Ulthuan

Ulthuan, Home of the Asur
It is currently Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:06 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Accepting that this IS Legal, Would you do this?
Yes 25%  25%  [ 4 ]
No 75%  75%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 16
Author Message
 Post subject: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:10 pm
Posts: 105
Location: UK
NOTE: You need to read the linked thread and then come back here to understand this.

I have just been replying on Warseer to a Rules thread, it was resolved, but as a result, a valid suggestion was made on how to make two units unassailable within the rules...

The thread is here: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295525

If you scroll down untill you see mortiferum's Diagram 2
Diagram 2 is what i am talking about.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d112/ ... ay/lsp.jpg
Image

Substitute Unit A for Great Eagle, Unit B for Great Eagle, Unit C for your opponents scary unit.

And yes, i realise there is a whole tactics thread on Great Eagles here, but this is not specifically about them, its more about using the Charge rules against your opponent.

So... would you use 2 Great Eagles and angle them so that your opponents scary unit was unable to charge either???


Last edited by b4z on Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:29 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:25 pm
Posts: 252
Outside of 'Ard Boyz, no because I am not a douchebag.

_________________
My army


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:18 pm 
Offline
The White Star Captain

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:16 pm
Posts: 2814
Location: Cothique (QLD)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in the linked topic, the RAW is being mis-read.

p20 of the WFBRB, under MOVE CHARGERS, within the note/s in bold:
"..... They move directly forward, but are permitted one wheel of up to 90* as they move, and another of unlimited arc once in contact......"
:?

I've checked the Erratas and can't find that your only allowed to wheel 90* instead of the afore mentioed unlimited amount.....

I would use this if it was liable or "right", but me thinks it's not as it's made out to be. :wink:

_________________
Sincerely,
Kitlith

Image

Head of the Ninth Age 'High' Elves of Light Army Support.

The Mighty Pen (App) Link coming soon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:00 pm 
Offline
Well played Sir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Posts: 7798
Location: Queensland, Australia
the 'closing the door' is a free move isn't it, and i didn't read anywhere where it was limited...

_________________
Lord Elessehta Silverbough of Ar Yvrellion, Ruler of Athel Anarhain, Prince of the Yvressi.
Beastly member of The Mage Knight Guild.
Narrin’Tim wrote:
These may be the last days of the Asur, but if we are to leave this world let us do it as the heroes of old, sword raised against evil!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:10 pm
Posts: 105
Location: UK
For those querying the legality of this, it is perfectly legal.

If you are interested in why... then another rather larger/more extensive thread is here:

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=83525


Last edited by b4z on Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:22 pm 
Offline
Auctor Aeternitatum
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 7281
Location: The city of Spires
not sure if it is 100% legal. And I would certainly not do this or play someone who would try to pull this on me.

I would solve this situation in either of 2 ways:
- you charge both eagles. Since you can't 'close the door' the eagles are forced to close the door and wheel until you hit their front rank.

- do as someone on the warhammer forum suggested in the quoted tread:
Quote:
Large unit charging small unit on the right:
Large unit pivot backwards, almost 90% around the front left-hand coner so the unit is almost facing to the right. Then charge/clip small unit on the right, narrowly missing small unit on the left.


Rod

_________________
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:11 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Univeristy of Glasgow
Legal. I approve anything that hurts deathstars, even if I don't play elves anymore.

_________________
For the dwarfs, there was only this. Hammerson met Grombrindal’s gaze, and the White Dwarf nodded slowly. If it must be done, let it be done well. Whether they were dead or alive, that was the only way dwarfs knew how to do anything.

And Grombrindal said "10 from the back, yeah?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:49 am 
Offline
The White Star Captain

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:16 pm
Posts: 2814
Location: Cothique (QLD)
b4z wrote:
For those querying the legality of this, it is perfectly legal.

