PDA

View Full Version : Casualty removement problem



Doomclaw
28-08-2007, 11:48
A frind of mine and I stumbled upon this situation today, and we couldn't figure out what the way i is supposed to be done by the rules is.

A unit of single rank troops gets charged in both flanks and suffers some caualties. Where are the casualties supposed to be taken from? if we take them from either side the result would be that one of the charging units would suddenly have left combat. But taking them from the middle would disrupt the unit being attacked.

How do you think this should be solved?

Atrahasis
28-08-2007, 11:58
Remove them from the flanks, and move the flanking units forward to maintain contact during redress ranks. See page 46.

knightime98
28-08-2007, 14:16
It is possible that the flanking units may make contact with one of their friendly unit(s) to the front. They will have to stop there and be free of combat. However, they will get their attacks for that combat round. This situation is a lot more common than you think. The BRB addresses some of these as Atrahasis has mentioned but by no means is it complete in its definition as usual.

Ask yourself this question if you have a Necromancer in a unit of zombies that is flanked on both sides and rear charged along with 2 units attacking the same zombie unit to the front, after the mayhem is complete - all that is left is the Necromancer (20mmx20mm base) how does he make contact with 5 units at the end...... The answer is that he can not, unless they are all single 20mm bases each.... So, there you have it. There is only so much space available to make contact.

DaBrode
28-08-2007, 15:55
Removement? Removal maybe? :p

EvC
29-08-2007, 11:41
Remove them from the flanks, and move the flanking units forward to maintain contact during redress ranks. See page 46.

If this were to happen in the second turn of combat (Or wherever they fight in initiative order), does that mean one of the flanking models may lose its opportunity to fight that turn if it isn't in base combat any more?

Atrahasis
29-08-2007, 11:41
It does.

See my signature though.

knightime98
31-08-2007, 05:47
If this were to happen in the second turn of combat (Or wherever they fight in initiative order), does that mean one of the flanking models may lose its opportunity to fight that turn if it isn't in base combat any more?

If the unit is in base contact at the beginning of the close combat phase then they get their attacks. They are fighting. Just because you remove models and make it so the unit is no longer in base contact does not mean they lose their attacks. However, if it is in the following turn and they have been removed from base contact then they do not get to attack that turn.

They key is being in base contact at the "beginning" of the Close Combat phase.

Masque
31-08-2007, 07:44
They key is being in base contact at the "beginning" of the Close Combat phase.

Care to back that up with a rules quote? I can refute it with a rules quote.

BRB, Page 32, Which Models Fight
"Models can fight if they are in base contact with an enemy model when it is their chance to attack..."

chivalrous
31-08-2007, 14:18
If this were to happen in the second turn of combat (Or wherever they fight in initiative order), does that mean one of the flanking models may lose its opportunity to fight that turn if it isn't in base combat any more?
No, not at all, since the casualties are really being taken firstly from base to base contact with the unit inflicting the casualties.
In the below diagram, if unit A attacked first and inflicted 3 wounds, the models killed would be 1 , 2 and 3 but 4, 5 and 6 would be removed for ease of play.
A
A123456
A
On BRB page 36, in reference to a combat fought front to front, the precedent is set that casualties would fall in the fighting rank first
Although casualties fall amongst the rank that is fighting... and then follow into succeeding ranks behind the fighting rank. Since we are fighting in files rather than ranks, common sense has to be employed and the casualties would instead be taken from successive files.

In the second example assuming A and B charged or A has a greater Initiative than B which in turn has a greater Initiative than the numbered unit,
A.........B
A123456B
A..........B
unit A will attack, cause 3 kills and because the kills are taken from the fighting rank, 1, 2, and 3 are effectively removed. B will then get to attack as model 6 cannot have been a casualty.




BRB, Page 32, Which Models Fight
"Models can fight if they are in base contact with an enemy model when it is their chance to attack..."
Yep, no complaints there it's the only reason we have an Initiative stat :). The complication here is that are there or are there not models in contact with unit B?
Models are removed from the rear ranks for game play purposed to represent models moving forwards to fill the gaps, but are stated as falling from the fighting rank first as would make sense. Common sense suggests that in this scenario, you'd remove models from the fighting file first and successive files thereafter and not remove any models in contact with B unless, somehow, unit A managed to inflict 6 casualties.

The situation is the same to that of when a unit of several ranks is charged in the front and rear, only rotated 90 degrees with the extra ranks stripped.

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 15:40
Models never get removed from base contact.

The "although casualties fall..." is a fluff justification for the following rule, it does not represent "ease of play" or anything of the sort.

Models are always (always) removed from the rear rank.

chivalrous
31-08-2007, 16:29
Models never get removed from base contact.
Except when a unit is engaged to both the front and rear:eyebrows:


The "although casualties fall..." is a fluff justification for the following rule, it does not represent "ease of play" or anything of the sort.
I took the 'ease of play' part from the shooting section, p.32. But as has been said in previous threads, these things are only applicable to the section they're written in and should never ever be used as examples to discussions about separate sections.


Models are always (always) removed from the rear rank.

When there is a rear rank to remove from ;). I fully agree with this. My suggestion of front and rear engagement was an attempt to find another point of view with which to solve the current problem.
Of course I could just read the shooting section again, p.31
"If the unit is deployed in a single rank, the casualties are removed equally from both ends" If you'd said that to back up your original post, along with
Close combat casualties are removed in the same way as shooting casualties this thread would have been several posts shorter :D
Make your case, back it up :)

I guess the problem has arisen because people don't want to loose the attacks from the other flanking unit within that combat and if unit A inflicted more than one kill, then unit B may not attack at all, re.Masque's last post.

