PDA

View Full Version : What do you guys think of this?



slingersam
29-05-2009, 06:50
Theirs this discussion going on, on asrai.org and cvgamers.com
just wondering what do you guys think of this scenario?

http://asrai.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14779

http://www.cvgamers.com/index.php/topic,4858.msg27996.html#msg27996

knightime98
29-05-2009, 08:13
This is beyond dodgy...

My question is why is the Vargulf passing the model by and not charging it.. to stop on a dime.. do an about face and then charge????

No, absolutely not!!

Treat the Wardancers AS IF they were a ranked unit.. Now, allow the Vargulf to do the same thing... What.. you can't ... yeah.. this is blatant cheating from my view point.

It's taking advantage of a loophole that shouldn't be there. That's my take on it anyhow.

Leogun_91
29-05-2009, 08:57
I wouldn´t allow it........if the player insist I would go by the 4+ my way otherwise you´r way "rule" that solves many conflicts and then don´t play him again and if he wouldn´t approve of the die roll way I would simply end the game.

Condottiere
29-05-2009, 09:10
You can't charge and then turn 120 degrees, that is not a charge.

This might be one of those cases where you smile, shake the opponent's hand and congratulate him on having won, then start to pack up.

warp_pyro
29-05-2009, 09:45
I would be very unhappy if this was tried against me, and would argue that is isn't allowed, I don't have the rule book with me right know, so this is from memory, but;

Yes monsters can do that on the charge, but I think there rules also say that they must also still follow the other rules for charging. The rules for charging skermishers, as far a I recall state, something along the lines of the charger is put in contact with the nearest skermishing model of the unit. From this I would argue that the monster would not be able to charge past so many models, turn around and then engage.

Just my opinion on the matter, and I would be reluctant to play that oponent again!

Harwammer
29-05-2009, 10:19
I don't see what the issue is. The varghulf seems to be charging the closest model, performing only one pivot and then aligning. All legit.

People often use this against my beast herds and I have never complained. This move is one of the big balancing factors for beastherds being allowed to get up to +2 ranks. Any competant general would do it if the opportunity arose.

W0lf
29-05-2009, 10:36
Treat the Wardancers AS IF they were a ranked unit.. Now, allow the Vargulf to do the same thing... What.. you can't ... yeah.. this is blatant cheating from my view point.

It's taking advantage of a loophole that shouldn't be there. That's my take on it anyhow.

I agree with This ^

Crower
29-05-2009, 11:05
Well, it IS 100% legal. No doubt about it.

That been said.. i would NOT allow it. well, i would.. as condottiere said, i would congrat my oponnent and leave..

it is CLEARLY a loophole, legal, ofc, but a loophole.. and i do not really enjoy playing with ppl that abuse the rules in that way.. I want to have fun, not to win at any cost.

But.. it IS legal.. Another great job by GW ;)

Nuada
29-05-2009, 11:07
I know skirmishers have no facing, but we have a house rule that you have to charge using the shortest possible distance, the same as skirmisher v skirmisher

For skirmishers charging against skirmishers it says you have to take your closest model against the closest enemy skirmisher. We say that the same rule applies here.

Draconian77
29-05-2009, 11:15
Now this is my take on it;

A: Legal...

B: Advantageous? Questionable, if you charge a unit of Skirmishers(seeing as how most skirmishers can't take a charge...) then you really should be winning that combat either way. However it does allow you to pick your overrun/pursuit direction which could definately be of help.

C: Sportsmanlike? I think not. Our group and everyone that I have ever played against has always just gone for the "shortest possible route" interpretation even though the rule doesn't seem to exist anymore.

D: Game breakingly abusive? Hardly, there are lots of silly rules in WHFB which confer advantages to certain things in certain situations. This occurence should neither be frequent nor influential.

Ixquic
29-05-2009, 12:06
How is that any more "cheating" then say making a wheel into skirmishers so that you are facing a more advantageous direction when you overrun?