If you are interested in why... then here is another rather larger/more extensive thread is here:

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=83525


UMMM, No it isn't legal, the Eagles/units are simply charged in the flank, as thats how the rules ARE written. Theres no ifs or buts about it, they get charged to the flank (as when the charging unit cant make contact with the correct facing/arc, "in this case being the front", the charge still succeeds and is carried out towards the intended facing/side, the charged unit/s must wheel until their front facing is flush with the charging unit's), so ruling done, cant use it, not legal....
By flank I mean contacted in the flank...!

Sorry Pikachu :P .

In any case anyway, the rules of an 'Unusual Situaion' (p22), and 'Unexpected Problems' (p20) would come into play so the unis are either both charged in the Flank, or one in the Front, or the charge doesn't happen at all, so no failed charge.

_________________
Sincerely,
Kitlith

Image

Head of the Ninth Age 'High' Elves of Light Army Support.

The Mighty Pen (App) Link coming soon


Last edited by Asurion Whitestar on Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:58 am 
Offline
Tactician

Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: USA
AsurionWhitestar wrote:
UMMM, No it isn't legal, the Eagles/units are simply charged in the flank, as thats how the rules ARE written.
Where do you find this rule you claim? Page, paragraph, sentence, quote?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:44 pm
Posts: 1974
They may not legally charge A or B, so they may declare a charge on both. I'm not sure it helps in this situation but it is there.

Edit:
My reading of the rules is as follows.

In order to be able to declare the charge i must be in range. I then move the charger into base contact with the enemy (top of page 20 brb), then i make a free wheel to bring my models into base contact with the appropriate facing as part of closing the door (bottom page 20 brb).

Now you are required to wheel to me (top page 22 brb)

_________________
DAMN THE VENOM SWORD
http://www.druchii.net/viewtopic.php?t=44127


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:39 am 
Offline
The White Star Captain

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:16 pm
Posts: 2814
Location: Cothique (QLD)
dabber wrote:
AsurionWhitestar wrote:
UMMM, No it isn't legal, the Eagles/units are simply charged in the flank, as thats how the rules ARE written.
Where do you find this rule you claim? Page, paragraph, sentence, quote?


As I said p22, but if you need more info;
p20 Aligning to the Enemy, .......will leave the charging unit in base contact at a perculiar angle with an odd gap in between, which looks fairly strange. Of course, what would happen in a real battle is that the warriors of the two units would quickly move to attack their enemies and, in so doing, close the gap - so this is exactly what we do in Warhammer.

Once the charging unit contacts the enemy, it must perform a second, bonus wheel if required to bring its front facing into flush contact with the facing of the enemy unit that has been charged, .......

p14, WHEEL, A wheel is a basic turn performed by pivoting the unit around one of it's front corners.

In this case where the unit (Hoard) must charge to the front of the enemy unit (Great Eagle), but will only, and can only make contact with the flank/rear corner of said unit, the said unit will close the gap by wheeling from the closest FRONT corner of it's base, and then simply wheel the 2-3mm needed to be flush against the charging unit,..

I have personally change my mind on this, and if I was told by an opponent that I couldn't charge either one of his units because I cant contact the front of his said units, and because of a couple of mm's, I would flip out, It's not in the spirit of he game to bend rules like this, and if you dont think it's bending, find where it says: that when you charge to the front of a unit, you have to make contact with the front of the unit, it always says "contact the enemy" meaning the whole unit not the front rank/side only.

Just because the charged unit apparently cant wheel more than once, the charger/s cant declare a charge,......... BS.....!!! GTFO....!!!

Also, further more that this unlikely (but not for long) event, is completely unreal.
OH NO... We cant attack those guys, they cant step to the left more than once..... #-o [-X

I think in reality this would be solved by both units being charged/attacked, and that how the spirit of the game is carried out, so why not now....???

EDIT: b4z you should add a poll to see how the rest of Ulthuan views this...

