PDA

View Full Version : Cheesy, or Not Cheesy



BenTheRat
27-02-2009, 21:53
What is and isn't acceptable these days?

1. Sniping characters in a unit.
2. Sniping characters in a unit you can't see. (the old long guess)
3. Sniping other warmachines with your cannon.
4. tactical wheels on skirmishers.
5. tactical wheels on warmachines.
6. sliding.
7. Clipping with chariots after the 2 units are in combat.
8. Unbreakable conga lines.
9. Stubborn conga lines.
10. Conga lines with champ or hero in front.
11. 1 rank unit with champ or hero on flank. So when you charge it
you can only kill the 1 guy, or none if its a DE hero with pendant.
12. Trying to claim terrain as something when they really shouldn't
be (ie. buildings).

So what do you raise your eyebrows on when you see it. And which
ones do you use with regularity?

The Rat

The Red Scourge
27-02-2009, 22:14
1: OK, the look out sir is there for a reason. And this is the thing that makes up for the cannons unreliability.
2: Shooting at something you can't see can only be answered with swift retalliation from red whippin' sticks.
3: Of course.
4+5: thats just tactics.
6: sliding makes for a better game. It shouldn't be abused, but the system doesn't work, when you don't.
7: As 6. The game is an abstract simulation. And some things will just end up looking weird because of the rigid square bases.
8-11: thats just plain abuse of the rules. Use red whippin' sticks.
12: This sounds odd?? I'm not sure I understand.

In general I prefer a game of tactics to a game of rules lawyering ;)

BenTheRat
27-02-2009, 22:20
Ok, not clear on 12: What I meant was:

Burned out ruins and player tries to say it is a building, or a small building that maybe 2-3 figs could fit in.

Hill: Oh this is obviously a two tiered hill, so I can get 4 ranks of archers on it.

mud puddle: Obviously a full pond that my skinks can hide in and you cannot enter.

etc...

Lord Inquisitor
27-02-2009, 22:20
Agree with Scourge on all points. As for 12, terrain should be agreed upon before the game - one person's impassable river is another person's gentle stream.

g0ddy
27-02-2009, 22:31
What is and isn't acceptable these days?

1. Sniping characters in a unit.
Lame, the cannon rules are stupid.
2. Sniping characters in a unit you can't see. (the old long guess)
Cheating, Lame, Cannons are stupid, See above.
3. Sniping other warmachines with your cannon.
Legal, Lame, Cannons rules are stupid.
4. tactical wheels on skirmishers.
Generally retarded, but needs context.
5. tactical wheels on warmachines.
See above.
6. sliding.
Cheating?
7. Clipping with chariots after the 2 units are in combat.
Legal? Who cares.
8. Unbreakable conga lines.
Legal, stupid, who cares?
9. Stubborn conga lines.
See above.
10. Conga lines with champ or hero in front.
Stupid, but legal, make sure he doesnt cheat and use banners/items/abilities from the rear rank.
11. 1 rank unit with champ or hero on flank. So when you charge it
you can only kill the 1 guy, or none if its a DE hero with pendant.
Pretty sure if its a champion, you can still attack rank and file, Pendant isnt broken, T3 Elves.
12. Trying to claim terrain as something when they really shouldn't
be (ie. buildings).
?????

~ zilla

Condottiere
27-02-2009, 22:36
What is and isn't acceptable these days?

1. Sniping characters in a unit. Normal
2. Sniping characters in a unit you can't see. (the old long guess) Cheesy
3. Sniping other warmachines with your cannon. Normal
4. tactical wheels on skirmishers. Permissible
5. tactical wheels on warmachines. Permissible
6. sliding. Permissible
7. Clipping with chariots after the 2 units are in combat. Permissible
8. Unbreakable conga lines. Cheesy
9. Stubborn conga lines. Cheesy
10. Conga lines with champ or hero in front. Chucky cheesy
11. 1 rank unit with champ or hero on flank. So when you charge it
you can only kill the 1 guy, or none if its a DE hero with pendant. Normal
12. Trying to claim terrain as something when they really shouldn't
be (ie. buildings).

I'm unclear on the terrain, which should have been clarified before the match in any case.

Sifal
27-02-2009, 22:39
what is sliding? and what are conga lines?

Hubman
27-02-2009, 22:53
1. Sniping characters in a unit. Well it is legal and Look out Sir does apply.
2. Sniping characters in a unit you can't see. (the old long guess) Not allowed in my games!
3. Sniping other warmachines with your cannon. Why not? They may be the only thing available that can hurt T7 models.
4. tactical wheels on skirmishers. Sometimes necessary if only one member can see the enemy, but it wouldnt be different from tactical charging with regular units with whom you can also delay your single wheel.
5. tactical wheels on warmachines. I suppose you mean you pivot the model so that you can guide the Overrun should your machine break from combat? That is allowed as it is allowed with all other models save skirmishers.
6. sliding. I suppose you mean sliding units together to get maximum base to base contact in combat? This is usually opponents consent, but the only alternative is clipping!
7. Clipping with chariots after the 2 units are in combat. Preferably not and Ive not yet seen this happen, but it is legal.
8. Unbreakable conga lines. Its allowed and can be used against the owning player…
9. Stubborn conga lines. Same here.
10. Conga lines with champ or hero in front. When charging broad units you can avoid characters as long as you maximise base to base contact…
11. 1 rank unit with champ or hero on flank. So when you charge it
you can only kill the 1 guy, or none if its a DE hero with pendant. It is odd, but legal. Ive not encountered this since 5th Edition, but I play Bretonnians, HE, WE, Lizardmen and Empire – I usually cant spare the characters for such a role!
12. Trying to claim terrain as something when they really shouldn't
be (ie. buildings). A building is a building no matter what you may claim. Before the battle we agree on what each terrain piece is. There are usually differences of opinion when one army is favoured by certain terrain while others suffer. Generally, we get out of it without bloodshed. What you meant here is something Ive encountered only once...and it cost me the game when this silly umpire granted my opponent his interpretation on a 4+ even though I was right!
So what do you raise your eyebrows on when you see it. And which
ones do you use with regularity?

Id like to add a few:
13. Measuring your 20” flying distance to a certain direction and then deciding you are not going to move there after all. I dislike this, but generally do not cause a ruckus over it. Id like to enforce my opponent to follow through on his initial thought but that will be difficult. In the case of landing on enemy units, I suppose you could slide the model until it is 1” away from the enemy even if it increases/decreases the movement by 1-2 inch. In reality, I usually just give him a warning that if you measure a range during movement you are required to move it.
14. Touching the battlefield with your fingers or arms to aid you in guessing the ranges of your charges/shots. Not allowed where I play!
15. Instead of moving your units according to the rules, you just shuffle them around a bit under the guise of “Im not moving much and Ive got plenty to spare!” so that you use reform and/or wheel/turn in the same movement. Normally I allow this, but if my opponent is not fun to play I might demand he moves his unit strictly according to the rules.

