PDA

View Full Version : the 'slide" to max fighting models in CC?



rocdocta
25-08-2009, 01:34
In fantasy, i have always played it as:

1. you charge and touch the enemy unit.
2. free wheel to engage applicable side
3. "slide" the charging unit along to maximise all models. this is prevent clipping.

Now i cant find supporting evidence for this but i am very sure it is the way to do it. However i dont do 3. for an over run move.

it has been made apparent to me that action 3. may not exist. Have i been doing this all wrong?! or is this the way that you play.

cheers

Caiphas Cain
25-08-2009, 01:42
Thats what I do, and no one has corrected me, so I assume that it's correct.

Urgat
25-08-2009, 01:44
That sliding rule does not exist, it's a house rule. For some reason people seem to think it's a legal move, but it's not. Some people claim it's only logical, make things simpler, etc etc. Fair enough. Then I saw some guy try to pull one of his opponent's units out of cover doing that, and when the other player refused to, he was accused of cheating because the other player was convinced it was an existing rule. Since then, I'm totally against sliding, every time, no exception. It's not in the rules, it can be abused, so no dice. Clipping might suck, but abusing a rule that doesn't exist is way worse, imho.

Nurgling Chieftain
25-08-2009, 01:49
Possibly the world's most common blatant house rule. I really don't see how it can be abused in the fashion Urgat described, whereas clipping is pretty easily abusable.

Bac5665
25-08-2009, 02:01
1. Sliding is not legal. It is not in the rules, thus not a part of a game unless otherwise agreed too.

2. Sliding is just as abusable as clipping is. Clipping is "abused" when someone charges 1 unit and maximizes in such a way as to, if it wins combat and pursues or overruns, will hit another unit it wouldn't be in line to hit before. Sliding can be used in the same way. The abuse comes from using the combat alignment rules (whether sliding or not) to move your unit into a better position. Sliding is a free move as much as tactical clipping is. Anyone looking to avoid such game play (which I think is silly, since the tactical movement phase is the best part of fantasy) needs to find a different solution than sliding.

Nurgling Chieftain
25-08-2009, 02:04
Your "2" is completely wrong. No entirely compulsive movement is "abusable" by setting up charge paths, that doesn't make any sense at all. The abuse of clipping is in denying the vast majority of attacks of a powerful unit. The abuse of "sliding" Urgat cited was in drawing units out of cover - but that doesn't make any sense when its the chargers who're sliding.

Anyway, if you're going to use sliding it should be agreed to before the game begins and used consistently throughout.

Necromancy Black
25-08-2009, 02:19
Your "2" is completely wrong. No entirely compulsive movement is "abusable" by setting up charge paths, that doesn't make any sense at all. The abuse of clipping is in denying the vast majority of attacks of a powerful unit. The abuse of "sliding" Urgat cited was in drawing units out of cover - but that doesn't make any sense when its the chargers who're sliding.

What about the chargers sliding over to deny another front on charge by a much stronger unit or to slide over so that any overrun or pursue hits a vulnerable unit (warmachines, heirophant, etc)?

Both are abusable, but only one is actually part of rule.

Havock
25-08-2009, 02:26
There's no rule, only a suggestion from GW on how to 'play' it. Even so, these situations are fairly rare. I mostly play it that the initial attack/charge does not slide, This is not 40k. In the subsequent movement, you move them together. " drawn into combat" so to speak.

Just thught of another option: After determining combat result but without either side running away, the winner can opt to maximise the fighting ranks just like the 'turn to face attacker' option you have when flank charged (but won, somehow)

Nurgling Chieftain
25-08-2009, 02:43
What about the chargers sliding over to deny another front on charge by a much stronger unit or to slide over so that any overrun or pursue hits a vulnerable unit (warmachines, heirophant, etc)?Remember that sliding is not voluntary when used. Those sorts of things would have effectively been set up by the other person. As sliding is an obvious consequence and clipping is frequently not an obvious consequence, I would say that sliding is actually much easier to account for. I would not count them as any sort of abuse at all; indeed, the clipping equivalent of setting up a situation where your unit, if charged, gets clipped and thereby opens up a charge arc for another unit strikes me as the abuse.

Clipping is FAR more abusable than sliding.


Even so, these situations are fairly rare.I dunno, man, in my experience they're dirt common. It comes up at least once every game I've played and usually several times.


Just thught of another option: After determining combat result but without either side running away, the winner can opt to maximise the fighting ranks just like the 'turn to face attacker' option you have when flank charged (but won, somehow)That would certainly be an improvement (I would totally accept that as a substitute for sliding), though I'd also like to see some more options for the loser, albeit not as good as the winner's. Seriously, battle lines are too static in WFB. "Ooops, one guy is fighting an enemy, TOTAL UNIT PARALYSIS!"

Lord Inquisitor
25-08-2009, 02:45
That's the thing- while it was never an official rule, the have been official GW FAQs that recommend that it be played this way.

I'm hoping next edition might actually deal with clipping once and for all. I can think of five ways to eliminate the evil of clipping from the game but the designers seem to just ignore these problems which leads to this sort of confusion.

Tuch
25-08-2009, 03:10
We always slide the attackers but only to maximize models, which is what I thought the rules say to do.

Drachen_Jager
25-08-2009, 03:23
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m470856_Warhammer_FAQ_2008-02_Edition.pdf

Second to last page.

Urgat
25-08-2009, 05:16
Possibly the world's most common blatant house rule. I really don't see how it can be abused in the fashion Urgat described, whereas clipping is pretty easily abusable.

Target unit was behind a building save for a corner, well out of LoS of artillery, iirc. Got charged by a light cavalry unit, the sacrifiable kind, which could not slide because the building was in the way, so he wanted the targeted unit to slide instead, win combat, crush the light cav and then say hello to a whole gunline.
Anyway, regardless of how common a houserule it is, it remains a houserule, you cannot enforce it.

Condottiere
25-08-2009, 05:23
The rules don't cover every conceivable situation.

That unit may have been dug in, in which case it wouldn't have maximized it's frontage but bunkered down.

The sliding rule is a convenience to help gameplay along.

Drachen_Jager
25-08-2009, 06:15
Anyway, regardless of how common a houserule it is, it remains a houserule, you cannot enforce it.

You can't enforce any rule in Warhammer except through violence or refusing to play, so that doesn't make any sense. But if we can't agree to a common set of conventions we're 6 year old kids going, "Bang! You're dead!", "No I'm not, I got you first!" So unless there is a house rule otherwise people should be using the Errata, or at least trying to find a reasonable solution that both parties can agree on.

Hardly the grown-up way to solve problems.

When someone's trying to obviously abuse the rule to create an advantageous situation then of course the person on the receiving end has a choice, but otherwise it's just bad sportsmanship and against the spirit of the game.

rocdocta
25-08-2009, 07:17
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m470856_Warhammer_FAQ_2008-02_Edition.pdf

Second to last page.

Ah ha!! thanks for that! i thought that i saw it somewhere! thanks!

Necromancy Black
25-08-2009, 07:49
I don't agree with the FAQ's suggestions, mostly because in the case of Fig 2a the "clipping" charge seems 100% valid to me.

The chargers have done nothing wrong, they have brought the maximum number of models into base to base contact. In fact this is the same as with every example. The chargers haven't done something to make it so they've gotten less models in base to base, and by the same FAQ that's all you need to do with a charge.

If you don't like uneven units then the best house rule I've seen is that after the first round of combat, if neither side breaks, move each unit towards each other. I don't see the point of sliding during the charge and I know I for one could find a lot of ways to abuse it (oh look, my COR can just hit that unit. Better slide them over so I get my full attacks and a better overrun next turn.)

T10
25-08-2009, 08:26
Possibly the world's most common blatant house rule. I really don't see how it can be abused in the fashion Urgat described, whereas clipping is pretty easily abusable.

By "cover" I assume he meant "defended obstacle".

Sliding would tend to benefit the unit that has the best close combat ability. Clipping benefits the unit with the highest static combat resolution bonus.

Both can be "abusive," but the only legal option is clipping. And since you are required to maximise the number of models fighting you rarely have a choice in the matter.

-T10

Jushak
25-08-2009, 09:51
The slide is a house rule in our club, and I'm quite glad for it. I've yet to see anyone try to abuse it either, so I guess it just depends on what kind of people you play with.

If you bothered reading the FAQ, you'll also notice the part that clipping is "necessary evil" of RAW, use of sliding is something to "aspire to". Of course abusing it is whole another thing.

I am a bit curious though, just how was it possible to slide the unit to LOS by charging them? Seems quite farfetched to me. At least where I play it's the attackers that are mostly slid - although this obviously depends on situation.

Acidburns
25-08-2009, 10:10
We play it so that the attackers unit always slides if possible. If there is something in the way so that sliding the attacker is not possible, the defender may voluntary slide, or alternatively choose to play it like it is. This stops people being drawn out of cover etc.

The Red Scourge
25-08-2009, 13:10
The official GW ruling is to "just fudge it" as per the second FAQ.

EvC
25-08-2009, 13:24
Clipping is the correct way to play it, sliding is a suggestion if both players agree with it. The official ruling is not to fudge it- it's a suggestion, nothing more. However sliding is totally abusable, anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't have enough imagination or experience to understand how. Here's a couple of real-game examples:

1) Two Skeleton units are near to each other as a battle line, a couple of inches apart. A unit of Furies and Beasts of Nurgle charge the left Skeletons. To "maximise" the combat the Beasts are slid several inches right, even though they don't have the room to wheel. After destroying the unit handily, the Beasts overrun and hit the right hand unit. Another massive free slide later, the Beasts are in full contact with another easily defeated unit, and out of position for the counter-charges that had been set up. The Daemon player could even have claimed the Beasts were in the flank arc of the Skeletons owing to the slide as well.

2) A unit of Stormvermin and Rat Ogres stand side-by-side in front of a unit of High Elf Swordmasters who are mostly flush with the Rat Ogres and corner-to-corner with the Stormvermin; if the Rat Ogres charged, they will be annihilated by the ASF. So the Stormvermin charge instead. Now, the options here are to slide the Stormvermin, but the Rat Ogres are in the way and they won't be able to charge later on if they do that. Or the Swordmasters could slide, but then that would mean that they get drawn away from a flanking unit that would charge them next turn. Or the units just clip. The Swordmasters will lose due to static CR, sure... but what's wrong with that?

Basically, whenever you slide a unit, someone is getting an advantage that they haven't worked for, no matter how small. In addition on account of it not being an actual rule, there is no guide for it, so no two players can go into a game knowing how it would be implemented, unless you house rule it extensively. But having said that- I would prefer to play with limited sliding, if there were rules included for it.

The Red Scourge
25-08-2009, 13:33
Basically, whenever you slide a unit, someone is getting an advantage that they haven't worked for, no matter how small. In addition on account of it not being an actual rule, there is no guide for it, so no two players can go into a game knowing how it would be implemented, unless you house rule it extensively. But having said that- I would prefer to play with limited sliding, if there were rules included for it.

And whenever you clip, someone gets an advantage because of a rules technicality, and this being a game where a man has 20 mm square feet :rolleyes:

Both approaches are abusive, I prefer sliding though, as the game is based on two types of units, those who generate CR by killing other troops, and those who generate CR by numbers and formation, and clipping seriously screws with the idea behind that base game mechanic :)

EvC
25-08-2009, 13:53
That's rather spurious though, because rules are rules, and of course people can use the rules to their advantage- that doesn't make them bad. But if you charge someone and expect a few inches of absolutely free movement to be gifted to you to slide, then you are abusing the rules and getting something for nothing. In that case, you should be repositioning your unit for a better charge in the next turn- it's called tactics! Insisiting on sliding is little better than measuring a charge, seeing you're a quarter of an inch out and then brow-beating your opponent into letting you have the charge anyway (Of course if both players are happy to play it like that- no problem).

The only time I otally dislike clipping is when it is intentionally abused (Because it too is possible), like putting a weak unit at a dodgy angle that will minimise attacks, or putting your units in place to ensure a compulsory charge (Frenzy, Siren Song etc.) results in a clip.

The Red Scourge
25-08-2009, 14:00
I guess, you're in favor of congalines and other rule oddities too then?:rolleyes:

As already stated, both clipping and sliding have potential for abuse, so they're equally bad. Clipping though messes with the basic premise for determining the winner of the combat, and thats why clipping is the poorer choice.

Also I have trouble envisioning a regiment charging towards the enemy only to have two men duking it out, while the rest takes a well earned break, telling jokes, smoking cigarettes and wondering whats for dinner ;)

EDIT: I just thought of a hilarious example on clipping, where a unit charges a 7 wide formation of HE spears, the poor guy on the corner ends up being the target of no less than 15 HE spears, and some of those spears are more than 6 man high :D

theunwantedbeing
25-08-2009, 14:03
Clipping and Sliding are a result of the same thing happening.
As a result, if one is abusable, the other is equally abusable.

I prefer to just plain deny a charge from being allowed than let it get to a point where clipping/sliding happens.
Then no advantage can be gained either way through abuse.
I prefer not to abuse the rules too much, the game gets a little too silly otherwise.

It would be interesting to see how allowing formation changes during a charge to prevent clipping from ocurring and at least go some way to maximising contact between units, rather than have the sliding mechanic in play.
eg.
Units that charge can choose to expand their frontage against the enemy exactly as if they had just won a round of combat against them as part of their 'free' alignment move once contact has been made.

Condottiere
25-08-2009, 14:15
One obvious way to abuse clipping has always been a charge by a chariot or a large monster at a corner - the chances are fairly good that there would be no-one to strike back.

EvC
25-08-2009, 14:16
That's how people did it in 6th edition Condo, but is not possible now as the charger must maximise if possible.


I guess, you're in favor of congalines and other rule oddities too then?:rolleyes:

I'm in favour of arguing that they're the actual rules, though I'm not in favour of people abusing them in-game.


As already stated, both clipping and sliding have potential for abuse, so they're equally bad.

Are you serious? You can use that premise to say they're both bad, but not both equally bad. Basic logic!! (tUB also messed this up horribly :( )


Clipping though messes with the basic premise for determining the winner of the combat, and thats why clipping is the poorer choice.

The basic method of determining the winner also lies in players positioning their troops in advance, setting traps and the like.


Also I have trouble envisioning a regiment charging towards the enemy only to have two men duking it out, while the rest takes a well earned break, telling jokes, smoking cigarettes and wondering whats for dinner ;)

Funny, this. So if you have a unit of 40 Clanrats fighting a unit of 40 Goblins, and there's 35 on each side taking a well-earned break, telling jokes, smoking ciggies and wondering about dinner, then that's perfectly feasible- but if it were 39 models on each side, that's just ridiculous, eh? ;)

To be honest, I think that the superior resolution would simply be that all models in the fighting rank can always fight. So if you have one model from each unit clipped corner-to-corner, then rather than sliding over one unit and giving someone something for nothing, then both sides roll their attacks as normal as if they were fighting flush. Something for 8th edition maybe...

theunwantedbeing
25-08-2009, 14:21
To be honest, I think that the superior resolution would simply be that all models in the fighting rank can always fight. So if you have one model from each unit clipped corner-to-corner, then rather than sliding over one unit and giving someone something for nothing, then both sides roll their attacks as normal as if they were fighting flush. Something for 8th edition maybe...

It's certainly a good dumbing down of the rules.
Although open to abuse itself.

My unit of 43 models wide, meaning I get 43 attacks :D
*evil laugh*
Oh and they are high elf white lions who get asf and st6

Although any rule is open to abuse unless you dumb it down so much you end out with snakes & ladders.

Condottiere
25-08-2009, 15:04
Chess references get deleted.

Maybe something is missing in the dynamics - skirmishers maximize their frontage automatically, insofar as the models are in range.

Maybe shift the units 50% towards each other so that half the models are in contact.

nosferatu1001
25-08-2009, 15:07
Sliding messes more with the most important phase - movement - of the game than clipping does (by definition!) and so is the poorer choice.

I hate sliding and so always say this at the start. In any tournament my expectation would be no sliding unless it was in the tournament pack, as it is in the appendix as a suggestion - what people also miss is that in that suggested way of playing you should also allow charges if they are only just out, and also units that end up close to the charging units shoudl also be drawn into the combat. It may make for a more cinematic game, but messes around too much with the other mechanics of the game for my liking.

EvC
25-08-2009, 15:30
It's certainly a good dumbing down of the rules.
Although open to abuse itself.

My unit of 43 models wide, meaning I get 43 attacks :D
*evil laugh*
Oh and they are high elf white lions who get asf and st6

Well as noted it would simply be as if the units had been slid in, without actually sliding them- so if it was a 5-wide unit, it'd be 7 White Lions attacking. Which is what the pro-sliders would want be done anyway, just without messing with the positioning of the units.

I think I just hate sliding because I play a very precise game and don't like seeing other peoples' sloppy play rewarded!

Bac5665
25-08-2009, 15:31
As I said, the people who don't think sliding can be abused are simply people who WONT abuse a rule they think is bad. Thus, I assume none of you would use clipping abusively either, so just go ahead and play the game right rather than having an unnecessary house rule.

If everyone agrees with sliding fine, whatever, but if the idea is to make the game better, I strongly urge you to TRY the game without sliding and see what happens.


I think I just hate sliding because I play a very precise game and don't like seeing other peoples' sloppy play rewarded!

Amen to this. To me, Warhammer is all about the precision of the movement phase. I love getting a key flank charge by having perfectly positioned my unit so that its in by less than an inch, and taking my opponent off guard. I love positioning traps and no win situations for my opponent, just like a "real" war commander would do. The precision is the best part of the game, and I hate anything that gets rid of it.

Adran
25-08-2009, 15:39
I guess, you're in favor of congalines and other rule oddities too then?:rolleyes:

As already stated, both clipping and sliding have potential for abuse, so they're equally bad. Clipping though messes with the basic premise for determining the winner of the combat, and thats why clipping is the poorer choice.

Also I have trouble envisioning a regiment charging towards the enemy only to have two men duking it out, while the rest takes a well earned break, telling jokes, smoking cigarettes and wondering whats for dinner ;)


Clipping maybe the poorer choice in your eyes, but it isn't the one actually supported by the rules. The current rules do their best to minimise clipping abuse. Sure, its still possible, but how to deal with it is covered in the rule book. Sliding is not covered in the rule book, there are no rules of how far to slide, sliding to reach characters, sliding to avoid characters.

Whilst I've no objection to sliding in friendly games as there are times it makes sense, its not always the case.