You could house-rule against it by requiring closest to closest but I don't really see that as a "take my ball and go home" style affront to the game if it came up in a game where there was no such house-rule. If it was pulled against me I'd be surprised but I would take it as a lesson in how to play the game according to the rules. I think most of the time this wouldn't be that tactically amazing anyway since as it's been said most skirmishers are going to get wrecked when they are charged by the sorts of units than can pull this off.

Gazak Blacktoof
29-05-2009, 12:24
I don't mind tactical wheels* to allow a unit of heavy cavalry or similar to blast through on an overrun in a direction of their choosing. However, this seems like a trick too far and I agree with what knightime98 said.

*I did before they released the FAQ commentary saying it was ok.

Mercules
29-05-2009, 14:28
It is legal since I can do the same thing with a Tactical Wheel.

I posted this example on Asrai.org, but here are the shots again.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2edcdab.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/28tvx2x.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/302n9xt.jpg

Memnos
29-05-2009, 14:34
My take? While doing this seems on the surface to be similar to a wheel, with a Monster, there is something clearly different:

The Monster loses line of sight to the skirmishers.

Now, there's no rule stating that you have to have line of sight to the models -during- the charge, but this 'feels' like a violation of the spirit of the rules. I would rather bemusedly laugh at the stupidity of the situation, then give myself the 4+ ward and bog down your Rare slot that inevitably costs more than the unit of 8 Wardancers.

I can see how that would take an option off the table, but whatever. That happens.

Ixquic
29-05-2009, 14:37
Just imagine he's doing a super cool drift turn

artyboy
29-05-2009, 15:24
Just imagine he's doing a super cool drift turn

That's what I was envisioning :D

BooMeRLiNSKi
29-05-2009, 15:42
Just imagine he's doing a super cool drift turn

Ha ha, that's kind of what I was doing in my mind :evilgrin:

I actually think that is fine, in some ways I quite like it.. your skirmishers just got caught in a pincer movement.

Maybe it's because it's the Varghulf used in the example which is an agile fast moving thing, in my mind I imagine it barreling over the terrain, through the undergrowth etc as the skirmishers turn to see it's progress when it changes direction and come steaming into them and they realise they now also have zombies shuffling in from what is now behind.

But as I said, maybe it's because the monster used in the example is one of the fastest ones.

Charistoph
29-05-2009, 16:01
So a Monster can get a free pivot in a charge (not movement but charge), and a pivot can be 90-180 degrees?

Lord Dan
29-05-2009, 16:18
How is that any more "cheating" then say making a wheel into skirmishers so that you are facing a more advantageous direction when you overrun?

If you can play that stereotypical circus theme music while you make a move in Warhammer and it seems to fit, then the move is probably not something you should be doing.

BooMeRLiNSKi
29-05-2009, 16:24
If you can play that stereotypical circus theme music while you make a move in Warhammer and it seems to fit, then the move is probably not something you should be doing.

Not if you fight with an army of clowns.

Lord Dan
29-05-2009, 16:28
Not if you fight with an army of clowns.

Touche, Boomerlinski. Touche.

Memnos
29-05-2009, 16:28
Not if you fight with an army of clowns.

Boomer just won this conversation.

Meh. It's clearly absurd, but whatever. Wardancers shouldn't lose to a Varghulf, anyway.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
29-05-2009, 18:22
I don't see it as absurd. Arrogant elfs decide to try and take down the varghulf and get caught with their leotards down by the zombies they assumed were too slow! It's also legal! Why would you quit a game just cos someone did something sketchy but legal? I think its for stuff like this that I prefer Warmaster or Warmachine.

lparigi34
29-05-2009, 18:56
Isn't there a paragraph in the rules saying you should charge by the shortest available route?

If, it is not, it should be!!!

If this is RAW possible, then the whole EITW concept is totally opposed (charging inertia or something like that, they say in the FAQ!.

Gotta check this out.

EvC
29-05-2009, 18:56
Totally legal, but very iffy. Wardancers take 4+ ward save and kill 6 Zombies in that case and don't lose combat too badly. Not the end of the world.

lparigi34
29-05-2009, 19:08
How is that any more "cheating" then say making a wheel into skirmishers so that you are facing a more advantageous direction when you overrun?