_________________
Sincerely,
Kitlith

Image

Head of the Ninth Age 'High' Elves of Light Army Support.

The Mighty Pen (App) Link coming soon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:10 pm
Posts: 105
Location: UK
Rules As Written dictates you cannot charge either Great Eagle.

Rules As Intended is another matter altogether.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:38 am 
Offline
The White Star Captain

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:16 pm
Posts: 2814
Location: Cothique (QLD)
b4z wrote:
Rules As Written dictates you cannot charge either Great Eagle.

Rules As Intended is another matter altogether.


OH MY GOD....., REALLY...? REALLY.....?
If your going down that road, then you deffinately are one of those gamers that exploit Rules (or lack of) to your advantage...

And by the sounds of your reply, you seem to agree with me that it cant be done (that it's not legal), but the rules dont specifically say otherwise so you'll use it anyway....

WTF, man??????
[-X [-X [-X #-o :roll: :? :? :? :shock: :shock: :shock:

Good gaming to you sir, good gaming... :P =D>

I'm glad I wont ever be playing you, especially if this is what I'd be expecting..... :lol: :wink:

EDIT: so no poll????? :P

_________________
Sincerely,
Kitlith

Image

Head of the Ninth Age 'High' Elves of Light Army Support.

The Mighty Pen (App) Link coming soon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:46 pm
Posts: 678
I would suggest the way this works is more like this:
- Unit C declares a charge against Unit A (BRB, pg 16);
- Upon inspection of the charge route it’s clear that Unit C also must declare a charge on Unit B (BRB, pg 18);
- The owning player now decides which unit will makeit’s Charge Raction first (BRB, p18);
- Unit A decides to “Hold” or “Stand and Shoot”;
- Unit B decides to “Hold” or “Stand and Shoot”;
- Unit C moves forward until it touches both units at the same time (BRB, pg 22); and then
- Units A & B are rotated about their centre to take the charge in the FA (BRB, pg 22).

I believe that this approach is RAW.

The important point here is that if I, as the controlling player of Units A & B, didn’t want either or both units to be in combat, I had the option to flee one or both of them in which ever order I wanted (BRB, pg 18). This means that I am effectively controlling which of my two units that the charging Unit C would be forced to pursue if I decided to Flee both units (the second unit that made the Flee charge reaction effectively becomes the "redirected" charge target for Unit C).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:01 am 
Offline
The White Star Captain

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:16 pm
Posts: 2814
Location: Cothique (QLD)
Foxbat wrote:
I would suggest the way this works is more like this:
- Unit C declares a charge against Unit A (BRB, pg 16);
- Upon inspection of the charge route it’s clear that Unit C also must declare a charge on Unit B (BRB, pg 18);
- The owning player now decides which unit will makeit’s Charge Raction first (BRB, p18);
- Unit A decides to “Hold” or “Stand and Shoot”;
- Unit B decides to “Hold” or “Stand and Shoot”;
- Unit C moves forward until it touches both units at the same time (BRB, pg 22); and then
- Units A & B are rotated about their centre to take the charge in the FA (BRB, pg 22).

I believe that this approach is RAW.

The important point here is that if I, as the controlling player of Units A & B, didn’t want either or both units to be in combat, I had the option to flee one or both of them in which ever order I wanted (BRB, pg 18). This means that I am effectively controlling which of my two units that the charging Unit C would be forced to pursue if I decided to Flee both units (the second unit that made the Flee charge reaction effectively becomes the "redirected" charge target for Unit C).



EXACTLY.......!!!!!!

Thankyou Foxbat, somebody else finally gets it.... =D> =D> =D>

_________________
Sincerely,
Kitlith

Image

Head of the Ninth Age 'High' Elves of Light Army Support.

The Mighty Pen (App) Link coming soon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:29 pm
Posts: 15
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Foxbat wrote:
- Units A & B are rotated about their centre to take the charge in the FA (BRB, pg 22).

