PDA

View Full Version : Detachments vs Buildings



kroq'gar
04-09-2007, 10:29
a quick search revealed nothing. What happens if a parent unit occupies a building and then is assaulted. Do the detachment then counter assault the now fragmented unit? Is this simultanious or does it prevent the assault.

DeathlessDraich
04-09-2007, 10:47
1) Only one unit may occupy or assault a building BRB pg 98
2) Detachment are "normal units" Empire pg 38

Therefore detachments cannot Counter charge an assault on its parent units in a building. Similarly it cannot Support charge a parent unit assaulting a building.

However the detachment may Support Fire if its parent unit is in a building being assaulted. The ensuing S&S takes place outside the building so there is no -3 building penalty.

kroq'gar
04-09-2007, 10:58
The boundries of the parent unit become that of the building. A detachment within 3 is a 'detachment'.

Wings of Doom
04-09-2007, 16:23
A detachment out of 3" is also a detachment... the phrase you're looking for is in close support. Draich's answer seems correct to me.

Griefbringer
04-09-2007, 16:52
Interestingly, I found the following from the building rules (BRB page 98, right-hand column, 4th paragraph):

"If an assaulting unit is engaged in combat with any other enemy unit (by a counter-charge or some other special rule or odd special circumstance), it will not fight the assault, but it will fight the enemies outside the building instead. The unit in the building takes no part in the fight whatsoever and, if the assaulting unit is still in contact with the building after the normal fight, the assault automatically fails."

This suggests that counter-charging is possible, but does not go into details on where the assaulting unit is considered to be placed at the end of its charge move.

Atrahasis
04-09-2007, 23:39
There is nothing to suggest that a detachment cannot countercharge a unit charging it's parent while that parent is in a building, and as Griefbringer points out, it will cause the assault to automatically fail.

The assaulters will still be in base contact with the building, unless casualties/fleeing cause that to change.

Yellow Commissar
04-09-2007, 23:46
This suggests that counter-charging is possible, but does not go into details on where the assaulting unit is considered to be placed at the end of its charge move.

Nice find. ;)

As far as to where the countercharged unit is placed, stopping them 1" from the building seems consistent with the rest of the building rules.

The real question is whether of not the charging unit aligns to the building.

Other than to agree with my opponents view of it, I would say to align the charging unit to the building.

That's just how I'd probably play it.

Good question, though. Probably best to discuss this with the Empire player when that building hits the table. ;)

Atrahasis
04-09-2007, 23:49
The counter charge doesn't happen until after the charge, and so stopping the chargers short is neither necessary nor supported by the rules.

Yellow Commissar
05-09-2007, 00:50
The counter charge doesn't happen until after the charge, and so stopping the chargers short is neither necessary nor supported by the rules.

Yeah, I see it now. Thanks. :)

explorator
05-09-2007, 02:16
In the case of a counter-charge, if the assaulting unit is still in contact w/the building after the normal fight, the assault auto-fails, and the assaulting unit is moved back 1" (still facing the building). This gives Empire units in buildings one (at least) turn of 'assault immunity' if they have a detachment to counter-charge.

DeathlessDraich
05-09-2007, 11:53
The paragraph mentioning counter charge in Assaulting buildings is poorly worded and falls short of logical implementation.

"If an assaulting unit is engaged in combat" probably means "If an assaulting unit has to engage in another combat before reaching the building" as opposed to "If an assaulting unit is *already* engaged in combat".

"by a counter charge" - was included by the rules writers without studying the Counter charge rules properly.

A Counter charge does not and cannot occur as the charging unit moves but only *after it has moved* i.e. *after* the charger has *entered the building* and *not while it is moving towards it* (unless it is a failed charge - see below).

Empire pg 39 "After the enemy unit has *finished moving charges*, the detachment can declare a charge".


Therefore:

1) If the charge is correctly measured, the charger moves into and assaults the building and there is no Counter charge, since pg 98 "There can be no multiple assault charges" and pg 97 "only 1 unit may occupy a building" - I hope no one suggests that the detachment could fight alongside the parent unit in the building. :eek:

2) The only circumstance where the above rule ("assaulting unit is engaged in combat") *may seem* to apply to this case is when the charge fails because of a wrong distance estimate. In this case the charger stops short as normal and the detachment can declare a Counter charge (which may also fail if the distance is wrongly estimated). This obviously occurs outside the building and no reference to building rules is needed.

