Im fairly confident about my EITW understanding for ground movement. Mildly hesitent if works the same for flyers.

Relevant rules pg 25 EITW

last paragraph of EITW

"the player must now declare that his unit is charging against the new target, and the target must make a charge reaction as normal. If this second target flees as well, so that another unit lies in the way of the new move of the chargers, this procedure is repeated..."

In summation...

1) declare charge....enemy flees
2) check which enemy units are in your charge lane(determined by outside models)
3) declare NEW charge against any units in charge path
4) NEW charge comes with new flee paths, new charge lanes...if enemy flees
5) go back to step 2

a diagram. Theres 3 charges being shown, Arrow line is closest skirmisher to center of fleeing unit. The other lines of the same color are used to show the charge lane for eligable EITW targets.



a little confusing but...

1) charge #1 is red, closest skirmisher to center of ranked unit is flee path(line with arrow), outside models of charging unit determine eligable EITW targets
2) charge #2 is NEW charge. Closest skirmisher to center of ranked unit is flee path and outside models determine eligable EITW targets
3) charge #3 is NEW charge. Closest skirmisher to center of ranked unit is flee path and outside models determine eligable EITW targets.

My question, since fliers jump around do they still sweep the charge lane for EITW targets? And I guess are there any mistakes in my presentation?

Looks right. I would definitely read the FAQ on EitW, it has a lot of answers to your questions (knights charging goblins diagram).

If reading the EitW section answered those questions, then many such questions would not exist I expect!

In this case I really don't know, as with fliers it is hard to know exactly what "in the way" means, and that is the term that determines what can be subject to "enemy in the way". Basically it comes down to whether a unit is "in the way" if it can be circumvented, which fliers can easily do. I'd probably go with the idea that if it's in the charge path, it can be eitw'ed though, even if they can fly over.

Where I play, it is a common convention to allow charging flyers to EITW against enemy units past the original location of the charged target that fled, but not against targets between the charger and the original location of the charged unit (units which the charging flyer would have had to fly over to reach the original charged unit in the first place).

thats not a bad convention. Couldnt get more than local friend group to agree though.

The problem is, as I see it, that the Enemy in the way section mentions people being, well, in the way, where the flyer section says that when charging you ignore intervening models and terrain, making it quite hard for units to be in the way, unless they prevent the flyer from landing.

Reread this and agree with Grot.

A unit can only be "in the way" of a flying charge if it stops the charger landing at the end of its 20" move.

I always play "Enemy in the Way" as literally in the way.

And that fact that flyers can 'pursuit into new combat' with units not literally in the way (using your interpretation here, as enemy units are in the charge path regardles of who is flying, but flyers have the opportunity to charge them or fly over them when non-flyers do not) doesnt change your view of that?

IN THE WAY means in the way to me. Nothing is in the flying units way unless it has to land on them.

No, because the choice of whether to pursue into fresh enemy or fly over them is expressly granted to flyers in their rules.

But thats no different. You need that express choice precisely because it is not an EITW situation (although incredibly similar enough that they should probably merge the 2 rules).

I read EITW literally. Their charge path takes them into or over enemy? Choose to charge them or not. If not, fly over them as per flying charges (and in fact must do so if you can reach original target).

Either way, in the end, faq it (or revise it in the rumored 8th ed. brb) and be done with it.

Of course it's different - pursuit gives them the choice, EITW insists that the enemy must be "in the way of their move". If you can fly over something, it isn't in your way.

Except that, they dont make that definition. Enemies are "EITW" if they are in the charge path. The charge path is defined by the width and distance moved of the unit. There is no third plane/axis in wfb.

"...as they make their full charge move after the intended target ... run into another enemy unit that is in the way of their move."

Now, you can argue that "in the way" means something different to you than everyone else in the English speaking world, and then you're on your own.

Ah, he's saying they're "eitw", so they're eitw. I like it!

I hadn't realized this phrase had a distinct legal definition.

