PDA

View Full Version : Multiples, charged and charging



Major Defense
03-09-2005, 17:42
So I play my HE against my friend's Chaos often enough that we come into weird situations. To start this story off, take a look at this.

http://home.comcast.net/~majordefense/1.bmp

My friend wanted to charge Asarnil with both the Chaos Warriors and the Beast Herd and in declaring it he thought he was going to be able to do this.

http://home.comcast.net/~majordefense/1b.bmp

You know, to get more of the Chaos Warriors into the combat. I cited 'Fig.1b' on page 268 and we ended up moving the charge correcly like this.

http://home.comcast.net/~majordefense/1a.bmp

I can't have more than five pictures in a post so I will continue this below...

Major Defense
03-09-2005, 17:45
So that was simple enough. Then we run into the following example where he declares a charge on my Swordmasters with both the Marauders and the Bestigors.

http://home.comcast.net/~majordefense/2.bmp

I had placed my two units where I did (remembering page 267, Multiple Targets) because the Marauders would have to divide their frontage between my two units and leave no room for the Bestigors to charge.

http://home.comcast.net/~majordefense/2b.bmp

Instead, citing our previous dealings with Asarnil and multiple chargers, my friend insisted that this situation is identical (which it clearly is not) and moved thusly.

http://home.comcast.net/~majordefense/2a.bmp

I was winning the battle already so I didn't press my point but I think that his charges were moved in a way that either violates GW's bemoaning of clipping (on page 266) or in some other way they are just wrong.

Major Defense
03-09-2005, 17:50
So I know that the Asarnil example was handled correctly and I know that if the Bestigors hadn't been allowed to declare a charge it would have ended up like I envisioned.

So what is correct here? You can plainly see that the Marauders had to slide over a little to split their frontage on the two HE units but in the last picture they slid over a whole *******' lot! Should the Bestigors have been able to charge?

Rioghan Murchadha
03-09-2005, 21:18
I would likely cite the closing section on multiple charges where it states: try to do something that 'looks right' and is realistic, as opposed to trying to stretch the rules to create a weird situation which looks obviously wrong and gains some unfair advantage to one player.

Also keep this in mind. Chargers are moved in order of declaration, therefore, the marauders go in first, splitting their frontage evenly between the swordmasters and white lions. Then the bestigors get their turn to move, and are forced to contact what is left of the unit they declared a charge on. Unfortunately you can't always not 'clip' in situations like that. Particularly since if he had declared the bestigors first, they would've failed their charge as they couldn't maneuver around the marauders.

(added)
Also, don't let anyone tell you that the bestigors should then get a wheel in to align on the flank of your unit. A unit must finish a charge in the same arc of its target as it started the charge in. i.e. front to front, flank to flank etc.

R

Izram
04-09-2005, 04:01
As for the skirmisher charge, I was under the impression that skirmishers rank up with a frontage so that you get as many in as possible then line up behind them? I.E. it would become a long thin unit, not being allowed to rank up with a frontage of your choosing?
Is there a minimum frontage rule for skirmishers and/or beastherds?


As for the second peice, the charger must share its frontage evenly? If so, it could be made so that the bestigor could clip the swordmasters, but In light of the 'realism' that multiple-chargers asks for, I don't think it is a good comprimise. I would say the bestigor could not make it in.

Now if accidental charges where not done away with, it may have been able to be fudged by charging the white lions and 'accidentally' hitting the sword masters, allowing the marauders to shift to get max frontage on the lions; but alas, they are gone, and so are his hopes getting both units in.

Makaber
04-09-2005, 05:30
As for the skirmisher charge, I was under the impression that skirmishers rank up with a frontage so that you get as many in as possible then line up behind them? I.E. it would become a long thin unit, not being allowed to rank up with a frontage of your choosing?
Is there a minimum frontage rule for skirmishers and/or beastherds?

Yes, since beastherds get bonuses for having ranks (up to two), they have a minimum frontage of 4.

Festus
04-09-2005, 09:17
I had placed my two units where I did (remembering page 267, Multiple Targets) because the Marauders would have to divide their frontage between my two units and leave no room for the Bestigors to charge.
I couldn't find a rule about dividing the frontage evenly when charging multiple targets, although I could find this rule in the section on multiple charges against one target.

Other than that, I can only second the quote of Rioghan:
try to do something that 'looks right' and is realistic, as opposed to trying to stretch the rules to create a weird situation which looks obviously wrong and gains some unfair advantage to one player

Greeetings
Festus

T10
04-09-2005, 12:35
The final example seems appropriate. It brings as many (charging) models into close combat as possible and even makes an attempt at dividing the frontage somewhat evenly.

I am unsure as to why the White Lions and Sword Masters have been brought into contact with each other. Surely, if they were lined up, only a slight adjustment would be necessary.

As for "even distribution" - what does that really mean? That each unit has the same number of model in contact with the enemy, the same number out of contact? Or something else?

-T10

Major Defense
04-09-2005, 13:17
I couldn't find a rule about dividing the frontage evenly when charging multiple targets, although I could find this rule in the section on multiple charges against one target.

I read over Multiple Targets again and you are correct. There is no rule about charged units nudging together or charging units following any specific rule for dividing frontage in they way there is on the next page. In fact, the single significant paragraph is this:


In reality the chargers would not simply stop and form a neat line whilst their enemy are so close. Therefore, the chargers are automatically moved into contact if they are within 1" of the second enemy unit and assuming the chargers have enough move left to reach them. Either move the enemy unit into position, as this is usually easiest, or shuffle all the units together until a battleline is formed.