Damocles8
01-09-2007, 16:18
ok here's one for you...

Bretonian lance charges a single rank of archers in the flank with the center model of the lance on the enemy model, do you take casualties from base to base and keep moving forward (that would be logical, but this is GW....)

Festus
01-09-2007, 16:32
No, you take casualties from the other side and the archers step up to fill the gap - as desribed in the BRB ...

... this isn't even a proper question, or is it?

Festus

Atrahasis
02-09-2007, 17:08
Actually Festus, archers would be removed equally from both ends of the line, and the knights would be moved forward during redress ranks.

Festus
02-09-2007, 17:18
Hi

This depends on your interpretation of *ranks* on p.31, BRB

If you use it in the same way as ranks for cannon or Boltthrower purposes, ranks and files swap places.

I think that it is most appropriate to do sa, as it keeps the *line of scrimmage* (to use a sports term) in the same place for as long as possible - without the need to move one of the units involved in the fight.

Festus

Atrahasis
02-09-2007, 17:28
Unfortunately that only works for single rank units, and treating them differently isn't supported by the rules.

Festus
02-09-2007, 18:43
Hi

Well, to be honest, I always played it that way, all back through the editions: The point, where the fighting takes place is fixed, and units basically *melt* towards this place, towards the line they touch. Happens to keep quite some problems away - problems caused by displacing the actual fighting ranks.

I don't really care if it is the (badly written) rules this time around (ie. 7th), but it sure is the most sensible approach to casualty removal for the sake of simpleness...

... and it is in accordance with the rules, as the rules stipulate that the removal of back rankers is to represent others troopers stepping up to fill the gaps caused by the fallen comrades. Teh BRB wants us to keep the place of fighting as constant as possible. It is just the question if you want to follow the first or the second sentence of the rules, because you obviously cannot follow both in this instance.

I've decided.

Festus

Atrahasis
02-09-2007, 18:51
The first sentence is fluff justification for the second; the rules explicitly state that casualties are removed as for shooting, and that this represents troops stepping forward.

It can make a huge difference to whether countercharges are in range and pursuit moves if the rules are applied differently in different instances.

Festus
02-09-2007, 19:10
The first sentence is fluff justification for the second...
Wow, you are quick in your distinction between Fluff and Rules! :(

TBH, I can easily spot the distinction in the description of spells and Magic Items, where it is different paragraphs in a different format. But how do you know in a rules text within the same paragraph :eyebrows:

I don't hold it as fluff, I hold it as a rules principle: It represents troops stepping forward, so this is the rule: The troops step forward towards the fighting.

We may disagree here, no harm done, but it certainly isn't simple *Fluff*, but rules' text.

Festus

Atrahasis
02-09-2007, 19:15
The key word is "represents". Your interpretation results in contradiction, mine doesn't, and so I'd say mine was the better interpretation, no?

Festus
02-09-2007, 19:31
Well, actually, no...

... the question still stands: What is more important in a game of indescribable possibilities: To be aware of the underlying principle the rules try to portray - as explicitly spelled out as it is here - and follow this? Or to see and follow a games mechanism that fails to achive the wanted and desired effect for the sake of a badly written rule?

I know how to decide, and I always did so...

Festus

DeathlessDraich
02-09-2007, 19:54
Interesting discussion but where's the usual fireworks?:p

I prefer Festus' interpretation.

K = unit of knights;
A and B are units of the same army

K
KAAAAAAAAA
K...BBB

Atrahasis' interpretation creates a problem because if the knights slay 5 or more models of unit A and move in to fill the gap, the knights will come into contact with enemy unit B.

"Combat casualties are removed in the same way as shooting casualties" is yet another mistake by the rules writers who might justify their position as saying that "the same way" denotes merely similarity and not "exactly the same way".

Krankenstein
02-09-2007, 20:48
I agree with Festus and DeathlessDraich.

But as always with “spirit of the game” and “what gives the best result” interpretations, you can run into a problem: your opponent assumed things worked differently, based his tactics on it (say he actually wanted you to get in contact with unit B), and now he really doesn’t think your interpretation will give the best result. With some right.

Festus
03-09-2007, 05:22
Hi

You mustn't come into contact with unit B in this case, as you can only contact a unit by charging, not by redressing after combat.
If someone based his *tactic* on that, he is wrong...

FEstus

theunwantedbeing
03-09-2007, 12:36
On page 46 the rules do state that in multiple combats it may turn out that one or more units are now not engaged with anyone at the end of the combat phase.Such units are out of the combat.

On the same page it states that units do not move while in combat.

This means that if you hit a single unit on both flanks one of the units will inevitably end the combat phase not in base contact with anything and will be out of the combat,(assuming you kill 1+ models of that single line of enemies).

There isnt anything on which side you must choose to be left unengaged though(unless only one side causes any casualties).

I guess following the rules to the letter could mean that 2 units charge the flanks of a single rank of enemy and kill at least one model each,putting both units out of combat.
This of course happens once break tests have been made(and subsequently passed).

T10
03-09-2007, 12:52
Units only "drop out" of the combat if all the units they were fighting are destroyed. Merely chipping away a few models from the flank/rear may result in a gap between units, in which case the flanking/rear unit is moved forward to re-establsih contact with the reduced unit.

Edit: Also p. 46, second column, third paragraph.

-T10