PDA

View Full Version : Impact hits and shields



gaiaterra
16-08-2009, 18:59
If a unit is armed with hand weapon and shield and is charged in the front by a chariot and takes wounds from the impact hits does it benefit from the extra +1 that the hand weapon and shield provide in close combat as although the impact hits are not attacks they do take place in the Close Combat phase?

The group I game with are divided on this and we usually roll off for it, but I am planing on taking part in the Gauntlet come November so would like to now the right solution.

Atrahasis
16-08-2009, 19:33
Yes, they're hits inflicted in close combat and so benefit from the appropriate close combat bonuses.

Ronny
16-08-2009, 19:42
I say no, if you see the rule book p56 it says:

Fighting with hand weapon and shield.

This only applies in close combat, not against wounds sufferd from shooting, magic, or other means.

Also on p63 Impact Hits
Impact Hits against a unit of troops are distributed like shooting.

PS this was in the smal skull pass rule book.

Condottiere
16-08-2009, 19:50
Interesting - I know some who have argued that HW&S bonus works against impact hits.

Guard of Itza
16-08-2009, 19:50
Distributed like shooting and shooting attacks are different. Distributed like shooting only means that it is randomized on mixed type units, monstrous mounts, and units with characters and less that US 5. It happens in combat and in the combat phase, you get your shield and hand weapon bonus.

willowdark
16-08-2009, 20:02
Impact hits happen at the beginning of the CC phase before attacks. It's not a separate phase, it just happens first. HW+Sh applies in the CC phase only, but that's when impact hits happen, so it applies.

Drachen_Jager
16-08-2009, 22:51
If anyone wants to argue that impact hits are not Close Combat and therefore the shield doesn't count has to take into account that if they're NOT CC hits they don't count towards combat resolution. Think it through before you take that stance.

Kalandros
17-08-2009, 00:40
Distributed as Shooting is a Method of distribution, not actual "wounds from shooting" and the chariot does its impact in the close combat phase, thus HW&Shield bonus works.

Milgram
17-08-2009, 08:56
funny thing. if you would argue that it actually 'is' shooting, then everything else that applies to shooting would apply to impact hits as well. special armour/ward saves (lion cloak). and you could not use it when in close combat. uhm... no, it is not shooting

as above, it is only distributed

Lordy
17-08-2009, 09:31
I don't know the the answer to the question but Hand Weapon + Shield wouldn't give you any benefit vs a charging Chariot. Really it was just a bonus you would have gotten from being able to parry the sword/weapon of your opponent. It's just another poorly written rule from GW imo.

My club plays it as though you don't get the bonus vs impact hits and we will carry on doing so, maybe wrong though.

The Red Scourge
17-08-2009, 10:04
No lordy. It is not a bonus you get from being able to parry sword/beak/pincer/cutlery and/or broomsticks. Its a bonus you get from being equipped with hand weapon and shield against close combat attacks to the front of your units.

If you want to negate it, you need to charge the flank/rear.

Necromancy Black
17-08-2009, 11:54
My club plays it as though you don't get the bonus vs impact hits and we will carry on doing so, maybe wrong though.

Completely wrong ;)

Lordy
17-08-2009, 12:20
I never said it was right, it's the way we want to play it and the way we will continue to play it, we cannot in any way vision how having a sword would benefit you when being charged by a chariot.

And the wording of the rule "and by other means" is what we play on, i don't think the rule is as clear cut as you think it is but that's just my opinion :)

Thinking about it the sword would probably be more of a hindrance, if something is charging you then you would immediately put all your weight and both arms behind the shield to soak up the incoming impact as much as possible.

Necromancy Black
17-08-2009, 12:29
And the wording of the rule "and by other means" is what we play on, i don't think the rule is as clear cut as you think it is but that's just my opinion :)

Well it's definitely a close combat attack, and it even says in the impact hit rules "Like other casualties of close combat, models killed...".

and as other's said, if you don't count it as close combat then it can open up a can of worms on what kind of items gives what bonus's against it.

For me I always laugh when someone tries to make an argument on logic or what would happen in real life. Lets say they see the chariot coming, crouch down, wedge the sword between their shield and the ground and brace themselves.

