PDA

View Full Version : An issue with being Corner to Corner

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 06:06
Imagine you have 2 units:
unit A, some fighty infantry, 7 wide
unit B, a character on a monstrous mount.

Situation 1:
Imagine there is an enemy unit, facing down, indicated by ↓

↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓

BB AAAAAAA
BB AAAAAAA
Situation 2:
Imagine if units A and B both charge the enemy unit. Assuming there is plenty of movement, they must maximize the number of friendly and enemy models in combat, which will be 6 models of unit A and unit B being corner to corner like so:

↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓
BBAAAAAAA
BBAAAAAAA
Now imagine if unit A and B were to the enemy's side:

AA
AA
AA ↓↓↓↓↓
AA ↓↓↓↓↓
AA ↓↓↓↓↓
AA ↓↓↓↓↓
AA

BB
BB
And they both charge, resulting in:

AA
AA
AA
AA↓↓↓↓↓
AA↓↓↓↓↓
AA↓↓↓↓↓
AA↓↓↓↓↓
BB
BB
Situation X:
If we remove unit A from both of the "after charging" diagrams, we are left with the same picture!

↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓
BB
BB

Since unit B is directly 45° to the enemy unit in both cases, and should be exactly as much on the enemy flank as the enemy front, why should it count differently in the two situations?

Bear in mind that the facing of unit B does not make a speck of difference for determining whether unit B has a flank or not, but rather only whether the enemy has a flank on unit B or not.

Considering mounted monsters are US5+, why should the enemy get to count their ranks, and why shouldn't unit B provide +1CR for having a flank, in the first situation?

devolutionary
27-10-2008, 06:14
It depends upon the facing of the unit charging as well. If you are charging the flank, you are facing the flank. That's the only way you can charge the flank. To charge the front, you must be facing the front. All the diagrams and rules indicate that this is slow - attacking units face in the direction they are attacking. A unit which is charged in the flank counts as beign charged in the flank when they are facing 90 degrees away from their opponents. Once they turn to face for whatever reason, they are no longer being attacked in the flank.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 08:02
None of that is in the rules for combat resolution re: flank and rear bonuses and rank bonuses.

As far as making charges, facing has nothing to do with it either. It has to do with where the majority of the unit is at the time the charge is declared.

I would say you are wrong on all counts.

To clear up any misconceptions like yours, the rules in question are:

FLANK & REAR CHARGES
A charging unit's position at the start of the movement phase determines whether it charges into the front, flank or rear of the enemy unit
p.20

Flank Attack
If you are fighting against an enemy unit's flank, you may add a +1 bonus so long as your unit has a unit strength of 5 or more after both sides have attacked.
p.38

Extra Rank
This bonus is lost if the unit is fighting to its flank or rear against an enemy unit with a unit strenght of 5 or more.
p.38

So, again, how can unit B be considered to be in the front of the enemy in one situation, and in the flank of the enemy in another situation when it occupies exactly the same space in both situations?

WLBjork
27-10-2008, 08:09
Flank and Rear engagements are determined at the start of the charge movement (page 20, diagram 20.1 and 20.2).

The final position of the models has no effect on whether a unit counst as being engaged in the flank or not.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 08:13
Really? I would say that none of the rules mention the final position of the models having no effect, and those diagrams are not in any way relevant to the situation at hand.

The rules and diagrams you have pointed to on page 20 only dictate how the charge is carried out, not how the later combat is resolved or where a single model corner to corner at the edge of a unit is considered to actually be in relation to the enemy unit.

Both situations I have described above are fully in keeping with the rules on page 20.

In situation 1, unit B starts in front of the enemy unit, and so charges the front of the unit, but ends up on the corner.
In situation 2, unit B starts in the flank of the enemy unit, and so charges the flank of the unit, but ends up in the corner.

Nothing in the combat resolution rules would lead me to believe that where the unit charged from is of any importance, or the facing of unit B. It matters whether the enemy unit is fighting an enemy unit to the front or flank, and I would say that by being perfectly in the corner it is indeterminate.

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 09:32
This is nothing new - I've had this discussion before regarding the HW&Shield bonus. I think I still even have the diagrams somewhere.

Regardless, whether a unit is engaged in the flank or front is determined by the charge, not by the positions of the models. It means there's a little bit of book-keeping (if you leave the game and come back then the teo are indistinguishable) but that's the way it is.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 09:36
How can that be? After a successful round of combat, the winner is allowed to turn.

It has to be based on the positions of the models, otherwise turning wouldn't mean a damn thing because the charge was to the flank after all!

If you have any rules to back up that notion, I'd love to see the page references.

DeathlessDraich
27-10-2008, 09:41
The 2 diagrams are not indistinguishable since B is *facing* a different direction

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 09:56
The facing of Unit B doesn't matter.

