PDA

View Full Version : Fanatics and carrying through



hardygun
01-07-2009, 15:07
Had a game agains O&G where we had a fanatic run into a unit in such a way that it couldn't carry through due to another unit on the other side.

To flesh out the situation a little more: The fanatic was launched at a screen of skirmishers. The fanatic rolled exactly enough movement to land on top of one of the skirmishers. The skirmishers take their hits and then the fanatic goes to move to the other side of the skirmishers. Here's where the problem arose. There where two units behind the skirmishers and the fanatics trajectory lead straight into one. There was no space for the fanatic to land between them without violating the 1" rule.

Out of the following what happens:
A: The fanatic carries through the second unit as well and causes hits.
B: The fanatic carries through the second unit as well and doesn't cause hits.
C: The fanatic carries through to the front of the skirmishers since it can't carry through to behind them.
D: The fanatic displaces skirmishers to make room.

We ended up going with D, but is that what should happen?

nosferatu1001
01-07-2009, 15:15
A - in the same way as a fleeing unit bounces through as many units as needed until it has space to land

TheDarkDaff
01-07-2009, 15:21
Violate the 1" rule (it doesn't really apply to special circumstances). If you can place him between the units without touching either then do it. If the fanatic has to touch the unit behind then it will carry through them as well (causing hits as normal).

Da GoBBo
01-07-2009, 15:41
I'm with TheDarkDaff.

puppetmaster24
01-07-2009, 15:47
i'm with option A purely because it causes the most damage :evilgrin:

rtunian
01-07-2009, 17:15
the "release the fanatics" rule in the o&g book says that you place the fanatic 1" beyond the unit in the same direction that it was moving, if the fanatic would stop within a unit. while the fanatic might be able to come within 1" of a unit, it cannot go less than 1" beyond the unit.

you should have placed the fanatic 1" beyond the first unit, and if that happened to have hit another unit, then the fanatic would be moved to 1" beyond that 2nd unit, and so on, and so forth. hypothetically, if several units are in a tight congo-line, a fanatic released along the right path will go through & hit every single one

Eulogy2
01-07-2009, 17:32
A is correct, as per what rtunian has said. you cant just violate the 1 inch rule. if theres not enough room than thats an error by your opponent and the fanatic then travels through the rear unit and is placed one inch behind them causing hits all the way.

Da GoBBo
01-07-2009, 17:56
There is no rule supporting that.

rtunian
01-07-2009, 18:02
There is no rule supporting that.

no rule supporting what?

Da GoBBo
01-07-2009, 18:08
No rule supporting a fanatic counts as having hit the unit if it ends up within 1".

edit: What it does say is that units are halted at 1". This could mean the fanatic would be halted inside a unit? This would mean if enemy units are between 2 and 3 fanaticbases apart, the fanatic will be destroyed and the first unit will recieve 2d6 hits.

rtunian
01-07-2009, 18:44
no one is saying that a fanatic counts as hitting if it is within 1"

we are saying that the fanatic has to be at least 1" beyond the unit it goes through, as per the fanatic rules. if that 1" beyond puts it in another unit, then that next unit is hit

Da GoBBo
01-07-2009, 18:50
Ah, a misunderstanding. Also I now see my last post is nonsense anyway.

I think the OP is talking about the 1" rule in the brb while you are talking about the 1"rules for fanatics. This rule should abviously not be violated, but what about the brb-1"-rule? Say two units are 2,5" apart. There is room for the fanatic, but it can't be placed 1" behind unit one and stay 1" away from number 2" both at ones. Do you violate either of these rules? If so, I think it should be the fanatic 1"rule. This means the fanatic will be placed 0,5" behind unit 1. Why? fanatic rule says "go there", at that moment brb-rule says "no, you stay right there" and therefor overrules. Yes, I think that should be it.

Urgat
01-07-2009, 20:13
edit: What it does say is that units are halted at 1". This could mean the fanatic would be halted inside a unit? This would mean if enemy units are between 2 and 3 fanaticbases apart, the fanatic will be destroyed and the first unit will recieve 2d6 hits.

No, fanatics are destroyed when a unit moves on top of them, never the other way around (apart from other fanatics and probably a couple things out of the ordinary).

Hulkster
01-07-2009, 22:30
A is the correct answer

it is part of what makes them so deadly

rtunian
01-07-2009, 22:38
Say two units are 2,5" apart. There is room for the fanatic, but it can't be placed 1" behind unit one and stay 1" away from number 2" both at ones. Do you violate either of these rules? If so, I think it should be the fanatic 1"rule. This means the fanatic will be placed 0,5" behind unit 1. Why? fanatic rule says "go there", at that moment brb-rule says "no, you stay right there" and therefor overrules. Yes, I think that should be it.

generally, army book special rules override basic rules, not the other way around

jrodrag
01-07-2009, 23:34
A is definatly correct and is used by many O&G players to insure that thier fanatics make it no matter what they roll. Just take a throw away unit, fast cav works best or cheap unit of gobbos but harder to maneuver, and place it in a line 1" away from the unit you want to hit. Then toss the fanatic out in the direction of the throw away unit and watch your fanatic sail through that unit and through the target unit even though you rolled a 3. The tactic may not always be applicable but it does often work.

hardygun
02-07-2009, 15:38
Thanks for all of the responses. We'll go with A from now on. It would have been so nice if GW had considered target units being close together when writing the fanatic rule.:rolleyes:

Milgram
02-07-2009, 17:38
they did consider that. it is intended like this and the wording is pretty solid - considering all the other bad wordings in the o&g book. :)