If not everyone can reach the fight, then not everyone fights.

shartmatau
25-08-2009, 15:39
At my store we generally play with sliding. It doesnt happen very often and when it does its usually small, mainly because the charging rules force you to align your charge movement center to center. Sliding or clipping shouldnt be happening 'frequently' unless your moving your charges incorrectly. That said, it does happen sometimes.

The best reason to support sliding and not clipping is simple. This is a game and the game is more fun when more guys are fighting. I've seen far more abuse of clipping, as a means to avoid fighting characters or strong units. Which is what happens. The odd charge that clips is insignificant, its when players deliberately set up obtuse charges to clip an enemy when a problem occurs.
As a result we generally feel that sliding and more guys fighting is what the game needs instead of setting up obscure clipping charges.

willowdark
25-08-2009, 16:09
Personally, I'd be in favor of a rule that said frontal charges resulting in less than a certain percentage making contact automatically result in flank charges. Simple, if you clip, you swing around to the flank. Or maybe a version of lapping around to maximize combatants without breaking ranks, for fairness.

Both clipping and sliding are caused by sloppy play, but sliding forgives it, and therefore encourages it.

Unit charging from poor angles can't make clean contact. That's reasonable, and encourages players not to take charges that aren't cleanly lined up. Mosters and Chariots are single models so should be free to clip if maximizing isn't possible, and ranked infantry would still lend its weight and heraldry to the fight regardless of the amount of models in base contact.

The problem is that sliding ruins the suspension of disbelief. Units should travel along a traceable straight line, bending only for wheeling and formation changes or pivots which has been accounted for during movement. Sliding units travel along the battlefield in an unrealistic manner. They don't end up in a place where normal movement could naturally take them.

EvC
25-08-2009, 16:19
Good posts :)

One thing I always like to compare it to are the rules for skirmishers charging. If a skirmisher isn't in range when he charges- then he doesn't make it, and so he lines up behind his unit. So if you had 10 Wardancers charging a ranked unit, but only 1 was in range, you'd get a long conga line of Wardancers fighting the enemy (poorly). Would the pro-sliders then also request that all 10 Wardancers be allowed to fight, because it's more realistic?

willowdark
25-08-2009, 16:21
Thanks EvC. :)

shartmatau
25-08-2009, 16:38
EvC, who said anything about realism? I know I didn't.

I've heard from some who visit my regular store the same arguments for not sliding. To be honest they make sense. There isn't anything wrong playing right by the book and using clipping. As I mentioned, in general my store regulars feel sliding makes for a more enjoyable game.

As to your example of skirmishers, its not even the same issue. But if you happened to charge me and only one of your wardancers actually made contact, I'd be fine with letting you have a couple more of the dancers who were close to make contact. Because it would be more fun to have a real combat instead of to kill your dancers one at a time over the course of the whole game.

Please bear in mind that I'm not mentioning actual rules because we all know there arent any. There are snippets of intention but thats all we are working with. I keep my comments to how my group plays because its a house rule and should be considered such whenever discussed. There are merits to using sliding and for not.

The Red Scourge
25-08-2009, 16:49
Please bear in mind that I'm not mentioning actual rules because we all know there arent any. There are snippets of intention but thats all we are working with.

So true. The in-depth rules are supposed to be found on the GW website according to the BRB, but that just happens to not be the case :p

But this discussion is running in circles, seems all we can conclude that clippers are clippers, and sliders are sliders and never the twin shall meet - not untill GW makes an 8th ed. ruleset anyway ;)

Bac5665
25-08-2009, 16:52
So true. The in-depth rules are supposed to be found on the GW website according to the BRB, but that just happens to not be the case :p

But this discussion is running in circles, seems all we can conclude that clippers are clippers, and sliders are sliders and never the twin shall meet - not untill GW makes an 8th ed. ruleset anyway ;)

8th wont solve anything. There will still be clipping and GW will "recommend" sliding as an alternative. Same as it was with 6th-to-7th.

EvC
25-08-2009, 17:00
EvC, who said anything about realism? I know I didn't.

Realism, fun, insert your own reasoning, as long as you're consistent I don't care.


As to your example of skirmishers, its not even the same issue.

No, it's not precisely the same, if it was, I'd just be repeating what sliding means, which wouldn't make for a very good analogy really ;) But it is the same concept, that one player should get more models into contact with the enemy despite them being out of range, and that the same player should gain a tangible benefit as a result.


But if you happened to charge me and only one of your wardancers actually made contact, I'd be fine with letting you have a couple more of the dancers who were close to make contact. Because it would be more fun to have a real combat instead of to kill your dancers one at a time over the course of the whole game.

Only a couple? If this were sliding, you'd let me have the whole unit. I want to roll 21-30 dice for attacks, it'd be far more fun (Well it would for me!), so why would you limit me to only 3 models? :cries: Not that it would really mean the combat only happens throughout the whole game anyway, at one point the Wardancers would break, or other units would get involved...

shartmatau
25-08-2009, 17:00
I would be all in favor of GW addressing this issue in the next edition. No matter how you play unless you mention it before the game you can't be sure how your opponent plays. Sliding happens to be a house rule that is used often, so its worth discussing this with people you play to avoid an argument during a game.

I think what we should be discussing is how the rules can be changed to find some middle ground between clipping and sliding. If I can think of anything (while attempting to not do my work) I'll post it here.
Cheers.

edit:
@ EvC, I say a couple because having your skirmishers who were close but not in contact is a fair middleground. Same as with sliding, I have never seen a unit have to move more than an inch or so to maximize # of models in contact. I feel your idea of sliding is assuming that the person is aiming charge as they were going to be clipping, then sliding a great deal to be maximized. Whereas my idea of sliding is your proper charge move got a good deal of models in contact, sliding slightly allows for actual maximized front.
My thoughts on this revolve around a fair exchange between both players.

EvC
25-08-2009, 17:02
I've already said my preferred solution- abstracted sliding so that an appropriate number of the fighting ranks of both units get to fight, without moving the units out of position.

shartmatau
25-08-2009, 17:11
I've already said my preferred solution- abstracted sliding so that an appropriate number of the fighting ranks of both units get to fight, without moving the units out of position.

We may be playing the same way. Without seeing you play it would be hard to say for sure, but it sounds that way.

Have any ideas for guidelines to be used in sliding/clipping. I certainly feel that there could be a mix of the two ideas.

One idea is that if your unit has leftover movement after making contact on the charge you can use that movement to slide for maximum frontage. This would allow only chargers to slide and only to gain maximum contact while still limiting it based on the movement capability of the charging unit.

Lord Inquisitor
25-08-2009, 18:56
Basically, whenever you slide a unit, someone is getting an advantage that they haven't worked for, no matter how small. In addition on account of it not being an actual rule, there is no guide for it, so no two players can go into a game knowing how it would be implemented, unless you house rule it extensively. But having said that- I would prefer to play with limited sliding, if there were rules included for it.
In these cases I would say if you have "fudged" the models by sliding, then it is gentlemanly to "fudge" the models back to their original position after combat is resolved should their new position grant some large advantage/disadvantage. But of course this relies on goodwill! You're completely right of course - even if GW printed an FAQ with a clearly stipulated "house rule" for sliding that detailed exactly how to do it - that way if both players agree, it isn't so much of a fudge.

Still, even in tournaments, I've on many occasions done the sliding "fudge". It works most of the time when the exact positions of the units are not critical to the outcome of the game.


To be honest, I think that the superior resolution would simply be that all models in the fighting rank can always fight. So if you have one model from each unit clipped corner-to-corner, then rather than sliding over one unit and giving someone something for nothing, then both sides roll their attacks as normal as if they were fighting flush. Something for 8th edition maybe...
I agree, that's my favourite solution too. Although there needs to be a caveat on this - say, all models on the front rank within 6" of the enemy or something like that, to prevent the genius with the 50-model unit in one rank. It might also allow the models in the side files to fight too (like Brettonian Lance formation, but for everyone).

There are plenty of options. An abstract number of models fighting (like buildings) or allowing models a number of base-widths away to fight or allowing units to reform or allowing the charged unit to "counter-charge" to move in or actually making sliding a rule under certain circumstances - the free "wheel in" is a rule that works just fine and allows for additional movement and causes no problems. A decent sliding rule would allow just this.


8th wont solve anything. There will still be clipping and GW will "recommend" sliding as an alternative. Same as it was with 6th-to-7th.
Sadly, I suspect you're right. I hope we're wrong. I just don't know why it wasn't resolved in 7th, it had been a clearly delineated problem for a long time prior to that.

Urgat
25-08-2009, 20:47
You can't enforce any rule in Warhammer except through violence or refusing to play, so that doesn't make any sense.

What the heck, that answer is just silly, what am I supposed to reply to that? By your logic, you can make up any rule. Any. This was ridiculous.


We play it so that the attackers unit always slides if possible. If there is something in the way so that sliding the attacker is not possible, the defender may voluntary slide, or alternatively choose to play it like it is. This stops people being drawn out of cover etc.

That's pretty cool too. So as a defender, you've just been charged by chaos warriors that can't slide, you decide to slide and therefore reduce the frontage available for those knights behind the warriors that want to charge come their next turn?
Bah.

My suggestion for 8th would be to add a new restriction to charges: a charge can't be done unless you can bring at least 50% of the unit with the smallest frontage in combat (smallest because otherwise very large unit couldn't charge units less than half as wide :p)

Da GoBBo
25-08-2009, 22:37
The sliding rule is a convenience to help gameplay along.

Convenience? :eyebrows: ... it's definitly different, let's just put it like that.

I never liked the sliding rule. In my opinion it messes up gameplay (as I know it). Abusable? Perhaps, but ye might just call it tactics: "charge my unit, and probably end up short or clipping, or get charged next turn yourself". Yes, you can set up "situations" ... Isn't that what the game is for?


My suggestion for 8th would be to add a new restriction to charges: a charge can't be done unless you can bring at least 50% of the unit with the smallest frontage in combat (smallest because otherwise very large unit couldn't charge units less than half as wide :p)

I would prefer this to the ridiculus slidingmanouvre.

Jushak
25-08-2009, 22:52
It might just be my inexperience talking - or that I never play in tourneys - but the big difference for me between the two is that it's much easier to defend againts abuse from sliding than clipping.

Using the example given earlier, the beasts can only jump from target to target IF the defender aligned his units so this is possible. Defenders can abuse it of course, but the attacker knows exactly what is going to happen too.

Of course these are just my opinions :p

EvC
26-08-2009, 11:40
...a unit of 4 Beasts of Chaos is 160mm wide (6"?) If you're telling me that all a player has to do to avoid such slidey abuses is never put two units within 4" of each other when there are enemies nearby, and you think that is easier to prevent than clipping* then you are really off your rocker.

*NB clipping is exceptionally easy to prevent- if you don't like the consequences of a clip charge, just don't declare a charge that will result in your unit clipping, or don't move a unit within range of clipping! Ironically the worst abuses of sliding usually happen simply because clipping is frowned upon- destroy a unit, overrun, hit the corner of another enemy unit with the corner of your charger, and slide the whole unit over (even if there's no room to wheel). Dirty filthy hobbitses...

Jushak
26-08-2009, 11:55
...a unit of 4 Beasts of Chaos is 160mm wide (6"?) If you're telling me that all a player has to do to avoid such slidey abuses is never put two units within 4" of each other when there are enemies nearby, and you think that is easier to prevent than clipping* then you are really off your rocker.

Now you've lost me to be honest, or we have completely different views on what is ok and what is not when sliding. Please elaborate a bit more :wtf:

nosferatu1001
26-08-2009, 12:02
One poster was saying that sliding cant be abused, whcih EvC countered with a Nurgle beasts example. You then, I would say erroneously, claimed it was "easy" to avoid this situation, except as EvC pointed out these beasts are very wide - and, under the posters suggestions of always sliding could easily result in the unit clipping a unit and being slid across. Some armies have no choice but to be within 4" of each other, e.g. skaven...

THis is why you don't play sliding: it completely and utterly screws up the most tactically important part of the game: movement. Everything else is pretty much lucky dice rolling, movement is about absolutes (mostly, im looking at you spawn ;)) and thinking ahead. If you mess around with it, even with good intentions, it in my opinion spoils the game as a whole.

Jushak
26-08-2009, 12:26
Ah, now I *think* I understand what you're talking about... But I don't really see anyone who plays with sliding rules allowing that. Maximising models is whole different thing from sliding enough to get another easy-to-beat unit in the fight at the same time... That, and what I'm used to is "minimum slide required to maximise models" and have yet to see anyone argue againts that.

However, everyone plays in their own way. I abhor clipping, and where I play I've never witnessed abuse with sliding, so I'm happy with that ;)

nosferatu1001
26-08-2009, 12:35
This isn't about sliding another unit into the same combat, this is about breaking a unit, overunning straight into another unit positioned nearby and being slid all the way across despite you not having enough wheel to anywhere near maximise models.

Clipping isnt ideal, but sliding is much worse for the reasons I gave above.

Caiphas Cain
26-08-2009, 13:49
There's no rule, only a suggestion from GW on how to 'play' it. Even so, these situations are fairly rare. I mostly play it that the initial attack/charge does not slide, This is not 40k. In the subsequent movement, you move them together. " drawn into combat" so to speak.

Yes, that is what I ment. Sorry if I was not clear.

Yes, it can be abused... but what parts of Fantasy can't?

EvC
26-08-2009, 14:24
Yeah I think we're all on the same page here, it's all opinions at this point. Clipping gets the moral high ground and preference from me simply because it's in the rules and is defined properly. If the rules said to slide, and laid out exactly how to do it, then I'd be arguing in favour of that instead :D

Malorian
26-08-2009, 14:58
I'm a big fan of sliding and have always thought it made more sense (what groups of fighters would jsut stand around and watch the guys on the ends fighter rather than rushing over and joining the combat), but lately I've had to play more with the clipping simply because of the new gaming group I'm in.

I really don't care which way I play it as long as it's decided beforehand. Both can be amused.

willowdark
26-08-2009, 16:33
Arguing for realism with sliding is difficult though, since it really shouldn't be assumed that units charging into an enemy and throwing their weight into the fight would have the opportunity "shuffle step" into the most comfortable fighting position.

Especially without sufficient movement to get them there. ;)

I'd just like to reiterate my thoughts about more "realistic" solutions. These rules wouldn't necessarily be mutually exclusive. I'd like to see an 8th ed. redux utilize some combination of the following.

*Units charging into combat must endeavor to bring the maximum number of models into combat. If this isn't possible then:

1) Any charge that fails to bring more than 25% of the unit into base contact results in a "swing around" maneuver to the flank/rear. This would be similar to the "free wheel" after normal contact.

2) Any charge that fails to bring more than 25% of the unit into base contact may "lap around." This would be a free maneuver and models lapping around to the flank wouldn't negate ranks, or gain the +1 Combat Resolution bonus for fighting inthe flank.

3) Any charge that fails to bring more than 25% of the unit into base contacts results in a failed charge, though the unit stops 1" away from the charged unit instead of the normal movement.

These results would exclusively effect the charging unit. The charged unit wouldn't move, but instead would just stand there and take it.

Lord Inquisitor
26-08-2009, 17:34
Arguing for realism with sliding is difficult though, since it really shouldn't be assumed that units charging into an enemy and throwing their weight into the fight would have the opportunity "shuffle step" into the most comfortable fighting position..

What? When was the last time you saw a movie where the two formations charge and the first two guys fight and the rest of the formations just stand there?

You have two units of troops, one charges and they hit slightly askew. The troops aren't going to stop and stay in formation - they're going to step forward and attack! What you have with clipping is the situation where warriors are within arm's reach of one-another and don't fight. It's utterly absurd. In reality the battle lines aren't so rigid that troops will really stand right next to the enemy and not fight.

Even worse after the first round of combat! It's even more rediculous that there's no mechanic (besides reforming, which is not often useful) for allowing units to slide once already engaged to bring more models into combat. OK, I can perhaps swallow clipping in the first round - the charge faltered at the last moment perhaps - but after that both sides should surge in!

As far as the overrun abuse, I would normally play that in the event of such a situation either a) slide the charged unit only (if possible) or b) simply agree that you can only overrun along the original line by replacing the unit after combat and before overrun. (If the combat should continue beyond one round, then the unit is permanently in the slid position of course, I'm just talking about overruns). Or, more likely, simply not slide in such tricky situations. Personally, I find that these "abuses" are very rare and I think both players should be prepared to slide. I find that clipping situations crop up all the time even if you play to avoid them.

willowdark
26-08-2009, 17:39
Which is why I spent the rest of the post elaborating on some possibly more "realistic" solutions.
Swinging around to swarm the sides of the unit makes sense, as the charging force degenerates into a mob after loosing the continuity of its formation.

"Shuffling" into place make just as little sense as clipping, so shouldn't really be viewed as a better solution.

"Arm's reach" couldn't possibly be more than the width of the base, so models that stand more than one base away, since the last contacting model is usually corner-to-corner, can easily be visualized as being obstructed from combat by the actual participants. Sort of like a mob rushing through a set of double doors, only so many can fit it what has become a very cramped position.

knauden
26-08-2009, 23:06
Arguing for realism with sliding is difficult though, since it really shouldn't be assumed that units charging into an enemy and throwing their weight into the fight would have the opportunity "shuffle step" into the most comfortable fighting position.



Not into the most comfortable fighting position, To get maximum models into combat.



Not fun to have High elves spearmen unit when a unit eg. a horde of skelletons with a characther that has 2+ save on the corner of the unit, three attacks for the spearmen who could had have 16. The skelltons win the combat and with higher unit strength autobreak, dead.

Clipping is far more powerful than sliding who at least gives the defender a chance to defend himself.

def.
[][][][][] Fair and sqaure, everybody gets to fight.
.. [][][][][]

def.
[][][][][] One dice for the attacker and one for the defender, boring!
.......... [][][][][]

EvC
27-08-2009, 13:50
In that case the Spearmen should have simply positioned themselves better to receive the charge, surely? Oh I forgot, we're trying to give extra help to poor players. Continue.

Gazak Blacktoof
27-08-2009, 14:07
No, people are concerned about the visual appearance of the game.

Urgat
27-08-2009, 14:11
What? When was the last time you saw a movie where the two formations charge and the first two guys fight and the rest of the formations just stand there?

When was the last time you saw a movie where a unit stopped halfway because they were 1 meter short (short of what?)? I can't see how one could hope to use logic in such abstract way of resolving a fight.


Which is why I spent the rest of the post elaborating on some possibly more "realistic" solutions.
Swinging around to swarm the sides of the unit makes sense, as the charging force degenerates into a mob after loosing the continuity of its formation.