Doesn't sound practical, but then your playing a game with giant frogs, elves and magic :p But meh, play it how you want. I do say that the rule is much clearer then you think it is. It's a bonus in close combat and impact hits are in clsoe combat.

Lordy
17-08-2009, 12:36
I don't agree but that's what forums are for! :)

Milgram
17-08-2009, 13:09
first: in reality, chariots don't do impact hits. look at it: what part of the chariot does impact hits? that skinny pole between the horses? well... it makes about as much sense for chariots to do impact hits as it does for cavalry not to do.
second: in reality, chariots were not supposed to crush into units. they were mobile archer platforms and vehicles for parade and transportation on the battlefield for nobles.
third: in reality, if something that works like a chariot in warhammer (i.e. rolls in your direction and is about to crush into you and your commrades - let's call it a 'tank' or a 'chariot with a front mounted plow'), you don't duck in cover behind your shield, but you do a step to the left and let that thing pass. so yeah, the shield won't be of any use then. so no shields at all against chariots?

rtunian
17-08-2009, 14:10
yeah chariot mechanics are a real leap of faith to begin with
and i don't mean grease monkeys

Mercules
17-08-2009, 14:19
...we cannot in any way vision how having a sword would benefit you when being charged by a chariot.

But chariots get an extra impact hit from being "Bladed", yes? Perchance the bladed part when parried pushes you out of the way?

Lordy
17-08-2009, 14:37
first: in reality, chariots don't do impact hits. look at it: what part of the chariot does impact hits? that skinny pole between the horses? well... it makes about as much sense for chariots to do impact hits as it does for cavalry not to do.
second: in reality, chariots were not supposed to crush into units. they were mobile archer platforms and vehicles for parade and transportation on the battlefield for nobles.
third: in reality, if something that works like a chariot in warhammer (i.e. rolls in your direction and is about to crush into you and your commrades - let's call it a 'tank' or a 'chariot with a front mounted plow'), you don't duck in cover behind your shield, but you do a step to the left and let that thing pass. so yeah, the shield won't be of any use then. so no shields at all against chariots?

Yah good luck "stepping aside" of 2 35 mph 20 stone beasts that has blades on both sides of it while your in the middle of a regiment. :D

Look i repeatadly said i'm not saying im right, just the way we view chariots in Warhammer. No hand weapon+shield bonus, if you don't agree that's fine but i don't need a 10 line sarcy just because you disagree!

rtunian
17-08-2009, 14:45
Yah good luck "stepping aside" of 2 35 mph 20 stone beasts that has blades on both sides of it while your in the middle of a regiment. :D

Look i repeatadly said i'm not saying im right, just the way we view chariots in Warhammer. No hand weapon+shield bonus, if you don't agree that's fine but i don't need a 10 line sarcy just because you disagree!

lordy, you already know and admitted that you are playing it wrong. you already said that your group house rules it a certain way.

why do you feel like you have to keep explaining yourself?

other people have just as much a right to disagree with you and your interpretation as you have to have your own interpretation. so... you don't need to take it as a personal attack and defend yourself every time someone posts a contrary opinion.

Lordy
17-08-2009, 14:52
I havn't said i admitted i was wrong, i just said i don't know what the correct answer was, the rules we feel were unclear (so do others by the looks of this thread) enough for us to make a house rule.

But yeah your right, i will just stay out of this thread! Far too serious.

Mercules
17-08-2009, 15:30
Yah good luck "stepping aside" of 2 35 mph 20 stone beasts that has blades on both sides of it while your in the middle of a regiment. :D

Look i repeatadly said i'm not saying im right, just the way we view chariots in Warhammer. No hand weapon+shield bonus, if you don't agree that's fine but i don't need a 10 line sarcy just because you disagree!

You are speaking of the Chariot that decides to come to a complete halt when it hits a unit, exchange blows with it, and only keep moving if it happens to break said unit? Otherwise it just sits there not moving? :D

EvC
17-08-2009, 16:00
I have to say, Lordy's stance is so ridiculous it truly does deserve a good half dozen people mocking it (whilst also taking the time to refute it for making no sense, either according to the rules, or internally by its own logic). Good work people, keep it up :D

Condottiere
17-08-2009, 16:05
Once you have really disciplined infantry that can perform formation changes, chariots just aren't viable anymore.

