

[@ilovecokeslurpees]

It absolutely makes sense to add in the wheel distance in charges when you have linehammer. If ranks can be "infinitely" wide, then a major penalty is the inability to wheel and it may cause missed charges (because it is difficult to manage that many soldier all lined up like that which is what they are trying to emulate).

[@DrBlaxill]

@@ilovecokeslurpees well I don't think they should be creating a problem to solve another problem ;-) Better would just be not to have linehammer. Although actually linehammer often benefits from this because it's quite good at hitting the enemy by moving straight forwards (being as it is, a line). The closing the door part is free, and linehammer can move as far as it needs to during when wheel

[@Knoffles]

Nice Simon. There are definitely some decisions on the rules that seem a step backwards. I still think the charge should have been a straight closest point to closest point just for simplicity.

[@beefboy9500120953]

This may be how we decide to just do it. Do you think the game mechanics would be affected that much if we just played old world with 8th charging?

[@klavakkhazga3996]

I hope they change this. It isn't particularly fun or even nostalgic in its clunkiness, it's just bad game design. Whatever they fix it with, it should be something you can measure once when you declare a charge, and both players can know clearly what is needed to be rolled before any models are touched

[@DETHMOKIL]

I think I can see the idea here, they dont want a free wheel to be used for lining up charges that otherwise couldn't be made at all. Using a wheel there is more than just trying to maximize base to base, if you didnt wheel, you couldn't charge. Maybe they are thinking counting on free movement will encourage sneaky deployment.

[@guehe99]

I want to point out, the narrowest and mobile your unit is the more predictable flee/pursuit direction it has, as long as when enemy’s gives ground or fall back in good order, you reorganize to maximize models in contact again, an units flees/pursuits directly opposite or forward their centers. This way if you don’t get enough movement to Match well both units in subsecuentes turns your unit and the one of the rival will expose one of their flanks to the enemy by pivoting over the center.

[@morgantreeman6872]

the problem is that there is no listed priority for the charging criteria.

[@TheGreasyGoblin916]

Nicely explained - and yes, definitely a weak area in the rules for competitive players. For informal games, I don't see any issue with ditching these charge rules and using 8th addition rules. My preference is simply to measure the charge distance between closest models, if the charge roll is successful then move and wheel to get the max. number of models together but if any of the models have to move more than the charge move to make contact then the charge is disordered.

[@jimmyjamwhambam]

which sounds exactly how 8th did it? it's like they have tried to un8th the game and just introduced a lot of confusion in pthe process and have not acknowldeged what made 8th good in the first place!

[@TheGreasyGoblin916]

@@jimmyjamwhambam I've never played 8th but it just seems the logical way to do it to me 🙂

[@Benjam311]

yeah that's how i played it in 8th ed., and I think it makes sense to keep it that way even more so now that charge distances are generally shorter.

[@buchnejf]

Yeah, it’s the biggest issue I see with the new rule set….i, however, haven’t seen it be abused. An example would be someone stepping up with a unit to be an inch away and force a combat with only edges hitting.

[@morcar8991]

Thats almost a showstopper. This is one of the most important rules in the game, yet very poorly described in the rule book

[@factorfiction4824]

Would love a video like this on wheeling. I’m slightly confused by wheeling while in lance formation, you measure the wheel distance from second rank, but if you have a really deep lance this can result in models at the back moving a huge amount of distance, is it still only costing you how far the second rank wheeled?

[@middleearthinmiddleengland4265]

Could you give thoughts to the 1" rule and accidental combat, what does accidental mean? can you deliberately end a charge within 1" and force a reaction from other units on table?

[@amarmunaev7939]

Let’s be real why not just allow every unit that is allowed to charge to do a pivot and eather count the inches from the pivot or make it free it will make the game faster and also avoid tricky situations like for example what do you do if a unit has the frenzy rule and can charge but a friendly unit is in the way by blocking the path to weel just over complicating the whole situation.