1.)This is a flank:

↓↓↓↓
→→↓↓↓↓
→→↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓
2.)but so is this:

↓↓↓↓
←←↓↓↓↓
←←↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓

The attacking unit could charge, resulting in scenario 1, win combat and then turn away from the enemy unit, resulting in scenario 2.

Although the ranked unit gets a rear bonus in scenario 2, it does not in any way mitigate or prevent the other unit from having a flank in both cases.

So going back to my original scenarios, if Units A and B win combat in scenario 1, and the monster turns so it is facing the same direction as the monster in scenario 2 is facing, would that give it a flank bonus?
That shouldn't be the determining factor because facing doesn't matter.

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 10:00
It has to be based on the positions of the models, otherwise turning wouldn't mean a damn thing because the charge was to the flank after all!Position also includes orientation. Once you've turned, the unit has turned.

The two attached diagrams show the difference. The second CANNOT involve a flank engagement because both units' front facings are on the battle line.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 10:02
Those don't mean a thing for the reasons I posted above your reply.

The only difference between those and the code diagrams I posted is the monster slid to the corner.

What is the "battle line" when there are only corners touching?

Either of those examples could be giving a flank to either or both units depending on who charged according to players who have posted in this thread.

To show why that's crazy, imagine the blue unit charges so that the units are positioned as shown in your second example.

Now imagine the blue unit wins combat and turns so it is facing up (the orange unit is still facing left). It is now no longer facing towards the "battle line." Should it thus get a flank bonus in the next round of combat simply for turning? Should the orange unit get a flank bonus for the blue unit having turned? I have shown above that when you change the facing of a unit, it should not affect whether the turning unit gets a flank or not, and should rather only influence whether the stationary unit counts a flank or rear bonus. But by your reasoning, it would be a great move to combo charge with a monster so that it clips. Win one round of combat, and your monster can turn to erase their ranks in the following turn.

It's this potential point and click monster use that caused me to start this discussion in the first place. Who needs position when you can just go on the corner and turn to get that juicy flank charge you wanted.

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 10:13
The unit can't turn if engaged on more than one side, so your example is impossible.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 10:17
Well the actual rule is that they can only turn if they are engaged to the flank or rear (p.46), but I'm not convinced that the either of the units are, at any time in the examples provided, not engaged to the flank.

Facing of unit A does not determine whether unit A has a flank on the enemy. It only determines whether the enemy has a flank on unit A. Being in the corner is not quite the front and not quite the flank.

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 10:24
Well the actual rule is that they can only turn if they are engaged to the flank or rear (p.46),
That's part of the actual rule. This is another part:

"They cannot be executed if the winning unit is engaged on two or more sides..."

I'm not sure which "examples provided" you're referring to in your second comment.

You have asserted that orientation does not determine position. However, it is evident from the way the rules function that it can, and indeed does. If both units' front facings are parallel to and touching the battle line, then neither is flanked, as they are engaged with each others' fronts.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 10:25
If the blue unit is "engaged on two or more sides" then so is the orange unit and the monster already has his flank!

These are the equivalents of my examples, using your pictures.

In each case, the blue unit has a flank bonus against the orange unit. The only thing that changes by turning the blue unit is what kind of bonus the orange unit gets.

Lord Malorne
27-10-2008, 10:28
You have to contact the enemy with the unit, no where have I seen were you can charge and only be engaged corner to corner, when you charge you declare all charges...blah blah rest of movement...then move chargers, chargers are moved by unit not all at the same time, So I have to ask how are you contacting corner to corner?

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 10:29
Who said that any units in my examples were engaged on two or more sides?

The discussion of "two or more sides" refers to YOUR examples, not mine.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 10:36
Because you count as being engaged while being corner to corner.

The maximizing rules are a little unclear, but they refer to bringing "the maximum number of models from both sides into combat" and this is typically interpreted expansively so that the unit charging takes into account the other units that are also charging the same target.

If it helps, imagine the monster is in the unit rather than charging alongside it. Now imagine the charged unit kills everything but the monster that ended up corner to corner to maximize the rest of the models in the unit.

Now what?

@Atrahasis, none of my examples have units engaged on more than one side either, I don't know where you are getting that from or why you brought it up.

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 10:37
They're engaged front to front, nothing has changed.

BEEGfrog
27-10-2008, 10:39
Note in the second example, because the two units are charging from different quadrants the diagram is wrong. The monstrous mount would have to move its point of attack along the bottom of the target unit in order to maximise models in contact. As charging unit A is bigger than target unit, this is the result I would expect with A and target on 20mm bases, note X=engaged with A, Y with B, E=either, S=second rank, U=unengaged

AA
AAXSUUUU
AAXSUUUU
AAXSUUUU
AAXSUUUU
AAXESSSU
AAXYYYYU
AA--BB
----BB

Facing of the target unit is irrelevant if their bases are square, only cavalry and other rectangular bases have facing relevant as this will affect the number of models available to be contacted in each direction.