I find nothing about rotation around centres on page 22. Is this something you read into "finagling"?

Even thou this is according to rules, I have a hard time seeing any tournament referee allowing this. To me it seems just as wrong as fanatic sling shots and similar movement tricks that are obvious holes in the rules.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:34 pm
Posts: 263
I wouldn't do it. Because i would feel they had a right to beat me in the face with their rule book for me doing it ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:46 pm
Posts: 678
Foxbat wrote:
I would suggest the way this works is more like this:
- Unit C declares a charge against Unit A (BRB, pg 16);
- Upon inspection of the charge route it’s clear that Unit C also must declare a charge on Unit B (BRB, pg 18);
- The owning player now decides which unit will makeit’s Charge Raction first (BRB, p18);
- Unit A decides to “Hold” or “Stand and Shoot”;
- Unit B decides to “Hold” or “Stand and Shoot”;
- Unit C moves forward until it touches both units at the same time (BRB, pg 22); and then
- Units A & B are rotated about their centre to take the charge in the FA (BRB, pg 22).
I would suggest that by not accepting the above approach, the alternative of permitting the “blocking” tactic is, from a gaming point of view, unacceptable.

What is the alternative that is so unacceptable? Well it would give HE players and other players that have cheap, small formation fliers the ability through the use of careful placement of these cheap units in combination with the “give them an inch” rule to “block” an entire unit from being able to participate in the game at all.

Remember if Unit C can’t enter combat with either Unit A or B (both being cheap units that can fly), then it can only move around the two units or just sit there. If Unit C attempts to move around the two blocking units, then it can’t do so by marching (as it can’t wheel) and can only use its basic M-stat. The problem then becomes that Unit C has not moved far enough away from Units A & B allowing their controlling player to simply repeat the entire process.

It is important to also note that units with fewer files (i.e. not just Horde formations) can still be affected by this “blocking” tactic provided the length of the units flank exceeds the required distance between Unit A & B to accomplish the “blocking” tactic.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:36 pm
Posts: 928
Location: Oklahoma
By my view of the rules it is perfectly legal. It's just like setting up a skirmishing unit so that the opponent would have to make more than a 90 degree wheel to contact (as the skirmishers "shrink" to the center model to rank up), making the charge illegal. And yes, I would, and do, use such a tactic.
~Grant

_________________
Ulthuan in Flames: 13/9/6 Bel Hathor 77 kills


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:42 am
Posts: 405
Location: Merritt Island, FL USA
I'm not incredibly surprised by this topic. I have always thought it is rather unrealistic that a unit which begins its move in the front arc but has more than enough movement to make contact with a flank is forbidden from charging that flank. Yeah, I know it's for game balance, but it still boggles the mind that I can charge a unit 17" away (with a roll of 12) but cannot charge a unit 5" away (even with a roll of 100) which happens to be engaged on a side facing roughly towards me. The situation presented above is merely an exploit of this unrealistic rule. See my thread about this in the Ideas forum.

If I were judging a tournament (I have not), and a rules-lawyer player tried to pull this move on another unsuspecting player, I would certainly allow a charge on both eagles. I suspect most judges would, so be warned all you who try to use this! How I would justify that would be one of the following positions (all assuming both eagles hold):

1) The "wheel" which is used to close the door upon contact is most certainly not a wheel about one of the front corners, as wheels are usually defined. This can be seen from the close the door diagram. Instead, it is obviously a wheel about the point of contact. There is nothing in the rulebook limiting that close-the-door wheel to 90 degrees, or even to a single facing. So each eagle could wheel/roll to face the charging unit upon being contacted, resulting in both eagles in combat with the charging unit to their front.

2) The rule which allows a charge against two units at once says that such a charge must occur only when there is no way to charge one unit without coming in contact with the second. The rule also says that a charge must be declared against this second unit. However, its not entirely clear that this second charge must also meet the arc requirement, since it is occurring because the unit is blocking a charge. This option would result in the second eagle getting charged in the flank and blocking the charge on the first eagle.