[@iugoeswest]

Thanks

[@TzolRAdio]

Being slightly provocative, it doesn't specifically state you have to pay for the wheel in inches, it just says when you close the door your get "second, free wheel". I've been "paying for the wheel" in my games so far but I would happily go back to 8th ed charge rules tbh.

[@benhadaway3322]

Fantastic video. Given the wheel may result in a fail charge its almost nulling the 1st bullet point ive found. The 1st point seems to be in there almost to make it "look" cool so the units align better.

[@d6wounds]

Cheers man

[@MrGunnar177]

Could you go over charging skirmishes? It came up in my last game and the rules seem to be on contrary to each other

[@gaius9240]

I’m for something so pivotal to the games function I do feel like the ruleset fails a fair bit here with charging. I would like a another paragraph or so of charging rules or somthing similar to 8th Ed charges

[@aalagerwaard]

There is a middle ground here that I don't think is covered properly. Roll all the stipulations into one sentence looks more clearer to me at least, so it would look more like you are achieving both maximizing models in combat and moving the shortest possible distance do this. Unfortunately to accurately achieve this rules as written sacrifices a lot of pre-measuring time. "You must bring as many models into base to base contact as possible while moving the shortest distance and wheeling the minimum amount in order to achieve this while still being able to complete the charge"

[@nanodave1980]

I've not got to play a game yet. But I feel this should be a bit like kings of war. Where once you've charged, you line bases together. Makes a look tired and you can carry on kicking the snot out of each other.

[@ONI09100]

two ways i see it working better would be you mesuer the wheel to get the units flush then you can charge strait between a 45 degree front angle going for max models touching . or keep things the same but you need to connect with the majority of both units to complete a charge. they probably need to give a highrakeiy of priority when residing these things i believe older editions did this. i really didn't like charging in 8th it was way to easy to make long charges i always preferred the idea of risk vs reward and the fact you could spend the first two terns just maneuvering in older additions you could try to roll high with the early charge risking leaving your self open to your opponents counter charge if you failed or you could take your time to position units so your opponent would need an easier but still above average charge roll on them. two thing i dont like in this edition are the fact all models in the front rank can fight weather they are in contact or not but the second rank cant and the fact then the front rank louses attacks when it louses models i would change it so front rank can only fight if it has some contact with the unit then perhaps add an extra model for every inch you have to spare on the charge if a charge was declared second round it could be considered extra models are rapping around and fight but not on the charge. then add extra rank with spears giving another rank when not charging and finally take casualty's from the supporting ranks not the front rank so even if a unit takes a hard change they at least get a base number of attacks not getting to fight back just feels bad and compounds the charge

[@GilthosDrakoniss]

I thought about these problems theoretically, but I’ve played seven games so far and it is hardly ever happening. It’s much more common for some thing to be in the way and you can’t close the door and then the enemy has to close and you get disordered.

[@JKWARGAMES]

Can’t a unit pivot before charging

[@dylangajewski]

This is easily my least favourite thing about the old world, and one of the few things I think 8th improved about the game.

[@ranusmagnus656]

I agree in one point: Yes, you have to measure twice. And that feels a little clunky. BUT! @08:00 - Point 1 is not overruled. The rules just say "You have to do the proper big wheel, unless this prevents you from completing your charge."

[@azdavies87]

If anything point 3 is the pointless one.

[@pinch1loaf]

It should be that you still need to maximize models in base to base contact with a wheel, and you have to pay for that wheel, but if completion of that wheel causes you to "fail" the charge, then you still complete the charge but it counts as disordered. Alternatively allow the unit to pivot instead of wheel, you still have to pay for the pivot.

[@DecrepitGaming]

I think this needs an FAQ by the nameless ghouls that GW paid to write the rules. So sad how the next generation of gamers won't have a JJ, RP or anyone else to look up to. I love the fact the WFB is back but yes there are some odd thing's in the rules.

[@earnestwanderer2471]

Firstly, I’m pretty sure that the game was designed/conceived to be a more casual experience. If I was playing, I’d measure from the farthest point on the charging unit to the nearest point on the target unit. Then decide if I wanted to try the charge. Then simply wheel and shift units to maximize base contact. But that’s just me, and certainly not RAW.