Totally agreed. It is not. Trying to pull either one is equally :cheese:...

I bring back the EITW intent, again, you must try to follow the shortest charging route and at the same time the charging path created by the straight line that passes over both units centers before starting any charging movement. In this movement you must also try to bring in contact the maximum amount of combatants for each side.

IMHO, and no necessarily supported by RAW, any other attempt is no gentlmen behaviour.

But as usual, I guess I am going to be wrong in this one.

Mercules
29-05-2009, 19:40
Totally agreed. It is not. Trying to pull either one is equally :cheese:...

I bring back the EITW intent, again, you must try to follow the shortest charging route and at the same time the charging path created by the straight line that passes over both units centers before starting any charging movement. In this movement you must also try to bring in contact the maximum amount of combatants for each side.

IMHO, and no necessarily supported by RAW, any other attempt is no gentlmen behaviour.

But as usual, I guess I am going to be wrong in this one.

EitW only comes into play during a Flee reaction, not a Hold reaction.

The FAQ states:
Q. May charging units wheel more than is necessary to maximize models in the combat when they are charging? This is sometimes referred to as a ‘tactical wheel’ and can be used against Skirmishing units to set up advantageous pursuit/overrun paths, or against other wider formed units to avoid contacting a character placed on the corner of the unit, etc.

A. All charging units (including chariots, monsters, etc.):
1. Must try and bring as many models into the combat as possible, and
2. can wheel (or pivot) only once during the charge move.
As long as they fulfil these two criteria, they are free to wheel as much as they want. So ‘tactical’ wheeling is absolutely fine!

Souppilgrim
29-05-2009, 19:47
I don't like the tactical wheel or this. House rules of shortest distance for the win.

If this is ok, I don't understand why knights and such cant just always circle round and charge flanks or rears whenever they have the move for it.

EvC
29-05-2009, 20:00
Because there are rules in place to prevent that.

theunwantedbeing
29-05-2009, 20:06
Shortest distance is an issue when tree's and such are in the way.

eg. a chariot charging a unit, the shortest distance may well be over an obstacle or through some tree's.....but under the rules its perfectly legal for it to go around those things if it is able to, even if this path is longer than one that would cause it to crash through a barrier or difficult terrain.

Tactical wheeling is perfectly legal.
You may of course be thinking of the rule that requires you to charge the nearest visible model in the skirmishing unit you are wishing to charge.
Although this doesnt nessecarily prevent tactical wheeling, although in some cases it may well cause bizarre tactical wheeling.

Mercules
29-05-2009, 20:40
Yep, the chariot CAN go around the woods but it only can if it could still bring in as many models as possible into base contact. If that path would bring one less model into contact then the Chariot must now charge through the woods. For this reason I just tend to avoid moving units like that near terrain like that.

Mercules
29-05-2009, 20:44
I don't like the tactical wheel or this. House rules of shortest distance for the win.

1. You can basically ONLY use it against Skirmishers.
2. Skirmishers have an advantage over normal troops in movement and LoS and such which are all very important(most of the game is won in the movement phase)
3. Not being able to break ranks or gain ranks once it lines up is a counter balance for their advantages over normal troops, but this "tactical wheel" is one additional compensation for using slower, harder to move more limited blocks of troops against Skirmish heavy armies.

Souppilgrim
29-05-2009, 21:33
Because there are rules in place to prevent that.

Correct, and they don't make sense if you think that this "maneuver" somehow makes sense.

Is this technically legal? Yes, but it doesn't make sense that fliers would not be able to do this but everything else can. It's just bending the spirit of the rules to take advantage. Any argument you make as to why this should be legal in spirit you could make for fliers or anything else that moves fast.

Skirmishers already have enough trouble in combat, I don't think that some nonsensical power drift is a good way to make up for how slow blocks of troops move as some other posters have said.

lparigi34
29-05-2009, 21:37
EitW only comes into play during a Flee reaction, not a Hold reaction.

Agreed 100%. What I was trying to illustrate is the fact that for one rule (EitW) they take into account chargers inertia, but they completely ignore it in a different rule.