3) Because the charge is declared on the front arc of each eagle, upon contacting the eagle, the eagle closes the door until it's front corner comes in contact with the charging unit. This qualifies as contact with the front arc of the eagle (because the corner is both front and side) as required by the arc rule. So the end result is that both eagles end up facing each other but with their flanks flush up against the charging unit. However, the charge is not considered a flank charge, because the rules require the unit to charge the front. Thus, the eagle does not face the +1 CR for flank charges.

4) Combine options 1 and 3. The eagles wheel just a tiny bit past flush, so that the front corner of each is the only thing in contact with the charging unit. This counts as front contact, obviously. This option has the advantage of requiring the smallest close-the-door movement while clearly having the eagles end up in front contact as required. It has the disadvantage that it gives the eagle player an unwarranted advantage (only one attacker in contact).

I think that option 1 is most in the spirit of the rules and most easily justified.

However, the most important thing to look at when we try to determine how the rules should handle this situation is to look at how any interpretations/changes/house rules might then be abused. The whole point of the arc requirement for charging is to prevent any normal unit from performing a flank charge on a unit engaged to the front in the same way that Empire State Troops do. So, do any of the above options allow that?

Option 1 does not. If there is no way for the unit to wheel their front rank around to where you can charge it (if it is occupied), then this does not help flank charge an engaged unit.

Option 2 conceivably could. If you charged another unit on the other side of a unit engaged to the front, and thus contacted its flank while it was blocking the charge, this interpretation would allow the flank charge. This might be considered problematic.

Option 3 and 4 just allow you to contact an unengaged front corner, which is fine.

_________________
Seredain wrote:

Haha! I'm guessing that the codename for this will be Operation Evil Bumrush.
Eldria wrote:

Close buts its a bit more Operation Chargeblerghvomitvomiteateat ooolook I grew an extra head


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:10 pm
Posts: 105
Location: UK
The opening point still remains:

C is unable to contact both A and B's front arc [or front/flank corner] with its charge move.

- including C's free 90 wheel as part of its charge move
- including C's free unlimited close the door [once contact is made]
- including A and/or B's free unlimited close the door. [after C has tried to close the door]

The whole discussion revolves around the two points of contact between C and A and C and B...
And from those points what we are ALLOWED to do...

A is not allowed to close the door [wheel] around more than the initial contact point for its free unlimited close the door.
B is not allowed to close the door [wheel] around more than the initial contact point for its free unlimited close the door.

A and B therefore cannot 'close the door' [wheel] legally so that their front arc [ or front flank/corner] is touching C's front arc.

Therefore it is a Failed Charge.

----------

For those who are getting a bit hot under the collar, it is not a question of emotions, its a question of what the rules from the rulebook allow and disallow.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:55 pm 
Offline
The White Star Captain

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:16 pm
Posts: 2814
Location: Cothique (QLD)
krysith wrote:
1) The "wheel" which is used to close the door upon contact is most certainly not a wheel about one of the front corners, as wheels are usually defined. This can be seen from the close the door diagram. Instead, it is obviously a wheel about the point of contact.


Come on now, We're talking to a Rules-Lawyer remember, dont expand on the RAW like this, then he'll try and do it too..... :roll: :P

And remember that the Closing the Door Diagram CLEARLY shows that the angle of the charge is nothing like this thread suggests (as above in diagram 1 or 2), The Wheel maneuver IS performed by pivoting the unit around one of it's FRONT corners, not intial point of contact (find where it states that).

By performing the Wheel due to RAW, (like B4z keeps on stating is why this tactic is legal), the unit/s A & B, pivot around thier front corners and therefore make contact between their front sides/facing and unit C's. Therefore, busting the legality of this tactic.

b4z wrote:
The opening point still remains:

C is unable to contact both A and B's front arc [or front/flank corner] with its charge move.