They should be like NG Fanatics, and if they don't get through, they get mobbed.

EvC
17-08-2009, 16:14
In terms of warhammer though, you have to wonder why the Empire got rid of all their chariots. The two most powerful units in their entire arsenal are the War Altar and Steam Tank, both impact-dealers. The only reason why chariots aren't so good vs Empire is cos of cannons, but even then they aren't so common. Bring back the Celt style charioteers of the tribesmen from Sigmar's time, I say!

Condottiere
17-08-2009, 16:23
It should be remembered, the Empire have cannon, most others do not - chariots would be a really viable unit under WHFB rules for the Empire.

EvC
17-08-2009, 16:28
Indeed, if it weren't for the fact that Empire probably battle amongst themselves more than any other single race, then maybe they'd still have chariots in regular service... but their own military advances made their chariot obsolete. Heh.

Condottiere
17-08-2009, 16:33
They even got rid of the War Wagon, which I actually thought was more appropriate than the steam tank.

spetswalshe
17-08-2009, 17:12
I always thought HW&S bonus represented being able to use a shield properly, rather than the focus being on the hand weapon. Yeah, a sword could parry but I think a pick, hammer or axe might struggle. I figured it just showed the ease of use of a shield alongside a HW as opposed to with a spear or halberd, what with the ability to shield and dodge at the same time. You'd have a lot less control if you were messing around with a two handed weapon. Hence, impact hits would still get the bonus - you're still going to hold the shield between you and the horse/blade/pole, but you'll probably have a decent chance to dive out of the way at the same time.

nosferatu1001
17-08-2009, 17:45
Chariots would also charge into units and turn at the last moment, letting their scythed wheels kneecap the front lot of people. They just werent common or very effective at it...I presume this is where the impact hits come from, an abstraction of the chariot hitting and running - which would make them a little too broken in fantasy if they could do so, as well as adding in a whole load of complexity.

Agreed in the absurd argument as well - definitely deserved the responses! When you're told its a CC attack you should use all the rules for CC....

Milgram
17-08-2009, 18:00
Chariots would also charge into units and turn at the last moment,

they did not have handbreaks... chariots ary anything but agile when it comes to the real world. they can't just pivot on the spot. :)

the only thing I could imgagine would be a combined attack together with regular cavalry. going straight through the enemy lines (which step aside) and then attack the evading enemies with spears and scythes. but... probably only happened a few times in the long history of 'civilisation'.

nosferatu1001
17-08-2009, 18:15
They could turn quite quickly, just the turn started further away.

Anyways, this is a little away from the thread....!

Drachen_Jager
17-08-2009, 18:42
I don't know about the lack of "realism" behind HW&S bonus having never been personally charged by a chariot enough times and with enough different weapon combos to really say from actual experience, but it seems to me that if you have an easier weapon/shield combo to brace for impact you're more likely to just be knocked back, rather than killed, by the chariot as you can brace your shield more effectively for the impact.

If it helps, try to imagine falling out of a tree, now imagine falling out of a tree with only one hand to brace for the impact, which would hurt more?

Milgram
17-08-2009, 19:05
uhm... assuming it is a 'citytree' without massive roots looking out and rocks laying all around, I think I'd prefer falling out of a tree without heavy armour and shield. and definitely without a unsheathed sword. or a spiked club. or a barbed wire club. :)

Drachen_Jager
17-08-2009, 19:37
Yeah it's an analogy Milgram, but if you want to go fall out of an actual tree with a Halberd and shield and then fall out with a hand weapon and shield and get back to us on those results that's fine by me...

Are you saying that a "rural" tree would be more fun to fall out of while encumbered by full combat gear?

The point is, with two hands (or one and a half because you don't have FULL use of your sword hand the shield I suppose) to brace you'd likely take less damage, which should be obvious, apparently it's not that obvious to Lordy and his compatriots.