Kind regards,

Hubman

Skyth
27-02-2009, 23:22
1. Sniping characters in a unit.

Standard practice where I play

2. Sniping characters in a unit you can't see. (the old long guess)

Standard practice where I play.

3. Sniping other warmachines with your cannon.

Counterbattery fire...I do this all the time.

4. tactical wheels on skirmishers.
5. tactical wheels on warmachines.

Pretty standard on both.

6. sliding.

After the initial round, or when you get in? We play you auto-maximize the first round, but then you are stuck where you are until combat is over.

7. Clipping with chariots after the 2 units are in combat.

Pretty standard...Sometimes as part of the charge. Otherwise chariots would be pointless.

8. Unbreakable conga lines.

Standard where we play.

9. Stubborn conga lines.

Hasn't seen this, but I don't see a problem with this.

10. Conga lines with champ or hero in front.

Haven't seen this.

11. 1 rank unit with champ or hero on flank. So when you charge it
you can only kill the 1 guy, or none if its a DE hero with pendant.

This is pretty standard, but not usually intentional. I usually just add characters to the side of the unit, and when you're playing with a ranged unit (2 ranks typically) or a Cav unit (Usually 1 rank) it's a pretty common occurance.

After the first round, it is standard operating procedure (And should be) to move your champion/character (Especially characters) to fight in the combat.

12. Trying to claim terrain as something when they really shouldn't
be (ie. buildings).

Never seen this. Terrain should be determined before the game.

selone
27-02-2009, 23:40
What is and isn't acceptable these days?

1. Sniping characters in a unit. Fine.
2. Sniping characters in a unit you can't see. (the old long guess) Not fine
3. Sniping other warmachines with your cannon. Isn't that the point?
4. tactical wheels on skirmishers. Explain this please
5. tactical wheels on warmachines. Explain this please
6. sliding. Fine in most cases
7. Clipping with chariots after the 2 units are in combat. Explain this please
8. Unbreakable conga lines. Ridiculous and NOT fine
9. Stubborn conga lines. Less ridiculous but still not fine.
10. Conga lines with champ or hero in front. Absurd
11. 1 rank unit with champ or hero on flank. So when you charge it
you can only kill the 1 guy, or none if its a DE hero with pendant. farsical
12. Trying to claim terrain as something when they really shouldn't
be (ie. buildings). Thats plain poor play

So what do you raise your eyebrows on when you see it. And which
ones do you use with regularity?

The Rat

I don't use any of these- can you explain 4, 5 and 7 please.

EvC
28-02-2009, 00:19
Hehe, what a thread! It has legend written all over it? :D


What is and isn't acceptable these days?

1. Sniping characters in a unit.Part of the game! With some armies you should also pay special attention to picking out specific character models in units- you're never going to make that Skeleton unit flee, so make damn sure you kill the Necromancer in it if you ever charge.
2. Sniping characters in a unit you can't see. (the old long guess)Very naughty. I won't blame you if a cannon shot will hit something it can't see, but if you guess too much with the intention of hitting the invisible mocel, then we're gonna have a word.
3. Sniping other warmachines with your cannon.Perfectly fine.
4. tactical wheels on skirmishers.Perfectly fine.
5. tactical wheels on warmachines.Perfectly fine- but make sure you do it correctly; fliers and skirmishers cannot tactically wheel, so don't try and do it with your Carrion or what-have-you.
6. sliding.Not part of the rules, and can cause problems if performed knowingly.
7. Clipping with chariots after the 2 units are in combat.Part of the game
8. Unbreakable conga lines.Conga line tactics are invariably lame.
9. Stubborn conga lines.As above.
10. Conga lines with champ or hero in front.As above.
11. 1 rank unit with champ or hero on flank. So when you charge it
you can only kill the 1 guy, or none if its a DE hero with pendant.Can be annoying, but it's part of the game.
12. Trying to claim terrain as something when they really shouldn't
be (ie. buildings).Balls!

So what do you raise your eyebrows on when you see it. And which
ones do you use with regularity?

theunwantedbeing
28-02-2009, 00:29
1. You get look out sire! for a reason.
2. Overguessing is not reasonable.
3. Nothing wrong with that.
4. Valid Tactic.
5. Valid Tactic.
6. Illegal.
7. Legal.
8. Valid Tactic.
9. Valid Tactic.
10. Valid Tactic.
11. Valid tactic, also the pendant doesnt make the bearer unkillable, only an idiot sends a st5+ character to go fight a DE lord who obviously has the pendant.
12. Illegal.

I regularly see most of the things in the above.
With 6 and 12 I point out that such things are not legal.
With 2 I point out that it is incredibly unsporting of my opponent to do that, pointing out that I can be just as unsporting, if not more so.

I like to be on the same page as my opponent in how we play.
If its not the first time we've played then I'll be letting them dictate how the game works, after that I make sure the rules are followed properly (without annoying my opponent too much).

13. So long as your not using this move to measure the ranges of anything other than the flier, its perfectly legal.
I tell opponents off for doing that.
14. Checking ranges when your not supposed to is illegal, regardless of how you do it unless its by eye.
Again, I tell people off for it often jokingly even when they arent to get the mesage across ina friendly manner.
15. So long as it's a minor shuffle, fine. Anything significant like a major turning or something that cant really be done by the rules, I will be telling to you stop it and measure before you move things. I'll then be a bit anal about your next few moves to make my point clear.

Aaron Chapman
28-02-2009, 01:57
Id like to add a few:
13. Measuring your 20” flying distance to a certain direction and then deciding you are not going to move there after all. I dislike this, but generally do not cause a ruckus over it. Id like to enforce my opponent to follow through on his initial thought but that will be difficult. In the case of landing on enemy units, I suppose you could slide the model until it is 1” away from the enemy even if it increases/decreases the movement by 1-2 inch. In reality, I usually just give him a warning that if you measure a range during movement you are required to move it.


If you disallow this you are flat out cheating your opponent. Measuring ranges before deciding on a particular move for a unit is completely legit. As long as they aren't over measuring there should be no disagreements.

If you still disagree go ahead and read your "FAQ part 2" page 2, left side, larst question.

Storak
28-02-2009, 02:56
all sorts of conga lines would get a fanatic slingshot answer. it is not an acceptable tactic.

i am surprised by the answer to character sniping. i would expect 4 cannons to kill my orc general in two turns. and that is game over for the orcs.
sniping chars is an evil tactic, and it is becoming legal, because of overpowered chars in recent army books. the effect of this legalisation on other armies is devastating.

Lord Dan
28-02-2009, 03:21
How can sniping other warmachines with your cannon be considered cheesy? There is nothing underhanded about it (no "long guessing") nothing that isn't straightforward (if the line hits the warmachine, it's hit...) and there's nothing about it that isn't logical (if my unit is good at doing something, I'm going to go ahead and do it).

At the very most it could be called "ungentlemanly" by the people who didn't think to fire at the cannon first.

kroq'gar
28-02-2009, 03:38
Terrains always agreed before the battle (swap it if you cant agree).

