View Full Version : Waaagh Movement questions

11-05-2009, 19:51
When a roll of 6 for animosity (or the waaagh spell, or when calling a waaagh) causes a Greenskin unit to move towards the nearest enemy but, in doing so, move INTO another greenskin unit, how is this resolved?

An issue arose today when a unit of boys had to effectively move into my lone shaman. We worked it out that my unit had to do whatever it could to go around the shaman, which meant that my high roll of 6" was pretty much wasted with wheeling and falling into a piece of thick terrain.

I remember 6th edition orcs had clear rules for this sort of thing, however I can't find it in the o&g armybook.


11-05-2009, 20:01
the unit that has moved forward due to waagh!ness will stop 1" away from the 'friendly' unit they would otherwise hit...

gone are the days of two o+g units actually fighting a round of combat together... more's the pity :)

11-05-2009, 20:04
Cheers Semersonp- where can I find this rule?

11-05-2009, 20:10
semersonp, why would they stop 1" away?

11-05-2009, 20:23
harrumph - good call... youre forced to stop 1" away from ENEMY units... good call...

im still at work at the moment... ill bust out my brb later and point you to the right page and check the friendly unit distance rule... probably 'just not touching' but ill double check...

11-05-2009, 21:08
Edited: Nevermind, that was some nonsense.

12-05-2009, 00:39
except that if you would hit something and stop, that's obviously not moving towards the enemy as directly as possible. I would (and have seen it played that) you DO wheel and rotate around friendly units if they are in the way.

12-05-2009, 05:33
if there's an enemy in that unit's los on a "show em", then it is obligated to begin moving towards it. the only way that you can discernibly be moving towards a unit that isn't directly in front of you is if you wheel until you are facing it. this can and does mean that you will sometimes wheel and then bump into your own guys... remember, rolling a 6 on animosity is still a discipline failure... they are not following orders, so it stands to reason that they might contradict whatever plans you had in mind.

just be thankful that they stop, instead of causing the other unit to not move for the whole turn (as in cases of stupid unit bumping into other unit).

12-05-2009, 07:29
Mmmmf, I'm not sure I explained myself well enough, but I can't seem to find the right word. rereading what I wrote, yeah I clearly wrote that I'm not moving if there's something in the way, which is not what I meant. Bah never mind.

12-05-2009, 10:45
Urgat, you were actually wrong... Nowhere does it say you can only go 'straight', and the rules actually say you have to apply the usual rules in case you wheel or something... Shortest route is not a direct line, but the shortest clear path.

Since a unit cannot move through a friendly unit, they instead stop when they come in contact.

But if you ask me: you have to move to the nearest enemy via the 'shortest route', and it's not a route if someone/something is blocking it, so in most cases you go around friendly units. Only if you cannot wheel enough without getting clear of any enemy units, or if there's not enough room, then you can come in contact.

In other words, if my navigation calculates a 'shortest route' then it also doesn't send me through buildings but only via open roads. So that's the wording I go with.

12-05-2009, 11:08
Urgat, you were actually wrong... Nowhere does it say you can only go 'straight', and the rules actually say you have to apply the usual rules in case you wheel or something... Shortest route is not a direct line, but the shortest clear path.

I know, that's not even how I play, don't ask me why I even wrote that, I may as well delete it. It comes from the fact I hardly roll more than 1 or 2 on the we'll show them result, so the wheel is barely noticeable to begin with.

I happen to be often wrong anyway :p

12-05-2009, 11:27
If the unit doesnt have the space to wheel (freindly/enemy units or impassable terrain in the way) then they may well be forced to move their d6" straight forwards as that would be the only way to go.

You can do a similar thing with preventing a lance(or similarly deep unit) from charging you. You just sit in such a position where the wheel fouls on something they cannot pass through, forcing them to take the long route round rather than a straight and direct one.

You certainly dont say "oh I have to wheel...oh no, no space I stop"
You'll be moving those d6" whether you want to or not.

Gazak Blacktoof
12-05-2009, 13:12
I'd argue that such a manoeuvre with regards to orcs doesn't fit the criteria of moving "toward the nearest visible enemy by the shortest route possible".

The animosity rules imply that turning is acceptable (as its listed as a potential movement penalty), though a charge including a turn could not be made. If the unit actually ends up further away by making a more lengthy manoeuvre than it would by making a turn its probably not the right move to make.


I also remember there being commentary regarding the allowance of a charge under the circumstance you outlined in your diagram (provided you make contact, engage the appropriate quarter, make no more than a single wheel or pivot, etc) and that the other opposing unit is pushed out of the way. This may have been for 6th edition or I might be misremembering completely