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 10:41
In each case, the blue unit has a flank bonus against the orange unit. The only thing that changes by turning the blue unit is what kind of bonus the orange unit gets.

Your second and third diagrams are impossible.

Also, if you've got something new to post, then make a new post. It's very annoying to have to go back over 3 posts that have changed almost in their entirety since I replied to them.

BEEGfrog
27-10-2008, 10:50
You have to contact the enemy with the unit, no where have I seen were you can charge and only be engaged corner to corner, when you charge you declare all charges...blah blah rest of movement...then move chargers, chargers are moved by unit not all at the same time, So I have to ask how are you contacting corner to corner?

There is an additional section of rules a page or two further on which reverses the charge and resolve one at a time rule if a unit is charged by multiple units, in this case the multiple units charge simultaneously...

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 10:52
@ BEEGfrog, imagine I put enough spaces between the letters for them to be in the same quadrant.

@ Atrahasis, it doesn't matter if they are impossible, the facing of a unit doesn't determine whether it has a flank on its enemy.

The blue unit doesn't have a flank in any of the following circumstances, it doesn't get a flank by turning. Turning gives the Orange unit flanks and rears as appropriate, but doesn't do squat for the blue unit.

If a unit is on the corner, does it get to turn? Can it count a flank if it can? Why can't it count the flank without turning? When does the enemy count the flank of the blue unit while it is at the corner?

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 10:59
Of course it matters if they're impossible. If they can't happen then they prove nothing.

In your original example, the monstrous mount is engaged to the front, and so cannot turn.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 11:03
Which original example?

Actually scratch that, I'm going to bed, this is pointless.

Lord Malorne
27-10-2008, 11:07
You can only turn to face enemy units.

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 11:08
There can only be one original example. The original, first, example before all the others.

And yes, it is pointless, because your argument is essentially "if the rules were different and allowed my impossible examples, then facing wouldn't matter".

The rules aren't different, they don't allow your impossible examples, and facing does matter.

Which facing is engaged is determined by the charge, and subsequently by any "free manoeuvres". Anything more complicated than that must either invent new rules or ignore existing ones (as in your impossible examples).

BEEGfrog
27-10-2008, 11:09
The flanking status of the corner to corner units is determined by their flanking status not their position. Their flanking status was determined by their previous position/charge result and will remain the same until a legal move/combat result changes it.

If there is likely to be any doubt as to the flanking status in future turns then the position of the corner to corner unit needs to be changed to reflect its actual status. You can overlap the bases of A & B to make the situation unambiguous without changing the number of models engaged or leave a note with the unit or some other usable indicator.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 13:52
@Atrahasis,
What about if the enemy unit in the first example charged unit A and B, which were next to each other?

They have to maximize against unit A and end up clipping unit B.

Are you really saying that if unit B is facing towards the enemy unit it counts as nothing, but if unit B is facing towards unit A, so that it will not be facing the battle line, the charging unit has just charged itself into having an enemy on its flank?

What if the monster is facing away from the enemy unit, or facing away from unit A?

These situations aren't as impossible as you may think.

Bac5665
27-10-2008, 14:24
Are you asking a rules question, or simply pointing out a situation which is the "legal" result but seems silly to you?

The rules you quoted in post #3 fully answer the rules question. Only the original position determines front v. flank. There is no rules dispute that I can see.

If you think the result is silly, I see where your coming from, but I think that the result makes sense, at least for the first round of combat. Think of to football players cloths-lining an opposing QB; They charge, and both stop at the front, (or whatever single side they impact,) of the unlucky QB. Here we have the same situation, but the abstraction makes it look a little weird. Regardless of what side the two units charge, their momentum will still be to go forward, and, thus your examples feel conceptually "right" to me.

narrativium
27-10-2008, 14:27
Hmm. I think you have to remember the original orientation of the charge as you go along. I'm assuming - I haven't seen it explicitly said - the original example was that the two units A and B charged, then A failed a Break test and B didn't, so in the second and subsequent turns one unit gets to rotate. Or in the later examples, that the unit charged A, clipped B, and again A failed a test and B didn't, leaving this unusual situation.

As I see it a charger's opponent is always to the front of it (an overrunner's first opponent is in front of it and the line still stands for any counterchargers). So if B charged, even if it only hits at a diagonal, the enemy is to its front, and B can't turn while remaining still to hits its flank. If the charged unit was hit in the side, it can turn to face B. The battleline from which fleeing and pursuit would be measured would remain the original line where A was in contact.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 14:33
Are you asking a rules question, or simply pointing out a situation which is the "legal" result but seems silly to you?