That's an even worse abuse, instead of clipping, the dude can now pull a flank charge from the front...


No, people are concerned about the visual appearance of the game.

Oh, yes...
Of course.

We're in the rules forum, this is about discussing rules, right? What's there to discuss?
OP question was: where is sliding covered in the rules?
The answer is that sliding is not a rule from the rulebook or any armybook or any faq or any errata, it's just a gameplay suggestion with no backing at all. That's all there is to it: it's a houserule.

Lord Inquisitor
27-08-2009, 19:03
In that case the Spearmen should have simply positioned themselves better to receive the charge, surely? Oh I forgot, we're trying to give extra help to poor players. Continue.

While you could consider that clipping is a tool to be used by canny players, the issue I have with it is that it is a game ploy rather than a good tactic.

Personally, I feel the game should come down to maneuvering and front/flank/rear charges. You can maneuver your units about the board, but when ordered to charge! then matters should be out of your hands - you have to rely on the mettle of your warriors to see you through. There's either charge or not charge - it shouldn't be possible for you to "charge a bit" and avoid the enemy striking you while relying on static combat res.

With clipping, what we have is an advantage to a unit that charges from 8" away that it wouldn't if it charged from 7" away, for example. Now, I grant you, achieving this advantage consistently is undoubtably the mark of an expert player, but it is a tool that is unneeded, deeply unrealistic and fundamentally frustrating.

Gazak Blacktoof
27-08-2009, 19:29
Oh, yes...
Of course.

Responding with sarcasm doesn't make it any less true.

If you don't think the visual spectacle of the game is of any consequence then why spend all that money on models or hours assembling and painting them?

And yes, this is a rules discussion. However it has moved from "what the rules say" to "what makes the best game".


I wholly agree with Lord Inquisitor's post above.

Jushak
27-08-2009, 19:34
In that case the Spearmen should have simply positioned themselves better to receive the charge, surely? Oh I forgot, we're trying to give extra help to poor players. Continue.

Wait, what? Being able to position exactly within X inches so you can abuse the rules to get unfair advantage makes you better player? Riiiight...

Urgat
27-08-2009, 19:42
Responding with sarcasm doesn't make it any less true.

If you don't think the visual spectacle of the game is of any consequence then why spend all that money on models or hours assembling and painting them?
I think the visual "spectacle" is important, but I don't think it has anything to do with it, people clip because they have a gameplay interest in it (or they guessed too short, yes, mind, it can happen, I'm not too good at guessing charge ranges for instance), or don't want to clip for the same reason. Sarcasm might not make it less true, but nothing would make it more true anyway, so...



And yes, this is a rules discussion. However it has moved from "what the rules say" to "what makes the best game".

I wasn't replying specially to you with that sentence, sorry.

Sliding is just an excuse for bringing more troops in a fight that weren't in range. What you'd (general you) think of sliding that chaos knight unit all the way because poor Archaon wasn't on the right side when they charged and he was 1" away compared to the other knights? Bah, I don't even want an answer, I already know what it'd be, honest or not.

Bac5665
27-08-2009, 20:30
Wait, what? Being able to position exactly within X inches so you can abuse the rules to get unfair advantage makes you better player? Riiiight...

Yes...?

I don't understand your point. You don't think that in a game like warhammer, where movement and positioning are the most important parts of the game, that being able to position a unit better than your opponent makes you a better player than your opponent? Weird! What do you think makes a better player? Better painting? Making up more scenarios?

I think playing the game better makes you a better player. That seems so simple as to not need to be said, but apparently it does.

Clipping is CLEARLY the INTENT of the authors. This is undeniable. In 6E, the designers wrote a section in the appendix where they said that clipping will happen and if YOU don't like it, sliding is a common house rule. For 7E, they removed the appendix about sliding from the book, leaving only clipping. That choice cannot be explained except by assuming that 1. GW authors pull words out of a hat when typing, or 2. they intentionally decided to leave clipping in the game. It was a conscious choice. It had to be. So, clipping is both RAW AND RAI. Its both. So, considering that, PLEASE DON'T CALL IT CHEESY!!!

Now, you can think its unrealistic, or a poor decision to leave clipping in the game, but it is a viable and INTENDED part of the rules. It is simply a tactic, endorsed by GW as part of the game that is universal to all armies (unlike other "cheesy" tactics like boneslinky) that a smart player can use to help win.

So object on grounds of realism, or aestetics. But I will not sit back and let people say that an endorsed, clever tactic is unfair or cheesy. (I don't see how a tactic that anyone can do with any unit in any army is unfair, but...)

Anyway, there are valid objections to clipping. It being unfair or cheesy isn't one of them.

Tarian
27-08-2009, 20:57
So object on grounds of realism, or aestetics. But I will not sit back and let people say that an endorsed, clever tactic is unfair or cheesy. (I don't see how a tactic that anyone can do with any unit in any army is unfair, but...)

Anyway, there are valid objections to clipping. It being unfair or cheesy isn't one of them.

Just because it's permitted/clever/etc doesn't make it fair or any more palatable for the poor sap receiving it.

That being said, it depends on my opponent. If they want to clip, fine, but I can clip too then :3

T10
27-08-2009, 23:56
Clipping and sliding are both ways of dealing with extreme situations. The rules assume that regiments are organized into nice homogenous blocks and make an effort to allow these to interact with theinherently heterogenous environment of the table-top battlefield. What is fair will always be in opposition with what's realistic.

This really shouldn't be a problem in a friendly gaming group, just be aware that in a competetive event you can hhope that your opponent is friendly and agreeable, but you may be unfortunate and meet someone who doesn't see it your way.

My best advice is to kee an eye out for these kind of awkward situations: if you can discuss this before the situation occurs then you can at the very least avoid stepping into a conflict of interest.

For example: "I'm thinking of putting my unit in behind this obstacle so that the majority of my unit is in cover. I figure that will give me hard cover against those archers even if one or two models are exposed." To which your opponent will either immediately object or agree.

In the same way, a lot of awkward movement can be simplified by stating what you want to achieve before moving the actual models: "I want to land out of sight of your unit" or "I want to poisition my unit here so that if you charge me only two models from each side will fight!"

-T10

Bac5665
28-08-2009, 13:40
Just because it's permitted/clever/etc doesn't make it fair or any more palatable for the poor sap receiving it.

I never said it did. I said that I can understand disliking clipping. There are rational reasons for disliking it, which I happily acknowledge even if I disagree with them.

My point was simply that cheese and fairness are NOT reasonable complaints for clipping. Of course if you dislike clipping, knowing that clipping is fair wont make you like it any more, but I was talking to the people who call anything they don't understand cheesy or unfair. Those terms have meaning, at using them so casually will devoid them of that, besides the fact that making such claims hurts rather than helps our discussion of clipping as a rule.

EvC
28-08-2009, 13:52
Wait, what? Being able to position exactly within X inches so you can abuse the rules to get unfair advantage makes you better player? Riiiight...

You mean like positioning your unit 8.1" away from an enemy with 8" charge to encourage them to declare a charge that will be out of range, and then for the wont of 0.1" of an inch they fail the charge and are left exposed? Gosh, that would be tantamount to cheating...

sulla
29-08-2009, 02:06
Just because it's permitted/clever/etc doesn't make it fair or any more palatable for the poor sap receiving it.

Although, to be fair, the 'poor sap' is often a guy who positions a model in such a fashion that he avoids any risk of an overrun, should that unit be charged and broken, it will drag the attacking unit away from any possible overrun...Then complains when you clip it with a monster/chariot for the overrun. One dose of 'tactics' deserves another.:evilgrin:

We all use the rules to the best of our advantage, it's just that some go further than others. But if you've ever used a great eagle, or skirmishers to redirect, by expoiting the centre to centre rules, you have used just as dirty a tactic IMO. (And we've all done that sort of thing).

Jushak
30-08-2009, 04:06
You mean like positioning your unit 8.1" away from an enemy with 8" charge to encourage them to declare a charge that will be out of range, and then for the wont of 0.1" of an inch they fail the charge and are left exposed? Gosh, that would be tantamount to cheating...

Guess you're intentionally misunderstanding me.

My point is, if you're unable to win without resorting to abusing weaknesses in the rules, no, I don't consider you a good player. At most I'd consider you good at calculating distances in this case.

To put it in another way: Yes, moving and positioning are important things and should play big part in winning games, but I'd rather win because I had superior tactics, not because of rules technicality which would give me an advantage.

On another note - and this is not at you EvC - I find it ironic that when you win advantage due clipping the opponent "should have positioned better" but when it's gained due sliding it's "too much to ask" or "unreasonable" for the opponent to avoid it.

In the end though, last two pages change nothing. Some people prefer clipping, others sliding. If there's no local houserule/ruling over which is preferred, discuss with opponent. Does anything else really need to be added anymore?

Urgat
30-08-2009, 05:19
In the end though, last two pages change nothing. Some people prefer clipping, others sliding. If there's no local houserule/ruling over which is preferred, discuss with opponent.

No. If there's no local houserule, it's clipping, there's nothing to discuss with the opponent. That's the rule in the rulebook, why is it so hard to accept, why should sliding be an exception?

Condottiere
30-08-2009, 11:13
Lap around should be reintroduced to counter clipping. Win or lose, if the entire front rank of an unit isn't engaged in combat, they lap around the opposing model.

Lord Malorne
30-08-2009, 11:32
Guess you're intentionally misunderstanding me.

My point is, if you're unable to win without resorting to abusing weaknesses in the rules, no, I don't consider you a good player. At most I'd consider you good at calculating distances in this case.

Hmm, you consider this 'weaknesses in the rules', how very odd, it is a valid part of the rules, just like many other tactics used.


To put it in another way: Yes, moving and positioning are important things and should play big part in winning games, but I'd rather win because I had superior tactics, not because of rules technicality which would give me an advantage.

'Superior tactics', without movement being key? What would they be then?


On another note - and this is not at you EvC - I find it ironic that when you win advantage due clipping the opponent "should have positioned better" but when it's gained due sliding it's "too much to ask" or "unreasonable" for the opponent to avoid it.

I don't understand this part, you are comparing an existing rule with one that does not exist.


In the end though, last two pages change nothing. Some people prefer clipping, others sliding. If there's no local houserule/ruling over which is preferred, discuss with opponent. Does anything else really need to be added anymore?

Yes it does, in a rules discussion, it needs to be made quiet clear when one rule exists and one does not.


Lap around should be reintroduced to counter clipping. Win or lose, if the entire front rank of an unit isn't engaged in combat, they lap around the opposing model.

Lap around is stupid and good riddance it is gone.

FatOlaf
30-08-2009, 11:54
You mean like positioning your unit 8.1" away from an enemy with 8" charge to encourage them to declare a charge that will be out of range, and then for the wont of 0.1" of an inch they fail the charge and are left exposed? Gosh, that would be tantamount to cheating...

And certain players we know would move the unit into CC anyway, as exact measuring is also just a house rule....:D

Nothing annoys me more than players at tournies who proceed to slide their units before checking with me or asking because they actually believe it is a stone cold rule. They are often shocked when I call the ref to explain for the umpteenth time that it is not a rule...

If you dont like the odds on the charge, dont charge, try your best to manouvre into a better position, it's called tactics...

EvC
30-08-2009, 16:32
Can't agree more :D


Guess you're intentionally misunderstanding me.

Nope, just taking your argument to its logical conclusion: anyone manipulating the movement phase to their advantage, by virtue of being a better player, is being naughty.


My point is, if you're unable to win without resorting to abusing weaknesses in the rules, no, I don't consider you a good player. At most I'd consider you good at calculating distances in this case.

So if someone refuses to give your unit an additional few inches movement to either make a charge, or to wheel fully for two units to make full contact, or if they don't let you magically teleport your unit along a route they cannot possibly move the unit- they're being abusive. Riiight...


To put it in another way: Yes, moving and positioning are important things and should play big part in winning games, but I'd rather win because I had superior tactics, not because of rules technicality which would give me an advantage.

So any rules technicality is an abuse that should be removed now? An interesting position. I often feel that the game would be superior if I could ignore rules and just make a gun shape with my hand and go "bang your dead". Then I remember we have a rulebook...


On another note - and this is not at you EvC - I find it ironic that when you win advantage due clipping the opponent "should have positioned better" but when it's gained due sliding it's "too much to ask" or "unreasonable" for the opponent to avoid it.

Don't hold back, that statement certainly should be aimed at me :D If you have a poor charge that results from clipping, then it is usually because because you have made a poor charge decision (As stated earlier, I dislike it when people position their units to force clipping to occur). Any advantage gained by sliding is an abuse of the rules, by definition...

Jushak
30-08-2009, 17:44
Nope, just taking your argument to its logical conclusion: anyone manipulating the movement phase to their advantage, by virtue of being a better player, is being naughty.

Now you're once again misreading me on purpose. But I guess that's the only way you can "win" (:rolleyes:) this argument. I consider luring your opponent to trap or forcing him into situation where he needs to choose between two bad moves - just as an example, there are plenty more obviously - good tactics. What I don't consider good tactics is that you won a fight because of rules technicality.


So if someone refuses to give your unit an additional few inches movement to either make a charge, or to wheel fully for two units to make full contact, or if they don't let you magically teleport your unit along a route they cannot possibly move the unit- they're being abusive. Riiight...

Would you kindly stop putting words in my mouth? I've written nothing of the sort you're suggesting here. I don't need stuff like that to have fun or to win.


So any rules technicality is an abuse that should be removed now? An interesting position. I often feel that the game would be superior if I could ignore rules and just make a gun shape with my hand and go "bang your dead". Then I remember we have a rulebook...

Clipping has always been frowned upon. GWs stance is quite easy to see considering they've tried to limit it as best they can, as well as recommending sliding in the FAQ. Only problem with sliding is that it sometimes requires a compromise or "fudging" as I believe the term GW used for it, making it a bit problematic between two WAAC players.


Don't hold back, that statement certainly should be aimed at me :D If you have a poor charge that results from clipping, then it is usually because because you have made a poor charge decision (As stated earlier, I dislike it when people position their units to force clipping to occur). Any advantage gained by sliding is an abuse of the rules, by definition...

I mentioned it's not aimed at you mainly because I was too lazy to read back to check if it was you or someone else I was quoting regarding the sliding abuse.

Anyways, while sliding is not "official" rule, it's recommended in a FAQ, so I don't really see a problem with comparing the two. For tourneys I perfectly understand use of clipping as it is easier rule to use, but outside those I find sliding makes for more enjoyable games.

As I said though, last two pages still haven't changed anything. Some people prefer sliding, others clipping, what needs to be discussed? Unless there's some authority dictating which one to use (i.e. tourney, house rule) you decide with your opponent.

Edit: I'll leave my participation on this subject here as I don't like the possibility of repeating myself for the third time ^^

Shadowfax
30-08-2009, 21:44
This is the most infuriating rule/lack of rule in the whole game, as far as I'm concerned, for all of the reasons already mentioned. Clipping is unsightly, illogical, and makes combats a bore. Sliding rewards sloppy play, and penalizes skirmishers.

The worst thing about the whole situation is the FAQ's weak recommendation on clipping, which is as close as it can get to a rule without actually being one. The FAQ makes clear value judgments about clipping being bad ("This [clipping] looks wrong") and a necessary evil if you want to play fully RAW ("you have to live with the clipping and continue the game") then goes on to say how the game would be significantly improved by the sliding rule ("if both players agree to do this [slide], the game will benefit in realism and fun").

The final paragraph is the kicker: "The important thing to understand...is that clipping is not in the spirit of the game and every effort should be made to avoid it."

The FAQ essentially endorses the slide rule, but since GW are cowards when it comes to officially augmenting their printed rules in major ways, we end up having to live with this stupid "it's up to you" solution.

With that said,


Yes...?
Clipping is CLEARLY the INTENT of the authors. This is undeniable. In 6E, the designers wrote a section in the appendix where they said that clipping will happen and if YOU don't like it, sliding is a common house rule. For 7E, they removed the appendix about sliding from the book, leaving only clipping. That choice cannot be explained except by assuming that 1. GW authors pull words out of a hat when typing, or 2. they intentionally decided to leave clipping in the game. It was a conscious choice. It had to be.

I've got to call ************ on this. If you're correct then explain the FAQ and its passionate call for sliding. It's nowhere near as simple a situation as you make it sound.

One last note, to the guys who hate sliding because it "grants an unfair advantage to imprecise players". That's flat out wrong. It's not like the sloppy player is allowed to slide to maximise and the tactical genius across from him is forced to clip. Both players benefit equally from the sliding rule, so there is no "unfairness" whatsoever within the context of a single game.

In the overall scheme of things it dumbs down the movement phase, and therefore prevents precise players from taking advantage of sloppier players as they would with RAW clipping. However, the diligent players should still be able to outplay lazy opponents, and movement remains important. After all, sliding or not you still need to be within charge range of something to impact it.

Foxbat
31-08-2009, 00:00
I must admit that I am not a big fan of sliding. For many of the reasons already noted.

As for how to deal with clipping, I think we would need to use two different approaches, one for a declared charge and another for compulsory overrun movement.

For a declared charge, only those models with sufficient charge range should be able to get into combat. To establish how many models enter combat, the charging player measures the maximum charge distance (after taking into account any terrain effects) from the corner of the base of the furthest model of target unit's combat rank back to the front rank of the charging unit. The models in combat are those models of the charging unit with bases that are within this range (last model is a partial). Only these models can be placed in b-t-b contact with the target unit's combat rank (the partial model is a corner to corner). Of course, the player would still have to demonstrate that the charging unit can make a proper charge and has the required room to place the unit in combat with its target.

As for an overrun, this situation requires more complex set of rules. I would suggest the following sequence:
(1) Pursuit must be established (i.e. either announced or by failed restraint);
(2) The fleeing unit distance is then rolled and the fleeing unitís path examined. If there are any friendly units that the fleeing unit would pass through by clipping less than one file, it is assumed that the fleeing unit did not flee through the unit. When the fleeing unit would clip one or more files, the fleeing unit is automatically assumed to have run through the unit.
(3) Move the fleeing unit its rolled distance. If the fleeing unit ends its turn in a friendly unit, the fleeing unit is moved beyond the unit.
(4) Resolve any panic reactions due to a fleeing unitís path.
(5) Roll the pursuit distance. Move the pursuing unit its full distance until it clips a non-fleeing unit through which the fleeing unit was assumed to have passed. Any fleeing units that the pursuing unit touches before moving its pursuit distance or getting into combat are destroyed.

While this approach will not eliminate clipping, its results in more files being in combat when it occurs.