Not a problem for me, now you illustrated the rule and now I feel fine with it, In fact, I guess it will come quite handy in my next game against woodies :evilgrin:


I don't like the tactical wheel or this. House rules of shortest distance for the win.

If this is OK, I don't understand why knights and such cant just always circle round and charge flanks or rears whenever they have the move for it.

Well, as already explained, this works only against skirmishers. Rules are rules, and even when I find this one dreadful, it is so clearly explained in the FAQ that leaves no room for a house rule (unless we play in your house :p)


Shortest distance is an issue when tree's and such are in the way.

Agreed, in this case makes complete sense to let the unit move through a different route; that rule should have said something like "the shortest safe way". But as FAQ'd so clearly, maybe in 7th :D


Yep, the chariot CAN go around the woods but it only can if it could still bring in as many models as possible into base contact. If that path would bring one less model into contact then the Chariot must now charge through the woods. For this reason I just tend to avoid moving units like that near terrain like that.

In this case I'd let my opponent to go around that restriction, only in friendly games. In a tourney, who knows what can I do :chrome:

DarkTerror
29-05-2009, 22:23
There's nothing wrong with it so long as you think "tactical wheeling" is alright. That's all it is.

So what if he shoots past the target.

1) This would potentially be a valid tactic in real life. Why not run around to the rear when you have two units.
2) It rarely can take effect for any significant gain
3) It is not different than tactically wheeling to get the angle you want or for a flank/rear.

Souppilgrim
29-05-2009, 23:23
There's nothing wrong with it so long as you think "tactical wheeling" is alright. That's all it is.

So what if he shoots past the target.

1) This would potentially be a valid tactic in real life. Why not run around to the rear when you have two units.
2) It rarely can take effect for any significant gain
3) It is not different than tactically wheeling to get the angle you want or for a flank/rear.

1) You are correct, but warhammer has strict charging rules to keep things balanced and simple. Should a fast unit be able to charge from behind if it has the move but starts in the front? In a hardcore simulation, yes (and not just to a skirmishing target, but any target). In a simulation however I think that target units should get to auto face a rear charge if they are not already engaged on another side....and all sorts of other changes to the current rules.

Mercules
29-05-2009, 23:26
And those strict rules state this action is ok. Look at my pictures up above in order and you will see how I created the same situation that the varghulf did with a "tactical wheel" which the FAQ very clearly states is "perfectly acceptable". The Bulls moved through an 11" wheel instead of a roughly 6-7" move with a smaller wheel.

Gazak Blacktoof
29-05-2009, 23:32
I wouldn't mind somebody pulling the manoeuvre that the bulls do- they start in a "flanking" position- the vargulf doesn't.

Herod
29-05-2009, 23:35
I've got no problem with this at all. I don't agree with those that consider it a "gray area" because it is so clearly spelled out.

H

Souppilgrim
29-05-2009, 23:35
And those strict rules state this action is ok. Look at my pictures up above in order and you will see how I created the same situation that the varghulf did with a "tactical wheel" which the FAQ very clearly states is "perfectly acceptable". The Bulls moved through an 11" wheel instead of a roughly 6-7" move with a smaller wheel.

Yes it's legal. It's also legal for me to take 2 steam tanks against everyone I play in 2000 pt games. I don't have any armies that really use skirmishers, so it wouldn't hurt me but if I did....well my opponent would face the :cheese:-iest list I could bring to the table in any future games.

Mercules
30-05-2009, 01:30
I wouldn't mind somebody pulling the manoeuvre that the bulls do- they start in a "flanking" position- the vargulf doesn't.

Neither do the Bulls since Skirmishers do not have flanks. I could do the same thing with Wildriders and their 18" charge that I did with the Bulls and they wouldn't be in theorized "flank". Why did I use Bulls? I caught some Duelists that way. They slunk into my "flank" to shoot me one turn and probably charge me in the next. I brought out the LoS tool and sure enough I could see a corner. Why did I swing so far around? Because then if I won the combat they would be fleeing TOWARDS my line and I would hopefully get a cross-fire.

