What do you think about this link?

[bigpig]

This discussion is going on over at Asrai. 

http://asrai.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14779

For all intensive porpoises it appears to be a legal move based on the letter of the law, but really conflicts with the spirit of law and what common sense would dictate.

I'd like to think it's illegal because it just seems counterintuitive, but barring anyone knowing something in the rules or FAQ which requires a charge taking the shortest path I'm inclined to think I should be prepared for someone to try it during competitive play. 

Anyone care to take a stab at this?

[Matt]

I would say, it is "legal".
I would also expect that any battle points you pick up for doing this is likely going to be lost on your sportsmanship and comp scores.

It isn't impossible to avoid this.  Box out the angle with other skirmishers in our unit to prevent that 170 degree rotation.  Or in the case of most skirmishers, just flee the charge.

In the case presented where a Vargulf did a 180 to bring adjacent zombies in on a rear charge; I would bet more often than not you are better off with a front charge.  Vargulf goes into the front, and ranks up the skirmishers, then the zombies go in, touching at most 2 opponents.  Bringing the zombies into the rear gives you +2 combat res, but you are likely to lose out in the exchange with the death of zombies.  Not only does a combined front charge bring less zombies into contact, but it also allows the Vargulf a chance at clearing out those models touching the zombies.

I just don't see this coming up often enough to be a real problem.

-Matt

[Fellblade]

The vargulf would be murdered due to combat res coughed up by the zombies... but yes, its just one more of the "but its legal" exploits in the game.

[Matt]

The vargulf would be murdered due to combat res coughed up by the zombies... but yes, its just one more of the "but its legal" exploits in the game.

If the zombies are big enough, they could bring +7 combat res.  The wardances would be likely slaughtered by the hits from fleeing the zombies.


-Matt

[Fellblade]

If the zombies are big enough, the wardancers can rack up +12 combat res against them and watch the vargulf explode. Its not like the zombies are going to be getting many (if any) kills and that diagram showed way more wardancers than you'd need to win that fight, rear bonus or not.

[Matt]

If the zombies are big enough, the wardancers can rack up +12 combat res against them and watch the vargulf explode. Its not like the zombies are going to be getting many (if any) kills and that diagram showed way more wardancers than you'd need to win that fight, rear bonus or not.

Wardancers need 3's and 3's; with only 3 attacks each with the +1 attack dance.  Because they ranked up on Vargie, they are only 4 wide.  This means the dancers only come in with 12 attacks.  The zombies on the other hand, bring in +7 combat res (if they have a standard); wardancers have no option for a standard.

The odds are slightly in the favor of the combined front charge, with the undead winning by ~3 either way. 
That's what really strikes me as odd.  This guy didn't gain a numerical advantage, he just came off being a jackass.

-Matt

[Qrab]

GW addressed this issue ages ago and stated that the rules allow it.

[Druchii Love]

Perhaps it's just me but I wouldn't have an issue with that charge in the slightest.  Depending on the skirmisher involved, it might even give the charged unit a stand&shoot reaction that it wouldn't have gotten otherwise.  And as Matt pointed out, in this case I think the Zombies would actually hurt the combat.  I would not get bent out of shape about this at all.

[Qrab]

Since S7S is based on actual distance moved, it would be possible for skirmishers to do so against a J-turn charging model IF all chargers are over half move away.