Considering these cases, the addition of "counter charge or some other special rule etc"I] seems redundant!

For completeness, can I add
3) Furthermore, no Support fire or Counter charge is possible if the parent unit flees - pg 38 [I]"and not if the parent unit declares a flee reaction" but Support Fire is still possible if the charge distance estimate falls short.

Atrahasis
05-09-2007, 12:29
A Counter charge does not and cannot occur as the charging unit moves but only *after it has moved* i.e. *after* the charger has *entered the building* and *not while it is moving towards it* (unless it is a failed charge - see below).The charger does not enter the building - "Assault charges are resolved just as if the building were the target unit."

The chargers only occupy the building if the charged unit flees or they successfully assault the building - otherwise they stand outside in base contact with it.

DeathlessDraich
05-09-2007, 13:06
This is getting more complex than I anticipated.

Again I'm confounded by seemingly contradictory statements:

1) "Assault charges are resolved as if the building were the target"

and (from Fighting an Assault)
2) para 1 "models are not physically in base contact when fighting *in* a building"

and

3) para 4 " as often such heroes will be in the thick of fighting *at doorways or on stairwells*"

4) para 6 "a model fighting *in a building* is assumed etc"

Maybe statement (1) pertains to moving chargers while the others are about the actual close combat.

Festus
05-09-2007, 13:33
DDraich - you are dealing with a simplification of the way real people would fight within a building for the posession of it.

In WHFB rules term, it is just that the unit which came first *is* now the building, and the other one fights *against* it. The rules call this *assaulting a building*. As the rules only ever have one unit occupying one specific building, ther will never be any fighting within a building, only *by* a building, which happens to represent a unit - and vice versa.

Festus

DeathlessDraich
05-09-2007, 14:57
As the rules only ever have one unit occupying one specific building, ther will never be any fighting within a building, only *by* a building, which happens to represent a unit - and vice versa.


Looks very strange to me.:D
I wonder how many players share this view.

How do you explain the 3 statements that state that fighting is done *in* the building in the section titled, Fighting an assault?

In addition there is this statement, under Combat resolution:

"In the crush of a building, brute force counts more than etc" - yet another indication that close combat occurs within the building.

Here's yet another (flawed) interpretation, worth mentioning:

1) Only assaulting models with a maximum US10 can enter the building while the rest of the charging unit *must* remain outside.

2) It is possible for the detachment to then Counter charge the 'Remaining' unit outside the building.

However this interpretation adds further problems of:
how CR should be resolved. It can only be done as 1 multiple combat otherwise the assaulting/charging unit could be split asunder which is disallowed.
Then again, building rules uses the phrase "only wounds inflicted *by each side* are counted" making CR impossible to calculate in this case.

Therefore either the whole assaulting unit has to be inside the building or not.

The only circumstance, I can foresee in not allowing the assaulting unit to be in the building is if its US>30 and it wins combat. It will then be strange that the whole unit is in the building during assault and then has to leave the building after CR.

Masque
05-09-2007, 15:08
You are making it uneccessarily complicated. If a unit is fighting against a unit that is inside a building it is not actually placed inside the building, merely adjacent/base-to-base with it. If the unit assaulting the building is counter charged in any fashion, including by detachments, then it does not fight the assault and only fights against enemies outside the building.

DeathlessDraich
05-09-2007, 16:19
That's 3 so far who believe that building assaults take place outside a building.

I wonder if I'll end up being a majority of 1. :D

I'll put the same question to you - how do you reconcile the 3 statements in Fighting assaults, which indicate that close combat occurs within the building, with your interpretation.

Masque
05-09-2007, 16:39
BRB, Page 98, Fighting An Assault
"As models are not physically in base contact when fighting in a building, a little abstraction is required when working out combat."

Much of the description of fighting an assault is fluff and abstraction. Nowhere does it tell us to remove the assaulting unit from the board. We are told how to handle a situation where the assaulting unit is counter charged. If the assaulting unit was gone from the table how could it be counter charged?