Mercules
30-05-2009, 01:34
Yes it's legal. It's also legal for me to take 2 steam tanks against everyone I play in 2000 pt games. I don't have any armies that really use skirmishers, so it wouldn't hurt me but if I did....well my opponent would face the :cheese:-iest list I could bring to the table in any future games.

So you are going to sulk over someone understanding the rules and try to get "even" in the future? I don't think it is the person pulling this legit maneuver who is unsportsmanlike.

Souppilgrim
30-05-2009, 05:17
So you are going to sulk over someone understanding the rules and try to get "even" in the future? I don't think it is the person pulling this legit maneuver who is unsportsmanlike.

Using 24 flamers in a 2000 point game is just as much of a legit maneuver. I have as much right to think this "tactic" is cheesy as you do in thinking that many flamers is cheesy.

moose
30-05-2009, 05:34
Flamers are max.6 per rare choice.

I think having 24 would not be very legit, or nice :(. Even moreso than the wierd charging scenario stated!


Moose.

Condottiere
30-05-2009, 05:43
It's difficult to argue against the legitimacy of the manoeuvre, though ending it more or less within 90 degrees of the facing would seem more appropriate.

Souppilgrim
30-05-2009, 05:50
Sorry was thinking they were special choices, make that 12

Frankly
30-05-2009, 10:47
It is legal since I can do the same thing with a Tactical Wheel.

I posted this example on Asrai.org, but here are the shots again.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2edcdab.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/28tvx2x.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/302n9xt.jpg

Thats pretty cool Mercules.

Still, I don't think it'll help with the sportsman scores. :)

Mercules
30-05-2009, 12:01
Well frankly I don't see why not. THAT little maneuver can only be pulled off if every little part falls into place. Now the Varghulf one can be done much easier but this example can happen, conditions just need to be perfect.

Frankly
30-05-2009, 12:08
Sorry I had the OP in mind with the comment about the sportmanship scores.

Grunge
30-05-2009, 12:11
Why the hell isn't everyone taking the shortest path to the target? Isn't that a rule anymore?

EvC
30-05-2009, 12:22
It explicitly isn't, as has been said multiple times.

WarlockOMork
31-05-2009, 09:40
not quite sure how this is even discussion worthy,

as its completly legal, and not even a gray area anymore since its been FAQ'd.


wether sportsman like or not can be discussed, my vieuw on it is:
that i dont think its unsportsman like, i classify it as tactical. (the same GW themselves classify it)

tho it shouldnt be occuring all to often.

so your enemy outplayed you, take it like a man, and play on :)

Mercules
31-05-2009, 15:29
Why the hell isn't everyone taking the shortest path to the target? Isn't that a rule anymore?

And this is the issue with pervious versions of the rules banging around in people's head. It really helps that I got into Warhammer at the start of 7th so I have no older info misleading me.

Now with 40K I have that issue since I almost never play and I started playing before the previous version. I basically had to clear out the old rules and reread the book. I couldn't do that, "What are the changes?" thing or I'd miss things and try using older rules.:D

Mireadur
31-05-2009, 22:03
How is that any more "cheating" then say making a wheel into skirmishers so that you are facing a more advantageous direction when you overrun?


Im sorry but i believe this change was introduced in 7th precisely to avoid the exploits made by people with skirmishers redirecting R/F units charges (although im not sure if im remembering well here).

Lord Dan
01-06-2009, 02:54
I'm just wondering why the Wardancers started out that close to the front of the unit of zombies at the beginning of the VC turn.

Condottiere
01-06-2009, 05:38
Tactically unwise, but stuff happens; they also seem unsupported, maybe on a flank?

TheDarkDaff
01-06-2009, 08:47
You move units in the order they declare charges but you move units charging the same unit at the same time (introduced to minimise clipping). That is the only slightly grey area i can see.

Kevlar
01-06-2009, 11:18
It looks perfectly legal to me since the 'gulf is a single model, a character could do the same thing. I just wonder tactically what benefit it would give? I mean zombies aren't exactly a stellar combat unit. By giving them max frontage like that he is just going to lose combat results, not gain them. If he wanted the zombie rank bonus he should have just charged the varghulf straigh ahead and then flank charged the zombies where they would only be facing 2 elves max, one of which might die to the vampire.

