I think you're agreeing with me?
I see that you've edited your post a bit, so I will edit mine.
The issue being discussed is that there are two possible interpretations of this Rune's function.
The most common interpretation is that the unit does not count as having charged for:
- Choosing its weapon (e.g. Lance), and
- any special rules that the unit might have (e.g. impact hits)
The second interpretation is that the unit does not count as having charged for:
- choosing which weapon it uses, or using any of its weapon's special rules.
Quor_Ironfist If the “it may have” would refer to any option that the weapon may have , then it is pretty redundant. The weapon is completely negated with the first rule. What’s the point of negating partially, if you can negate all of special rules of the weapon with the first rule?
I quoted this bit of text from you because I disagree with the second part of the rule "or using any special rules it may have" being redundant if it is referring to the weapon's special rules as per interpretation 2. It is not redundant.
The weapon is not completely negated with the first part of the rule "for the purposes of choosing which weapon to use". In the case of the Thrusting spear, you might choose to use it whether you have charged or not, but its special rules are impacted by the charge. i.e. if they have charged with thrusting spears they cannot use the fight in extra rank rule (but they can still choose to use thrusting spears). If they don't count as having charged, then they may use its special rule.
This is also an important distinction for Cavalry Spears. In the turn they charge, they get +1 S and AP; If they don't count as having charged, they get fight in extra rank. In both cases you "Choose to use" the weapon regardless of whether you have charged or not. So, the next part of the rule is required (not redunant) to point out which special rules you can use for your chosen weapon.