DeathlessDraich
05-09-2007, 17:29
1) LOL! Your quotation includes the phrase "*in* a building".

2) The problem with allowing a counter charge is where does it occur if the charge of the parent unit succeeds. Your opinion is outside the building. My opinion is that it is not possible as the parent unit is in the building.

3) Dismissing what is written as 'fluff', a word I personally don't like using, sets a dangerous precedent as it would then be possible to highlight any rules and dismiss them as fluff according to a player's whim.
My approach is to treat *all* rules as relevant and see whether, as a whole, they produce a cohesive and pragmatic solution.

The option of placing the building assaulters outside a building creates too many problems - a) They would block other units -LOS and movement - fleers who might hit the building (and die) might be placed beyond the assaulters instead b) Pursuit into Fresh Enemy, EITW may have to be resolved against building assaulters - which is impossible considering the clearly worded Building combat resolution rules - "both *sides* etc etc" c)Skaven shooting, Cannon shooting - "D6 hits etc"

No, sorry the more I consider the rules, the closer I'm inclined to believe that Counter Charge is not possible for a succesful charge.

Festus
05-09-2007, 17:37
Oh come on, DDraich, you are not that thick, are you?

The fighting is happening in and around the building, through windows, up and down stairways, across the garden and over the bed in the rooms.

But all of this has to be done in a way portrayable on the tabletop - where you cannot physically fight *in* a building.

So the designer's solution is simple: One unit *is* the building, and everything else just works from there. If the BRB talks about fighting *in* the building, it should actually be fighting in a unit, as the unit is the building and vice versa. This is - as you surely see - impossible, thus the *shortcut* of the rules.

Simple, most simple, really...

Festus

And BTW, having reread the building rules - again - I do not see where the problem lies. Unit A is in the building, it basically is the building. Unit B is the assaulter, and there can only be one assaulting unit to a building.
Unit B may in turn be attacked, charged, EitW'ed, countercharged, whatever - and will in this case not assault the building, but be concerned with the enemies without the building rather than those within.

Where exactly is the problem - again?

DeathlessDraich
05-09-2007, 21:22
You have to read posts no. 15 and 19 again, I'm afraid as I can see you have misunderstood the important points I raised.

Masque
05-09-2007, 22:58
Ok, here's what I'd like you to do. First, imagine that the assaulting unit is placed inside the building/removed from the table just like the unit defending the building. Then read the paragraph just before Fighting An Assault on page 98. See how it doesn't really make sense? Now, imagine that the assaulting unit is on the table touching and facing the building and re-read that same paragraph. See how it makes sense now?

If that still doesn't convince you, read the section on Combat Resolution on page 99, particularly the second paragraph. How could the assaulting unit be 'moved back' while 'still facing the building' if it wasn't even on the board a second ago?

Now check the section on Buildings & Fleeing. How could the occupying unit be placed opposite the assaulting unit if the assaulting unit is in the building/not on the table?

Festus
06-09-2007, 06:38
Hi

You have to read posts no. 15 and 19 again, I'm afraid as I can see you have misunderstood the important points I raised.
I very well understood the *important points* you have raised, just thta they are not important at all, because the fighting *in* the building is represented *outside* of it in WHFB, which solves all those *so important issues* you might have.

If a unit assaults a building it is moved into contact with it. Not inside it, but in contact.
If it is charged in turn, which is perfectly possible, it abandons the assault and fights against the ones outside the building. Them's the rules.

And - funnily enough - this does not cause any problems, as the unit has a certain space on the tabletop and everything works as normal from there...

... see, how those *important points* you raised dissolve into nothing, as soon as you accept that we are playing with little pieces of tin following rather simple rules to represent certain actions - instead of a superrealistic simulation of the fighting in a pseudo medieval world.

Festus

Griefbringer
06-09-2007, 07:49
I am afraid I am also in the same camp as Festus and Masque on this topic.

Though I must admit that the rules could be more explicit regarding how the unit assaulting building is exactly placed.

kroq'gar
06-09-2007, 09:59
indeed 'if an assaulting unit is engaged in combat... by countercharge.. it will not fight the assualt.'

thanks for the debate.

With this intepretation, it is possible for another detachment to offer supporting fire against the failed assault, then against the genuine assault.