Necromancy Black
01-06-2009, 14:20
Totally legit, will get you punched in the face.

That's about it.

nosferatu1001
01-06-2009, 15:08
given you have to move units at the same time, you cannot hit the rear of the wardancers with the zombies - until both charges are complete the unit does not form a battle line and therefore does not have a rear.

So you could do it with the vargulf by itself, however if you were to simul charge the zombies you would have to ensure both hit in the same facing as eachother, and cannot move in a way such that one charge would then fail.

So, easy to get teh vargulf power slide, almost impossible to get a simul rear charge.

EvC
01-06-2009, 15:42
Given you don't have to move units at the same time with skirmishers, that's not right ;)

Malorian
01-06-2009, 15:45
Very sneaky stuff... that's all I can really say...

Personally I would only use such a move if I felt my opponent deserved it (had an extremely nasty list) and if it was used against me... well it probably wouldn't happen as I don't take many skirmishers for this very reason (being controlled on the charge).

Condottiere
01-06-2009, 16:03
Skirmishers shouldn't be caught out in the open; you can always flee, though that's not always viable.

nosferatu1001
01-06-2009, 17:01
Hmm, i thought the first FAQ determined that all multichargers were considered simultaneous.

Ah well, sneaky, legal but not going to win you any friends...

Lord Dan
01-06-2009, 17:15
Hmm, i thought the first FAQ determined that all multichargers were considered simultaneous.
If this were the case, the next unanswerable question would be "how do the skirmishers line up"?

EvC
01-06-2009, 17:28
The FAQ established the opposite, but of course did it in such a bad and unclear manner that it's not surprising you mistook it!

T10
01-06-2009, 17:33
given you have to move units at the same time, you cannot hit the rear of the wardancers with the zombies - until both charges are complete the unit does not form a battle line and therefore does not have a rear.


The rules for Multiple Chargers (p. 23) would seem to be the only way to legally defeat this exploit (and it is an exploit). This rule is two-fold in that it a) deals with the simultaneous movement of units in the same front/flank/rear arc and b) bringing as many models on both sides into close combat as possible.

I've noticed that people tend to disregard this rule as a whole since the target skirmishing unit does not have front/flank/rear arcs while in their loose formation, and in the interest of maintaning the viability of the exploit decide on the interpretation that they don't need to consider front/flank/rear arcs until after the first unit has made contact.

Preferably the charge should still be worked out in a manner that brings the most models from each side into combat, though it would look more reasonable if this involved bringing the skirmishers into a wide frontage.

All in all, however, I don't think this is a game-breaking exploit. It looks strange, sure, but so does the "unapproachable magnetic flank": i.e. your unit is in the enemy's flank arc and has line of sight and sufficient move to reach them, but the flank arc is unapproachable due to intervening terrain or models.

-T10

Da GoBBo
01-06-2009, 23:19
Both tactical wheeling and moving charging units one by one is not allowed in the BRB. Apparently both rules are changed in a FAQ? If either one or both of these is still true than this manouvre cannot be legal.

As to the question of how to allign during a simultaneous charge, I think you can only use common sense because other than "the most important rule" there is no ruling for this. In this situation I might allow a flank charge with the Varghulf, but never a rare charge and the zombies should allways end up in the front.

Necromancy Black
01-06-2009, 23:27
Nothing in the BRB prevents tactical wheeling.

The FAQ have stated that for multicharging skirmishers, you must move one charger in first to establish the sides of the skirmishing unit.

I also disagree with this being an exploit. It's just the rules of the game, and the guy who came up with this obviously had a damn good grasp on what those rules are.

It's just another case of GW not being able to write rules for ****.

Da GoBBo
02-06-2009, 08:34
That would indeed make it a perfectly legal move, and a smart one at that. It's weird though, so I would definitly consult my opponent before executing the move.

Question, a lot of people, like me and my friends, don't read FAQ's or errata's and this particular situation can't be supported with the brb. Clearly this can lead to dificulties and in this particular situation I don't think you can pull of this charge am I right?