Lord Inquisitor
31-08-2009, 03:29
Hmm, you consider this 'weaknesses in the rules', how very odd, it is a valid part of the rules, just like many other tactics used.
To echo Shadowfax, this is clearly not the case. "The important thing to understand...is that clipping is not in the spirit of the game and every effort should be made to avoid it."

It is a tactic that is not in the spirit of the game and we know that for certain - ergo it is indeed a weakness in the rules in that the designers have intended this to not be a situation that arises, yet the rules do indeed permit it.


Nope, just taking your argument to its logical conclusion: anyone manipulating the movement phase to their advantage, by virtue of being a better player, is being naughty.
There is a very clear distinction between tactically clipping or tactically staying just out of charge range. One is in the spirit of the rules and the other is not.

Every argument you put forward fails to take into account that the designers have told us that clipping is against the spirit of the rule. It is not comparable to any normal example of tactical play in the spirit of the game.


So any rules technicality is an abuse that should be removed now? An interesting position. I often feel that the game would be superior if I could ignore rules and just make a gun shape with my hand and go "bang your dead". Then I remember we have a rulebook...
Again, you're turning this into a childish argument. Yes, the rules should be followed, of course. But the spirit, as well as the letter, should be obeyed. You only need to look at the rules forum to find half a dozen easter egg hunts at any given time - every single one can be resolved simply by playing by the spirit of the rules, which every ruleslawyer will paint as ephemeral but in reality is apparent to everyone. Its even easier when we have a FAQ that explicitly states the spirit of the rules.


Don't hold back, that statement certainly should be aimed at me :D If you have a poor charge that results from clipping, then it is usually because because you have made a poor charge decision (As stated earlier, I dislike it when people position their units to force clipping to occur). Any advantage gained by sliding is an abuse of the rules, by definition...
Well, which is it? You think that clipping is an acceptable tactic but you dislike people who engineer it? I don't get it. I can easily position my units in such a way that the only way to charge me is by clipping. In many other cases, clipping occurs simply by accident - a unit that overruns or simply when the battle-lines get jumbled in the heat of combat.

Urgat
31-08-2009, 05:16
Unless there's some authority dictating which one to use

There is one authority: it's the rulebook. Rulebook doesn't say you slide, rulebook says you clip. You're not the only one repeating yourself to no avail, mind.
My main grip against sliding, when all is told, is that it forks up the whole setup around the fight, units get in the way when there was nothing before, units that had a target to charge suddenly lose it, etc. Clipping just botched up the fight between the two units involved, it has zero impact on the rest of the battle. SO that FAQ can say whatever it wants, as long as it remains a sugestion (and it is a suggestion, not a recommendation, in my eyes) and not an errata, I don't give a flying kick about it.
I'm not gonna give anybody this 5 inch bonus that'll allow that heavy knight unit to make a full headon charge when there's only one knight actually in range, I mean what the heck? You know there's only one knight that will reach, well, you live with it or you don't charge, it shouldn't get any more complicated than that.
Anyway, it's going full circle, so I give up too. No matter what, the truth is that people want to place the legitimity of a houserule over a rulebook rule, and that in itself speaks volume of the state of the discussion and it's seriousness.

stonetroll
31-08-2009, 07:22
When someone's trying to obviously abuse the rule to create an advantageous situation then of course the person on the receiving end has a choice, but otherwise it's just bad sportsmanship and against the spirit of the game.

So when I'm setting up my Goblins in a way that my enemies' Swordmasters cannot get into full contact but can only clip me with 1/2 models (thus trying to win combat through static res) I'm a bad sport?

Shadowfax
31-08-2009, 07:26
SO that FAQ can say whatever it wants, as long as it remains a sugestion (and it is a suggestion, not a recommendation, in my eyes)
Those words are essentially synonyms, even if they have unequal weight of force.in your eyes.

And, even accounting for that, I think the strong language and repetition of the "GW opinion" in the FAQ clearly identify it as a recommendation. You can't ignore the lines I quoted or minimize their meaning. The FAQ makes a point of telling you how you should play, in spite of the rules as written.

BTW, since I didn't mention where exactly I stand on this: the majority of my gaming group likes to use the slide, although I was and remain skeptical of it. Part of that stems from the fact that I'm the most focused player in our group, so I have the least to gain from the rule. On the other hand, the more bloodshed, the better. I do play Wood Elves, though, so the fact that ranked units get to freely maximize their frontage while out-of-range skirmishers are left holding their dic... swords, that is, kind of annoys me.

theunwantedbeing
31-08-2009, 09:25
Here's a fun abuse of the sliding rule.

The Blue unit is charging the green unit as if the red unit wasnt even there.
The empty blue box shows where the blue unit would end out without the sliding rule.

Seems fair to everyone?

stonetroll
31-08-2009, 09:27
Here's a fun abuse of the sliding rule.

The Blue unit is charging the green unit as if the red unit wasnt even there.
The empty blue box shows where the blue unit would end out without the sliding rule.

Seems fair to everyone?

That is indeed what sliding would do.

Which is why we dont use it ;)

nosferatu1001
31-08-2009, 12:44
Jushak - I'd suggest you calm doiwn slightly: EvC was not having a go at you, however he was extending your "ignore rules" (clipping vs sliding) to other areas where he would like to ignore rules.

You prefer sliding, which by definition means the movement phase must be less critical - as sliding destroys movement phases, affecting far more than the single combat, as theunwantedbeing nice illustrates. Sliding is a horrible way of solving problems with clipping.

If i set it up so your only charge option this turn is charge and clip or dont charge, so I have more chance of winning combat, then there is no way you should slide across. THat is more of an abuse than sliding.

Izram
31-08-2009, 13:18
It just feels to me to be a double standard. If a unit just has enough movement to get one corner to the enemy, it gets a full free wheel to get everyone in contact. Nobody scoffs at that, even though it is free movement and causing models that were out of range to be in contact fighting. Often causing models to move further than double their move characteristic.

If the ruleset said that you had to be able to wheel with your charge move and get everyone in flush, then people would be argueing here over a free-wheel house rule for corner hits. "blah blah I use my superior warhammer tactical mind and prowess to arrange my units perfectly to get the right number of models in, and these people want to get a free wheel when they just manage to get one corner to me!"

My point is, people are used to the ruleset as it is, so sliding is something that shouldn't be there. If it were there the whole time, then you would be used to it and the game would just be normal to slide units to get in max frontage. What would be the big deal? The BRB says to do it, so we do it. That would just be the way the game is played and people wouldn't even worry/think about trying to get the perfect setup to cause a clip.

As a side note: Does anyone remember the chariot tactica article from WD? I think it was from 5th ed, maybe 6th. I seem to remember them very enthusiastically encouraging clipping with chariots.

nosferatu1001
31-08-2009, 14:20
The free align makes sense, as the fighting line is an abstraction. Much like movement values and stopping short is an abstraction of real time down to turn based. with the requirement to maximise models however this movement minimises its effects on the rest of the game - it generally helps just the single combat, nothing else.

Sliding can dramatically change combats and the entire game outside of the combat.

It is not a double standard, in any way shape or form: free align is has a much less invasive effect. You're comparing a knife to a gun: both can be deadly, but one has a far greater threat range.

Izram
31-08-2009, 14:44
So the align is an abstraction that makes sense, but sliding isn't. You make the distinction based on severity of the effects? Thats a knife to a gun? Sounds like comparing caliber of ammunition.

The free wheel can make just as dramatic a change. My unit X can get to your crucial unit Y's flank, but only one model can get his far corner there. I get a free align, so thats all I need. If I didn't get the free wheel, and I wasn't allowed to hit with corners etc, then i wouldn't be able to make the charge.

Really though, I used the wheel abstraction as an anecdote, not as proof that sliding is a great idea. Just an example of a game abstraction that we use to that has some side effects (models not in range getting in, moving more than your max move etc)

My point is that the rules are an absraction and we are just not used to sliding because it isn't in the rules. I don't condone it neccasarilly. The conclusion I draw is that you should slide sometimes, and clip sometimes. GW couldn't write a rule to cover every possible circumstance, so they didn't. Nobody can concieve every single geometrical possibility, so there is no point in trying to come up with a blanket statement. Clip when it is appropriate, slide when it is appropriate. If you cannot come to a conclusion with your opponent on whether to slide or not, just don't. Follow the RAW when you can't come to an amiable conclusion with your opponent.

I am not condoning sliding in all circumstances; if it worked in all circumstances then it would be in the rules. Just don't burn it at the stake, because there are times when it can be appropriate.

Skyth
31-08-2009, 15:00
Here's a fun abuse of the sliding rule.

The Blue unit is charging the green unit as if the red unit wasnt even there.
The empty blue box shows where the blue unit would end out without the sliding rule.

Seems fair to everyone?

Sure, as the red unit is within 1" of the combat and is thus drawn in into the rear of the charging unit.

nosferatu1001
31-08-2009, 16:06
Alignment affects just that combat: with the requirement tro maximise you end up having to use your movement to get as close as possible without being able to setup favourable angles. It, except for some very very edge cases will only ever affect teh single combat. This is a knife - you can use it at range but is better close in.

Sliding has a much wider effect, as the movements are much more dramatic in a lot more cases. This means it has a wider effect on the game. This makes it a gun - potential area of effect is much much greater.

Rockgut
31-08-2009, 17:13
How about if the charging unit does not have enough movement to get full/maximised # of model in contact, you let the unit being charged decide if you slide or stay clipped.

This still reinforces accuracy of the chargers movement as they will not get to decide how the charge lines up unless they have enough movement and the charger can't clip just for it's own benefit.

Izram
31-08-2009, 17:39
I think they should let the winning unit in a combat slide if they want to, to maximise models. The winners can keep the the losing enemy pushed back if they want, or they can choose to run in and essentially expand the fighting frontage. That wouldn't be such a game-breaking rule if it were introduced.

It would allow for tactical clipping, but wouldnt neccasarily allow for prolonged fighting in a weird configuration. I think clipping makes sense in the first round of combat, no reason not to gain tactical advantage for manouvering, but it just doesn't make sense for 2 units to stay clipped for a prolonged engagment.

The Red Scourge
31-08-2009, 18:00
..it's just a gameplay suggestion with no backing at all. That's all there is to it: it's a houserule.

Thats hogwash :wtf:

It appears in a GW FAQ, just as any other rules clarification. So its the de facto rule, while clipping is the "house rule" - the Eye of the Gods rules are clarified in a GW FAQ too, and I doubt that you go and dispute that ruling too - or that flame cannons have flaming attacks :rolleyes:

Sorry you misinterpreted the rules, and it looks like you'll have to learn to play the game once again, but repeating your silly house rules again and again, doesn't make them any more real. For that you need to apply for a position on the design team ;)

nosferatu1001
31-08-2009, 18:15
the Red Scourge - you are totally incorrect on this one. They specifically state it is a suggestion as it is an appendix to the FAQ and not part of the main FAQ.

Clipping is, by definition, part of the rules. They even state this in the FAQ - they just say it isnt part of the spirit

I think you should reread the heading to the appendix, where they say these are totally optional. Also, when getting things so monumentally incorrect it helps if you aren't being patronising at the same time - it just makes you look even more foolish.

The Red Scourge
31-08-2009, 18:22
Well nosferatu1001.

All their FAQs are to be regarded as suggestions to the "correct" way to play the game, it even says so, when you download the stuff, thats why they're FAQs.

They have another term for correcting things set in stone, and those are called errata :)

Shadowfax
31-08-2009, 18:30
I wish this thread had been a poll, I'm interested in seeing the overall percentage of people who handle this either way.

Someone go make one in WFB General with three options: 1. living with clipping, 2. sliding to maximize frontage, and 3. unique house rule to resolve it some other way

Lord Inquisitor
31-08-2009, 19:45
Here's a fun abuse of the sliding rule.

The Blue unit is charging the green unit as if the red unit wasnt even there.
The empty blue box shows where the blue unit would end out without the sliding rule.

Seems fair to everyone?
Yes. At least, I find it a more palatable situation than the alternative - which is that the blue unit still charges the green unit and avoids red and we have a clipping situation.

That said, I would personally "slide" the charged unit, not the chargers. See attached diagram. This would be done after all charging units were moved (preventing the unit being slid into/out of charge range of any additional chargers) and does not alter the over-run corridor of the blue unit.


It is not a double standard, in any way shape or form: free align is has a much less invasive effect. You're comparing a knife to a gun: both can be deadly, but one has a far greater threat range.
Poppycock. The free wheel-in is one of the most important rules in the game and has a massive effect on strategy, far more than sliding IMO. Units designed to channel or redirect enemy units are present in most armies and all good generals know how to use such units to bait the enemy and is the most common way of establishing a flank charge against powerful units.

Free-wheel-in is a long-established part of the game, and players know how to use and abuse it. It can massively affect the game as it can control the orientation of chargers. Sliding the charged unit doesn't affect the orientation of the chargers, as such I deem it far less game-changing as it is the orientation of front/flanks/rear that is the most critical aspect of a units position in Fantasy.

I play with sliding - always with my opponent's agreement, of course - and I find that it doesn't crop up every game and very, very rarely actually has any noticable effect on the game except making combat more satisfying. Conversely, the free wheel has game-dominating effect every single game I play - often every charge.

nosferatu1001
31-08-2009, 19:55
I have to disagree: everything you posted concerns the individual units involved in the combat: sliding changes the entire position of units and therefore alters overruns, position for flank charging (gaining or denying, etc) which affects the entire field potentially. This is why it is a knife vs a gun: a gun can affect a lot more things than a knife can, and over a wider range.

Messing up movement = bad. The free wheel is necessary as you are playing with square bases, which is an abstraction already -without the free wheel you would have this artificial straight line not contacting the other unit, which would look even more stupid than units not lined directly up (which makes a lot of sense in a turn based represention of a real time event) as they did not have sufficient movement.

rtunian
31-08-2009, 19:56
Well nosferatu1001.

All their FAQs are to be regarded as suggestions to the "correct" way to play the game, it even says so, when you download the stuff, thats why they're FAQs.

They have another term for correcting things set in stone, and those are called errata :)

wrongo. errata are rewordings and rephrasings of rules that will be how future printings of the book appear. faq's are literally 'question-and-answer' session. the subject of the questions are rules disputes, so yes, you can take the answers in the faq's as the closest thing to an official ruling that you will get.

as for the appendix, well... another word for that is "editorial"... refer to the italics under the heading "appendices". but even in the section on clipping that you claim says that you are supposed to slide, it says this:


in all these extreme situations, if you want to play literally by the rules, you have to live with the clipping and continue with the game.

so the only question that really matters here is:
is playing literally by the rules an important part of the environment in which you are playing?
yes = clip when you have to, because you have to
no = discuss sliding with your opponent if you want, be prepared to d6 if you cannot agree

generally, if you are in a strict tournament or league, you have to go by clipping. if you are playing a friendly game, you can slide if you both agree to it. but if you are in a friendly game and you both don't agree to it, you dice off and live with the result

Bac5665
31-08-2009, 19:59
Red scourge, are really arguing that the document that explicitly states it is optional is really mandatory? You sir, earn a *facepalm*

That conclusion is so counter to the rules of logic that arguing is practically non-nonsensical.

Now, if you want to argue that its GW's intent that people "should" adopt the optional rule, fine, but I think even that position must fail. This is a rules forum, and thus its only a place for logical discussion of the rules, usually through textual construction. Intent and design history certainly have their place and are important tools as well.

Now, people have argued since last I commented in this thread that GW intends for sliding to be more common than clipping. This is plausible. However, the way they have written the rules demands that clipping be the RAW, and GW has refused several opportunities to change that over the last few years. During the 6E to 7E transition, they left clipping in the BRB and removed the old appendix with sliding. Then, they put sliding in the appendix to the FAQ, making it very clear that the sliding rules are optional and outside the rules. That fact pattern represents a series of choices where GW could pick between legitimizing clipping or legitimizing sliding. Each time, they chose to legitimize clipping while removing sliding from the core rulebook altogether. Yes, its still there, and there are signs that GW think that sliding is "better." But, they went out of their way to make sure that Clipping is the dominate option and remains enshrined in the BRB. The weight of the two is that GW consciously chose for clipping to dominate with sliding as an option for dissenters. I just don't see how any other conclusion is possible. I understand the other position, but I think it ignores the series of choices GW made to legitimize clipping over sliding.

stonetroll
31-08-2009, 20:51
I play with sliding - always with my opponent's agreement, of course - and I find that it doesn't crop up every game and very, very rarely actually has any noticable effect on the game except making combat more satisfying.

I take it you have never had a unit of Night Goblins clip a unit of Swordmasters if you truly believe that clipping "very rarely actually has any noticeable effect on the game" and "makes combat more satisfying" (though I assume the Swordmasters will definately find it more satisfying to clip ;))

Anyway, The way you suggest to slide charged units is possible even more broken than sliding that chargers.

Lets assume the charging unit are dwarf warriors and the receiving unit are Chaos Hounds. My Dwarfs charge your Hounds and your Hounds slide out of the way of my white unit. Great! Now my Organ Gun (the red unit) can see your Khornate Chaos Knights (out of the picture) that were screened by the Hounds.

The Red Scourge
31-08-2009, 21:11
Okay guys, read this:


The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'...

... In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

So GW maintains that the FAQs and rulings are house rules. Yet these house rules are in effect by most tournaments. And why follow one part of the voluntary house rules and not the other, the one is no more a house rule than the other.

And for the they-took-sliding-out-of-the-BRB-argument. They didn't:


...rather than clutter the rules with endless clarifications, we have included further examples on our website

I follow this up with what info they have on the subject on their website:


This is not technically allowed by the letter of the rules, but if both players agree to do this, the game will benefit in realism and fun (you get to roll lots more dice!). The important thing to understand when you come across this sort of situation is that clipping is not in the spirit of the game and every effort should be made to avoid it. It just looks ugly!

Can't argue about this. They spell it out in plain english.

Now go dry your eyes and have a cookie ;)

stonetroll
31-08-2009, 21:25
if both players agree to do this

which means that if ONE player prefers to not use the sliding rules, the other person can't do anything about it (he has to accept to play without sliding).

Since sliding will ALWAYS be in one person's favor (generally the person having troops with better fighting stats), his opponent will, in competitive play, NEVER want to play with the sliding rules. Ergo, if both players play to win, sliding will never occur.

Now go dry your eyes and have a cookie ;)

nosferatu1001
31-08-2009, 21:35
O
Can't argue about this. They spell it out in plain english.

Now go dry your eyes and have a cookie ;)

Still with the patronising attitude.