Cannons hitting warmachines is half their point.

Agree with the general oppoinnion on the rest. Either play without any houserules ( both sides go all out) or keep it friendly.

EvC
28-02-2009, 13:14
i am surprised by the answer to character sniping. i would expect 4 cannons to kill my orc general in two turns. and that is game over for the orcs.

Don't be silly, an Orc army losing its general is not the end of the game. And if your opponent has spent all his artillery on trying to kill your general, then that means that other targets (Like chariots and Giant which are more easily killed be cannons) will be more likely to reach the enemy lines in one piece.

sroblin
28-02-2009, 16:59
Indeed, seeing as there is a "look out sir" rule in the book since at least 5th edition (probably earlier), it is clear that the designers intended character sniping to be part of the game. Character sniping occurred in real life (and like in the game, the chance of actually hitting such a precise target were fairly slim), and it is part of what balances the power of uber characters anyway. Having a 1/6 chance of being hit, and then 1/2 a chance of surviving a cannonball anyway hardly makes it doom for characters anyway.

How many people field 4 cannons, anyway? And target them all at the general, in army potentially full off units you'd want to hit cannons with (stonethrowers, trolls, chariots wolf and boar, black orcs, giants, pumpwagons, various monstrous creatures). In real life officers have suffered higher proportional casualties than rank-and-file, so if the occasional warmachine takes out a leader (rather than this never occuring) that's the system being a little more reasonable, not less.

And how can warmachines fighting warmachines be at all cheesy. The fact that 'artillery duels' is a phrase should hint that it was standard tactic; just before picket's charge in the battle of Gettysburg, for example, Union and Confederate artillery engaged in a prolonged duel. During the subsequent charge, there was characater sniping taking place as well.

Lord Dan
28-02-2009, 17:10
just before picket's charge in the battle of Gettysburg, for example, Union and Confederate artillery engaged in a prolonged duel

Just to throw it out there the artillery barrage was intended to soften the enemy line, not necessarily to blow up cannons specifically. I've been scrambling to find a historical reference where enemy artillery was specifically targeted. Obviously it happened, I just want to see it written. ;) Any help from you other historians?

Sifal
28-02-2009, 17:55
In real life officers have suffered higher proportional casualties than rank-and-file

They really haven't. Really.

And how can warmachines fighting warmachines be at all cheesy. The fact that 'artillery duels' is a phrase should hint that it was standard tactic; just before picket's charge in the battle of Gettysburg, for example, Union and Confederate artillery engaged in a prolonged duel. During the subsequent charge, there was characater sniping taking place as well.

Agree with this line of thinking. The only reason (basically) that anyone takes tanks in real modern war is to take out other tanks. Apart from that tanks are moribund.

BenTheRat
28-02-2009, 18:02
To be honest I came real close to not listing #3. I've never seen or heard anyone grumble the least bit about it. But someone else says he has run into players who didn't like it.

I'm also not saying I think any of these are cheesy or not cheesy, I will profess, I do some of the things on the list. And I also do not do some of things on the list.

Just trying to get a feel for what other players think is cheesy, not cheesy.

As for #12, while yes terrain should be worked out before the game. But doesn't the game really start at this point. In a tournament, you often cannot switch out terrain. I've usually never had a problem, until my last game of my last tournament. There were 3 ruined burnt out houses on the board. I was like ok ruins, how do you want to play them. He said as buildings. I was like "uh, no".
He badgered and pestered until I finally broke down and said, ok that 1 is a building. He then promptly rolled the right to pick that side and plopped down a huge unit in there with his wizards and I could never force them out of it.

I've also had players when we had said hill, when he starts putting 4 rows of archers on it, and I said well the 2nd unit can't shoot. He said, oh its definitely tall enough to be a double hill. Huh??

And then there is always the issue, are hills and trees infinitely high. Can a hill, built flat for play purpose, block a large target. In one game I played, we had both agreed infinite height, and I plopped my "large" black coach behind a hill. (back when they were large). He put his str 7 bolt throwers on a hill. His turn 1, no problem. My turn 1, I summoned wolves to come on his back board edge and lined up to charge the bolt throwers. I didn't move the coach. Figured I'd wait 1 more turn.
turn 2, he wants to shoot at it. Huh??

Asmodiseus
28-02-2009, 18:38
Just to throw it out there the artillery barrage was intended to soften the enemy line, not necessarily to blow up cannons specifically. I've been scrambling to find a historical reference where enemy artillery was specifically targeted. Obviously it happened, I just want to see it written. ;) Any help from you other historians?

The most classic example was the artillery duel before pickett's charge on the 3rd day of Gettysburg. The Confederates started bombarding the union lines on cemetary ridge to soften it up for the attack, and the union batteries initiated counter battery fire on the Confederate cannons, which in return turned their attention to the union guns.

World War 2 was the begining of precise indirect counter battery fire, which nowadays has reached the point that when a Gun crew fires a few rounds either they move or they die. In the first Gulf War the average Iraqi Artillery crew were destroyed within a few minutes of firing their first salvo.

sroblin
28-02-2009, 21:15
The only reason (basically) that anyone takes tanks in real modern war is to take out other tanks. Apart from that tanks are moribund.

Can't really agree here. Brief tangent alert:
Tanks are best at taking out other tanks, yes, but the reason you want to take them out is because they can really pound infantry at long range. And they can advance very quickly over long distances. There have of course have been shifts in the balance of power between tank and anti-tank weapons, (the tank is dead line of thinking was common in the 70s), but this theory doesn't get backed up by reality. The frequency of their use today doesn't suggest they are moribund.

And if you disagree about the officer casualty rates, back it up. I have read this from several sources. Admittedly, there was a period during the medieval era when both sides went to exaggerated lengths to taking enemy knights hostage rather than killing them (to collect riches on the ransome), but otherwise the guy standing out and yelling loudly at the others to press on the enemy has been a disproportionately popular target historically.

sroblin
28-02-2009, 21:57
And then there is always the issue, are hills and trees infinitely high. Can a hill, built flat for play purpose, block a large target. In one game I played, we had both agreed infinite height, and I plopped my "large" black coach behind a hill. (back when they were large). He put his str 7 bolt throwers on a hill. His turn 1, no problem. My turn 1, I summoned wolves to come on his back board edge and lined up to charge the bolt throwers. I didn't move the coach. Figured I'd wait 1 more turn.
turn 2, he wants to shoot at it. Huh??

Well, reversing a consensus on how the hills worked is obviously foul play. I don't think that's even cheese.

Perhaps my friends interpretation of the rules was off, but in our games a one 'level' hill couldn't see through forests, but a unit on top of a two level hill can see into them. Still, there are a lot of tricky issues surrounding the meta-'realism' of Warhammer terrain. For instance, if you're on top of a hill, can you see behind the slope of another hill of the same height. Realistically, I wouldn't think so (the other's hill crest, being at the same level, obscures it), but I somehow don't feel very confident in this judgment.