This slightly changes the whole charge-the-clanrats-and-draw-in-the-ratling-gun thing. I guess that the 2nd unit only need to be anywhere within an inch of where the chargers contact the charged unit and of course the chargers have to have some frontage left to contact the 2nd unit. I'd also note that this whole section does not allow for declaring a charge on two different units.


I am unsure as to why the White Lions and Sword Masters have been brought into contact with each other. Surely, if they were lined up, only a slight adjustment would be necessary.

As above, yes, the White Lions should not have moved unless they were at a slight angle and needed nudging to get them to line up the the Marauders' frontage. So we were actually pretty close to correct in what we did, eh?


As for "even distribution" - what does that really mean? That each unit has the same number of model in contact with the enemy, the same number out of contact? Or something else?


When two or more units are charging an enemy unit, the player moving the must divide evenly the frontage of the target unit between the charging units (Fig.1).

Fig.1b looks exactly like the example of the two ways that Asarnil is charged above. You can't opt to bring more of one (stronger) unit into contact against the charged unit's frontage.

Rioghan Murchadha
04-09-2005, 15:47
I'm confused as to why people are bringing skirmishers into this. The unit in the above example is one of Bestigors which are a rank and file unit. Not a Beast Herd.

R

Major Defense
04-09-2005, 16:06
I'm confused as to why people are bringing skirmishers into this. The unit in the above example is one of Bestigors which are a rank and file unit. Not a Beast Herd.

R

He was referring to the Beast Herd in the first example. Not everybody knows that they rank up at least four wide even when they are wider than their opponent. It is because they can get a +2 rank bonus.

I am quite satisfied with the way we moved the charge in the last picture above. We only moved the White Lions without needing to. Unless there are any arguments to the contrary?

Rioghan Murchadha
04-09-2005, 17:16
Heh.. one thing I've noticed, (Being myself a BoC player) is that many of them try to cheat, and rank up 4 wide even when they should go wider. The rule of course is that they can choose to go 4 wide to get rank bonus ONLY when they would normally be formed up LESS than 4 wide.

R

Anywho.. I believe that given the order of moving chargers and the way multiple charges are handled in the BRB, in the final picture the bestigors would clip the corner of the swordmasters. At that point it all depends how your gaming group decides to handle clipping. My group would slide things over to get as much contact among the 4 units as possible, but then, we all like to see things die =)

R

Yanos
05-09-2005, 10:43
...Chargers are moved in order of declaration...This is true. So in that first example, whichever unit goes in first has to maximise its charging models across the dragon's frontage. Unless Asarnil's on an unfeasibly large base, either of the charging units (on 25mm bases) would cover his frontage completely and leave no room for the second declared charge to get into combat.

Is that right? Or am I missing something glaringly obvious :( ?

Markconz
05-09-2005, 10:54
This is true. So in that first example, whichever unit goes in first has to maximise its charging models across the dragon's frontage. Unless Asarnil's on an unfeasibly large base, either of the charging units (on 25mm bases) would cover his frontage completely and leave no room for the second declared charge to get into combat.

Is that right? Or am I missing something glaringly obvious :( ?

You are missing something but I don't think it is glaringly obvious ;) - check the back of the rulebook where there are pages of clarifications on charge situations...

Yanos
05-09-2005, 11:03
Ta :). Could anyone precis the rule for that particular situation (two units charging one enemy unit) for me? My supervisor does so hate it when I'm poring over a Warhammer rulebook when I should be working ;)...

Rioghan Murchadha
05-09-2005, 16:13
There is an appendix section that deals with multiple charges, and states that two units charging the same target share frontage equally. However, I would personally suggest that the section on 1 unit charging two units would take precedent in the 3rd example, as that charge occurs first. Although, I believe that either some or all of the appendices were revoked at some point. I'll try to find that info.

R

Yanos
05-09-2005, 16:27
There's a text box in the GW downloadable Errata that says:

"The appendix for accidental charges on page 262 of the Warhammer rulebook has led to some dubious tactics and confusion, and should therefore be ignored".

:)

Major Defense
05-09-2005, 18:05
There's a text box in the GW downloadable Errata that says:

"The appendix for accidental charges on page 262 of the Warhammer rulebook has led to some dubious tactics and confusion, and should therefore be ignored".

:)

Where is this document?

Rioghan Murchadha
05-09-2005, 18:59
Should be in the downloadable Q&As on the GW website. That's what I figured, and really doesn't help much with this issue. As far as diagram 3 goes, I would personally spread frontage as evenly as possible between the two charging units and the two charged units.

Mind you, I do this because my main gripe with 6th edition is that not enough models actually die in the course of a game. Too much importance was placed on combat res in this edition, and the addition of the hw/s save bonus means fewer models actually perish, and combat is decided more by how much static CR you can build up.

R

Festus
05-09-2005, 19:57
Hi

There's a text box in the GW downloadable Errata that says:

"The appendix for accidental charges on page 262 of the Warhammer rulebook has led to some dubious tactics and confusion, and should therefore be ignored".
Yes, this particular part has been dropped, but the other appendices still *work*, including the multiple charges/multiple chargers.

Grretings
Festus