Yes, they did spell it out very, very clearly:




This is not technically allowed by the letter of the rules, but if both players agree to do this......



So what part of "this is not technically allowed by the rules" and "if both players agree to this" [thus invoking TMIR, which invalidates all rules disputes if both players agree) are you struggling with? All other FAQ answers do not have this disclaimer, just the standard one.

I further point you to the additional disclaimer they put at the start of the appendices, the one you oddly ignored:



The following pages offer some observations on the game rules, which have been placed here so that the rules themselves could be kept reasonably concise. Please note that these are not rules, but rather helpful suggestions we encourage you to use to resolve your games in a friendly manner.


So, they are not indeed rules, but are merely suggestions - not actually recommendations as someone else stated. The two are not synonyms in this context.

The Red Scourge
31-08-2009, 21:39
So, they are not indeed rules, but are merely suggestions - not actually recommendations as someone else stated. The two are not synonyms in this context.

Just as any other FAQ, but you are accepting those, aren't you? Or do you still claim that dwarf flame cannons aren't flaming attacks? :)


which means that if ONE player prefers to not use the sliding rules, the other person can't do anything about it (he has to accept to play without sliding).

Since sliding will ALWAYS be in one person's favor (generally the person having troops with better fighting stats), his opponent will, in competitive play, NEVER want to play with the sliding rules. Ergo, if both players play to win, sliding will never occur.

Now go dry your eyes and have a cookie ;)

Again stonetroll. All the GW FAQs are mere suggestions and house rule. There is nothing set in stone about them, and you aren't forced to follow them in any way. But you can't go pick and choose, either you accept the FAQs, or you're left with the blatant mess that is the poorly written rules of the BRB and the army books.

nosferatu1001
31-08-2009, 21:50
Nice that you ignored the parts where I pointed out that the appendix suggestions are specifically seperate and with even more caveats? in fact they call upon the use of TMIR (by requiring both agree to it) making them substantially different.

So, they aren't compulsory, are not rules (like you tried to claim clipping was a houserule...lol) and invoke TMIR where nothing else in the FAQ states this? Yep, I can see why you're confused about this. They're really similar.

The Red Scourge
31-08-2009, 22:16
Nice that you ignored the parts where I pointed out that the appendix suggestions are specifically seperate and with even more caveats? in fact they call upon the use of TMIR (by requiring both agree to it) making them substantially different.

I'm not ignoring anything. There aren't any degrees in this.

GW states that the use of FAQs are voluntary.

GW states that the use of the appendix is voluntary.

Quite simple :)

What I fail to see nosferatu, is why you accept GWs authority in one matter and not the other. As they clearly state in the appendix that the rules are poorly written, and that clipping is not in the spirit of the game..

If you think the guys at GW have so poor judgement, why do you rely on them for rules clarification, and in the most extreme, why do you rely on them for rules to a game at all? :)

nosferatu1001
31-08-2009, 22:39
Yes, yes there are: the appendix effectively states you need to use TMIR, which the other rules do not. This is because it is changing the way the rules work which normal FAQ answers do not.

The FAQs do not change rules, they clarify questions. By definition sliding changes rules (as it is not supported at all) and so, to denote this, they seperate it out, state 3 or 4 times that these are mere suggestions on other ways to play, and then have implicit invocation of TMIR in order to actually function. That is the difference you are ignoring.

Finally: I would suggest you write more carefully: they do not state the rules are poorly written, they in fact say the have these observations seperately to keep the rules concise. concise is not a synonym for "poorly written".

You are over simplifying, stop doing so and you will see the difference.

rtunian
01-09-2009, 03:09
which means that if ONE player prefers to not use the sliding rules, the other person can't do anything about it (he has to accept to play without sliding).

wrong. if it is a moderated event, the moderator decides.
but more importantly/commonly, if it is not a moderated event, and you can't agree, then the dice decide. see the most important rule, page 3.

Lazarus15
01-09-2009, 03:46
Since this first came up, I always verify before the game is even played how we are playing. At tourney's before the first dice is rolled, ask the head reps how this is to be played. There has ALWAYS been an answer and more often than not, the sliding rule has been the standard. It was like that at all the Washington State tourneys, all of the Georgia tourneys, and all of the tourney's I have been at in Texas. At least here in the US, that is three different parts of the country that all play the same. I dunno.

FAQ's are rules clarifications that people have asked for. If the rule is clarified a certain way than that is the way it is to be played. Period. The appendices will state very clearly if they are in fact a set in stone rule. Other than that, just clarify with your opponent before the game.

nosferatu1001
01-09-2009, 03:48
rtunian - except you have one player clearly wanting to play outside the rules, and another who doesn't. Page 3 isn't an "I win on a 1+" button but there to settle actual rules confusions.

Here there is no confusion, just a suggestion. The suggestion even states both players have to agree - by forcing the person to roll a dice just because you want to play by something otuside the rules is even more a violation of TMIR.

rtunian
01-09-2009, 04:07
nos, if we were talking about something like "oh i want my orcs to have ld 10 stubborn" and you say "no, i don't think so" and i say "well ok, d6", then of course you could say i was being a git. but that's not what we're talking about

page 3 mir extends to situations that aren't covered fully by the rules. considering that the very nature of the appendix in question is that the rules don't fully cover the issue, i'd still say that the d6 aspect of the most important rule is perfectly viable here.

friendly play doesn't necessarily follow all of the rules. that's why you should talk about it beforehand, or afterwards. if you're in the middle of a game though, it's the wrong time to have that debate (assuming you disagree). that's why you d6 it. the idea is to get on with the game and not get hung up on stuff like this.

Skyth
01-09-2009, 05:49
The FAQs do not change rules, they clarify questions.


The FAQs change the rules repeatedly. I can think of several of the 40k ones off-hand that do.

The Red Scourge
01-09-2009, 08:42
The FAQs change the rules repeatedly. I can think of several of the 40k ones off-hand that do.

Amen to that :)

My favorite FAQ must be the WE one that says that HE magical bows doesn't produce magical attacks (you need magical arrows to have magical attacks with bows obviously :p).

Or the FAQ that took away any purpose in WoC Eye of the Gods rule.

And of course the DE chariot-busting ninja throwing stars :D

The list goes on and is pretty hilarious :)


But back on topic:


The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'...

... In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

My point is: Either you play by studio "house rules", or you don't, it really doesn't matter what you do to me.

But you can't demand that people will follow or even know any rules clarifications/suggestions and/or recommendations from the GW website, unless you yourself abide by them and use them fully. This pick-and-choose attitude is just too convenient and undermines any legitimacy the FAQs might have :)

Deglosh
01-09-2009, 09:29
I for one HATE this houserule. I play against a chaos warriors player that abuses every chance he can in any game we have ever played. We usually play it as so that we slide in the 2nd round of combat. But now he insists that they should slide directly. This is just bull.

In the charge a slide is just abusing the rules, there is nothing else to it. But sliding in the 2nd round of combat makes alot more sense.
But we actually slide both units to meet at "the middle" instead of just sliding one.

FatOlaf
01-09-2009, 10:30
Here's a fun abuse of the sliding rule.

The Blue unit is charging the green unit as if the red unit wasnt even there.
The empty blue box shows where the blue unit would end out without the sliding rule.

Seems fair to everyone?

Sums it up perfectly...



Clipping is, by definition, part of the rules. They even state this in the FAQ - they just say it isnt part of the spirit


Exactly, love it or hate it (it's been a 'problem' for over 25 years and one that has never bothered me) it's legal, unlike sliding..

We all want CC to be total and complete but then again it seems to be a dying art at the moment anyway, with most builds out there relying on 40K tactics to win....:D

The Red Scourge
01-09-2009, 11:02
Sums it up perfectly...

No, it doesn't. Both concepts can be abused, as has been proven here countless times :rolleyes:

nosferatu1001
01-09-2009, 15:13
....except abusing clipping is a) harder and b) affects the single combat (usually) whereas sliding affects the entire board. Knife vs Gun.

Also, page 3 is for where the rules are not clear - the appendix states that the rules are clear and therefore TMIR does not apply when one person does not want to play with sliding

Sliding is against the rules - full stop. No room for argument. The Appendix repeatedly mentions this. It even states both must agree so no, there is no D6 with it - ever.



My favorite FAQ must be the WE one that says that HE magical bows doesn't produce magical attacks (you need magical arrows to have magical attacks with bows obviously ).


Did not change the rules, as "magical attacks" are not defined in the BRB. By definition is clarified that just because the bow is magical doesnt mean the arrorws are. Invalid example.



Or the FAQ that took away any purpose in WoC Eye of the Gods rule.


THat you dont get rolls for Champs? That isnt a change in rules as it states only characters give you a roll. Invalid example. (well, you didnt really give an example here....)



And of course the DE chariot-busting ninja throwing stars


Which again was legasl by a strict reading of the rules, and therefore when they confirm it does work that isnt a change in rules. Yet another Invalid Example. You're good at those.

Unfortunately The Red Scourge you confuse RaI with RAW, in this case however the RAW is stupidly abundantly clear: you only play with sliding when both players agree, if you do not agree then you do not polay byu sliding. There is no "D6 it" option

Bac5665
01-09-2009, 15:31
This.

First of all, and slightly off topic, I never play with TMIR. It is by far the least important rule. I always ask another gamer to make a quick ruling, or work it out with my opponent when a rules dispute comes up. Yes, there are times when, for the sake of expediency, we d6 it, but it is exceedingly rare.

Second, understanding which rules are binding is a simple thing that can become very complex when there is a dissagreement. In general the only rules that arebinding are the ones the two players agree on. Both players have to "consent to be bound," to use the legal term. Your group can use the FAQ or not. Your group could use the magic rules or not. It doesn't matter as long as these decisions are well known enough for you and your opponent to understand them before starting the game. My club uses the FAQ as binding. To ignore the FAQ would require a ton of rules lawyering, and while I enjoy that, few others in my club do. The FAQ contain a ton of useful answers to complex questions, and, for my group, having those answers is worth taking the bad ones too.

You have to take the whole FAQ as binding, rather than just cherrypicking, if you want to use it at all. This is because the entire point of the FAQ is to provide additional rules clarity and remove contentious rules discussions. It slows things down again to have to have a separate list of FAQ answers that a club wants to answer differently, and the club would have to sit down and come to a coherent agreement of what those different questions and answers should be. So, you have to take the bad with good with the FAQ, particularly if you are trying to stay consistant over a large club or even a geographical region (like the Midwest GT circuit.)

Now, the appendix to the FAQ is an exception. It singles itself out as different from all the other FAQs, asking for a separate decision about its use from the rest of the FAQ. It also has the virtue to being the most famous section of the FAQ. And finally, it tells you that it isn't binding unless both players agree. These three facts make it much, much easier than any other section of FAQ to single it out as non-binding.

So yes, Red Scourge, your reading is a valid one, in so far as one can choose to disregard the FAQ, or cherrypick them and so forth. But this is very difficult to do the larger your club and the more important consistency is to your club. It is by far easier to take the FAQ as a whole than it is ignore it, but the appendix makes it clear that it can and should be treated different than the rest of the FAQ.

EvC
01-09-2009, 20:28
Indeed. The FAQs are pretty simple: they're a group of GW's own houserules on the matter that they recommend we use if we want (And it's easiest to do so, even if we don't always like their rulings). One such FAQ contains an additional appendix, which states a suggestion on how to play things if you can, but outright tells us that the rules do not allow for clipping. Got that? In a group of suggested rules, this one is marked as being how not to play by the rules!

They tell you to do everything you can to avoid horrible clipping situations, and I'll echo that. Do everything you can, within the confines of the game structure. If you think the far corner of a Swordmaster unit might be within 10" of the enemy Night Goblins, then don't declare the charge there and then. Manoeuvre your troops to get a better charge the next turn.


Well, which is it? You think that clipping is an acceptable tactic but you dislike people who engineer it? I don't get it. I can easily position my units in such a way that the only way to charge me is by clipping. In many other cases, clipping occurs simply by accident - a unit that overruns or simply when the battle-lines get jumbled in the heat of combat.

Lord Inquisitor, if you take the time to read my posts, you may understand that there is a difference between believing a rule is legal, and believing it is a decent tactic to use. I would maintain that it is very difficult for you to position a unit that can only be charged by clipping- I once played against a Daemon opponent who tried to position his Daemonettes with Siren Song Herald at an extreme angle to force me to clip his unit with as few chargers as possible- because, yes, he was a beardy git that I would knock on sportsmanship. However, he flubbed and let 3 models get in rather than the 1 he had desired to clip, and paid the price for it.

Yes, you probably can position your units in such manner if you work hard. It tends to be in such cases that if you'd place the unit a fraction of an inch further away, then it would be a failed charge, leaving the charger out to dry completely. In that case, the defender has used his positioning to outplay his opponent. Now we could whine about how fleeing a charge is against the intent of the designers (Especially with skirmishers- so they flee a charge and that make a unit swing around nearly 90 degrees? That's no fun, so why play it like that at all?), after all, combat is the best part of the game. But no, that's a tactic. A tactic designed to make the enemy put his units out of position, even if it distasteful. I once read a small article in White Dwarf about how two players had a situation where if the defender would hold a charge, they would have a fantastic, cinematic battle, but if the defender fled, then the charger would instead get battered by artillery... and so they reasoned that holding would be best. If that article had been in an appendix, recommending that people don't flee from charges because it's unrealistic and not as fun, would we be arguing that people should play that you can't flee from charges if it's no fun? I would hope not...

Incidentally, in that diagram that you edited- congratulations, you just gave the attacker's blue unit an absolutley free flank charge on the greenies in their next turn. Thank you for showing in such fine detail how sliding can be abused- despite a fair player's best intentions.

Lord Inquisitor
01-09-2009, 20:43
I have to disagree: everything you posted concerns the individual units involved in the combat: sliding changes the entire position of units and therefore alters overruns, position for flank charging (gaining or denying, etc) which affects the entire field potentially. This is why it is a knife vs a gun: a gun can affect a lot more things than a knife can, and over a wider range.It affects these things far less than the free wheel-in. But that was exactly my point. Note that if you follow my procedure, it does not affect over-run or positions for flank charging for the turn in question. It would affect subsequent turns - but a lot changes in two player turns when the two armies have clashed. It rarely affects the game as much as you say it does - and I can say that because I have experience of it. You are still running on gedankenexperiment experience.


Messing up movement = bad. The free wheel is necessary as you are playing with square bases, which is an abstraction already -without the free wheel you would have this artificial straight line not contacting the other unit, which would look even more stupid than units not lined directly up (which makes a lot of sense in a turn based represention of a real time event) as they did not have sufficient movement.
But the free-wheel does "mess up" movement - indeed, it "messes up" orientation, which is arguably more important as it affects the flank/rear charges far more and it affects the overrun/pursuit direction (which is the real kicker in most cases, which sliding does not). But it that doesn't mean it "= bad."

The free wheel is simply part of the game and represents a unit being drawn into combat. Sliding does exactly the same thing. Don't see the problem.


I take it you have never had a unit of Night Goblins clip a unit of Swordmasters if you truly believe that clipping "very rarely actually has any noticeable effect on the game" and "makes combat more satisfying" (though I assume the Swordmasters will definately find it more satisfying to clip ;))
I didn't say clipping doesn't have a big effect on individual combats and possibly the game. But sliding doesn't tend to change the overall outcome of the game except in extreme situations. I've had a situation where ogres were clipped with skeletons - VERY big difference, but I still feel that sliding is appropriate even though the skeletons were mine.

Really, the swordmasters should cleave through goblins. There shouldn't be a way that the goblin player can engage swordmasters in the front with goblins and not get sliced to pieces. That's why swordmasters cost so much more than goblins! It's another matter if the swordmasters were outflanked by goblins - this is a clear case of superior tactics. But to engage them from the front and only allow one swordmaster to fight? Makes no sense.


Anyway, The way you suggest to slide charged units is possible even more broken than sliding that chargers.

Lets assume the charging unit are dwarf warriors and the receiving unit are Chaos Hounds. My Dwarfs charge your Hounds and your Hounds slide out of the way of my white unit. Great! Now my Organ Gun (the red unit) can see your Khornate Chaos Knights (out of the picture) that were screened by the Hounds.
Hahaha! Just read back your example to yourself and you'll realise how absurd it is. Chaos Hounds charged by dwarf warriors in a clipping manner? Again, you're scrabbling to find a possible way of abusing the rules, and this is the best you can come up with?

Besides - is this really an abuse? Makes perfect sense. You engage the hounds and draw them into combat. They aren't going to stay strung out in a line as the dwarfs charge in, much as you may wish them to! Seems like sensible tactics rather than an abuse.

And assuming you want to rule out even this "abuse," you can simply perform the slide at the start of the combat phase.


rtunian - except you have one player clearly wanting to play outside the rules, and another who doesn't. Page 3 isn't an "I win on a 1+" button but there to settle actual rules confusions.
No, it isn't an auto-win button, but it is there to allow both players to play by the spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules is clear - clipping is bad. This isn't making up rules, it is a recommended way of playing with the spirit of the rules clearly set out.

nosferatu1001
01-09-2009, 20:58
No, it isn't an auto-win button, but it is there to allow both players to play by the spirit of the rules. The spirit of the rules is clear - clipping is bad. This isn't making up rules, it is a recommended way of playing with the spirit of the rules clearly set out.

This is making up rules: it specifically states you need to change the rules and only if both players agree. That is the part you are missing: page 3 is there where rules are unclear. The appendix states the rules are not unclear. You therefore cannot apply TMIR in this case fairly - there is no ambiguity. You aslo miss that the "rules" for this optional change to the base rule set requires that the two agree - meaning you also have no basis for invoking TMIR if one player does not agree.

If you do then you are invoking the "1+ i win" button: I can just as easily argue that the spriti of the game is that I win on a 1+ with a reroll, and have just as much (in fact, more given the prohibitions in the appendix) rules basis to back me up.

TMIR is useless in a rules discussion, as you can change any rule as long as both agree. In this case the rules are clear - you may not slide unless both players agree - if one does not agree sliding does not occur.

This Appendix is clearly meant to be seperate from any other FAQ, and by its own rules requires two people to agree to change the rules. Nothing you can post will alter that, especially if you keep ignoring that fairly vital point.

Also - this isn't a thought experiment: i have a fair bit of gamiung experience where clipping is far less easy to setup than sliding, and where sliding (if wed played) would have resulted in major game changes. I'd suggest being less patronising about others gaming experience, as it doesn't lend credence to an already woefully short argument.