Only pine trees are infinitely high! :)

Shiodome
28-02-2009, 22:05
well we can all look forward to TLOS for 8thED then, for added 'immersion' :P

Sifal
28-02-2009, 22:07
Tanks are very effective don't get me wrong and historically they have had many successes. however my point is with modern warfare. whatever they can do other stuff can do it better, quicker and more efficiently. I disagree with your point about pounding infantry, tanks are no longer designed to do this and have almost completely long range armour piercing capabilities to top trump other tanks. As to your point about frequency of use today they aren't really. They were used in the recent thing in Georgia but generally are only used as glorified crowd control because they can't be damaged with rocks, molatov's etc and they are used becasue they are imposing but not tactically very viable any more. Modern war is guerilla tactics and insurgency, for which tanks are next to useless. UK MOD spending on tanks has been next to nothing for years. It's all about jets and aircraft carriers.

As to officer vs rank and file casualties i should say i'm specifically talking about 20th and 21st century conflicts. in these cases there definately have not been more officer casualties to infantry casualties proportionately. There is a reason why infantry is dubbed canon fodder and officers are stereotyped as sitting at a war desk safely away from enemy engagement.

Just to back up my thoughts slightly you should know I was until recently an officer in the Royal Air Force and have studied various areas of military history with King's College London.

P.S I'm not after an argument and apologies if I'm coming off as obnoxious, text is cold so please read as friendly discussion. also apologies for going off topic.

GodlessM
28-02-2009, 22:46
I've also had players when we had said hill, when he starts putting 4 rows of archers on it, and I said well the 2nd unit can't shoot. He said, oh its definitely tall enough to be a double hill. Huh??

Even the most simple minded player must realized that the idea of a two tier hill is that the representation will have two tiers, the height matters not. If someone tries this on you again, give 'em a smack from me.

sroblin
28-02-2009, 23:58
Tanks are very effective don't get me wrong and historically they have had many successes. however my point is with modern warfare. whatever they can do other stuff can do it better, quicker and more efficiently. I disagree with your point about pounding infantry, tanks are no longer designed to do this and have almost completely long range armour piercing capabilities to top trump other tanks. As to your point about frequency of use today they aren't really. They were used in the recent thing in Georgia but generally are only used as glorified crowd control because they can't be damaged with rocks, molatov's etc and they are used becasue they are imposing but not tactically very viable any more. Modern war is guerilla tactics and insurgency, for which tanks are next to useless. UK MOD spending on tanks has been next to nothing for years. It's all about jets and aircraft carriers.

As to officer vs rank and file casualties i should say i'm specifically talking about 20th and 21st century conflicts. in these cases there definately have not been more officer casualties to infantry casualties proportionately. There is a reason why infantry is dubbed canon fodder and officers are stereotyped as sitting at a war desk safely away from enemy engagement.

Just to back up my thoughts slightly you should know I was until recently an officer in the Royal Air Force and have studied various areas of military history with King's College London.

P.S I'm not after an argument and apologies if I'm coming off as obnoxious, text is cold so please read as friendly discussion. also apologies for going off topic.

Ah hah, this has the makings of great debate! I think there maybe a certain degree of air force versus army thinking here. In the U.S., for example, there was the concept of the 'Revolution in Military Affairs' early this decade, which postulated that land forces were mostly obsolete except special forces, which woud be needed to identify targets so that the air force could then destroy everything. Naturally, the opinions of this doctrine varied alot based on which service you came from!

Personally, I think tank viability depends a lot on the nature of terrain, the capabilities of the combatants, etc. For instance, tanks are probably not very important for the U.K.'s defense capabilities, but they make a lot of sense for India. And while it is true U.S. tanks (perhaps the British too) were being fielded without HE shells, I think his policy has begun to be reversed; for instance, the Stryker Assault Gun is designed primarily to shoot direct HE shells. And they are still employed by the vast majority of less advanced tanks in the world.

As for the officer casualty rates, I heard this statistic cited for World War I, World War II, and 18-19 century warfare; perhaps things have chanced since then.

But but before I plunge into extended discussion and derail the thread further with a non-Warhammer fantasy subject, we should probably move it elsewhere in the forum. Any thoughts?

Sifal
01-03-2009, 02:32
Things I will now have to admit: I've been presenting a broad argument based upon the armed forces of wealthy western nations, i.e what I am used to, have been exposed to and worked in. I think something you're trying to say, and I will agree with, is that tanks are still used in many parts of the world in large numbers. This makes sense as many nations don't have the means (or aren't allowed) to build a credible air force and tanks are relatively speaking cheap and run forever if well serviced (12 litre Rolls Royce diesel engine for insance). Being less broad about it I'll also agree with you on nature of terrain etc.... if warfare became less about insurgency and guerilla tactics we would indeed see tanks used more by UK, US, french (if the decide to do some proper fighting, joking) etc. So I guess my point was originally that tanks are CURRENTLY less useful to 'WESTERN ALLIED' forces in modern conflicts as a result of insurgency tactics and advancments in both air power and infantry firepower capabilities. Does this seem more of a fair and agreeable statement? There would have to be a very different type of conflict to see Abrams and Challengers used in a major operational capacity.

As to the point of the thread I think a good way of dealing with opponents being difficult with terrain classification etc is to have a 3rd partset up and classify terrain so as neither player is trying to levy an advantage and their is someone to call on if their is a disagreement mid-game.

sroblin
01-03-2009, 05:09
So I guess my point was originally that tanks are CURRENTLY less useful to 'WESTERN ALLIED' forces in modern conflicts as a result of insurgency tactics and advancments in both air power and infantry firepower capabilities. Does this seem more of a fair and agreeable statement? There would have to be a very different type of conflict to see Abrams and Challengers used in a major operational capacity.


I think I agree with this broadly. The availability of precision artillery and airpower to western powers, and at the same time, the greater importance of a having rapid deployment and using less brute force in counter insurgency for these countries mean that the heavy tanks are often impractical logistically and tactically and don't have a suitable target. And, the 2006 war in Lebanon demonstrated that determined infantry equipped with the latest anti-tank technology can take out tanks, as well as resist an air campaign. (A lesson that should not have needed re-learning, IMO.)

Though keep in mind, even in the essentially insurgent conflict in Iraq, tanks saw extensive use by the U.S.. First in the conventional phase, of course, but also in the higher intensity battles that took place in 2004-2005 in Fallujah and othe places. Tanks are at their most vulnerable in city fights, but it is also a scenario where having a mobile pillbox that is immune to small arms and light explosives is very handy. To be fair, some might argue though that it was simply case of using yard clippers when scissors might have sufficed.