- including C's free 90 wheel as part of its charge move
- including C's free unlimited close the door [once contact is made]
- including A and/or B's free unlimited close the door. [after C has tried to close the door]

The whole discussion revolves around the two points of contact between C and A and C and B...
And from those points what we are ALLOWED to do...

A is not allowed to close the door [wheel] around more than the initial contact point for its free unlimited close the door.
B is not allowed to close the door [wheel] around more than the initial contact point for its free unlimited close the door.

A and B therefore cannot 'close the door' [wheel] legally so that their front arc [ or front flank/corner] is touching C's front arc.

Therefore it is a Failed Charge.

----------

For those who are getting a bit hot under the collar, it is not a question of emotions, its a question of what the rules from the rulebook allow and disallow.


See Krysith, now B4z thinks he's even more right by using the wheel from the point of contact, and not how the rules state. #-o :P

@ B4z; taking your last statement into account.
Quote:
For those who are getting a bit hot under the collar, it is not a question of emotions, its a question of what the rules from the rulebook allow and disallow.


Take another look at the Wheel Rule/s (p14) and then see if you still think/feel the same way..... #-o :roll: [-X

Your the one saying USE THE RULES AS WRITTEN, then go off tangent and make out like it's fine to bend the rules (or interpret them differently) to your cause.

_________________
Sincerely,
Kitlith

Image

Head of the Ninth Age 'High' Elves of Light Army Support.

The Mighty Pen (App) Link coming soon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:10 pm
Posts: 105
Location: UK
I have, and had, read page 14 thoroughly. I am not questioning the definition of a wheel.

What i am questioning is your suggestion...

You are suggesting that a charging unit does not have to wheel to close the door [wheel] anchored at the initial point of contact?

On what do you base that claim? I base mine on the following:

Page 20, Figure 4, And "Aligning to the Enemy"

Page 22, Figure 4, And "Unusual Situations"

In both figures, both Close The Door [wheel] moves are ANCHORED at the initial point of contact between the two units.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:33 am 
Offline
The White Star Captain

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:16 pm
Posts: 2814
Location: Cothique (QLD)
b4z wrote:
I have, and had, read page 14 thoroughly. I am not questioning the definition of a wheel.

What i am questioning is your suggestion...

You are suggesting that a charging unit does not have to wheel to close the door [wheel] anchored at the initial point of contact?


When did I say that, I've been working from the already confirmed fact that the charging unit C can not close the door because it is in contact with both units A & B, therefore the enemy unit/s A & B must close the door, as they are both charged.

b4z wrote:
On what do you base that claim? I base mine on the following:

Page 20, Figure 4, And "Aligning to the Enemy"


Yes, and that shows the charging unit has already contacted the FRONT of the charged unit.
And at no time does the "Aligning the Enemy" Rules say that it must be done from the 'initial point of contact', in the facts, it actually says and I quote: "bring it's front facing into flush contact with the facing of the enemy unit that has been charged".

b4z wrote:
Page 22, Figure 4, And "Unusual Situations"


Again yes, and it again shows the charging unit has already contacted the FRONT of the charged unit.
And again proving the 'tactic' is rifled with holes, as the rules say the enemy must close the door if the charging unit cannot.
If you try and debate about the finagling reference, then read it again, it says obstacle, not unit...

b4z wrote:
In both figures, both Close The Door [wheel] moves are ANCHORED at the initial point of contact between the two units.


YES, BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY IN CONTACT WITH THE FRONT FACING.....

With your diagram/figure, you cannot reference to figs that don't have the same angle/s & radii of the charger/s and front facings of the enemy units.