Lord Inquisitor
01-09-2009, 21:18
This is making up rules: it specifically states you need to change the rules and only if both players agree. That is the part you are missing: page 3 is there where rules are unclear. The appendix states the rules are not unclear. You therefore cannot apply TMIR in this case fairly - there is no ambiguity. You aslo miss that the "rules" for this optional change to the base rule set requires that the two agree - meaning you also have no basis for invoking TMIR if one player does not agree.
Correct, on all points, to a limited degree. This does not, however, mean that it is incorrect to say that both players should attempt to play by the spirit of the rules, and to do otherwise suggests poor sportsmanship.

Also, I should note that both players should agree on clipping/sliding before the game. Once involved it is far harder to be objective!


If you do then you are invoking the "1+ i win" button: I can just as easily argue that the spriti of the game is that I win on a 1+ with a reroll, and have just as much (in fact, more given the prohibitions in the appendix) rules basis to back me up.
A ruleslawyer to the core. Your argument is obviously false because: a) you winning on a 1+ is obviously - beyond any reasonable doubt - not within the spirit of the rules and b) avoiding clipping is certainly the spirit of the rules as we have a document by the designers to prove it.

You can't ruleslawyer the most important rule! Because... that's against the spirit of the spirit of the rules! :cries:


Also - this isn't a thought experiment: i have a fair bit of gamiung experience where clipping is far less easy to setup than sliding, and where sliding (if wed played) would have resulted in major game changes. I'd suggest being less patronising about others gaming experience, as it doesn't lend credence to an already woefully short argument.
I wasn't trying to be patronising - logically, since I play with sliding, I must have more experience of sliding than you, since by your own statement you don't play with sliding. Clipping and sliding are equally easy to set up as you only slide when a clipping event occurs so I don't understand your second point.

Ultimately we know what the strict letter of the rules are and what the spirit of the rules are as we are given both laid out. What we are discussing is the relative merits of both. Clipping is abusable, we know that and that it is against the spirit of the rules. Your position is that sliding is more abusable, and I have yet to find any evidence for this providing it is done in a logical, consistent way. Sliding the charged unit at the start of the combat phase the minimum amount needed to bring all models into combat without interfering with other combats does not affect unit orientation, shooting or overrun corridors. You say it affects the dynamics of the game - perhaps, but in my experience very rare. It has also been pointed out that powerful units benefit from this - the whole point is that weak units shouldn't be able to hide from powerful units via clipping - so good!

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 00:05
Your last point is false: it must interfere with overrun corridors by the very fact you are moving the actual units! The overrun corridor is changed as soon as you move the unit, as you always move on a parallel line to the fleeing unit.

Both players should play by the spirit of the rules, however surely it is up to each individual what they believe that to be? The designers house suggestions on what they want to do is not the be all and end all of "spirit" - after all a lot of designers aren't tournament players, so they would probably think it is against the "spirit" to play a tight game according to all the rules, and not just doing things because they are cool. Doesn't make them more right than anyone else.

This is why they put in the "both players must agree" part - they acknowledge it is their belief it is against the spriit, however haven't bothered to write this into the rules and so you presume that they dont want this to be the norm for everyone (they'd have put it in the rules if they did - they have had ample oppurtunities to do this in both 6th and 7th) and so have it as a mere suggestion of an alternate way to play.

As for your "rules laywer" part - well this is a rules discussion. As soon as you start saying TMIR must be used then you fall into the trap of TMIR: it talks about "fun" and "spirit", which are not exactly well defined terms to be used in a logical, consistent and objective context ;) If I decide that for me to have "fun" I must win on a 2+ on 2D6, you have no right to say that TMIR cannot apply - and so we should D6 it. If I fail we should D6 again, as I'm still not having "fun". TMIR is a way to resolve unambiguous rules, sliding is no such thing and therefrore TMIR cannot be invoked - especially when it tells you you cannot do so as the only way to invoke it is player agreement.

I also have never said i have never played with sliding, i just dont currently play with sliding ;)

The Red Scourge
02-09-2009, 07:45
Sliding is against the rules - full stop. No room for argument. The Appendix repeatedly mentions this. It even states both must agree so no, there is no D6 with it - ever.

Like any other FAQ, both must agree. So there is no difference between this or any other FAQ besides the header Appendix :)

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 13:09
As I said, stop over simplifying. You're either being deliberately obtuse (trolling) or have just ignored the other more eloquent posts than mine: the Appendix specifically puts itself apart from all other FAQs.

AS I said (and you still have not proven to the contrary, see refutation of your "examples" which you neatly ignore) FAQs answer questions about unclear situations, i.e. where rules can go either way. The Appendix seeks to change the rules, but only if two players agree. Much like any rule can be changed as long as both players agree. Meaning it is entirely different to the other FAQs - which is fine.

At this point you either truly cannot see a difference, or you are trolling. Either way there seems to be little point in responding further

The Red Scourge
02-09-2009, 14:44
You're probably right. I do have trouble seeing the distinction between:


The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

And:


The following pages offer some observations on the game rules, which have been placed here so that the rules themselves could be kept reasonably concise. Please note that these are not rules, but rather helpful suggestions we encourage you to use to resolve your games in a friendly manner.

And then how you can disagree and insist on playing it "wrong", when GWs own attitude is this:


This is not technically allowed by the letter of the rules, but if both players agree to do this, the game will benefit in realism and fun (you get to roll lots more dice!).

I may be particularly dense, but I acknowledge the fact GW can't change the rules overnight - this has something to do with printing books - so you can't officially correct such a blooper as the clipping thing, since you can't expect all players to constantly monitor the GW site, this forces them to repeat the voluntary clause they use for every FAQ. What I do not get, is this irrational antipathy for something that adds "realism and fun" to the game.

And last I'd like to paraphrase Kipling, who said it best with this little thing :


Sliders are sliders, and clippers are clippers, and never the twin shall meet :)

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 15:08
Well, in this case you are being dense: sliding has been an issue since at least 6th, yet they chose not to put it into the actual rules either in the 6th ed reprints (you realise errata do get updated when the books go for a new print run? See Orks where warbiker units got changed to correct nobs having 2 wounds not 1. They screwed up and gave boyz two wounds as well but still the point is proven that they could have put it into the actual rules) or when they wrote 7th, instead electing to keep it an entirely seperate way to play the game by changing the base rules for movement.

I repeat: FAQs clarify rules. This is not a FAQ answer but an Appendix which seeks to change the rules. Completely and utterly and irreconcilably different. You keep wilfully ignoring this, hence the suggestion of trolling.

the complete antipathy is that, in adding "realism" (and to some people fun: see my comment about "spirit" and "fun" not being objective universal terms) to a game whihch is an abstraction it destroys what many see as a critical part of the game. [note: not "historical recreation, but game]

After all I think it adds more fun if all my skink are BS6, as I hate not being able to poison skirmishers in woods when I've moved. I'll now require this to be played and D6 if it isn;t - after all it does add more fun, right? Oh and Saurus warriors, literally created to fight, should be WS7 - after all the old ones wouldn't create rubbish fighters, so I think that in the spirit of adding realism they should all be changed.

The game is an abstraction - by necessity. Argument from "realism" is therefore an absurdity.....

Tarian
02-09-2009, 15:12
After all I think it adds more fun if all my skink are BS6, as I hate not being able to poison skirmishers in woods when I've moved. I'll now require this to be played and D6 if it isn;t - after all it does add more fun, right? Oh and Saurus warriors, literally created to fight, should be WS7 - after all the old ones wouldn't create rubbish fighters, so I think that in the spirit of adding realism they should all be changed.

The game is an abstraction - by necessity. Argument from "realism" is therefore an absurdity.....

Forget the WS7, I think most Lizardman players would settle for I > 1 :evilgrin:

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 15:21
No, I'd rather hit more - I expect to be hit first as M4 infantry rarely gets the charge these days. Additionally Saurus are tough enough at T4/4+AS that, with spears, you get more than enough attacks back :D

The Red Scourge
02-09-2009, 17:09
I repeat: FAQs clarify rules. This is not a FAQ answer but an Appendix which seeks to change the rules. Completely and utterly and irreconcilably different. You keep wilfully ignoring this, hence the suggestion of trolling.

I don't ignore this. I refer to the fact, that GW has the same voluntary attitude towards the use of their FAQs, as they have to the use of this appendix - which you seem to so blatantly ignore in your own "trolling". So my argument is that if you choose to play by one of their house rules, you must play by all of them, should we meet in a random game, or else I'd have a hard time guessing which FAQs you choose to follow, and which you choose not to follow.

I gave some examples of this, as just plain examples of FAQs that people in general have questioned what drug induced fantasies their writers had been suffering from, but are widely accepted - under the exact same terms as the appendix.


After all I think it adds more fun if all my skink are BS6, as I hate not being able to poison skirmishers in woods when I've moved. I'll now require this to be played and D6 if it isn;t - after all it does add more fun, right? Oh and Saurus warriors, literally created to fight, should be WS7 - after all the old ones wouldn't create rubbish fighters, so I think that in the spirit of adding realism they should all be changed.

The game is an abstraction - by necessity. Argument from "realism" is therefore an absurdity.....

Realism and fun are GWs terms, not mine... But this is once again a point where we differ, as I see most of the to come from the limitations of my troops and how to compensate for them and not from their superpowers.


the complete antipathy is that, in adding "realism" (and to some people fun: see my comment about "spirit" and "fun" not being objective universal terms) to a game which is an abstraction it destroys what many see as a critical part of the game. [note: not "historical recreation, but game]

What you "clippers" fail to realise, is that clipping messes with the base ideas of the game, which is unit formation and the difference between units reliant on static CR and those reliant on generating CR through kills. This is the most basic of the games mechanics and what the rest revolves around.

Movement is not the most important phase games designwise. It may be the single phase, where you as a player have the most control. But the most basic part of the game involves comparing WS scores.

As you said yourself, this is a game and not a realistic recreation, you've got to be able to abstract beyond simple measuring tape, turn based action and people with 20mm square feet :)

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 17:29
The FAQs (as in the FAQ part of the FAQ document) answer questions where rules are unclear. as I pointed out your "examples" of rules changes were not that at all - yet you ignored that as well. While you may not agree with the reasoning behind the answers doesnt make them a rules change.

The Appendix to the FAQ changes the rules, and specifically state they are different to the rest of the FAQs and can only be used where both people specifically agree to it: this means if you enter a tournament that states all players play with the FAQs you would still need a seperate sentence to state that Sliding will be used otherwise you have not complied with the rules of the Appendix and how it can be used.

Yep, no difference there. You can play by the FAQs and not play by the Appendix, as it is an appendix. I assume you know the reason they called it an appendix and didn't lump it in with the rest? Or will that be conveniently ignored?

Additionally you neatly ignored that, if they really, really, really wanted this in the game, they would have included it inthe actual rules. Which they have had numerous 6th ed print runs and the entirety of 7th ed to do. So quite clearly they don't want them in the main rules - you can infer intent quite easily frmo there. So what is it? Do GW want people to use them as main rules or no? NO they don't.

Apparently "clippers" fail to realise something - sorry no, we understand the game is an abstraction and that movement values are used to indicate how far a unit can go in a turn (usually...) and that messing with this abstraction in the sake of "realism" is absurd - as I pointed out arguments from "realism" plain doesnt work in this game of fat magical frogs and vampires. While "realism" are their words you were using that to support your argument, hence your argument is absurd.

Bac5665
02-09-2009, 18:20
What you "clippers" fail to realise, is that clipping messes with the base ideas of the game, which is unit formation and the difference between units reliant on static CR and those reliant on generating CR through kills. This is the most basic of the games mechanics and what the rest revolves around.

I agree that SCR versus killing CR is a critically important part of Fantasy, and an integral part of what makes fantasy beter than 40k.

However, it is ludicrous to suggest that a masterful movement technique whose purpose is to control the amount of CR each wide will be able to bear, is against the spirit as you describe it. Tactical clipping is all about manipulating CR and controlling the odds, which is what all tactics in a minis game come down to: controlling the odds. Anything done to do that, IMHO, is kosher. Its things like the goblin slingshot, or boneslinky, which far from allowing careful, skilled players to control the odds, are done simply to shortcut those same tactics.

Sliding can be used like clipping, but it has two strikes against it: first, its not an offiical rule. Second, its less precise.

Furthermore, Red Scourge, you say your argument is: "if you choose to play by one of their house rules, you must play by all of them, should we meet in a random game, or else I'd have a hard time guessing which FAQs you choose to follow, and which you choose not to follow", taken from your last post. I strongly agree, as I say in my last post (not one of which you've responded to.) One MUST use ALL the FAQ if one wants to use any of it. Great. Glad we're both on the same page.

Now, here's the kicker: An appendix is separate from the thing it appends.

Breath that in a moment. Actually think about that exact proposition, and what it means for this discussion. Please. I believe it to be the heart of our disagreement. An appendix is used to supply additional information that is supplemental, or unsuited to be part of the main document. Because GW tells you in the appendix that it is not a real rule, I believe that is a clear as day indication that this appendix is meant to be taken differently from the rest of the FAQ. GW is telling you to keep it separate from the rest of the FAQ.

Look at it a different way: If GW intended for the FAQ to be "mere suggestions" but taken as one document, why repeat that instruction for the appendix, unless the appendix is different? We have two possibilities: either GW is redundant, or GW meant for the appendix to be considered separate from the FAQ. In language parsing, there is a principal that when confronted with language that has 1 of 2 meanings and one of those meanings is redundant, always go with the one that isn't redundant.

Please actually respond to this post, rather than just repeating your same old arguments.

Izram
02-09-2009, 18:31
I don't even understand the arguement. You are not choosing to allow the FAQ and disregard the appendix either way.

Use BOTH or use NEITHER. By using the FAQ, you are using their answers (answers which include things like their answer to characters within units, where they give you options) and by using the Appendix you are using their ruling on clipping, which is to say decide with your opponent.

If someone clips instead of sliding, it doesnt mean they are ignoring the appendix. They are using it. IN the apendix ruling it gives you different options.

Whats the problem? Either way you are using both; the appendix gives more than one option, it doesnt say to slide. It says that normally when two people agree on a way to change a cliiping situation, they choose to slide.

Cliff notes:
-Using/accepting the appendix does NOT mean Using/accepting sliding

EvC
02-09-2009, 18:36
And this is ignoring the massive can of worms if people decided that if you use GW FAQs that you should also follow all the suggestions... like units being drawn into combat if they're an inch away. Of course I'm sure the sliders can't possibly see how that could ever be abused, either...

Izram
02-09-2009, 18:45
or their suggestion to be generous to your opponent :)

Bac5665
02-09-2009, 18:46
Izram, I think we agree, just using different semantics. What you're saying is entirely different from what Red scourge has been saying, though.

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 18:49
The appendix is just that: a seperate document. The Red Scourge seems convinced that it isn't, and somehow is the same as the other FAQ documents. Despite saying it isn't at all the same in the piece of text, which is quite amusingly about the only piece they have yet to quote....possibly as it is inconvenient.

Izram
02-09-2009, 18:54
I believe that both documents are produced by GW and therefore should be used.

Using the appendix does not mean sliding. Using the appendix means comming up with the best solution with your opponent, when one cannot be met, live with clipping. Just living with clipping does NOT mean you are not using the appendix.

I agree with Scourge that you shouldnt pick and choose GW publications to follow. But in this case, following the appendix does not mean following its primary suggestion.

Shadowfax
02-09-2009, 18:55
Both players should play by the spirit of the rules, however surely it is up to each individual what they believe that to be? The designers house suggestions on what they want to do is not the be all and end all of "spirit" - after all a lot of designers aren't tournament players, so they would probably think it is against the "spirit" to play a tight game according to all the rules, and not just doing things because they are cool. Doesn't make them more right than anyone else.

No, this is foolish. Nobody but the creators have any legitimate say in defining the "spirit" of the game. If they aren't tournament players it's because tournaments aren't in the spirit of the game either.

That said, it's completely reasonable to ignore the intended "spirit of the game" to maximize your own enjoyment of it. It's also acceptable to believe that something as vague and ephemeral as the "spirit of the game" is an illusion to begin with.

My problem with your attitude is that players like you self-admit to being fully beholden to the rules (indicating absolute trust in the creators of those rules) and yet choose to ignore a suggestion of how to better play the game by those selfsame creators. There's a sort of unpleasant dissonance there, and it's not all your fault. In fact, I'd say it's mostly at GW's doorstep for talking out of both sides of their mouth and forcing players to make a choice between two debatable solutions.

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2009, 19:13
Your last point is false: it must interfere with overrun corridors by the very fact you are moving the actual units! The overrun corridor is changed as soon as you move the unit, as you always move on a parallel line to the fleeing unit.
You don't change the overrun corridor if you slide the charged unit. It could make a difference if the charger flees after combat, and it does change the exact route of the charged unit should it flee. Neither of these things strike me as game dominating, as the exact position of fleeing troops is random anyway and not something under a great deal tactical control.

The key point is that should the charger break or destroy the charged unit, their overrun/pursuit move is not affected by the slide, nor is their orientation to later flank/rear charges next turn.


Both players should play by the spirit of the rules, however surely it is up to each individual what they believe that to be? The designers house suggestions on what they want to do is not the be all and end all of "spirit" - after all a lot of designers aren't tournament players, so they would probably think it is against the "spirit" to play a tight game according to all the rules, and not just doing things because they are cool. Doesn't make them more right than anyone else.
Well, I would say that their idea of the spirit of the rules might be slightly more pertinent!


This is why they put in the "both players must agree" part - they acknowledge it is their belief it is against the spriit, however haven't bothered to write this into the rules and so you presume that they dont want this to be the norm for everyone (they'd have put it in the rules if they did - they have had ample oppurtunities to do this in both 6th and 7th) and so have it as a mere suggestion of an alternate way to play.
Here I agree with you. While the 7th ed rules make it harder to clip than the 6th or earlier editions (as you must maximise models from both sides in combat), I am totally perplexed as to why clipping remains in the rules. I just can't understand why a rules "loophole" that is "against the spirit of the rules" has been allowed to persist for the last few editions. Going back a few pages, I outlined a bunch of "fixes" for clipping, and others have proposed theirs, so its not like its impossible. It is one of the things that really annoys me about Fantasy as it is a deficiency in the rules that has been around so long and acknowledged as such by the designers every edition yet they doggardly refuse to resolve it.

It's even worse this edition with the demise of lapping round that means that single-ranked units of big nasties like dragon ogres or similar can be clipped and there's simply no way to get the rest of the unit into combat. An absurd situation. At the very least, units should be allowed to "slide" using their own movement in the movement phase!