Necromancy Black
02-06-2009, 08:48
This particular situation can't be ruled illegal by the BRB. How can you say it can't be pulled off?

Da GoBBo
02-06-2009, 09:47
Uuuuh, because the brb doesn't allow for a nonsimultaneous combined charge on skirmishers without the help of a FAQ? If the brb does allow it, please tell me where to find it. This would mean the FAQ is actually an errata though.

Masque
02-06-2009, 09:55
The BRB only allows and requires simultaneous charges if they are against the same facing of the target unit. Ignoring the FAQs, if you consider skirmishers to have a single 360 degree facing then I can see how you would come to the conclusion that you must charge them simultaneously. If instead you consider skirmishers to not have a facing then charging them simultaneously is not required or even allowed. I'm guessing most people consider skirmishers not to have a facing; I certainly do.

Da GoBBo
02-06-2009, 10:14
Oops, I completely overlooked the facing part, which is rather silly. Skirmishers do not have a specific facing and can see all around. I don't know if this means they don't have a facing at all, but I think it does, making the manouvre perfectly legal. It's still weird though so if I even wanted to maouvre like this, I would be really gentle about it. It's definitly a move that will have people scratching their heads.

Mercules
02-06-2009, 13:21
I ran into that issue at a tournament this weekend. Small store and owner running the tournament plays mostly 40K. My skirmishing Gnoblars flee. He believes they should go straight towards my Butcher but I set them up so the "closest visible model" would direct him at an angle through woods and away from anything else.

Next time I go I am printing out EVERY FAQ and putting them in a binder.

Trying to say, "Read the FAQ on the GW site, or if you have a computer I have it on my FlashDrive and can pull it up. I didn't bring a laptop." didn't work. I am used to playing at a slightly more modern store with a LAN setup and I can pull up the FAQs in seconds and show them the rule. :)

Lord Dan
02-06-2009, 17:28
He believes they should go straight towards my Butcher but I set them up so the "closest visible model" would direct him at an angle through woods and away from anything else.

I think this rule was a mistake. While it allows for some cool tactical moves, I can't tell you how many "conga lines" I've seen as a result at tournaments. Often times you end up charging at a 45 degree angle away from the unit you declared a charge on simply because one of their number is way off to the left.

"Sir, should we call the charge on the unit ahead?"
"No, let's get that one guy over there instead!"

Malorian
02-06-2009, 17:38
I think this rule was a mistake. While it allows for some cool tactical moves, I can't tell you how many "conga lines" I've seen as a result at tournaments. Often times you end up charging at a 45 degree angle away from the unit you declared a charge on simply because one of their number is way off to the left.

"Sir, should we call the charge on the unit ahead?"
"No, let's get that one guy over there instead!"

I was surprised when I was called on this rule too (I was sure you would charge center to center as best you could), but at least it's clean cut.

Since then I've certainly taken advantage of it :evilgrin:

Gazak Blacktoof
02-06-2009, 17:43
I wasn't even aware this rule existed, I've been charging centre to centre too.

Harwammer
02-06-2009, 17:51
I think this rule was a mistake. While it allows for some cool tactical moves, I can't tell you how many "conga lines" I've seen as a result at tournaments. Often times you end up charging at a 45 degree angle away from the unit you declared a charge on simply because one of their number is way off to the left.

"Sir, should we call the charge on the unit ahead?"
"No, let's get that one guy over there instead!"

In gaming terms the closest model rule is awesome for skirmishers as they can pull off some insane bait/flee based redirects. However, combined with the align rule it does bite them in the donkey for ranking up.

Mercules
02-06-2009, 18:11
See... :)

Nobody reads(or maybe retains the information from) the FAQs. It is also important to note that the Skirmishing unit does NOT change formation while fleeing. If you could you would pick up the unit in the exact position it is in, move it X"s in the feeling direction and drop it back down with every model in the same position it was in. This means really spread out Skirmishers can often hit the board edge or "impassible" terrain and if they contact it the unit is destroyed.