I see both sides, and frankly don't believe the rulebook is clear.

There is nothing unclear about that. A flying unit moves over troops towards their intended target. Because it moves over troops the unit can not run into another unit preventing them from their target.

EITW can only happen when a new unit prevents your chargers from getting to their target. Period. Flying troops suck at EITW.

Ask anyone (in England at least) what "in the way" means, and they'll tell you something along the lines of "obstructing" or "impeding". If a unit doesn't obstruct movement (as units do not normally obstruct flyers) then they aren't in the way.

Google define "in the way" if you like. Idioms are just as well defined in some cases as individual words.

I'm fairly confident that no one in England can fly over something that's "in the way".

Excepting Mary Poppins, of course.

So you'd say that the White Cliffs of Dover are "in the way" of flights to and from the continent?

Tried that search. Best I got was to "impede", which means "interfere", which means "interpose", which means "intervene", which means "to come in or between by way of hindrance" or "to occur or lie between two things".

I kid you not, this was the exact trail on Merriam-Webster.

Again, I'm not saying that you're wrong. Only that the rules are unclear on this, due to imprecise wording and a lack of examples. It's also not clear that either way is better for gameplay or makes more sense. We really have no guidance on this issue (that I'm aware of).

The vast majority of references I have seen say:

"forming a hindrance, impediment, or obstruction"

Merriam Webster says:

in the way
1 : in a position to be encountered by one : in or along one's course
2 : in a position to hinder or obstruct

Now, a flying unit is not hindered or obstructed by a unit in it's movement - it can fly over.
A flying unit does not "encounter" a unit in it's movement path, and the unit does not lie "in its course", as its course lies above the unit.

Even if the first definition given by MW didn't also support my argument, the context more strongly supports the second.

Im pretty sure that diagram u have put up there is right. As with skirmishers and slying cavelry u must declare a direction in whihc u are charging.

With your 1st diagram u are correct in that if the first unit flees, then u may re-direct you charge into a 2nd unit if u could connect them.

But if that 2nd unit chooses to flees then your charge direction does not change. As a result of the 2nd unit fleeing you would proceed along your orihinal charge direction.

Firstly, please review the rules on posting and the proper use of English.

Secondly, the charge path does change, because as soon as EITW is declared, it is a new charge and the old charge is forgotten, done, irrelevant.

Tell that to a unit of flyers fleeing "over" US5 or moving within 8" of a unit of Night Goblins

I too can also see both sides of the argument (which to be honest is probably something we wouldn't even be debating had the rule been called "Re-direct a Charge Into Alternative Enemy" rather than EitW) but I think that given the general lack of 3 dimensional rules in WFB is perhaps something players may well have to agree on until a proper FAQ comes out.

Flyers do flee over enemies of US5/friends - they aren't destroyed nor cause panic (respectively) unless they land on the unit.

Fanatics are a red herring because the rule is that they stop 8" away. No-one is arguing that a unit that flies over something isn't within a certain distance.

Wouldn't this mean that if an Englander flies over something, it wasn't in the way?

You know full well that isnt the argument. The argument is that EITW is a specefic rules term as defined by the published rules. To start confusing rules terms with colloquial general public usage is madness.

Given how this related thread is going on another forum, this may hinge on the usage of 'can' fly over intervening models. I treat that as optional, and thus the flyers can fly over or choose to charge. Unlike non flyers who must charge or stop short.

The deciding factor for me is that rather than a literal interpretation of 3 words of a rules term (in the way), is the realization that the rule is intended to allow chargers to pick new legal targets to charge when the fleeing unit runs away from them.

Thus in past editions it was called 'redirecting the charge' and had nothing to do with enemy being 'in the way'. At least not directly.

You are correct flying troops 'can' fly over troops.

Trouble is you CHARGED a UNIT. So you have to follow those rules. EITW can not come up because you are following the charging rules by going after the target( flying to them). So there is no option for EITW for flying troops unless they have to land on a unit.