Just to give some substance to my claims about officer casualty rates, a quick web search came up with an interesting article which briefly discusses U.S. officer loss rates in World War II:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_88-1_hisp.htm

Asmodiseus
01-03-2009, 06:16
Tanks are very effective don't get me wrong and historically they have had many successes. however my point is with modern warfare. whatever they can do other stuff can do it better, quicker and more efficiently. I disagree with your point about pounding infantry, tanks are no longer designed to do this and have almost completely long range armour piercing capabilities to top trump other tanks. As to your point about frequency of use today they aren't really. They were used in the recent thing in Georgia but generally are only used as glorified crowd control because they can't be damaged with rocks, molatov's etc and they are used becasue they are imposing but not tactically very viable any more. Modern war is guerilla tactics and insurgency, for which tanks are next to useless. UK MOD spending on tanks has been next to nothing for years. It's all about jets and aircraft carriers.


Allow me to input my knowledge on this subject. I was a M1A1 Driver, and then Gunner for four years, so I have some knowledge on modern tanks, and tank warfare.

First off the statement that Tanks have almost completely long range armour piercing capabilities to top trump other tanks is in fact false. An M1 carries a payload of 40 rounds for the main gun, half of these are usually APFSSD rounds, or as we called them Sabot rounds with depleted uranium tips designed specifically to kill enemy armor. Usually there is 12-15 rounds of HEAT for softer targets such as trucks, light armor, and also for buildings and bunkers. Finally there are usually 5-10 rounds of MPAT which are Anti Personal canister shots which are basicly a 120mm shotgun. This is in addition to 2 7.62 mm machine guns, a .50 Cal machine gun. It can also be fitted with a Mark 19 remote grenade launcher which is very effective in urban settings.

While I got out right before my unit deployed to Iraq in 2002 Some of my best friends returned and every one of them stated the Abrams out preformed either the Bradleys, or the Striker vehicles that were suppose to replace the tank in urban environments.

Asmodiseus
01-03-2009, 06:24
I think I agree with this broadly. The availability of precision artillery and airpower to western powers, and at the same time, the greater importance of a having rapid deployment and using less brute force in counter insurgency for these countries mean that the heavy tanks are often impractical logistically and tactically and don't have a suitable target. And, the 2006 war in Lebanon demonstrated that determined infantry equipped with the latest anti-tank technology can take out tanks, as well as resist an air campaign. (A lesson that should not have needed re-learning, IMO.)

Though keep in mind, even in the essentially insurgent conflict in Iraq, tanks saw extensive use by the U.S.. First in the conventional phase, of course, but also in the higher intensity battles that took place in 2004-2005 in Fallujah and othe places. Tanks are at their most vulnerable in city fights, but it is also a scenario where having a mobile pillbox that is immune to small arms and light explosives is very handy. To be fair, some might argue though that it was simply case of using yard clippers when scissors might have sufficed.

Just to give some substance to my claims about officer casualty rates, a quick web search came up with an interesting article which briefly discusses U.S. officer loss rates in World War II:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_88-1_hisp.htm

Heavy tanks are indeed difficult to transport which is why the army started moving away from them and go to the Strikers, however most in the army view this as a mistake now as the Striker has preformed sub par in Iraq which was the exact environment it should shine in.

And it should be noted that out of several hundred Israeli Merkavas used during the 2006 war with Lebanon only 18 tanks were seriously damaged, of those 18 only 6 were actually penetrated by missles or explosions, and of those 6 only 2 were actually destroyed, and both of these were destroyed by rare superheavy IEDs that are difficult to make, deploy, and hide as far as IED's go.

About officer sniping it is a very real concern. It really started to be a problem in WW2 but Vietnam was where it became an epidemic. Vietnamese snipers would target officers as much as they could to disrupt the command and control of US units. The US army still has regulations today that prohibit officers from wearing identifying insignia in hostile environments for this exact reason.

Storak
01-03-2009, 07:48
i don t want to disturb the discussion on tank warfare, but it is slightly off-topic...


Don't be silly, an Orc army losing its general is not the end of the game. And if your opponent has spent all his artillery on trying to kill your general, then that means that other targets (Like chariots and Giant which are more easily killed be cannons) will be more likely to reach the enemy lines in one piece.

my calculation against a gunline is a simple one. 24 inch means, my foot units will need a minimum of 3 turns to get into combat. a single failed panic/terror test, requires the unit to lose a turn, and use another one, to move back the 7 inch that it fled.
coupled with animosity, (1 turn lost due to squabble) a unit that fails a panic test will typically NEVER make it into combat.
losing Ld9 early on, should change a pretty uphill struggle into a rather lost cause. (we haven t factored in march blocking at all so far. cheap free company detachments are perfect to release fanatics and distract frenzy and "we ll show em" movements..)

both chariot and giant will actually be a liability against a gunline. i wouldn t expect them to distract cannons at all or for long. (chariots get auto killed by S10 hits, giants are a perfect S4 fire target)

TheMuumio
01-03-2009, 09:56
What is and isn't acceptable these days?
1. Sniping characters in a unit.
2. Sniping characters in a unit you can't see. (the old long guess)
3. Sniping other warmachines with your cannon.
4. tactical wheels on skirmishers.
5. tactical wheels on warmachines.
6. sliding.
7. Clipping with chariots after the 2 units are in combat.
8. Unbreakable conga lines.
9. Stubborn conga lines.
10. Conga lines with champ or hero in front.
11. 1 rank unit with champ or hero on flank. So when you charge it
you can only kill the 1 guy, or none if its a DE hero with pendant.
12. Trying to claim terrain as something when they really shouldn't
be (ie. buildings).

1. There's the Look out Sir, so I don't care.
2. Retarded
3. No prob.
4. ?
5. ?
6: ? Sounds retarded
7. Clipping is a BIG NO-NO. if you clip I don't play. If you mean charging an unit that is already on combat but has free space on the front then no prob., but clipping if there is no combat then it's a no-no. *
8. ? Sounds retarded
9. ? Sounds retarded
10. ? Sounds retarded
11. Depends on the unit
12. BIG NO-NO!


* Let me explain

M = Unit 1
W= Unit 2
C = Chariot

NO! :

MMMMMMMM
---------------C

YES:

MMMMMMMM
WWWWW-C

Havock
01-03-2009, 10:31
Tanks are very effective don't get me wrong and historically they have had many successes. however my point is with modern warfare. whatever they can do other stuff can do it better, quicker and more efficiently.

But none of them can do it all in that same package. Tanks are anchors in modern forces; individually they are tanks, when combined with other forces -infantry, CAS- they become a force multiplier.
Seeing your history, you should know ;)

Also; the Conga line is lame, and reserved for people who deserve it.

Sifal
01-03-2009, 13:21
I'll take a hit on not being an expert on the subject, I am biased having been in the airforce and can't fully account for USA. I still feel tanks have/are generally being phased out of current conflicts. Anyway, we are way off topic so if someone fancies carrying on the discussion it needs moved somewhere more suitable.... or not.... either way.

Conotor
01-03-2009, 13:27
Only #2 is bad

Arguleon-veq
01-03-2009, 20:49
This is not a thread about tanks.

Can somebody please explain these 'tactical wheels' with war machines and skirmishers? People have asked a few times but nobody has explained them. Maybe we just see it as standard and didnt even think it had a name. I have no clue what people are talking about with regards to these 'tactical wheels'.

