PDA

View Full Version : Stupidity and Charging



Sandals
28-08-2010, 12:59
Had a bit of a weird situation in a game yesterday.
My ogre BSB is a Mawseeker, and therefore subject to Stupidity. He was in a big unit of Ironguts that had charged, beaten and pursued a unit of Stormvermin. I didn't catch them, but ended up 4" behind him. In his turn he rallied and turned to face.

In my turn I fail my Stupidity on the BSB. (even with the reroll. i'm just that good :p) I look up what to do, and the book says to move D6" forward as though a failed charge (emphasis mine) I roll my dice and get a 5.

What happens here? Can I come into contact with an enemy unit through a failed stupidity roll?

We decided that it didn't make sense to do so, as it counts as a failed charge move. So my unit stopped 1" away from the Skaven. But was that the correct interpretation, and if so can someone point me to a line in the BRB that says that, as I can't find anything in there that covers this.

Thanks!

Haravikk
28-08-2010, 13:31
I believe the failed charge part is all you need.

It's similar I suppose to some other more unusual cases, such as a unit attempting a charge but having their charge distance reduced by magic (such as a magic standard), as their failed charge distance could potentially be enough to bring them into contact anyway, but as it was a failed charge they're not allowed to. So stopping 1" away is the right action I think.

Urgat
28-08-2010, 13:43
Her, it just says you move as if you failed a charge, not that you actually fail a charge. I'm not sure it has any bearing on how you contact the unit. It's a random movement, and when coming in contact through random movement, you count as charging.
Imho it's a stupid comparison, nothing else, when you fail a charge, there's no chance for you to reach to begin with, so there's no reason to assume you need to remove an inch or whatever. There's nothing in the rules to support this, concerning random movements.
So yeah, in short, I disagree, but I'll wait for others to see what they think.

tmarichards
28-08-2010, 22:56
The 1" rule applies to everything except charge moves.

This isn't a charge move.

Urgat
29-08-2010, 05:20
So things with random movement can't charge. I'll remember that next time I play an HPA.

Taureus
29-08-2010, 05:23
So things with random movement can't charge. I'll remember that next time I play an HPA.

And Spawn!

AussieLauren
29-08-2010, 08:24
Random movement actually states that if you come into contact it counts as a charge. If it moves to within 1" it stops at 1". (BRB pg74)

Also, BRB on page 20 says only when charging can you move within 1".

The ogre is making a failed charge move, not a charge move. I agree that this may seem like a minor difference but it is significant. There is specifc mention about wheeling around units, friends and enemies (BRB pg19). Thus I think I would let you move to 1" from the enemy unit (because only 'charges' can move within 1" of a unit) thne "wheel" (which is a free pivot per page 27) then moveparallel to the enemy. As I am nice, I would allow you to stop and not dothe pivot, but that would be being nice, and contrary to the rules.

Anyway, that's my 2c

Haravikk
29-08-2010, 10:40
So things with random movement can't charge. I'll remember that next time I play an HPA.
Random movement can, but the fact that they specifically say the movement is resolved as with a failed charge clearly shows that it isn't an ordinary random movement.

Even under unusual circumstances like I mentioned a failed charge cannot result in close combat, as charging is the only way to enter combat (with ordinary random movement being treated as if it were a charge for this reason). Stupidity's random movement is specifically identified as a failed charge, which by definition isn't a charge, and thus cannot result in the unit entering close combat.

Urgat
29-08-2010, 11:38
The unusal circumstance you mentionned is nothing like the matter at hand, the banner is responsible for the failed charge, it just reduced the range. EVen if it did, anyway, so I don't see where you're getting at.
No failed charge can ever reach an enemy. If there was the possibility it reached, it wouldn't be a failed charge, it would be a possible charge.
That in itself makes the two rules different. And it doesn't say it's resolved as if it was a failed charge, it just says you roll a D6 as if it was a failed charge. That's it, that's all that "failed charge" deal links to, if you read the rule: that you roll a D6. That's it.
Bah, whatever, I'll wait for the FAQ, everything, and I mean, everything in the book that has a random move and ends in contacts, well, actually ends in contact. It then counts as charging, or as crossing difficult terrain, or deals impacts (fanatics), depending on the case; there isn't a single instance of a random movement reduced as you want it to so it stops 1" away, so that reading makes no sense, there's simply no precedent. I mean, it's not even RAW, it's not RAI, it's... I don't know what it is.

mishari26
29-08-2010, 12:15
I agree it's a random movement, and if it ends up touching an enemy, then it's a new charge.

Urgat
29-08-2010, 12:27
Oh, I feel the need to add a little something, though:
I agree that it can be argued, because it is not one of those "d'huh, don't be silly" things. It's not the "my template killed me!" or the "your gyrocopter can flee but it won't move regardless" silliness. It's not that obvious. I just think that the mechanic is so similar to any other random movement that if stupidity prevented from charging, the rule would point it out clearly. And I can just not find any esrious justification for the "stop at 1"" deal.
I just wanted to add that to explain that I don't argue just for the heck of it or the pleasure of being contrary :p

Haravikk
29-08-2010, 13:52
I started a whole spiel but here's the important part:


Whilst moving, a unit is not allowed to approach closer than 1" to another unit, friend or foe, or impassible terrain.


If a unit makes a failed charge it moves directly towards the target a distance equal to the highest score rolled on the 2D6 of the charge roll (i.e - if the dice showed 2 and 5, then the failed charge move would be 5"), wheeling around impassible terrain and units, both friends and foe, by the shortest route possible.


A unit that fails its Stupidity test immediately stumbles D6" directly forward - this move is otherwise treated in exactly the same manner as a failed charge.

The important things here are that first of all, Me 'Ead 'Urts does not specify that a random movement occurs, it specifies only a failed charge of D6". If it were random movement (following the rule of the same name) then it would have been worded as:
"The unit moves directly forward with random movement (D6)" or similar.

Secondly, because the move follows the failed charge rule, it moves towards its target (in this case straight forward, or some imaginary point right ahead), but will avoid all impassible terrain and units in its path, which prevents it from ever touching a unit while moving as directly forward as possible. As this is not a successful charge the stupid unit may not even pass within 1" of other units, as per the 1" apart rule.

If it makes it any easier; a stupid unit essentially rolls a D6 to determine how far its failed charge is. This failed charge is targeted at some imaginary point directly ahead of them, which they will move towards while avoiding anything in the way (and staying 1" away from such obstacles).


To clarify as well, my unusual case is actually related as follows:
- Say a unit charges an enemy and rolls a 6, a 1, and has movement 4 for a total of 11". The enemy unit is 6" away.
- The enemy unit has a banner that reduces the charge by D6", and rolls a 6, reducing the charge to 5", causing it to fail.
- The failed charge move however is 6", which could in theory bring the enemy unit into contact, but due to the 1" apart rule it is not permitted as you many only move within 1" of a unit while making a successful charge that brings you into contact, a failed charge may not do this, just as a march or normal move may not.

Sandals
29-08-2010, 14:23
I think Haravikk has me convinced. cheers for the input guys!