At this point I'm willing to agree with you to some degree. It's a rediculous situation to be in and the cause of this argument, which is to say that the rules say one thing and then we have a recommendation to do it another way, which is the "spirit" of the rules. I do think that deliberately trying to engineer clipping situations as a tactic is bad form. Obviously if both players like the idea of clipping as a game tactic then that's fine. However, as you point out, the default situation is that if one player wants to clip then he can, which I find unstatisfying.


I may be particularly dense, but I acknowledge the fact GW can't change the rules overnight - this has something to do with printing books - so you can't officially correct such a blooper as the clipping thing, since you can't expect all players to constantly monitor the GW site, this forces them to repeat the voluntary clause they use for every FAQ. What I do not get, is this irrational antipathy for something that adds "realism and fun" to the game.
Unfortunately, this is not a thing that is a new issue that's waiting for a new edition to fix. That appendix section was included in the 6th edition rulebook. Ergo clipping has been acknowledged as a "bad thing" since at least 5th edition (and probably earlier, my memory is failing me).

So we've had at least two full editions of the Warhammer rulebook where the designers have deliberately decided not to resolve clipping in the rules themselves and merely "suggested" we find a way to resolve it ourselves.

EvC
02-09-2009, 19:20
You also cannot have your "spirit of the game" defined by FAQs because all too often they are not written by the authors of the original document they are commenting upon. The appendix is likely the interpretation of how one author felt at the time he wrote it, and as such considers different viewpoints. In fact it's quite clear: having a game entirely for fun, and don't care too much about the rules? Go ahead, slide. Want to play the game according to the rules? Well you can't, you gotta clip. But feel free to ignore them if you want.

Which, we actually have the power to do at any time we so choose, with any rule out there. See also the "Most Important Rule". If at any time in a game a certain mechanic displeases you, you are free to suggest to your opponent a superior way of doing it- it's not solely restricted to sliding!

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2009, 19:26
Indeed, something I tend to forget as I play almost exclusively tournament games. I find I enjoy games like Inquisitor so much because there is so much latitude to play around with the rules.

That said, "sliding" has a unique position as it is a recommended way of playing and as such is often regarded as the "right" way to play (or even the letter of the rule) and is perhaps the most common house rule.

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 20:37
Shadowfax (cool name btw, neverending story ref? think so :)) - I am not a rules beholden player: in fact under most situations I don't really mind as long as we both agree to what the rules say.* The problem comes when people dont get that clipping is the rule, and sliding only if both agree - and seem to think that they should be able to force sliding through D6 when this is clearly prohibited by both TMIR and the rules in the appendix.

In addition even the designers cannot state what "spirit" is for everyone, that is up to each player to decide. This is why you have people who hate tournies and people who hate scenarios, and everything in between - and saying the designers dont like tournaments would be a little tricky, given Alessio is a fairly good (*cough* ;)) player at tournaments, and this months white dwarf gets 2 great tourney players to do a properly played batrep!

Lord Inq: I didnt realise you only slid the charged unit - most sliding involves moving the charging unit, as they are the ones in motion. How do you deal with times when the charged unit cannot move? E.g. up against terrain, etc. Or when it means they are denied the benefits of cover, e.g. partially behind a house being pulled entirely out? This makes a difference, especially for skaven armies ;)

*playe d a cool VC vs LM scenario the other week, opener to a larger campaign. FLyign boat invasion of liustria (yes, literally a flying boat, very funny looking!) where I only had certain forces (1 unit of saurus only, everything else had to be skinks or krox or skink mounts) - I could only deploy skinks at the start, others came on from reserve. We had a large river running down the length to a beach across the short edge: we made a houserule that "aquatic" creatures could march 3xM as long as they did so down river. Krox moving 18" a turn is scary fast! very cool looking as well as I baited one unit into the river with skinks, where they promptly got charged by the krox hiding there....like feeding time on the animal crossings in wildlife shows ;))

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2009, 20:55
Lord Inq: I didnt realise you only slid the charged unit - most sliding involves moving the charging unit, as they are the ones in motion. How do you deal with times when the charged unit cannot move? E.g. up against terrain, etc. Or when it means they are denied the benefits of cover, e.g. partially behind a house being pulled entirely out? This makes a difference, especially for skaven armies ;)

I even adapted Unwanted's diagram! (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3908353&postcount=102) ;)

In the case of the defender not being able to slide (or being behind an obstacle), then I would slide the charger or simply live with the clipping if that was also problematic in some way.

Of course, there not being any hard-and-fast sliding rule, it has the advantage of being evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Shadowfax
02-09-2009, 21:06
Shadowfax (cool name btw, neverending story ref? think so :))
Lord of the Rings, actually. I thought that book was manditory reading for all WGB players. :p

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2009, 21:07
I was going to say that's where I would have assumed your name came from!

Urgat
02-09-2009, 21:16
What you "clippers" fail to realise, is that clipping messes with the base ideas of the game, which is unit formation and the difference between units reliant on static CR and those reliant on generating CR through kills. This is the most basic of the games mechanics and what the rest revolves around.

Could turn that around against you. You slider refuse to realise that we don't have to give a unit all it's attacks because it managed to get within 0.5 inches of its charge distance. Oh yeah, I don't doubt for a second you'd let your opponent slide those blood knights all the way so they can challenge your general and crush the rest of the unit in one go, even if there's only one in charge range. Well I wouldn't, I refuse to allow it, and the FAQ gives me the right to do so. If one doesn't want to comply with the rules, I just don't play them. There's enough arguments as it is with that game, no need to add out-of-the-rulebook ones.
I can't believe this argument is still going against all reason.

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 21:20
Lord of the Rings, actually. I thought that book was manditory reading for all WGB players. :p

Balls. What you get for being up till 8am this morning with a sick boyf/husband (really no idea if husband is the right term with partnerships lol) - you miss truly obvious references.

I think that is the problem with sliding: highly imprecise, in the most key part of the game (movement) this is not good. When charges commonly fial by less than 0.1" altering positions in this way just doesnt seem right from the strict game sense. From a realism point maybe, but the entire game is unrealistic so it seems odd to argue so much that this should be included for that reason ;)

Lazarus15
02-09-2009, 23:03
Could turn that around against you. You slider refuse to realise that we don't have to give a unit all it's attacks because it managed to get within 0.5 inches of its charge distance. Oh yeah, I don't doubt for a second you'd let your opponent slide those blood knights all the way so they can challenge your general and crush the rest of the unit in one go, even if there's only one in charge range. Well I wouldn't, I refuse to allow it, and the FAQ gives me the right to do so. If one doesn't want to comply with the rules, I just don't play them. There's enough arguments as it is with that game, no need to add out-of-the-rulebook ones.
I can't believe this argument is still going against all reason.

Yes I would allow that, as that is how the game is supposed to be played. If I put my unit there, and they got to me, then I messed up and I am about to suffer the consequences. If one blood knight clips the edge of a fleeing unit, after a charge has been declared, then the whole block is destroyed. So why should this part, although different in wording but same in idea, be any different. It represents ALL of the bloodknights running down/scattering/wounding the unit to the point of non-combat effectiveness.

The following is a quote from the Dark Elves FAQ regarding the scourge and hand weapons ruling.

Only by creatures with three or more arms!
The answer is ‘obviously not’. We decided not
to bin this question as a non-question just to
use it as a perfect example of the way we don’t
like our games to be played. Trying to assume
that a warrior is fighting with a normal sword,
the Dagger of Hotek and a Beastmaster
Scourge all at the same time it’s so absurd that
it denotes a very wrong attitude towards the
game (i.e. too extreme application of Rules As
Written against all common sense).

That sounds similar to the appendix regarding two units meeting one the battlefield and only two guys going toe-to-toe that aren't even in a "challenge". Not verbatim, but the idea is still the same.

Until a more "widely accepted" clarification comes out, just clear it up with your opponent before you play or with a tournament rep. I still maintain that of the three completely different place I have played in the continental US, that all three geographical locations play the same (IE: Slide) I honestly don't think it is just a coincidence.

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 23:10
And nowhere I have played in teh UK plays sliding, which I don't see as a coincidence.

Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

There is a simple way to make it a wider accepted way of playing: include it in the rule book, which they have had ample oppurtunities to do.

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2009, 23:13
Balls. What you get for being up till 8am this morning with a sick boyf/husband (really no idea if husband is the right term with partnerships lol) - you miss truly obvious references.
I think "other half" is pretty good and ambigious.


I think that is the problem with sliding: highly imprecise, in the most key part of the game (movement) this is not good. When charges commonly fial by less than 0.1" altering positions in this way just doesnt seem right from the strict game sense. From a realism point maybe, but the entire game is unrealistic so it seems odd to argue so much that this should be included for that reason ;)
My perspective is that it doesn't affect the movement phase all that much. You still have to be in charge range, you still charge the front/rear, etc. Ultimately it doesn't really affect anything that turn, particularly if you slide after the shooting and magic phases, other than the number of dice you get to throw in the combat phase.

Now, yes, it can affect things for the units you slide (although I maintain that sliding the charger is the least disruptive). But then, clipping can have a profound (and often unsavoury) effect on the game too if you DON'T slide. Even if it is "abusable" under bizarre conditions, is that really worse than clipping? In 40K, I will often engage units deliberately to pull them in certain direction - I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 23:27
But in 40k you have defender react!, an explicit idea the charged unit can (and well must, normally) move - fantasy has no such expectation as the charging unit maximises and then aligns. I think this is one of the problems to overcome in "acceptance" - that it alters the movement phase (especially with charged moves), that it is explicitly an optional rule completely seperate to all other rules, and there have been many chances for it to become a "proper" rule.

Shadowfax
02-09-2009, 23:38
Could turn that around against you. You slider refuse to realise that we don't have to give a unit all it's attacks because it managed to get within 0.5 inches of its charge distance.
I absolutely wouldn't mind a clipping scenario if it only applied for one turn, but when the two units could potentially stay there for the rest of the game, duking it out between single models, it gets kind of ridiculous.

nosferatu1001
02-09-2009, 23:49
I've found my units do that anyway: had 2 units of clanrats (skaven vs skaven and 2 screaming bells: mayhem) which managed to do no wounds to each other for 6 combat rounds, and both were exactly the same: drawn combats, 6 turns running.

Also any unit pinned in place will soon be flanked / rear and destroyed, unless theyre the only ones left!

Draconian77
02-09-2009, 23:59
I have to say, we play with sliding all the time and it doesn't cause any major problems. I'm just not a fan of how clippping looks on the tabletop.


Unfortunately, this is not a thing that is a new issue that's waiting for a new edition to fix. That appendix section was included in the 6th edition rulebook. Ergo clipping has been acknowledged as a "bad thing" since at least 5th edition (and probably earlier, my memory is failing me).


On the bright side, they haven't disposed of it(the appendix) either! :D

nosferatu1001
03-09-2009, 00:04
The movement in combat things is pretty rubbish anyway: If unengaged on 3 sides you should be able to move to better align. But then you shoudl be able to turn flank->front without requiring two turns in any case....that always looks absurd, especially with Cavalry units!

Lazarus15
03-09-2009, 13:43
I don't see what is anecdotal evidence in my last post. Could you clarify?

nosferatu1001
03-09-2009, 16:52
I don't see what is anecdotal evidence in my last post. Could you clarify?

I was referring to this:



I still maintain that of the three completely different place I have played in the continental US, that all three geographical locations play the same (IE: Slide) I honestly don't think it is just a coincidence.


Where it seems you are trying to say sliding is widely accepted, whereas I was saying that this doesnt "prove" anything - most places I know play with clipping.

Izram
03-09-2009, 17:46
How I normally see it covered (read: only way I have seen it handled)

"Do you want to slide these guys over, it was an awkward charge"
"Nope"
"Ok"

or

"Do you want to slide these guys over, it was an awkward charge"
"Sure"
"Ok"

and move on with the game. If we both are OK with sliding, then they slide, if one or both of us prefer not to slide, then they dont slide.

I dont think I have ever gotten into, or have seen, a dispute over the table about sliding.

EvC
03-09-2009, 19:36
The only dispute I can remember was when a mate's unit overran and glanceingly clipped a unit of mine, and I told him he still had to wheel to maximise, at which point he started bringing up how I always complained when we slide (Because it usually gave him incredibly convenient advantages, like bringing flanking troops into charge range). Of course the wheel to maximise is and always should be mandatory :)

Shadowfax
03-09-2009, 23:02
How I normally see it covered (read: only way I have seen it handled)

"Do you want to slide these guys over, it was an awkward charge"
"Nope"
"Ok"

or

"Do you want to slide these guys over, it was an awkward charge"
"Sure"
"Ok"

and move on with the game. If we both are OK with sliding, then they slide, if one or both of us prefer not to slide, then they dont slide.

I dont think I have ever gotten into, or have seen, a dispute over the table about sliding.
It'd be kind of weird and open to abuse if you did that on a combat-by-combat basis rather than a game-by-game basis, but you don't really say.

Dexter099
05-09-2009, 02:59
That sliding rule does not exist, it's a house rule. For some reason people seem to think it's a legal move, but it's not. Some people claim it's only logical, make things simpler, etc etc. Fair enough. Then I saw some guy try to pull one of his opponent's units out of cover doing that, and when the other player refused to, he was accused of cheating because the other player was convinced it was an existing rule. Since then, I'm totally against sliding, every time, no exception. It's not in the rules, it can be abused, so no dice. Clipping might suck, but abusing a rule that doesn't exist is way worse, imho.

You are supposed to.

It was FAQed.

nosferatu1001
05-09-2009, 07:19
Dexter - quick question do you read teh threads you join in? A couple of the 40k oines where you post the wrong rule after having the correct one posted just before it suggests not!

No, you are not supposed to unless both of you want to do so as this is against the rules - it is what the Appendix states. Oh and remember it is an Appendix - you do realise that means it is not part of the FAQ, right?

The Appendix is clear: play with sliding if you want to. The intent of the BRB authors must be that sliding is not part of the main rules, as they have had the entireity of 6th and 7th to make it part of the main rules, and havent done so.

Urgat
05-09-2009, 15:10
You are supposed to.

It was FAQed.

Yeah, good job posting after reading the two first posts of the topic and ignoring the other 9 pages. Besides, you obviously haven't even read that faq, and you're wrong, but thank you for bringing your light to a topic that needed it >>

Lazarus15
08-09-2009, 02:50
I would amend your statement nos and say that "play with the slide rule if you and your opponent agree to, or the tournament organizers clarify, one way or the other."

Sarah S
08-09-2009, 02:53
I hate sliding.

If I play my inches well enough to force your Knorne Knights to clip my goblins, I deserve to win that combat.

nosferatu1001
08-09-2009, 02:58
Between two people they can agree not to use sliding, even if the TO says otherwise.

Lazarus15
08-09-2009, 03:03
I disagree. If my spear men get hit by a wave of graveguard, the graveguard are not going to stop and do a one-on-one. Again, the bit on page 2 of the dark elf FAQ explains the idea behind "strict letter rules as written" and how they don't want their games being played.

To compare, if one of your goblins hits one fleeing khorne knight (lets just say) I don't think that one goblin is either going to break their formation or run them down. It does represent the UNIT running them down or breaking apart their formation. Same concept. One knight and one goblin aren't going to decide combat. The units will.

nosferatu1001
08-09-2009, 03:34
well, actually they do - as those are the rules.

If you want to play by an optional ruleset in an appendix to the first BRB faq, which specifically states both players muyst agree to its use (as it is changing the rules...) then fine.

Otherwise clipping is the default. It is also irrelevant in a rules context whether you like it or not.

Dexter099
08-09-2009, 04:21
I think the FAQ covers this up well enough. If you want to be a childish rules lawyer and not do it just because you want to win, no matter how fair it is a or not, then you can just go ahead and do that. But I think that the FAQ insists on it so strongly that we should follow it.

Sarah S
08-09-2009, 04:44
I think the FAQ covers this up well enough. If you want to be a childish rules lawyer and not do it just because you want to win, no matter how fair it is a or not, then you can just go ahead and do that. But I think that the FAQ insists on it so strongly that we should follow it.

And the childish fluff bunnies that just just want to win will slide all over the place without any regard for the rules of the game. I guess these off-handed idiotic insults can go both ways hey?

Hey, I don't like what the rules say about armour saves, can I just re-roll all of mine, because it's really not fair to have all my guys in armour failing all these saves and dying all the time.

nosferatu1001
08-09-2009, 05:21
I think the FAQ covers this up well enough. If you want to be a childish rules lawyer and not do it just because you want to win, no matter how fair it is a or not, then you can just go ahead and do that. But I think that the FAQ insists on it so strongly that we should follow it.

More childish insults.

Yes, the (appendix to the) FAQ covers this - only if both players want to change the rules do you do so. Otherwise you follow the rules as they clearly state what those rules are

You "think" completely incorrectly as the Appendix contradicts you - you do realise it doesn't actually support your position at all, right? You can ignore this yourself but trying to pretend (despite being shown to be wrong on a number of occasions now) otherwise isn't going to fly.

Clipping is the rule, sliding is optional if both players agree. Taken from the Appendix to the FAQ.

EvC
08-09-2009, 10:59
But I think that the FAQ insists on it so strongly that we should follow it.

It doesn't do that though. Still, it's good to see what your definition of "childish rules lawyer" is: someone who can read the rules, rather than making them up on the spot.

Lazarus15
08-09-2009, 13:40
I don't like the way the guy phrased his argument, but the thing you are quoting EVC is true. It does say that. C'mon man. ;)

nosferatu1001
08-09-2009, 16:04
No, it doesn't: it says that sliding is more in the spirit of the rules, but you're missing the part where it is a) in an Appendix not the main rule set, b) specifically states it is against the rules, and c) it is only possible to play if both players agree: no D6 roll off ever.

It isn't harsh to take Dexter apart for considering people who read the rules to be "childish rules lawyers" at all, especially when they have yet to actually contribute anything useful to a 9 page thread.

EvC
08-09-2009, 17:42
I don't like the way the guy phrased his argument, but the thing you are quoting EVC is true. It does say that. C'mon man. ;)

"Strongly insists" is in no way shape or form what the FAQ suggests about sliding. It certainly implies that it might be better to play with sliding (and indeed, it might), but that is not a command.

Urgat
09-09-2009, 13:46
I don't like the way the guy phrased his argument, but the thing you are quoting EVC is true. It does say that. C'mon man. ;)

But Nosferatu's quote isn't true? I mean, what part of "if the two players agree" don't people understand? You put the priority of a suggestion over a clearly stated imperative?
You all realize that by imposing sliding, you're purposedly ignoring this part of the rule (since you insist on it being a genuine rule and not just an appendix, at least try to be consistent) and, therefore, cheating? Yes, like it or not, if you know the rules, chose not to use them, then impose that choice on the other player, that's not sportsmanship, that's cheating.
But I thought that was the rules forum, I'm sorry to be a childish ruleslawyer.