You can only reference to the book in PURE RULES FACT that you must close the door, and because the charging unit can't, the charged unit/s have to, and with the Wheel as RAW, being from the front corner/s ONLY, and not from the initial point of contact.
While were on this "Initial point of contact" discussion, where does it STATE, WITHIN RULES, THAT THIS IS WHAT MUST BE DONE, INSTEAD OF THE RULE FOR WHEELING.

Sorry, but your wrong, you cant legally use this tactic. It's against the rules and RAW, as you so boldly claim are on your side.

_________________
Sincerely,
Kitlith

Image

Head of the Ninth Age 'High' Elves of Light Army Support.

The Mighty Pen (App) Link coming soon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:36 pm
Posts: 928
Location: Oklahoma
Asurion, I fall on the side of b4z, as do some of the others on this forum (not to mention most of the guys on TWF and Warseer), so you saying "It's against the rules and RAW", is contested at best. I do not see somebody contacting the back-left corner of a unit and magically swerving around all the way to the front as supported by the rules either, as far as things go.

_________________
Ulthuan in Flames: 13/9/6 Bel Hathor 77 kills


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:18 am 
Offline
The White Star Captain

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:16 pm
Posts: 2814
Location: Cothique (QLD)
grantmepower wrote:
Asurion, I fall on the side of b4z, as do some of the others on this forum (not to mention most of the guys on TWF and Warseer), so you saying "It's against the rules and RAW", is contested at best. I do not see somebody contacting the back-left corner of a unit and magically swerving around all the way to the front as supported by the rules either, as far as things go.


But the RAW dont allow the 'close the door' manouver, as what it is, as a Wheel, to be done from a rear corner.
It is only allowed from a front corner, and if it would take the unit out of contact during the wheel/door close, I could easily see the charging or charged unit simply moving the 1/4" to be flush with the other, moreso the charging unit, as it's stated that the distance/movement is unlimited of the said charging unit, after the initial range is measured and charge roll made (and is sufficient).

_________________
Sincerely,
Kitlith

Image

Head of the Ninth Age 'High' Elves of Light Army Support.

The Mighty Pen (App) Link coming soon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:36 pm
Posts: 928
Location: Oklahoma
I thought that's what I said :lol:
Either I'm misreading you, or you're misreading me. Either way, we agree (I think) that the unit can't magically teleport to the front of the great eagle once contact has been made and complete a legal charge to the front that way.

_________________
Ulthuan in Flames: 13/9/6 Bel Hathor 77 kills


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:31 am 
Offline
The White Star Captain

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:16 pm
Posts: 2814
Location: Cothique (QLD)
grantmepower wrote:
I thought that's what I said :lol:
Either I'm misreading you, or you're misreading me. Either way, we agree (I think) that the unit can't magically teleport to the front of the great eagle once contact has been made and complete a legal charge to the front that way.


Yeah, I think your mis-reading me here, I'm on the CON, side of this debate, as your on the PRO.

A bit of Copy-and-Paste here but:

Asurion says and wrote:
The RAW don't allow the 'close the door' manouver, (as what it is) as a Wheel, to be done from a rear corner.

It is only allowed from a front corner, and if it would take the unit out of contact during the wheel/door close, I could easily see the charging or charged unit simply moving the 1/4" to be flush with the other, moreso the charging unit, as it's stated that the distance/movement is unlimited of the said charging unit, after the initial range is measured and charge roll/s made (and is sufficient).


Using the figure from the top of this thread.
And to keep within the dimentions of the fig: lets say that both unit A & B are exactly 1" away from unit C and 5" from each other, unit C has a Movement value of 4.


EXAMPLE:
-Unit C Declares a charge on unit A, apon measurement it is clear that unit C must also declare a charge on unit B, as it will be in the direct path of the charge.

-Charge reactions are determined and both unit A & B, declare to Hold.

-Unit C's Player rolls the dice for Charging, he/she rolls a 3 & 4, for a total of 7, plus the Movement of unit C, 7+4=11.

-The distance is measured from unit C to A & B, and unit C is within range.

