Unstoppable unit charge - additional question about charge bonus, with example

[dusty fog]

Unstoppable units charge was clarified on the forums but I still have doubts about this specific rule and situation:

Stormlance C charges, other two are placed. Stormlance A was engaged by Reaver 1 before charge and is engaged by both Reaver 1 and Reaver 2 after the charge. Stormlance B was engaged by both Reavers before and is engaged by both after the charge.

Questions:
1a. Does Stormlance A gain charge bonus? (I would say no - its still engaged by same Reaver 1)

1b. If not - would he gain bonus if he disengaged Reaver 1? (I would say yes)

2a. Does Stormlance B gain charge bonus? (I would say no - its still engaged by same Reavers)

2b. Would he gain bonus if he disengaged ANY one of the two Reavers? (I would say yes - because he would no longer be engaged by "all" models previously engaging it).

Do I understand it correctly (especially regarding question 2b) ?

[blazing comet]

If an Unstoppable trooper is placed as a result of a successful charge, it doesn't have to forfeit its Combat Action and its first melee attack against a valid charge "target" is a charge attack.

This is true regardless of whether it was previously engaged, and regardless of where it is placed in relation to any or all models that were previously engaging it.

Longer discussion and relevant rulings here: https://discord.com/channels/836950369791377408/1257755990644756490

[dusty fog]

Thanks for answer. I saw that original (hub) thread but this Michael answer seemed to say opposite (that you in fact loose charge bonus)?

[blazing comet]

I also pointed that out in my thread.

Defer to devs and Infernals over player guidance.

[dusty fog]

Sorry to add to confusion I have problem with recognising whose answer is official but I thought Michael was one of "infernals"?.

So which answer is the most official one? Could you paste it here please?

[blazing comet]

Michael's just some guy, like you or me.

Loren (my linked thread) is a Privateer Press dev.

Here's the takeaway

[dusty fog]

Ok thank you very much!

[kind pumice]

I am not an Infernal; I just answer a lot of rules questions. 🙂

[upper gazelle]

Duke has provided the correct link

[kind pumice]

For clarity, in case someone comes across this again or is confused about the rationale: until Loren ruled about this in July, it was not understood that the intent was that Unstoppable negated the entire quoted paragraph (screenshot), rather than just the "forfeit its Combat Action" portion.

[blazing comet]

@upper gazelle / @lunar hull - I meant to follow up on this before and it slipped my mind.

Does this same ruling apply to troopers with Incorporeal?

[upper gazelle]

I'll check

[upper gazelle]

Just to make sure you know this has not been forgotten

[upper gazelle]

So checking in on the discussion and updates.

Might I ask for clarification on the question in regards to incorporeal models

@blazing comet

[blazing comet]

Unstoppable models don't have to forfeit Combat Action if they disengage. Neither do Incorporeal models.

In the thread above, it was clarified that Unstoppable models ignore the highlighted clause below. Do Incorporeal models also ignore this clause?

[upper gazelle]

I would say yes

[slender stratus]

Is it safe to assume this goes both ways then? If I have models leaving an incorporeal models melee?

[blazing comet]

Thays already a thing, if I understand you correctly.