Basically, skirmishers are great for bait and flee and charging, not so great on a Hold reaction to a charge because of the tactical wheel. This is part of the reason I am fine with the Tactical Wheel option messing with Skirmishers.

jrodrag
03-06-2009, 00:36
So the thing I havn't seen discussed is that the move isn't the best for the vampire player. It sets his zombies up to charge the rear of the wardancers where 4 wardancers can destroy zombies. The vargulf on average will hit 3.75 times and wound 3.125 wardancers who will save just over 1/2 a wound. So assume 3 wounds. The zombies of course do absolutely nothing as that is what they do. The wardancers, who chose the extra attack dance then attack the zombies with 12 attacks hit with 8 and wound with 5.333. Then one attacks the vargulf hits twice and gets 1/2 a wound that probably dosent go through. So the vampire wins by 3 and the wardancers with the general nearby have a 7 to stay. They then counter charge and destroy both units.

Now if the vargulf had set things up for the wardancers to be flanked by the zombies and the same math is worked out the vampires win by 5-6 making it almost twice as likely for the wardancers to run away. This seems a much better option and would even be more palatable to most players as it dosen't require as extreme a wheel to accomplish.

Yes its mathhammer but you have to base your tactics on something.

Lord Dan
03-06-2009, 01:27
They then counter charge and destroy both units.

...with what?

Necromancy Black
03-06-2009, 01:51
So the thing I havn't seen discussed is that the move isn't the best for the vampire player.

Replace Wardancers with Dryads. Suddenly it's alot better.


...with what?

A BRB to the back of the head. :p

jrodrag
03-06-2009, 23:20
even if you were to replace the wardancers with dryads you would still have a more favorable combat by bringing the zombies in on the flank. The rule with zombies is minimize attacks at them.

As for counter charge with what? Counter charge with the other part of the force that you are playing with. I am of course assuming the game isn't being played with only wardancers vs vargulf and zombies. I am also assuming that the poor wardancers weren't left completely unsupported.

Yrrdead
05-06-2009, 06:24
Irodrag- If you go back and look at the diagram you will see that the VC player did this whole little maneuver to get a rear charge with zombies.

Kevlar
05-06-2009, 08:27
Irodrag- If you go back and look at the diagram you will see that the VC player did this whole little maneuver to get a rear charge with zombies.

Yes but a rear charge is worse than a flank charge since six wardancers will be able to attack the zombies instead of just one or two. That rear charge will add a bunch of extra combat results to the elves.

If the purpose of the rear charge was to auto destroy them when they break he should have parked the zombies an inch away from them instead of giving up free combat resolution.

Atrahasis
05-06-2009, 08:33
not so great on a Hold reaction to a charge because of the tactical wheel.The tactical wheel can be completely eliminated by placement of the skirmishing models.

Da GoBBo
05-06-2009, 12:32
Sweet, how does that work?

Harwammer
05-06-2009, 14:05
2 basic things I've used for my beastmen, I'm sure there is tonnes more I don't know of:

1) by putting the closest skirmisher directly infront of the charger (doing this prevents varghulfs from running in a straight line past the skirmishers then pivoting)

2) by placing other skirmisher models next to the one closest to the enemy. These models physically block the enemy from performing excessive wheeling.

lparigi34
05-06-2009, 14:09
Sweet, how does that work?

By always placing the model closest to the unit in such way that it can only be reached if charged from a specific path...

Ask me and this add to the bizarreness, imagine all the micromanagement it will generate... phew...

Now, what happens in the case where the closest model can't be reached in any way (i.e. it is inside a narrow gap) but the rest of the unit could be... as you can see, in this we can be creative as we want :angel:.

Gorbad Ironclaw
05-06-2009, 14:23
Sweet, how does that work?

You place your models in such a way that there are no room for much/any wheeling if the charging unit is to hit the closet visible skirmish model.

Once you are mindful of it it's really not that difficult to do.

tarrasque
06-06-2009, 07:58
Now, what happens in the case where the closest model can't be reached in any way (i.e. it is inside a narrow gap) but the rest of the unit could b

we take the faq and see it is oke to charge the nearest possible model you can charge :P