PDA

View Full Version : Fleeing unit caught by multiple chargers



T10
01-04-2008, 11:59
As it says on the tin.

Let's assume our little regiment of goblins are charged from the north and from the east by two units of knights. There are no other units in the vicintiy. The goblins flee due south, but not far enough to escape the units of knights. It is promptly wiped out, but how?

1) The knights' player moves both units through the final position of the fleeing goblins.

2) The knight's player moves one unit at a time through the final position of the fleeing goblins, taking care to stop if the chargers would move into contact with the other.

3) The knights' player moves one unit at a time. The first unit wipes out the goblins and moves its full charge move. The second unit suffers a failed charge since it cannot reach its charge target (it has been wiped out).

Any other suggestions?

-T10

McMullet
01-04-2008, 12:23
3 seems the logical one to me. Chargers are moved in sequence, so fleeing would have to be done in the same sequence. You move the first charger, the poor wee gobbos leg it and are wiped out to a... gobbo, and so the second charger has nothing to do.

Don't have the rulebook about my person to check that each reaction is resolved before the next charge but that's how I remember it.

Festus
01-04-2008, 12:52
Hi

3 is indeed the right way, as charges are done in declaration order.

By the time the second unit gets to charge, there is no enemy unit around anymore to be charged - so it is a failed charge.

Festus

Atrahasis
01-04-2008, 13:02
I agree 3 is correct in this situation, but if the two units were charging the same facing of the goblins, then both chargers would be moved simultaneously, and so both could move their full charge distance if they are in range to wipe out the goblins.

Festus
01-04-2008, 13:11
Yes, if both would've charged the same facing, they would indeed be charging simultaneously.

I assumed that this was not the case, as the charging units were perpendicular to each other in T10's example.

Festus

warlord hack'a
01-04-2008, 13:23
that I do not quite follow arthrasis. You mean: if both would come from the front both would wipe out the gobbo unit and therefore both would overrun? How is this different from one from the north, one from the east, in both cases there are still 2 chargers and one charge is resolved after the other so one would charge, wipe out the gobs and then the other would fail their charge, irrespective of the direction they are coming from. (but apparently I am missing something as Festus also agrees with you, rule I never heard of..)

I dreamed up a perhaps even more interesting situation: suppose one knight unit comes from the north (and this knight unit is bigger than the second knight unit and it declares it's charge first) and the 2nd knight unit comes from the south of this unit of gobbo's. Now suppose the gobbo's flee, then the would flee directly south (or not?). What happens if they manage to escape the north knights:
1) the north knights fail their move, but the south knights can now easily catch the gobbo's as the gobbo's (in their flee move) ran towards them
2) the north knights fail, the south knights charge and the gobbo's now run away form the south knights, towards the north knights, who might catch them after all. (I do not think this is the way it should go but I am not sure at all)
3) before rolling to flee measure distance between north knights and gobbo's and south knights and gobbo's, then flee the gobbo's (which direction?). The knight unit that have more move than the distance knight-gobbo unit (e.g. 7") plus the distance moved by the gobbo's in their flee move (eg 6") (would together make 13") catch the gobbo's. This is the rule about 'fleeing form a combat while engaged to more than one side' translated into a charge situation
4) the gobbo's flee away from both knight units (so in this case due east or west) and then you just see who makes it to the new posision of the goblins..

This part of the rules is such a mess, or at least it is to me..

Mercules
01-04-2008, 13:24
Yes, if both would've charged the same facing, they would indeed be charging simultaneously.

I assumed that this was not the case, as the charging units were perpendicular to each other in T10's example.

Festus

Which assumes the charged unit wasn't facing Northeast. :)

T10
01-04-2008, 13:28
Yes, if both would've charged the same facing, they would indeed be charging simultaneously.


Could you elaborate on that?

-T10

Mercules
01-04-2008, 13:43
This part of the rules is such a mess, or at least it is to me..

When they declare a flee charge they flee from the bigger threat which would be measured by Unit Strength, I believe. Then what happens is they flee directly away from that unit, say the North unit, and if they run into the South unit then they are destroyed. If they don't you see if the units can reach them.

1. N can not reach but S can. Fleeing unit is destroyed and N fails it's charge moving it's normal move and S moves it's full move or until it runs into N.

2. N and S both reach you move them both to a point midway between the two units and stop with them facing each other and touching.

Mercules
01-04-2008, 13:51
Could you elaborate on that?

-T10

You move multiple chargers all at once. This makes me unsure about the top example. 3. seems correct unless it is handled like Pursuit where all your units move the direction the fleeing unit does after being turned in that direction. Hmmmm...

Atrahasis
01-04-2008, 15:08
that I do not quite follow arthrasis.I don't mean to be rude, but my name is written right there. Is it so hard to copy it?


You mean: if both would come from the front both would wipe out the gobbo unit and therefore both would overrun?

If they were both in range after the flee move, yes, they would both wipe out the unit, and both move their full charge distance as a result. They would not overrun, as there is no combat.