[@MirelurkCakes]

Like with most of the "problems" people are theoretically having with the old world things like this are rarely a problem in actual games and can easily be fixed with an faq. Seems like a non-issue to me.

[@josephjustice4553]

Yeah I agree with you it looks rather silly…though the rules seems to work together. You always maximize however only so far as you are able to make the charge. I think it allows for interesting situations of multiple charges though.

[@EdeasKnight]

The extreme cases present unique opportunities, in terms of gameplay. I think the problem here is mainly an aesthetic one, which for a lot of people who play miniature wargames is pretty important.

[@OldWorldOracle]

Very insightful video, as I actually never considered (nor encountered in the few games I had since launch) this situation. I recently built a bot in GPT4 to understand and interpret the Rulebook, and it actually agrees with the way you are explaining it here two. It's exact answer was: "When a charging unit can only bring one model into base contact with the enemy by moving straight ahead without being able to maximize contact by wheeling, the rules still consider this a successful charge. The primary objectives during a charge are to bring as many models as possible into base contact with the enemy and to ensure the units are aligned against each other for combat. The process for a charge move emphasizes: 1. **Bringing as many models into base contact as possible:** The charging unit should endeavor to maximize the number of models in its front rank that are in base contact with the enemy unit. 2. **Moving by the shortest route:** The unit must take the most direct path to the charge target. 3. **Maintaining a straight approach:** The charge move should be as straight as possible toward the target. 4. **Wheeling if necessary:** The charging unit may perform a wheel during its move to facilitate bringing more models into contact or ensuring proper alignment. This wheel is permitted as long as it does not cause the charge to fail or interfere with other charges. 5. **Aligning against the enemy:** After making contact, the charging unit is required to align itself flush against the enemy unit to close any gaps and simulate the closing ranks for combat. If only one model can make contact without further wheeling to align more models due to movement limitations, this still counts as a successful charge. The rules do not specify the charge as failed in such scenarios; instead, the emphasis is on attempting to maximize contact within the movement constraints. The alignment step, which usually follows contact to ensure flush engagement, might be limited by the available movement, but the initial success of the charge is determined by the ability to make contact with the enemy unit." In case anyone would want to play around with the bot, feel free to do so (for free) via this link: chat.openai.com/g/g-LhdkMpIFj-old-world-oracle

[@johnalevetsovitis1775]

Im just not seeing these issues in my games and ones being played around me. FALL BACK IN GOOD ORDER HELPS SOLVE THIS AS THERE IS A REFORM.

[@britainbetterthanyou]

He's not actually on the moon guys, he's lying. He's a liar.

[@jimmyjamwhambam]

Jesus H Christ! why is this such a mess!? who playtested this!? 8th had this absolutely fine! yes the charges were too good for infantry but they fixed that with the highest dice rule (i actually thought this was brilliant and encouraged me to want to play the game) now all i see is contradictory rules and they have made it so needlessly complicated! I can see this causing massive arguments and sheer confusion espcially at tournaments And we were all worried they were going to streamline and '`AOSify' the game... nope turns out they have gone completely backwards and 8th was the streamlined game all along!

[@DrBlaxill]

Yes. And in their scramble to seemingly remove as much 8th Ed as possible from the game has caused them to dispense with several great quality of life changes, the great offender being the free charge wheel. I can see the rationale for some other changes, but why this one? What was gained?

[@jimmyjamwhambam]

indeed! it's what has stopped me playing so far; the endless questions on FB and good people like yourselves and Simon showing what is so obviously wrong (and easily fixable) is just frustrating for me... Also I see you are at Cardiff next weekend so will be trying to catch you for a chat if that's ok? :)@@DrBlaxill

[@ClydeMillerWynant]

@@DrBlaxill I think it's not quite right to say they've removed as much 8th Ed as possible from charging as premeasuring and a random element to charge distance are both 8th Ed departures from previous editions and are pretty major things. To be fair to them there's a good argument that they've actually improved the latter by reducing the extreme distances and the variability to a level that might make random charges more acceptable to people who would rather not have them in the first place. Getting rid of the free wheel seems particularly bizarre though as leaving it in would be a much better fit with the truly new thing they've brought in which is not requiring base to base combat for the front rank to fight. I suppose getting rid of it perhaps fits better with the rest of the movement system that is more like older editions, but not sure anybody actually wants that level of hassle for charges (could well be wrong about this though) and if they do have to do it like this then base-to-base attacks only would be much more sensible.