Lord Inquisitor
09-09-2009, 18:45
No, it doesn't: it says that sliding is more in the spirit of the rules, but you're missing the part where it is ...

"The rules say I don't need to play by the spirit of the rules."

Well, fair enough, I suppose. I'm sensing a familiar divide here, the RAW ruleslaywers on one side and people who value the spirit rather than the letter on the other. At this point I don't think we're going to get further, unless we redirect the discussion towards debating the relative merits of playing by the spirit of the rules in general, which is ground well hashed.

Here's to hoping GW jolly well sort this out in the next edition of the rules.

Sarah S
09-09-2009, 20:16
Well, fair enough, I suppose. I'm sensing a familiar divide here, the RAW ruleslaywers on one side and people who value the spirit rather than the letter on the other.

No, no, no.

It's the silly anarchists who play by whatever pops into their head versus players who value consistency and rationality.

Lazarus15
09-09-2009, 22:15
Urgat- What are you talking about? Consistency and so on? You might want to go back and re-read the past 10 pages and figure out who you are replying to.

If you are talking about "if the two players agree" part, then that is quite simple. The three locations I have been at geographically, play the same. If there is a question of how it is to be played at a tourney, then I ask the tourney rep before hand so I know how they are running it. How they decree is how it is to be played. So yes, I am putting the priority on the suggestion, as is a whole lot of people over the "clearly stated imperative" which GW has ruled down on from what I have seen, through their tournament circuits, and through their "SUGGESTION of how to play" as well as through similarities from the Dark Elf FAQ, page 2, left side, where they take a stance on the whole idea of strict rules as written as bogus.

Cheating? So by your logic, I drove to work today, someone saw my car, liked it, but wrecked theirs while looking at mine, so it is my fault? That is the same backwards logic you are using by saying you are cheating if you follow the "suggestions" GW uses in their "voluntary" appendix and tournament circuits.

And Lord Inquisitor pretty much nailed it on the head. RAW vs. RAW(s) for strictly vs. RAI. I also agree that the debate is pretty much dead. Nothing left here.

Urgat
09-09-2009, 22:50
I've been reading the whole thread frop the begining, sorry, you just happened to post the latest relevant post for me to quote, nothing personal ;) Anyway.
How they play where you play matters little. They decided to play this way, it's because they agreed to do so, and you do it the same, you agree to play how they play, and therefore agree to use sliding. There, following the rules.
Your analogy with the car, I'll be nice and just ignore it.
Please, I beg you, , I'll ask again, tell me your reasoning behind ignoring that simple and straightforward part of the rule that says that both players must agree. Everybody gives his opinion around it, everybody talks about sensible things to do and so on. But up till now, no one has told why this part of the rule should be ignored, when it's the key part concerning the problem at hand. You (general you) can give me all the exemples, all the analogies that you want, as long as you're ignoring the basic rule and what it says, the interest of it all amounts to zero. The rule says that both players must agree in order to slide, so if one of those players refused to use sliding in those three playing locations of yours, the other players, if they respect the rules, must accept not to use it. Otherwise, it's just forcing a houserule on someone and yes, that's disregarding the rules, and tell me how you call that. So tell me, if a player goes where you play, wants to play a game and declares, before it starts, that he won't use sliding, what you folks would do? No sliding, no game? I hope not, but it was so, how cwould you call that, segregating a guy for wanting to play the game following the rules the way GW wrote them? Quite honestly, your post hints at things I find very disturbing :/
ANyway, I said I wouldn't post again, I shouldn't have, so I'll conclude my part for good by repeating myself one last time:
The OP wanted to know if sliding was the correct move per the rulebook. The answer is that no, sliding is an optionnal part offered in an appendix, that should be used only if the two players agree. this is the plain fact, arguing against is refusing to accept the meanings of the words, and therefore opening the door to all kind of abuse. Next time a guy asks me if he can slide so all his knights not in range can get in the combat, I'll say sure, if I can add a couple inches to my fanatics so they too can reach the enemy when they couldn't, after all, it's only one and a half inch compared to the three inches those knights gain. Which would be silly beyond measure, right? It's funny but I'm sure everybody is going to agree on that last sentence >>

nosferatu1001
09-09-2009, 23:57
"The rules say I don't need to play by the spirit of the rules."


Indeed they do, which is the entire point.

The rules for using Sliding states that using them is entirely optional and only if you want to - and it requires that both people want to.

In other words we don't want to enforce this on everyone so it isn't part of the main rules. They've had two editions, complete editions, to incorporate it if they wanted to - the only conclusion you can draw is that, in fact, they don't want it as part of the rules.

Using the phrase "rules lawyer" is actually insulting in this case: it says "here is something entirely, completely, utterly optional and not for everyone. Use the rules if you both want to" so choosing not to use it is in no means "rules lawyering"

In fact if you insist on sliding when the other player doesn't want to, you're back to trying to force a 1+ "I win" on someone on a D6 roll.

Deglosh
10-09-2009, 09:17
Next time a guy asks me if he can slide so all his knights not in range can get in the combat, I'll say sure, if I can add a couple inches to my fanatics so they too can reach the enemy when they couldn't, after all, it's only one and a half inch compared to the three inches those knights gain. Which would be silly beyond measure, right? It's funny but I'm sure everybody is going to agree on that last sentence >>

I totally an utterly agree on this part. And a comment like this should kill almost any try to use sliding as a valid "rule".

I am with you on about everything. There is no need to get upset, and ive seen some upset comments here. I mean ok say youre in a gamingclub and the guy youre gonna play against says that he rather not use sliding. Are you going to flame him as you guys have flamed on here? It IS optional, and both players MUST agree to use it so i dont really see why ppl get upset here. I mean if some1 youre going to play against says no to sliding, its just to say "ok" and go on with the game. ANYWAY if you are THAT crappy at manouvering, this game without slidign would be a good lesson ;)

The way me and my two friends play it on the other hand, is that we only use clipping on the turn the charge is made, then the 2nd round of combat we slide both units towards eachother so they "meet" in the middle. But thats just what we play with.

Da GoBBo
10-09-2009, 15:01
I hate sliding.

If I play my inches well enough to force your Knorne Knights to clip my goblins, I deserve to win that combat.

To me this says it all.

Lord Inquisitor
10-09-2009, 15:24
Next time a guy asks me if he can slide so all his knights not in range can get in the combat, I'll say sure, if I can add a couple inches to my fanatics so they too can reach the enemy when they couldn't, after all, it's only one and a half inch compared to the three inches those knights gain. Which would be silly beyond measure, right? It's funny but I'm sure everybody is going to agree on that last sentence >>
The point is this.

In the "spirit of the game" or from a realism perspective, the knights are in combat or they're not. It's a binary state, the idea that the knights would charge in at an angle and only one knight would fight is silly. Even if that knight hits first, the rest are thundering in a second later. That's the basis for the free wheel in rule, which noone has a problem with. Indeed, it is very common for models to gain quite a few extra inches this way - easily more than 3".

So either none of the knights are in range, or they all are. That's the idea. You can compare this with other game systems. In 40K something similar happens - if noone in the unit makes it in, the charge is failed, but if even one guy makes it in, both sides surge in and you have a satisfying combat. In Epic, while clipping is possible (and a very different beast to the clipping in Fantasy) the same charge- and counter-charge effect usually results in serious combat.

So the point is that either the Knights are in combat or they're not. Its a binary state, there shouldn't be "in combat a bit". If you guess your range correctly and get even one guy in range, the unit is in range and should really result in a "proper" battleline. Our ranked units are something of an abstraction.

This is NOT the same thing as asking for a few extra inches charging/shooting/fantaticing/etc. If the Knights are out of charge range, they fail the charge. The extra movement from wheeling in only happens if the charge is made. From a realism perspective, the unit either realises it is too far and gives up before the charge really gets underway, or it charges forward - even if that's a little further than their normal movement for the turn, they are still going to continue charging! If nothing else, the models out of charge range should surely be in combat by next turn??

The same thing applies when a unit breaks one of the units it was engaged with and now is left clipping the other. Wouldn't both units move in to engage each other properly?

Fantatics actually make a good analogy too. Either the fanatics hit the unit or they don't. If they don't reach the unit, they move the distance. If they do, then they bounce through the unit and out the other side, even if this is beyond their maximum move. So you can get extra movement with the fanatics, but only if they are in range, just as you can get extra movement with the knights but only if they are in range (whether wheeling or sliding).


In other words we don't want to enforce this on everyone so it isn't part of the main rules. They've had two editions, complete editions, to incorporate it if they wanted to - the only conclusion you can draw is that, in fact, they don't want it as part of the rules.
Agreed, and also agreed that this is bizarre, given their strong suggestion that sliding is to be "aspired to."

I never said it needed to be enforced or that it is mandatory. You are right, if one player doesn't want to slide, you don't. I do however think everyone should agree to slide and that it is against the spirit of the game to refuse. I can't make you agree to slide, but am I not allowed to try and pursuade you of the merits of sliding? ;)


Using the phrase "rules lawyer" is actually insulting in this case: it says "here is something entirely, completely, utterly optional and not for everyone. Use the rules if you both want to" so choosing not to use it is in no means "rules lawyering"
I didn't mean to be insulting. I would regard a rules lawyer as "someone who obeys the letter of the rule with no consideration for the spirit of the rule." Which is what you are doing. We know the spirit of the rules (the appendix tells us) and we know the letter of the rules (the appendix also tells us). We are simply choosing between the two.

But that's not even what I meant. All I was saying was that I recognise a number of posters on both sides of this debate who I would mentally categorise as "rules lawyers" or "fluff bunnies" from previous rules debates, and this divide continues here with little chance of either side pursuading the other.


In fact if you insist on sliding when the other player doesn't want to, you're back to trying to force a 1+ "I win" on someone on a D6 roll.
This again? Not if it is used as a house rule and applies to both players equally. Now, picking and choosing which units to slide would be bad.

EvC
10-09-2009, 15:40
A very good argument for why the rules should be changed to allow for some element of controlled sliding there- but until no such rules exist, even though sliding might seem more in the spirit of the game, I'd prefer to play by the rules for now, although in situations where sliding benefits neither player, I'll usually allow for it. It's like that other example I brought up: if you have one combat unit charging another combat unit, and you were to ask GW "Can that combat unit really choose to flee as a charge reaction?!", they'd say, "Ahh, it can by the rules, but the game is all about these massive combats, so in the spirit of the game, he should choose to hold, even it it's a technical disadvantage for him!" (True story, it was in white dwarf). Does that mean that we should never choose to flee from combat with a combat unit, or make some kind of agreement before the game to not declare flee reactions with main combat units?

Hopefully not ;)

Urgat
10-09-2009, 15:52
Lord inquisitor, thank you, you save me the trouble of arguing and breaking my word, I'll just quote myself:

I'll ask again, tell me your reasoning behind ignoring that simple and straightforward part of the rule that says that both players must agree. Everybody gives his opinion around it, everybody talks about sensible things to do and so on. But up till now, no one has told why this part of the rule should be ignored, when it's the key part concerning the problem at hand. You (general you) can give me all the exemples, all the analogies that you want, as long as you're ignoring the basic rule and what it says, the interest of it all amounts to zero.

I don't care about the reasons why you'd want to use sliding (I got my reasons why I don't want to use sliding, they're equally as valid), the rules are clear as clear water: I don't agree to sliding, you don't use sliding, period, and that's universaly true if you follow GW rules. That won't change until they rule it that sliding must be used. I've got nothing else to add.

JJMUS
10-09-2009, 16:14
this wouldnt be considered sliding at all.
as stated in the rulebook
Once the charging unit is in contact,(or touches the target)it is automatically ALIGNED against its enemy to form a battleline.This extra ALIGNMENT move is free,and might result in some figures moving further than their charge moves.
Diagram 22.1
I would call that a free move to make the battle neat.Just like everyone i know has did forever.Even in tournaments and ard boyz.
Dont really understand the argument here.

Urgat
10-09-2009, 16:30
The big difference is that is that when you align, the pivot point doesn't move, you just wheel till everything that might be in contact does end in contact. Sliding makes it so that the pivot point moves. The problem with sliding is that you make that pivot point(which is also the contact point), which is supposed to be the farthest reaching distance of the unit, move even farther away than the maximum charging range of the unit. So you just need get within 1mm or something (not that difficult, right?) of your charging range, and all of a sudden, your 7 wide knights gain 7 inches on their charge move to all get in combat. Some streamlining of the battle there, they gain almost as much as the total charge range of most infantry units (sliding means dwarfs can gain more movement with sliding than with the actual charge, AND that's not even counting the free alignment rule! Amazing! -though to be honest, with sliding, you don't really need to align anymore, or, to be accurate, you need to make a negative alignment since you'd be inside the target... another sliding aberation).

Lazarus15
10-09-2009, 18:08
Urgat, you know they use sliding in the GW GT circuits and 'ardboyz right?

JJMUS
10-09-2009, 18:09
as far as i know they always have-noones ever contested it.

nosferatu1001
10-09-2009, 18:16
Yes, and? They also changed the rules to let daemons start on the table in 40k missions.

What tournies do has no bearing on the actual rules.

Bac5665
10-09-2009, 18:17
GW GTs are dumb for any number of reasons. They are so badly run and cheesy they give all tournaments a bad name. I would never go to a GW GT barring some major changes, so they really don't count in my mind.

So yeah, any tournament I've been to, sliding has been ask your opponent or outright banned.

EvC
10-09-2009, 18:24
Lol, are people STILL making the argument that "it's allowed in GW GTs"?! Even more ridonculous that they're pointing to 'Ardboyz game as the way we should be playing? Seriously, you're bonkers if you think pointing to the 'Ardboyz is going to convince anyone anything.

And just to trump y'all, in the exact same manner as I've alreayd done in this thread... the UK GT, you know, the one played at the HQ of GW itself, them? They play with clipping as default.

Appeal to authority, probably not for the win after all eh guys?

Lord Inquisitor
10-09-2009, 18:45
Urgat, you know they use sliding in the GW GT circuits and 'ardboyz right?

I didn't know this. Was this put in print anywhere? Just for my own curiosity, not wanting to belabour the point.

Urgat
10-09-2009, 18:57
Urgat, you know they use sliding in the GW GT circuits and 'ardboyz right?

No, I didn't. So?

willowdark
10-09-2009, 20:55
Adepticon is also using sliding as the standard. If I went, i'd probably try to agree with my opponent before hand not to slide.

Deglosh
10-09-2009, 21:25
isnt there an admin that can lock this thread already? hasnt everything been said?

nosferatu1001
10-09-2009, 23:25
Pretty much everything has been said:

1) if you follow rules, don't slide unless you both want to
2) if you follow "spirit of the game" claims, despite them having had 2 editions to actually make them the real rules, then slide - although you should also then draw people into combat if they havent charged but just end up "near" to the combat, etc.

narrativium
11-09-2009, 00:45
although you should also then draw people into combat if they havent charged but just end up "near" to the combat, etc. Where did this come from? Clipping is RAW, sliding is in the appendix, "drawing units which happen to be nearby into combat" isn't in the rules at all. A unit has to charge or be charged, it can't just accidentally stumble into melee.

nosferatu1001
11-09-2009, 00:53
Its in the appendix as well: page 7, charging multiple tqrgets

If you choose to follow part of the appendix due to "spirit" you shoud use all the appendix.

Foxbat
11-09-2009, 02:39
Its in the appendix as well: page 7, charging multiple tqrgets
So, if used, do you see the “Charging Multiple Targets” observation replacing the “Multiple Targets” rule (BRB pg 24) in its entirety or is it more of a clarification?

nosferatu1001
11-09-2009, 04:01
I see it as an addition: it is abstracting away how you charge multiple charges to allow it to work when units arent perfectly aligned (which would be 90% of the time with non skirmishing units) to a common battle line.

EvC
11-09-2009, 09:57
...but again, horribly abusable, so I would never touch it ;)

Foxbat
11-09-2009, 11:44
I see it as an addition: it is abstracting away how you charge multiple charges to allow it to work when units arent perfectly aligned (which would be 90% of the time with non skirmishing units) to a common battle line.
I’m not so sure about this as the mechanics to figure out how many models are in combat with the inadvertent unit seems to differ.

In the BRB rule we are told to essentially figure out the maximum number of models that could be in b-t-b against the lone charge target and then enter combat with the remaining models against any “inadvertent” target(s). However, with Charge Multiple Targets observation, it is instructing us to maximize across both the lone charge target and the “inadvertent” target unit(s).

For instance if one were confronted with the situation in figure 1 (Feb 2008 Q&A pg 7) and when only using the BRB rules, one would place three models in combat with the left hand unit (maximizing combat on target) leaving two models to be aligned on the inadvertent unit. As the distance between the units is more than 20 mm (based on the bases vs. the gap between the units as shown in figure 1) the final situation would see the charging unit simply aligned such that it was touching both units (i.e. no re-positioning) with 3 models in combat with the left hand unit (2 b-t-b and 1 c-t-c) and two models on the right hand unit (both in b-t-b). Apart from the change to the relative positions of the units on the board itself, the Charge Multiple Targets observation would also result in the centre model being able to attack both units. As the BRB rule and the Charging Multiple Targets observation result in different answers for the same situation, one would think that players can only follow one approach or the other.

Also, I’m not so sure that the Clipping observation can be used in conjunction with the Charging Multiple Targets observation. Again looking at Figure 1 (Feb 2008 Q&A pg 7), with the clipping observation, would you not just simply slide the charging unit into full b-t-b with the left hand unit and ignore the right hand unit altogether?

One last problem, how would the figure 1 situation be handled given the “Enemy in the Way” rule and clipping? I think this combination could result in only the right hand unit being in combat.

Da GoBBo
11-09-2009, 23:13
The point is this.

In the "spirit of the game" or from a realism perspective.

You talk about realism but I don't see what's so realistic about regiments "wheeling their way into" another regiment while charging. That's not how momentum works at all. How can you even begin to support this shufflebuisness from a "realistic" point of view when the initial move is weird as hell? You can't. Next question. Why can you support any sort of ruling concerning charging? It's a game, and it has gamemechanics. Yes, this might involve sliding, which it doesn't at the moment. It's about strategy and clipping offers more in that respect than sliding. Luckily GW chose to rule in favour of option 1.