Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 2469364" data-attributes="member: 3400">You can ignore directly toward if you don't equate directly toward as meaning the same thing as directly at. But that's a semantic point.What's not a question of semantics that I can determine is your interpretation of the 3.5 charge rule invalidates ride-by charges and I don't think that was the intent of the 3.5 charge changes. Since ride-by chargers continue on after the attack in a straight line, they MUST be able to attack from the C positions or they are not moving on at all, they are overrunning. And since an overrun is also a standard action (as was the attack made during the charge) they can clearly not be done together. I think the mere existance of ride-by attack implies that you shouldn't be too pedantic about your interpretation of the term directly toward.</blockquote>