How is this different from one from the north, one from the east, in both cases there are still 2 chargers and one charge is resolved after the other so one would charge, wipe out the gobs and then the other would fail their charge, irrespective of the direction they are coming from. (but apparently I am missing something as Festus also agrees with you, rule I never heard of..)

When two or more units are charging the same facing of a unit, the charges are moved simultaneously. See page 23.


What happens if they manage to escape the north knights:
1) the north knights fail their move, but the south knights can now easily catch the gobbo's as the gobbo's (in their flee move) ran towards them
2) the north knights fail, the south knights charge and the gobbo's now run away form the south knights

No. The unit only gets one charge reaction.



This part of the rules is such a mess, or at least it is to me..

The charging rules in 7th are indeed quite a mess, but they do work with just a little bit of creative interpretation.

T10
01-04-2008, 15:09
No, I meant: Why assume that units charging into the same target side are moved simultaneously?

Edit: Mr http://warseer.com/forums/member.php?u=1321, sorry, Atrahasis refers me to p. 23, which I will take a look at when I get back to my own country.

Atrahasis, copying isn't as easy as it looks. :)

-T10

warlord hack'a
01-04-2008, 15:32
that's what you get when typing with two fingers and half a thumb. Okay, I will go back to primary school and copy your name one hundred times to learn how to write it, here we go:
Atrahasis
Atrahasis
Atrahasis
Atrahasis
I will do the rest offline.. ;-).

T10
03-04-2008, 14:05
Yes, if both would've charged the same facing, they would indeed be charging simultaneously.

I assumed that this was not the case, as the charging units were perpendicular to each other in T10's example.


Having had the opportunity to review p.23 I can't help but conclude that it is not relevant to the issue at hand.

The section on multiple chargers clearly assume that the charge is worked out against unit that has not elected to flee, in which case it is wise to move the units engaging the same side simultaneously in order to ensure that the proper number of models are involved in the combat.

In the case of fleeing units, the chargers either fail to reach the unit or wipe it out and contine their movement through the its final position.

-T10

Atrahasis
03-04-2008, 14:34
I wish I could decide that a rule simply didn't apply :)

There is no indication that the rule will not apply in this situation, so there's no reason to make such a decision.

T10
03-04-2008, 14:37
Wish granted.

-T10

T10
03-04-2008, 14:58
While it seems immediately apparent that the rules for multiple chargers apply, it is worth noting that the issue of multiple chargers against a fleing unit is not explicitly dealt with. This is unfortunate, since the result of a succesful charge against a fleeing unit is radically different from a unit that Holds as a charge reaction.

My concern is based on the assumption that if a unit targeted by a charge is destroyed before it can be engaged in close combat then the charge fails. This basic assumption may indeed be flawed in that the rules for failed charges do not address that particular situation: By the book, a charge fails if the unit has fled out of reach or the charge move falls short of the intended target.

Regardless, it seems quite unnecessary to mix in the front/side/rear zones of the target unit. If we were to do that with regards to fleeing troops they would be nearly impossible to catch: "If the charging unit is in the target's frontal zone when the charge is declared then it charges into the front." (p.20) I don't know about you, but that's a rule I happily decide does not apply when dealing with fleeing units.

-T10

Gazak Blacktoof
03-04-2008, 16:20
I don't see how you can physically move the chargers simultaneously.

If by some chance the two charging units end up coliding with one another I don't think there are any rules to determine where they end up. It would be easier to move the chargers in the order in which they are declared even if you attempt to move them the distance they should have moved had they being moving simultaneously.

Essenetially determine where the units should end up then move them as far as you can in the order in which the charges were declared. Stopping 1" away from any friendly unit encountered.

Does that sound right?

Mercules
03-04-2008, 16:56
While it seems immediately apparent that the rules for multiple chargers apply, it is worth noting that the issue of multiple chargers against a fleing unit is not explicitly dealt with.

*clap* *clap* *clap*

You sir, have successfully found a huge gaping hole in the movement rules. One that could definitely come up time and time again. It's also going to come up with me frequently as my goal while playing my Ogres is to get a unit in the front and a unit in the flank as often as possible. Luckily, I think every time I've double charged a unit they have held.

][nquist0r
04-04-2008, 09:03
Hrmm confusing that people are using the word charging in a pursuit roll... You have to immediately nominate which units are pursuing and roll the 2d6, or 3d6 (for all nominated units) respectively. Regardless of whether the target is caught both must move as far as they can in the pursue unless they come in contact with 1. another enemy, or 2 a friendly unit. Of course it goes without saying that if the one that rolled the furthest hits a friendly target so did the enemy and they are destroyed. I would suspect poor sportsmanship/ass-hattery if my opponent choose to move the lowest roll first in order to avoid getting into an unfavorable position by having the farthest moving unit hit the slowest (and not run off the board per se.) I always move the farthest moving first and slowest 2nd. It kinda makes sense that as it happens 'at the same time' that the one moving farthest is actually also the quickest...'

WLBjork
04-04-2008, 09:09
What pursuit?

The issue is charging a unit which elects to flee from the charge.

][nquist0r
04-04-2008, 09:17
lol disregard my post I read it as a unit breaking from multiple units in cc... man I need some sleep lol.