DeathlessDraich
06-09-2007, 10:57
Then read the paragraph just before Fighting An Assault on page 98. See how it doesn't really make sense? ?

It doesn't because the rules for Counter charge have not been accurately applied here as I mentioned in post #15 - the phrase "after the chargers have moved" and not while they are moving.



Now, imagine that the assaulting unit is on the table touching and facing the building and re-read that same paragraph. See how it makes sense now?


Yes, the 'last paragraph' rules will fit nicely if this interpretation is used but then there is a direct conflict with other rules. See below**



If that still doesn't convince you, read the section on Combat Resolution on page 99, particularly the second paragraph. How could the assaulting unit be 'moved back' while 'still facing the building' if it wasn't even on the board a second ago?

Wasn't on the board? That's is certainly not what I've said previously.
In fact, the building CR rules creates an irretrievable conflict with your interpretation. **



because the fighting *in* the building is represented *outside* of it in WHFB.


A rule I cannot find in the rule book.



If it is charged in turn, which is perfectly possible, it abandons the assault and fights against the ones outside the building. Them's the rules.


As stated in the last paragraph and with which I agree completely provided the assaulting/charging unit has not entered the building.

BTW - "Them's the rules" is bad grammar:D



And - funnily enough - this does not cause any problems, as the unit has a certain space on the tabletop and everything works as normal from there...


This shows that you might have merely skimmed through my posts and you have failed to understand the main points I brought up. See below**


I am afraid I am also in the same camp as Festus and Masque on this topic.

Though I must admit that the rules could be more explicit regarding how the unit assaulting the building is exactly placed.

Well, at least you understood the problem i.e. where is the assaulting unit placed?
Festus and Masque places the assaulting unit outside the building whereas I think they should be inside. What is your opinion?


**Masque and Festus: You've considered only the simplest prima faciecase. Your solution has to be viable in all circumstances.

I've highlighted the fallacies of your interpretation in the previous posts which you seem to fail to grasp, so I'll put test your interpretation in the context of a scenario below:

Consider this: B= building; A= assaulting unit; I=unit in the building (N.B. how it is placed is immaterial). A and C are in the same army while I and K are units of the opposing army.
...................A is facing <-; K is facing ^ while C is facing <-
BBBBBB
BBBIIIBAAAAA
BIIIBBBAAAAA
BBBBIBAAAAA
BBBIIIBAAAAA
BIIBBIBAAAAA
BBBBBB..KKKKKCC
BBBBBB..KKKKKCC
............KKKKKCC

Initially (A) assaulted the building or unit (I). If combat was won (by the assaulters) in the first round and Unit (I) does not break, then by Festus' and Masque's interpretation this multiple combat could have arisen very easily from Pursuit, EITW, fresh charges etc. in the *next* turn.

1) Bearing in mind that CR is resolved for each side in a combat and not between specific units in base contact.

2) The CR rules for assault in a building - "only wounds inflicted by each side are counted [plus Musician]". Let me emphasise *by each side*
Standards, ranks, outnumber etc are ignored for (A) and (I) but can they be ignored for (K) and (C) who are very obviously outside a building and not part of the assault?

What is CR for the above? As you can see your interpretation creates a rules conflict.

3) In addition, looking at the diagram (A) and (I) are separated by a wall which means (I) qualifies as fighting behind a defended obstacle!! - clearly unacceptable.


My interpretation automatically forbids multiple combats which includes building assaults since all units involved are inside the building.
It is also supported by three statements in the Fighting assaults section.

Your interpretation would be valid if the rules in the last paragraph of assaulting buildings is re-written like this:

"If an assaulting unit is engaged in combat *later or in future turns* it will *withdraw from assaulting the building* and fight the enemies outside the building".

Taking the rules in tha last paragraph in context, it indicates that the present charge/assault is being considered and not future charges.
As I've said before this paragraph is a mistake whether your interpretation or mine is being used.

Festus
06-09-2007, 11:01
Hi

In your example, if Unit I does not break, the assault failed and the unit A is moved back 1".

The rest is moot, as it cannot happen...

Festus

Masque
06-09-2007, 11:13
**Masque and Festus: You've considered only the simplest prima faciecase. Your solution has to be viable in all circumstances.