EvC
01-03-2009, 22:26
my calculation against a gunline is a simple one. 24 inch means, my foot units will need a minimum of 3 turns to get into combat. a single failed panic/terror test, requires the unit to lose a turn, and use another one, to move back the 7 inch that it fled.
coupled with animosity, (1 turn lost due to squabble) a unit that fails a panic test will typically NEVER make it into combat.
losing Ld9 early on, should change a pretty uphill struggle into a rather lost cause. (we haven t factored in march blocking at all so far. cheap free company detachments are perfect to release fanatics and distract frenzy and "we ll show em" movements..)

It makes a tough game tougher, of course. But it's not like your army literally crumbles when he dies.


both chariot and giant will actually be a liability against a gunline. i wouldn t expect them to distract cannons at all or for long. (chariots get auto killed by S10 hits, giants are a perfect S4 fire target)

Well yes of course they would be a liability, which is why if your opponent is focussing all his cannons on hoping for a failed look out sir, then your chariots may be more likely to make it into combat. They'd still be screwed by S4 shooting mostly, but every cannon shot that kills 4 Orcs instead of putting a big hole in your Giant or destroying a cannon is a total waste. If you're that worried, just hide your General in a wood somewhere :D

Hubman
03-03-2009, 15:02
If you disallow this you are flat out cheating your opponent. Measuring ranges before deciding on a particular move for a unit is completely legit. As long as they aren't over measuring there should be no disagreements.

If you still disagree go ahead and read your "FAQ part 2" page 2, left side, larst question.

Thank you for pointing this out for me Aaron! I did not know this. In our group weve always played that you cannot measure flyers before moving since the 1990s, which means that if you want to move north, you trace 20" and if you fall short of your intended position, youre just out of luck and have to place the model anyway. We even had a stricter rule in Man OWar stating that you could not backtrack your moves so once committed you should keep to it.

Despite the measuring being legitimate it does reek of potential abuse. A centrally located flyer could basically measure a 20" circle around itself before moving while figuring out what the distance is between the enemy and its own other units.

Oh, and Ive just thought of something else that bothers me during a game: people who want to move their units forward by lets say 9", but place the red plastic ruler with one end besides the unit and can therefore see whats down the entire length of the 18" ruler. If you want to move 9", do not extend more than 9" of the ruler past the unit I say.

Kind regards,

Hubman

dunagrad
03-03-2009, 20:28
what is sliding? and what are conga lines?
Since I read through this entire post to see if anyone addressed it without quoting this guy, and I also don't know the answer, thus representing at least a few of us that don't ... I would like to second these questions.

BenTheRat
03-03-2009, 20:41
ok, I'll answer these.

Sliding is actually 2 questions.

1. When charging. If you charge and you can only barely make it so you don't maximize models on both sides, do you slide the charger over to maximize.

Actually on another board, if you read the relevant passage on pg 121, I think the rules suggest you do this. Also the FAQ has a suggestion that players do this.

2. Continuing combats. If after a combat you find yourself not maximized, ie, there were 2 units fighing 1 and 1 of the 2 is now dead or fleeing, so you find yourself in a situation where the remaining units are no longer maximized. Do you slide them together to maximize.

I can find nothing to support this, and it appears you should leave them as is.

3. Conga Lines are a situation where a unit makes a single column. This works great using slayers or flagelants as they don't care how much they lose by, they never break.

So when you charge them in the front, you have only 2-3 models max touching them. In a situation like this and you get say 5 attacks from your champ, 1 normal guy and 2 horses if you are cav and are able to kill 3 models. And the enemy has 20 slayers for example, it could take you 7 rounds of combat to get through them all!! It is really stupid and ridiculous.

It can be made worse by placing an unkillable character at the front of the line. Say a DE with the pendant of hit me harder please. Make it a unit of stubborn 9 guys behind him and with a BSB nearby they can stand there all day.

Hope that helps answer the questions.

The Rat

Boxhead
03-03-2009, 23:38
This is rediculous.

Warmachines can overshoot. Too bad if you relied on that to save you. You have no way of knowing if it was intentional. Hence the look out sir.

Yes, unbreakable troops can conga. Flank them. Wow. That was rally hard to counter.

Skirmishers should be aligned to the charging unit, not vise versa. This should aplly to war machines and anyone else. If a model happens to be facig the wrong way, it should be aligned, not the other way around.

Always decide terrain at the start of a game.

Lord Dan
04-03-2009, 00:01
You have no way of knowing if it was intentional.

I beg to differ. Here's a snippet of a tournament game I had with an Empire player:

Him: "I'm going to guess 50 inches to that unit there."

Me: "They're right in front of you."

Him: "I have no idea how far that distance is..."

Me: "You just measured Ld to your general last turn, so they're at least 12 inches away from your general. Your general is further away from the unit you're firing at, which means they're less than 12 inches away."

Him: "Yeah, gee, I guess I hadn't noticed. Well, I'm going to tack a few inches on just in case. So let's go with 50 inches..."

w3rm
04-03-2009, 01:20
Wow, I hope you crushed the snot out of that guy Lord Dan!

BenTheRat
04-03-2009, 01:38
And this happened to me in my last game.

My Frenzied chaos knights finally turn the corner and were behind his lines ready to blast through anything he put in front of me, the rest of my troops keeping him tied up in the front.

So he conga lines his flagelants, and I can only get 2 knights on his guys, when I am forced to charge the front. 4 rounds of combat later, I managed to get through them, but the game was over. And no, I had no one else who could flank them.
So my 2 guys killed his guys, while my other 3 and his 15 or so frezied maniacs all stood around playing charades.

How STUPID!!

ChaosVC
04-03-2009, 01:47
Well you can also congo line your cav and charge pass the congo line.:D
Yeah it sucks when that happen... congo bongo hammer?

Skyth
04-03-2009, 10:26
And this happened to me in my last game.

My Frenzied chaos knights finally turn the corner and were behind his lines ready to blast through anything he put in front of me, the rest of my troops keeping him tied up in the front.

So he conga lines his flagelants, and I can only get 2 knights on his guys, when I am forced to charge the front. 4 rounds of combat later, I managed to get through them, but the game was over. And no, I had no one else who could flank them.
So my 2 guys killed his guys, while my other 3 and his 15 or so frezied maniacs all stood around playing charades.

How STUPID!!


Sounds to me like you were outplayed.

Hubman
04-03-2009, 10:38
I beg to differ. Here's a snippet of a tournament game I had with an Empire player:

Him: "I'm going to guess 50 inches to that unit there."

Me: "They're right in front of you."

Him: "I have no idea how far that distance is..."

Me: "You just measured Ld to your general last turn, so they're at least 12 inches away from your general. Your general is further away from the unit you're firing at, which means they're less than 12 inches away."

Him: "Yeah, gee, I guess I hadn't noticed. Well, I'm going to tack a few inches on just in case. So let's go with 50 inches..."