The rules you quoted in post #3 fully answer the rules question. Only the original position determines front v. flank. There is no rules dispute that I can see.

If you think the result is silly, I see where your coming from, but I think that the result makes sense, at least for the first round of combat. Think of to football players cloths-lining an opposing QB; They charge, and both stop at the front, (or whatever single side they impact,) of the unlucky QB. Here we have the same situation, but the abstraction makes it look a little weird. Regardless of what side the two units charge, their momentum will still be to go forward, and, thus your examples feel conceptually "right" to me.

I think it's a rules question because I honestly don't know any rules in the rulebook that adequately determine what the "flank" status of a unit that clips just the corner of another unit actually is.

The "bookkeeping" suggestion has been shown to be false (what I responded to in post #3), and the "facing" suggestion has been what I have been arguing against since then, posing hypothetical thought experiments that have been attacked for being "impossible"

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 14:33
Are you really saying that if unit B is facing towards the enemy unit it counts as nothing, but if unit B is facing towards unit A, so that it will not be facing the battle line, the charging unit has just charged itself into having an enemy on its flank?

I assume you mean the result is as the attached diagram.

No, I'm not saying that.

The charging unit has flanked the monster, not the other way round, assuming that the charger started the charge in the flank arc of the monster.

A unit cannot be flanking another unit if its own front facing is not touching and parallel to the battle line.

What if the monster is facing away from the enemy unit, or facing away from unit A?Same deal - the charger has flanked/reared the monster, not the other way round.

These situations aren't as impossible as you may think.The examples you have given where the flank of one unit is touching the middle of the flank or rear of another are impossible. There is no way they can happen.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 14:40
Remove the tan unit in the bottom. Where did the battle line go? It's exactly the same position as if the monster had charged the blue unit.

That's why your "facing" idea is nonsense. I notice that you still haven't posted a single reference to an actual rule to support it. Just a gut feeling?

narrativium
27-10-2008, 14:43
If the tan unit is absent, then when the monster had charged the blue unit (or vice versa) (in the absence of any other units) the arc would have been determined at the time of the charge, and the two units would've lined up rather than orienting corner to corner.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 14:45

I don't care how the monster gets there, the fact is that his facing and position is exactly the same as if the monster and unit had charged the enemy on the flank and counted as being in the flank.

I will say that again:
Even going by the "facing" theory, the monster's position AND facing are exactly the same in this situation as when the monster counts as being in the flank.

Why the heck should it count as being in the flank and in EXACTLY the same position, and EXACTLY the same orientation, count as being in the front?

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 14:46
There's no specific rule - however there's no rule that says a model can magically engage a unit in the flank just by being in corner to corner contact either.

We can only do what the rules say we can do - the monster has been charged in the flank because that's where the charger started his charge. The charger is not engaged in the flank because there is no mechanic for a charging unit to be engaged in anything but the front (detachments notwithstanding).
If the monster wins combat, it will turn and no longer be flanked. The charging unit will not turn and so will still be engaged to the front.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 14:48
That seems patently ridiculous.

Exactly the same situation should not have different outcomes.

That's about all I've been trying to say from the start.

The situations are the same, but players treat them differently for no good reason supported by the rules. It's a potential gap.

narrativium
27-10-2008, 14:49
I agree with Atrahasis: were you to come across a game where the two units were engaged corner to corner, you wouldn't instantly be able to tell whether either unit was fighting to the front or flank. The context is how they charged to get there.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 14:54
Which is totally unsupported by actual rules in the close combat section.

The charging rules only say which side you charge to, not which side you or your enemy fight against.

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 14:59
That seems patently ridiculous.

Exactly the same situation should not have different outcomes.

You're viewing the situation as a snapshot of the game.

These two diagrams (see attached) are identical, but in the second one the cavalry are fleeing. How can two identical situations have different outcomes?

Because we have knowledge other than the position of the models.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 15:01
But the close combat section refers only to the position of the models.

narrativium
27-10-2008, 15:07
The section on rolling dice doesn't specify that the players have to pick the number on top, either. Who writes this stuff?

Atrahasis
27-10-2008, 15:07
No, the close combat section refers to charging the flank:

"Charging an enemy unit to its flank..." pp38

Fighting to the flank is defined by the charge, not by the positions of the models.

SolarHammer
27-10-2008, 15:10
DAMN IT.

I missed that the entire time!

Thanks for putting up with me long enough to find that for me Atrahasis.

Bac5665
27-10-2008, 16:35
There we go. I thought there was some disconnect. Good job finding it Atrahasis.