Not only is it closest and the enemy, it is also probably shooting at you with support fire.

Gives you a bit more to think about in when setting up supported assaults, the reverse of intermingled defending formations.

It's a good rule, but it is easy to miss the implication from a quick read through the EA rules (i know i missed it until a more experienced player pointed it out).

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

There's been a few times where counter-charging the closest enemy (and not the closest attacker) has helped me out. Charging the closest enemy can bring you out of FF range. Once there, the unit can't be allocated assault OR support fire hits, but still counts for the out-numbering bonus.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Hey I agree, and the rules also are the answer to the not-asked question about when planetfall happens

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I also agree to the change to the planetfall FAQ, but not to the countercharge target definition.

Sorry for hijacking but there are two rules I'd amend:
1. WEs can also take 2 BMs for the first DC they lose. Current rule is ambiguous in my opinion: "In addition, a formation caught in a crossfire attack receives two Blast markers for the first unit destroyed by the attack, rather than just one Blast marker for the destroyed unit as would usually be the case"

2. BTS in the tournament scenario can only be one fm, even if there's more than one formation with the highest points cost. The double (or triple!) BTS formation rule puts a premium on min-maxing and more flexible army lists. There's nothing clever about it. For example, if you take two dominatrixes in the Epic UK list at 500 points each then they are both the BTS which sucks. To separate them you have to buy a termagant for one of the fms, so it's Dominatrix plain at 500 and Dominatrix + termagant at 520. Somehow having a dominatrix with a termagant is more valuable for army morale than a plain dominatrix. It's silly. Amended rule: "if there are two or more formations that are the most expensive, then only one will count for the Break Their Spirit objective. This should be decided during the 5 minute warm-up."

_________________

I don't intend to make a big deal about this rule. It's obviously a controversial one, and I'm more than happy to debate rules but don't really enjoy online arguments about them.

So to state my position simply, there is a rule change that I think would improve the game:
"A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit in the attacking formation."

I think the italicized text was probably the game designer's intention, but that's clearly not a universally held point of view and I could just as easily be wrong. That means it would require an amendment rather than an FAQ. This is a rule I take advantage of a lot (a lot ) but I'd still be happy to see it changed since, rightly or wrongly, I believe it would improve the game.

If there's no interest in revisiting the rule from the rules committee who actually decide these things I am happy to leave it as it is.

Sorry Matt but I think you may be wrong about the original intent of the designers. In any event this should remain unchanged IMHO.

Regarding the counter charge rule and it's wording, I agree strongly with Matt-Shadowlord!
People's post talk about the confussion of battle and how an engaged formation would counter charge towards the closest threat, which is a fair assessment I think... So why don't they shoot at them then!
Fire support is a free hit on an enemy formation (ok they get a blast marker if their side looses)!
I struggle with the idea that an engaged formation will often have to move towards the enemy fire support formation and away from the enemy formation that initiated the assault and their chance to actually fight in the assault.

I believe the wording of the rules should reflect the option for the defending player to bring as many of their units into the engagement area where they can actually participate. "OR" we need to revisit the impervious nature of units offering fire support, but that's a bigger can of worms...

Steve, to be fair if this is a point that has been debated many times over the years it would speak of players concerns and hence is worthy of discussion again... Even a poll

Cheers

Mic

Many of the grognards here talk about their close ties to Jervis.

Ask JJ about this and see what he thinks. IMO, his word carries a lot of weight and he has years of game designing on any of us.

Tee

Literally one of the only problems i have with epic is this rule.
I agree 100% with Matt, the designers intention was "A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit in the *attacking* formation."
The current use of this rule is stupid and a regularly abused tactic and yes i've used it many times.
The most frustrating part of it all, is the fact that there's a history of this being brought up for discussion with what i believe would be a majority of players believing it needed to be changed yet time and time again it just gets shot down by the taccoms higher ups. Whats the point of having a development team who i'd assume would or should have the goal of fine tuning & polishing the game in favor of progression if the second a group of players who play the game on a regular basis speak up and say "Hey this doesn't feel right" - they don't want a bar of it ?
Hey, maybe the end result would be that it remains unchanged but what efforts have been put in to poll the community?

I just can't get my head around the justification of "no thanks, it's fine how it is". What sense is there that if you're engaged by enemy formation (A) while having half your unit closer to enemy formation (B), half your formation shuffle closer to a formation you can't actually fire back at but you take hits from?

_________________
Epic hobby blog
http://fuddshobby.blogspot.com.au/
https://www.facebook.com/FuddsEpicHobby/

How do you come to that conclusion when the rules include this,


If it was intended that counter charges could only go towards the "attacking" formation why would the game designers include a sentence stating that counter charges can go to "any enemy formation, not just the one they were assaulted by" and also include rules for other formations being drawn into the assault by counter charging units.
I cannot understand how players can keep claiming the designers intention was different to how they wrote it ?

That does actually sound fairly clear to me...

Personally I think that second part would be fair IF instead of "contacted" it said "get within 15cm." In any case "contacted" is more of a loose descriptive term anyway rather than something used in the actual assault rules which talk of "base-to-base contact." Sounds to me like another bit of sloppy rule wording.

The daft thing now is a the counter charging unit takes hits from the unit it charges but can't harm them (and often would reduce their attacks on the attacking formation.) great counter charge !!

I'm all for being forced to attack the closest target (and a canny attacker could use a cannon fodder unit to take the hits) but at the moment the opposite happens - the elite unit doubles up, shoots then gets to firefight with total impunity...

It must be remembered that only defending units that are directly involved in the engagement (ie, rolling dice themselves) can be targets for Supporting Fire.
It sounds like a few players aren't remembering this rule in their games.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

True, but if I'm right, having one unit in range of supporting fire would allow all hits to spill over to any units engaged by the assaulting formation (?)

It's the one of those rules which almost every new player I've had to explain it to hates and feels like you're having one over on their inexperience. However unlike most of the ones which eventually people come to accept this still bugs every regular player in our group. When it comes up (admittedly infrequently) we generally ignore it if it leads to a stupid result.