-Unit C moves the 1" to contact both units A & B.

-Unit C tries to Close the Door with units A & B, but cannot because both unit A & B are in the way of unit C, and therfore stop unit C from diong so.

-Therefore the charged units A & B, must Close the Door, because unit C cannot, while doing so from their front corners, it is apparent that units A & B will move "out of contact" with the charging unit C (which is not allowed), so they must stay in contact with unit C.

-So, either:
1-The charged units A & B, that are Closing their Doors, simultaneously keep in contact with the charging unit C, while doing so they become flush along their flanks and then continue to Wheel (Close the Door) until their front faces are Flush with unit C's front facing.
-or
2-The charged units A & B, that are Closing their Doors, Wheel (Close the Door) around to their front face, while doing so, unit C moves to keep in contact with units A & B respectively, until their front faces are Flush with unit C's front facing.

- Resolve combat as normal.


Here I like option 1- more, as it seems easier, but option 2- is more in tune with the rules of the Close the Door, stating a Wheel of unlimited arc, to Close the Door, "a Wheel" being the main phrase here, "a" being that of singular, as one and not multiple Wheels.
So the most rule abiding is option two.

_________________
Sincerely,
Kitlith

Image

Head of the Ninth Age 'High' Elves of Light Army Support.

The Mighty Pen (App) Link coming soon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:10 pm
Posts: 105
Location: UK
grantmepower wrote:
I do not see somebody contacting the back-left corner of a unit and magically swerving around all the way to the front as supported by the rules either, as far as things go.

+1 Quoted for Truth.

AsurionWhitestar:

Both of your methods, 1 and 2, are intepretations/suggestions of what can happen to alleviate the "issue".
Neither methods however are supported in the rules under the Charge Sub-phase.

Going by the Initial Fixed Point of Contact...

A and B cannot wheel [to Close the Door] once from their rear [right and left] corners [respectively] so that their Front Corner/Facing is touching C's front facing.

This is a Failed Charge.

And... Going by your reading of the Wheel Manoeuvre ignoring the Initial Fixed Point of Contact... [instead revolving around one of the Front Corners]

A and B cannot wheel [to Close the Door] once from their front [right and left] corners [respectively] all the way around so that their Front Corner/Facing is touching C's front facing because that will result in A and B being disengaged with C.

This is a Failed Charge.

And... Going by your reading of the Wheel Manoeuvre INCLUDING the Initial Fixed Point of Contact...

A and B cannot wheel [to Close the Door] once from their front [right and left] corners [respectively] all the way around so that their Front Corner/Facing is touching C's front facing because that means the Initital Fixed Point of Contact [which the Close the Door moves are Anchored at] will become disengaged AND that A and B will be disengaged with C.

This unit dis-engagement is not allowed to occur. Nor [i argue] is the Fixed Initial Point of Contact allowed to be disengaged.

This is a Failed Charge.

--------

Once C contacts both A and B all the subsequent Close the Door [wheels] from ALL units must be performed with ALL units contacting each other the entire time [usually anchored around the Fixed Initial Point of Contact].


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Would you do this?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:46 pm
Posts: 678
This entire debate boils down to one issue, how important is the requirement that a charging unit has to engage its target through the same facing that it began the charge from.

If you believe that it is not important in “unusual situations” like the one identified here then the approaches proposed by krysith will work fine.

If you believe that the retention of the facing is important, then you have two choices:
(1) follow the approach as I previously laid out, which will result in Unit C getting into combat with Units A & B after these two units have been rotated to accept the charge through the front facing; or
(2) follow the approach as argued by b4z, which results in a failed charge.

Because the rules are not crystal clear, all three options are possible.

For me I will be using the one I proposed as I feel it best follows the spirit of the rules as written and will not result in a goofy “blocking” tactic.

If an opponent does not agree, then we will be dicing it off until there is an FAQ telling us which of the three approaches we are to use.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group