[@DrBlaxill]

@@ClydeMillerWynant Of course, you're right- I am exaggerating (although what I said is I think reflective of a lot of the pro-8th/9th contingent who can't understand why so much of the core ruleset got changed from something that functioned so well). I think TBH that OW would work as well or better without premeasuring- or at least not lose very much. Given the amount of discussion required to play it, it feels like an old edition with pre-measuring overlaid on top but without so many of the obvious quality of life advantages of premeasuring. I think that if you are going to have premeasuring, it's hard not to then have random charges unless you literally want to go down the unit trading KOW route. I agree that the change from maximised 1d6 from 2d6 for infantry is better from a visualisation perspective- although the effect on the game is to weaken infantry still further.

[@ClydeMillerWynant]

@@DrBlaxill I'm not against premeasuring or for that matter random charges. I do think the reduced distances for infantry compared to cavalry are better even though it's hardly going to help my Dwarfs. I don't think there was that much wrong with either 6th or 8th editions from what I know of them (the OTT spells in 8th aside). I'm hoping that by the time I can get to the point of being able to play this one that some of the clunkiness has been resolved either by FAQs or just by players themselves working out the most sensible ways forward and the internet doing the rest!

[@buzz0783]

I don’t think it is that difficult for faffy to work out 2 distances - closest to closest and with maximised wheel. I think that can be achieved and agreed very quickly and easily

[@d6wounds]

Yes I’m sure we’ll all get used to it. The issue comes when you need to measure distances before you decide if you want to declare the charge. Measuring a necessary wheel often means touching the models to see the hypothetical wheel needed to get into line to charge.

[@jamessmithiii4129]

These rules aren't very good are they... not user friendly or immersive.

[@azdavies87]

The charge rules are dumb....very dumb. But a couple of thoughts. Point 1 is still important, the over-rule isnt an over-rule. It's more of a caveat. It just doesnt force you to fail charges....so a bit of nonsense was spoken then sir!! Wait until you realise that it doesn't say that you have to prioritise them in order. So actually you can argue that any of the 4 points is most important causing the world to end and sky to fall.

[@beefboy9500120953]

Currently our little group is working out the minimum needed and then using any extra to bring what we can into base to base. Are all models granted their full profile if not in base to base? I.e a black orc with furious charge and Extra hand weapon gets three attacks even if it's not in b2b?

[@ClydeMillerWynant]

One attack if it's not in base to base contact, that much is clear. Beyond that it sounds like you're doing what the rules call for. For better or worse as the example in the video where contact is only made at the corner shows.

[@lofilevelling7830]

Only 1 attack if not b2b. Even with Characters and there is no Make Way for characters like in 8th (as far as i can see). So you could deliberately go for a "clipped charge" with a unit of standard infantry against a unit with a character so you both only get 1 attack each.

[@beefboy9500120953]

@@lofilevelling7830 I've read there's a move through the ranks move characters do to come into base to base.

[@andrewcharlton6080]

@@lofilevelling7830Clipping could happen but it’s not going to be deliberately possible, or at least you could try but it’ll be a risk. If you have spare inches on your charge then you need to wheel to maximise models. The only way to make clipping likely is to try and plan for long charges where even if you make a successful charge you won’t have the spare inches to wheel to maximise, however, at that point you’re risking failing your charge as you’ll need a 5 or 6 on your charge roll itself.

[@jackcrop]

Interestingly. What happens if say the front left orc is a character in these combats (especially the corner to corner ones). Do you still get supporting attacks from the rest of the front rank? Who can they target?