Hey Lord Dan,

I wonder what that game was like for you? Did he have other tricks up his sleeve? What was the result? Did you enjoy it at all? I also wonder whether any judges might have ruled against this from a "Spirit of the game" angle? Was there somewhere you could complain? Did you tell him off?

Sorry for the deluge of questions, but this kind of attitude really annoys me in this game. Im glad Ive never encountered an Empire/Dwarf player like that.

Kind regards,

Hubman

nosferatu1001
04-03-2009, 13:52
Lord Dan - I assume you pointed out that this was in fact, cheating, as defined by the BRB? "GUessing" distances where it can clearly be shown you have known you were gussing an incorrect distance is cheating. Call a judge, explain the situation, and watch the guy at minimum lose the cannon shot, and probably get a yelow card for being an idiot.

Tactical wheeling is where you wheel more / less than you "need" to so that you still make contact with the skirmishing unit. They then align to you moving models in (thus satisfying "maximise models" except for very edge cases) and potentially leaving you a nice overrun into a flank of a unit / past the big nasty ranked unit waiting behind the skirmishers / etc. Essentially you get to control the direction the overrun goes in, instead of the defnding player.

EvC
04-03-2009, 14:01
I had someone tell me he was going to overguess at a tournament a little while back. I simply explained that if he was going to play in that manner, I could play just as nasty. Or we could have a fun game. He made the right choice :D

sroblin
04-03-2009, 14:06
Sounds to me like you were outplayed.

I don't know, I understand that this unbreakable conga line situation is how the game works RAW, but it's surely completely aginst RAI and the spirit of the game. Stating that it was merely a matter of being 'outplayed' (true in the technical sense) ignores the fact that its gamey tactic exploiting a loop hole in the rules.

In general, the rules of the game seek to encourage the maximum number of combatants coming into contact for each engagement. They also punish units severly for being flanked. Unbreakable conga lines are simply exploiting a gap in the rules.

dunagrad
04-03-2009, 14:13
ok, I'll answer these.

Sliding is actually 2 questions.

1. When charging. If you charge and you can only barely make it so you don't maximize models on both sides, do you slide the charger over to maximize.

Actually on another board, if you read the relevant passage on pg 121, I think the rules suggest you do this. Also the FAQ has a suggestion that players do this.

2. Continuing combats. If after a combat you find yourself not maximized, ie, there were 2 units fighing 1 and 1 of the 2 is now dead or fleeing, so you find yourself in a situation where the remaining units are no longer maximized. Do you slide them together to maximize.

I can find nothing to support this, and it appears you should leave them as is.

3. Conga Lines are a situation where a unit makes a single column. This works great using slayers or flagelants as they don't care how much they lose by, they never break.

So when you charge them in the front, you have only 2-3 models max touching them. In a situation like this and you get say 5 attacks from your champ, 1 normal guy and 2 horses if you are cav and are able to kill 3 models. And the enemy has 20 slayers for example, it could take you 7 rounds of combat to get through them all!! It is really stupid and ridiculous.

It can be made worse by placing an unkillable character at the front of the line. Say a DE with the pendant of hit me harder please. Make it a unit of stubborn 9 guys behind him and with a BSB nearby they can stand there all day.

Hope that helps answer the questions.

The Rat

Thank you very much. This helps a lot.

dunagrad
04-03-2009, 14:22
Lord Dan - I assume you pointed out that this was in fact, cheating, as defined by the BRB? "GUessing" distances where it can clearly be shown you have known you were gussing an incorrect distance is cheating. Call a judge, explain the situation, and watch the guy at minimum lose the cannon shot, and probably get a yelow card for being an idiot.



Where would I find this in the BRB, in case I need to refer to it with an opponent?:confused:

Edit
04-03-2009, 16:35
2, 6, and 12 sound fishy as hell, and not sure on what you mean by "conga line" so i'll refrain from replying to those (guess we never see it at my local group)

most the rest are tactical imo, cannons can snipe what they can see, that's the point of them having a template line (look out sir vs reliability as a previous poster said) sliding - i still do not see where this is even a rule, i see a free wheel, but that by no means is a slide, and my local group does this. I disagree with it completely, my defending unit is where they are specifically to prevent some moves, if you just slide your unit over (giving them 3" extra movement on their charge) you are denying my placement of my unit. some people even believe it okay to slide the defending unit, who the hell started this rumor i have no idea, but it is about as wrong as they can be, my unit holding its ground, isn't going to move to help you attack it with more people, it's so counter-intuitive.
And of course terrain should be agreed upon before you start, just makes the game easier when that terrain is used.

and a note on tactical wheeling vs skirmishers, I see it as the one of the disadvantages of the skirmish formation, its more of a offensive/movement formation, not designed to take charges, while its high mobility makes it great it getting charges.

and basically all the points listed apply to both my armies i play and my opponents, well except cannons, I don't play any armies with cannons, but they seem fairly straight forward to me.

selone
04-03-2009, 16:50
Tactical wheeling is where you wheel more / less than you "need" to so that you still make contact with the skirmishing unit. They then align to you moving models in (thus satisfying "maximise models" except for very edge cases) and potentially leaving you a nice overrun into a flank of a unit / past the big nasty ranked unit waiting behind the skirmishers / etc. Essentially you get to control the direction the overrun goes in, instead of the defnding player.

Thank you :)

BenTheRat
04-03-2009, 17:11
@Edit, and many others. I've been watching this thread here and a couple other places. I use to think like you guys, the free wheel was allowed, but nothing else. Then with the FAQ appendix, I was like ok if my opponent wants to do it, ok.

Then a friend of mine mentioned in a game that no sliding was required. So when this thread peaked up I asked him for a specific reference, here is the response he gave. It is pretty convincing. And may change how you play.
*******************
On the Charge:
BRB Pg21 to 22:

Once the charging unit is in contact, it is automaticly aligned
against its enemy to form a battle line. ( See diagram 22.1) This
extra alignment move is free.
If it is impractical to align a unit properly because of interposing
terrain, other models or WHATEVER, then it is acceptable to realign
the charged unit as well or instead so that the battle lines remain
neat. A confusing situation may arise when interposing terrain or
models make it possible to align the whole unit. Rather than clutter
the rules with endless clarifications. we have included further
examples on our websites.

NOTE: the term FREE WHEEL has been removed. Now we are to align the
units no matter the interposing terrain etc. It also directs that the
charged unit can be moved to create the alignment. This combined with
the annex against clipping leads to units sliding to create a neat
battleline.

**************

The Rat

nosferatu1001
04-03-2009, 17:44
Where would I find this in the BRB, in case I need to refer to it with an opponent?:confused:

Don't have the book with me, however it directly breaks the most important rule (as you know you are doing something that is wrong) and almost certainly breaks others - for example declaring charges you know cannot be made, in order to game people into fleeing (or with warp lightning cannon, forcing them to flee) is against the rules.

Briohmar
04-03-2009, 18:51
Agree with this line of thinking. The only reason (basically) that anyone takes tanks in real modern war is to take out other tanks. Apart from that tanks are moribund.