I've highlighted the fallacies of your interpretation in the previous posts which you seem to fail to grasp, so I'll put test your interpretation in the context of a scenario below:

Consider this: B= building; A= assaulting unit; I=unit in the building (N.B. how it is placed is immaterial). A and C are in the same army while I and K are units of the opposing army.
...................A is facing <-; K is facing ^ while C is facing <-
BBBBBB
BBBIIIBAAAAA
BIIIBBBAAAAA
BBBBIBAAAAA
BBBIIIBAAAAA
BIIBBIBAAAAA
BBBBBB..KKKKKCC
BBBBBB..KKKKKCC
............KKKKKCC

Initially (A) assaulted the building or unit (I). If combat was won (by the assaulters) in the first round and Unit (I) does not break, then by Festus' and Masque's interpretation this multiple combat could have arisen very easily from Pursuit, EITW, fresh charges etc. in the *next* turn.

This situation could not possibly occur as you describe. If the unit occupying the building loses the combat but does not break the assaulting unit is moved back 1" and is no long assaulting. See the third paragraph of Combat Resolution on page 99. The exact layout of units could occur if both units K and C (in that order) won previous combats during the same round and Pursued Into Fresh Enemy.


1) Bearing in mind that CR is resolved for each side in a combat and not between specific units in base contact.

2) The CR rules for assault in a building - "only wounds inflicted by each side are counted [plus Musician]". Let me emphasise *by each side*
Standards, ranks, outnumber etc are ignored for (A) and (I) but can they be ignored for (K) and (C) who are very obviously outside a building and not part of the assault?

What is CR for the above? As you can see your interpretation creates a rules conflict.

3) In addition, looking at the diagram (A) and (I) are separated by a wall which means (I) qualifies as fighting behind a defended obstacle!! - clearly unacceptable.


My interpretation automatically forbids multiple combats which includes building assaults since all units involved are inside the building.
It is also supported by three statements in the Fighting assaults section.

Your interpretation would be valid if the rules in the last paragraph of assaulting buildings is re-written like this:

"If an assaulting unit is engaged in combat *later or in future turns* it will *withdraw from assaulting the building* and fight the enemies outside the building".

Taking the rules in tha last paragraph in context, it indicates that the present charge/assault is being considered and not future charges.
As I've said before this paragraph is a mistake whether your interpretation or mine is being used.

The paragraph before Fighting An Assault is worded just fine with no vagueness whatsoever. If the assaulting unit is engaged with a unit other than the one in the building then no assault will be fought this round. How is that complicated or contradictory? It even describes what happens if the assaulting unit is still in contact with the building after the non-assault fight.

empireguard
06-09-2007, 12:07
So wait let me get this straight If I have a unit of hand gunners in a building I can stand and shoot then my detachment can counter charge. which means my hand gunners never get in combat and I get a free flank into an enemy in his turn.

Festus
06-09-2007, 12:13
If the enemy is stupid enough - yes. But noone charges the handgunners if there is a detatchment present. YOu just scare off the detatchment...

empireguard
06-09-2007, 12:22
If the enemy is stupid enough - yes. But noone charges the handgunners if there is a detatchment present. YOu just scare off the detatchment...

Woot

I thought so :)

@DeathlessDraich I read you argument against this with the whole "in" thing. as the rules say you can never have two units "in" a building your interpretation of the rules would mean that any unit "in" a building can ever be assaulted EVER. because if you need to be "in" the building to fight yet you can never be "in" the building, so you can never fight.

explorator
06-09-2007, 13:30
My interpretation automatically forbids multiple combats which includes building assaults since all units involved are inside the building.

The rules in the book also forbids multiple combats which include building assaults.

@Deathless. You are making this sooo complicated, and the rules on this issue are clear. We are standing here on the lighted path while you wander around in a dark field. We are right here.

DeathlessDraich
06-09-2007, 14:09
See the third paragraph of Combat Resolution on page 99.

Oops, sorry guys. Missed this paragraph twice even though it is highlighted in my book! What a waste of time - my apologies.
Case withdrawn.
It still matters whether the assaulting unit is within the building or not during the assault but all the rules will work more coherently if it is left outside