Milgram
17-08-2009, 20:14
if your falling to flat ground, probably covered by short grass, then you have no rough edges that you get bruises from or could squish your neck on. if you fall then on a shield, you have nasty uneven parts and the full metal armour culd be scrunched and give you violent pressures. and you will fall harder due to higher mass.

a 'shrubbery' tree may have roots and rocks looking out of the ground that could seriously hurt you when falling down upon them. well, now a shield below you could come in handy. a shield upon you is still usesless as heavy goblin cavalry. as long as no one jumps from the tree after you in a leg drop attempt. also the heavy armour is probably not as bad here - though medium/light armour would probably be better as it can not be scrunched. while protecting your skin/bones partially.

I will not try this by myself. even I know that this is too dangerous to do by your self.

I will try this with my neighbor. he is resistant to pain. pothead.

rtunian
17-08-2009, 20:16
trying to create an analogy for a game mechanic is an exercise in futility. the game neither accurately reflects reality, nor takes real world physics into account. it's the same reason that "common sense" rarely meshes with warhammer rules.

for one, your weight affects the force with which you hit the ground. assuming the ground is normal, and not some bed of spikes or hot coals, you would be much better off naked than carrying any equipment, especially wearing heavy armor and shield, which could also potentially damage you, depending on how you land.

to the contrary, against a warhammer chariot, it makes no difference if you are naked, wearing light armor and shield, or heavy armor. it only makes a difference if you are wearing heavy armor and shield, because high strength hits negate armor. most chariots deal s5 impact hits, so 5+ AS is negated entirely.

Milgram
18-08-2009, 06:23
wearing light armor and shield

möp - this goes to 4+ with a handweapon. :)

Drachen_Jager
19-08-2009, 05:23
You guys are spending waaay too much time thinking about this. Rtunian especially.

Rule is fine, does not interfere with play mechanics game balance or fun.
= Rule is a good rule.

Rule correctly interprets "reality" into a wargame system with Dragons and Magic.
= Rule may or may not be a good rule, if we tried to be "real" about everything the game would suck. And it would be annoying to have to rebuild and re-paint my models every time they were hacked to bits.

Condottiere
19-08-2009, 05:36
I think most impact hits are at strength 5, so in most cases HW&S would allow an attempt at an AS throw.

rtunian
19-08-2009, 13:59
you're the one trying to use the real world to explain warhammer drachen. not me
i'm the one laughing about how ridiculous that is.

Zilverug
19-08-2009, 15:19
you're the one trying to use the real world to explain warhammer drachen. not me

Actually, you both did.

Midevil216
19-08-2009, 15:31
I would say as long as you get hit in the front you can use the HW/Shield bonus.

Drachen_Jager
19-08-2009, 16:07
rtunian: Maybe you didn't read very clearly. I wasn't trying to use the real world to explain Warhammer, I was simply saying that in this instance the ruling actually has some grounding in reality and that Lordy was out to lunch saying otherwise. You have it backwards I think.

But taking half a page to put your point out there is still spending waaaay too much time on the problem...

rtunian
19-08-2009, 21:23
that's just like, your opinion, man :p

Milgram
20-08-2009, 06:23
weeee, a dude quote! :)

Kayosiv
20-08-2009, 23:51
Let's work with what we got. Here is the segment of "fighting with hand weapon and shield (infantry)."

"If a warrior on foot fights with a hand weapon and shield, he may increase his armour save by a further +1 in close combat against enemies fighting from his front. So, for example, if he has a shield, light armor, and a sword, his armour save is increased from 5+ to 4+ when fighting in close combat.

This only applies in close combat, not against wounds suffered from shooting, magic, or other means."

Since a chariot's impact hits are resolved at the beginning of close combat, you can't really argue that they don't count as close combat attacks (although ones that are distributed like shooting hits) from the chariot.

The only real arguement that you could come up with is that the impact hits fall into the "or other means" category of things that you don't get the parry bonus for. It is not clear whether this is the case or not, so I would assume since it is not mentioned anywhere else, that it is not the case and models on foot with sword/shield do benefit from the parry bonus of +1 armor from impact hits, if they are charged from the front.

The far fetched arguement is that the chariot is not "fighting" when it lands its impact hits, and models only receive a parry bonus "when fighting in close combat." This strikes me just as asthetic word choice and not really any grounds for a rules debate though.

Necromancy Black
21-08-2009, 00:08
The rules for impact hits say that like other close combat casualties, models removed count towards CR. The wording of this part (I haven't used the exact one here!) seems to indicate it is a close combat attack and not some other means.