I will dis-agree with this point from the standpoint that I have been in a battle where tanks were facing infantry. My unit was the breaching force for all of 3rd Corps in Dessert Storm, and we were facing a large ofrce of Iraqi infantry. Basically the armor we employed was untouchable by an enemy, and it was a frequent call over intercoms and radios:"I've got one on me, hose me off!" Meaning there was an enemy soldier on the top deck, and the tank commander wanted his wingman to shoot him with the coax machine gun to kill the grunt in question before he could plant an explosive. That battle also had one Tank Company commander give the order to "Grease Tracks!" Meaning the drivers were authorized to run over any enemy soldier in the way. Final point on this is that Tanks are VERY effective against infantry, and are also quite adept at taking out helos as well.

OK, here ends the history lesson.

Edit
04-03-2009, 19:59
@Edit, and many others. I've been watching this thread here and a couple other places. I use to think like you guys, the free wheel was allowed, but nothing else. Then with the FAQ appendix, I was like ok if my opponent wants to do it, ok.

Then a friend of mine mentioned in a game that no sliding was required. So when this thread peaked up I asked him for a specific reference, here is the response he gave. It is pretty convincing. And may change how you play.
*******************
On the Charge:
BRB Pg21 to 22:

Once the charging unit is in contact, it is automaticly aligned
against its enemy to form a battle line. ( See diagram 22.1) This
extra alignment move is free.
If it is impractical to align a unit properly because of interposing
terrain, other models or WHATEVER, then it is acceptable to realign
the charged unit as well or instead so that the battle lines remain
neat. A confusing situation may arise when interposing terrain or
models make it possible to align the whole unit. Rather than clutter
the rules with endless clarifications. we have included further
examples on our websites.

NOTE: the term FREE WHEEL has been removed. Now we are to align the
units no matter the interposing terrain etc. It also directs that the
charged unit can be moved to create the alignment. This combined with
the annex against clipping leads to units sliding to create a neat
battleline.

**************

The Rat

I saw this in the book to, and it refers to a diagram that shows a wheel, not a "slide" its the same as before except instead of saying wheel they said slide, it shows two blocks hitting each other at an angle and the charges are wheeled to form a flat line against the defenders, which is perfectly fine. but not 2-3 models hitting half a unit and then the two units sliding together so everyone is in combat, which is how it is most commonly used (usually by someone who realized their character wasn't going to touch anything and wants them in combat)

they need to FAQ it with a new diagram, otherwise I just don't see it as a rule, no RAW or RAI here, I usually lean to the RAI side, and I can't think that they would allow something that counteracts tactical unit placement, might as well load up on the strongest unit you have and just run at each other then :( where is the strategy in that?

BenTheRat
04-03-2009, 21:17
So your saying that because the diagram only shows a wheel, and the FAQ says, you should slide (for RAI), and the actual rule says, "it is automaticly aligned against the enemy to form a battle line. This extra alignment move is free."

And then even goes onto say you can move the charged unit or whatever to make the battle line.
That you still don't think sliding is allowed???

This makes no sense that you can say, by RAW or RAI, no sliding. I think by RAW and by RAI, you slide.

Are we reading 2 different paragraphs?? And yea there is a still plenty of tactical placement, but setting up, hoping he will charge and only get 1 model in combat, isn't one of them.

Edit
04-03-2009, 21:53
Im just saying if you are allowed to move my units via charge, what's the point of having facings and overruns being in a straight line and such, it defeats the purpose, you could charge with one unit and move my unit so their flank is now exposed for the next turn/magical charge. Or if pull a unit just 1 inch to the side it may open up LOS for something that by all rights was behind the unit. The diagram shows a wheel, no other actions are shown, either the text is incorrect or the diagram is, and no way to tell the intention. Even wheeling the charged unit seems like a bad idea, you could wheel a unit so its back model is now in a forest, you just halved their next move, but as RAW I guess I would have to allow it. It seems to abusable.

As I said the local group I play with does slide, and I don't make a big deal of it if its a little slide, a model width isn't a huge fudging of the charge and not my concern. But the extremes I have also seen, moving a 6 wide unit of chaos warriors 100mm to the left to get the hero in the combat is wrong, and makes no sense to me. If you have the movement to make a wheel to get more guys in with a wheel at the end, that's fine, I'll assume that's what you did and not think another thing of it. But if you had to go straight forward to reach to me, and hit 2 guys flat base to flat base, there should be no moving of the unit to the side, as you would have failed the charge to get more in base-to-base.

Not sure if I'm getting my point across well.

In pure text it can create confusion, I assume they reference the diagram to help, but needed to show what is not allowed along with what was to make it more clear. If the intention is that all of these actions are fine, then my skaven slaves just became even more amazing as I can screw with your movement for 40 pts in so many ways.

I guess I should try and find an authorative answer for this, but where can you get a solid answer on rules questions, I have yet to find a good source.

Jack Spratt
04-03-2009, 21:59
To all you whiners...:cries:

There is no cheese
There are only rules

Stop whining and start playing :p

Edit
04-03-2009, 22:37
I think sliding isn't a question of cheese, more of a rules question. Now I am even more curious, and am trying to find an answer.

BenTheRat
04-03-2009, 22:42
Edit, I think you are making more of it than allowed.
You are only allowed to move the enemy unit if for some reason you can't bring in the charging models without sitting on impassable terrain for example.

I can see your argument about opening up a LOS that was not there before for shooting and magic, that you purposly blocked off. But I'm certain, you are not able to turn a unit, so next turn you can flank him. It would be more of a line them up, and charger slides over as far as is allowable. Then if he cannot slide anymore for some reason, slide over charged unit.

But your right I can see a few abuse situations, or is this "outplaying" your opponent like someone else mentioned when throwing up a unbreakable conga line.

Petey
04-03-2009, 23:16
What is and isn't acceptable these days?

1. Sniping characters in a unit.
2. Sniping characters in a unit you can't see. (the old long guess)
3. Sniping other warmachines with your cannon.
4. tactical wheels on skirmishers.
5. tactical wheels on warmachines.
6. sliding.
7. Clipping with chariots after the 2 units are in combat.
8. Unbreakable conga lines.
9. Stubborn conga lines.
10. Conga lines with champ or hero in front.
11. 1 rank unit with champ or hero on flank. So when you charge it
you can only kill the 1 guy, or none if its a DE hero with pendant.
12. Trying to claim terrain as something when they really shouldn't
be (ie. buildings).

So what do you raise your eyebrows on when you see it. And which
ones do you use with regularity?

The Rat
1 Cool for sniper weapons and spells, not cool for cannons
2 double not cool
3 totally cool
4 not sure i understand the concept here
5 ditto
6 sliding?
7 as in during another turn? sure
8 stupid, and i wouldn't play that person again (if i can help it), but legal
9 see above
10 fine
11 you kill more than one guy if it s a champion, the hero is a pain
12 so long as it happens before game i m fine with it, after things start, wysiwyg