PDA

View Full Version : Non-Skirmishers Charging Skirmishers



Dark Disciple
31-05-2005, 19:35
Ok ... this has been asked before I know on the original site but this has come up recently and has proved contentious to say the least.

Situation: Non-fast cavalry unit from north of table charges a pack of ghouls to the south.

Alignment: Ghouls are further to the west than the cavalry, to the extent that only one ghoul (the nearest) would be hit if the cavalry headed directly south.

The Issue: There appears to be 2 conflicting rules and it depends upon which one take precedence. Assuming all other charging constraints are true (e.g. distance, LOS, etc), which one of the following situations are true:

(a) The cavalry unit moves directly south, makes contact with the nearest ghoul, the cavalry stop, the skirmishers line-up appropriately.

(b) The cavalry unit wheels (to the west slightly) in order to attempt
to bring as many models in contact as possible, but then makes contact with the nearest ghoul, then as per (a).

Notes: The skirmisher rules seem to imply (a) but the general rule of attempting to maximise frontage by wheeling would indicate (b). Some players use (b) to deflect charging units away, so this is a useful tactic if valid.

Thoughts? (a) or (b)?

samw
31-05-2005, 19:39
Charger's decision I'd say, he can wheel once during a charge but if he's gonna hit anyway why bother? Anyway the maximum frontage rule is fulfilled as the ghouls line up like all skirmishers along chargers frontage.

gukal
31-05-2005, 20:37
I would have to check the BRB but as I recall the process looks like this:

1. Chargers declare charge versus the skirmishers.
2. Skirmishers hold
3. Chargers measure distance to each skirmisher.
4. Chargers are "brought into base contact with the closest skirmisher" and then halted.
5. The remaining skirmishers line up as normal for skirmishers.

This will frequently make little difference when all enemy skirmishers are roughly in front of the unit. However, such a move will sometimes involve a mandatory wheel so that the chargers are brought into contact with the nearest (but slightly offset) skirmisher that it can reach according to normal charge movements.

It definitely matters.

This method permits the skirmishers to dictate the chargers avenue of advance to some extent.

Personally, I prefer the other interpretation. I don't like the notion that skirmishers can dictate the attack angle of heavy cavalry. But I'm hard pressed to prove that that's the proper interpretation.

Adlan
31-05-2005, 21:28
I would see at as more of a heavy cavalrey must wheel to smash through the skirmisher unit.
Because if they did indeed just go straight on they would only crush one unit.

From a real life point of view B makes the most sense to me.
Of course rules are rules and not connected with real life.

Major Defense
01-06-2005, 15:50
(a) The cavalry unit moves directly south, makes contact with the nearest ghoul, the cavalry stop, the skirmishers line-up appropriately.


Very close to correct here - but close only counts with horseshoes and handgrenades. The cavalry unit does not nessecarily move directly south for its own sake. The cavalry unit must try to get as many models in contact as possible so even though they are charging a single model (the nearest skirmisher) they must try to get two (against a 20mm enemy) or three (against a 25mm enemy) cavalry models in contact. By the situation you describe, the cavalry unit would have to wheel slightly before moving or mid move if there is an obstacle. You can only move fewer models into contact if the charge would otherwise be short.



(b) The cavalry unit wheels (to the west slightly) in order to attempt
to bring as many models in contact as possible, but then makes contact with the nearest ghoul, then as per (a).

This is a much better way to describe it. The mechanics of charging are very specific (if broken up into different books, FAQs and clarifications) and purposefully leave little room for personal interpretation so that players cannot weasel advantages out of what would otherwise be a straight-forward charge. My gaming group regards me as the "Movement Nazi" with all of my little wheeling charts and cruelly exacting measurements - but they seem generally comfortable with my strict interpretation of these rules because it is ultimately the most fair thing for all players involved to have to adhere to the same rules for charging. What then evolves from this understanding of charges is that your movement in the previous turns chiefly dictates the advantages and disadvantages in your charges. Being a huge chess fan, I'm very comfortable with this system.

T10
02-06-2005, 10:57
When charging skirmishers you actually have a lot of options.

The best thing to note is that since (unengaged) skirmishers do not have flanks, the standard charge restriction on which side you must engage them on simply does not apply. In short, that rule will not prevent you from moving past the target and engage them from a completely different angle than would seem appropriate.

Of course, charging is limited to a single wheel. Now, this is normally assosciated with the restriction that you must get as many of your own models int contact with the enemy. As pointed out, the skirmishers will need to align against the *charging* unit, so this breaks down to an argument on wether this means "get as many models as possible into contact with the first skirmisher" or "you'll rank up with me, so I'll do what I want".

The most appropriate way to charge a bunch of skirmishers is to wheel to face the main body of the unit.

Moving towards the closest single skrimisher as if he represents the entire unit will favour the skirmishing unit. Allowing the chargers to dictate the angle of approach themselves is just the opposite.

Just discuss it with your opponent bearing in mind that there is a lot of grey area here that you need to work out to your mutual satisfaction.

-T10

gukal
02-06-2005, 14:34
I am not a proponant of the "tactical wheel" in general. In the interest of fun though I never press the point - as I believe I hold the minority view.

I find the overflight and u-turn charge on skirmishers to be a particularly egregious example. The requirement that the chargers charge the nearest skirmisher model must include (I believe) that the charge be made by the shortest route. Any other result is a mockery of the rule (but admittedly within the letter of the rules).

Izram
02-06-2005, 16:11
To the rules, you can wheel once (and must if neccasary) to get the most charging models in contact. the heavy cavalry can wheel as much as they want, or not at all, as long as they contact the closest model. This gives the chargers the control over movment, which makes some sense as they really are just running right through skirmishers to get to something behind usually, the little pack of skirmishers shouldn't dictate the cavalry charge.

In the spirit, when I play, I generally don't wheel unless I have to, assuming its in the chargers best intrest to get to their enemy as quickly as possible. Using enemy skirmishers to gain extra movment and alignment is against the spirit often (not always).

Major Defense
02-06-2005, 17:22
To the rules, you can wheel once (and must if neccasary) to get the most charging models in contact. the heavy cavalry can wheel as much as they want, or not at all, as long as they contact the closest model. This gives the chargers the control over movment, which makes some sense as they really are just running right through skirmishers to get to something behind usually, the little pack of skirmishers shouldn't dictate the cavalry charge.

Izram, you and T10 have some funny ideas about the liberties taken during a charge. The rule *IS* that you must charge the closest skirmisher - not the main body of the unit, as T10 indicated. To take that and assume that you can wheel 180 degrees as long as you charge that model is...well...if you don't see the absurdity of it then I will scarcely be able to convince you otherwise.

Lets just both be happy that we will never have to play a game together. It will be a cold day in hell before I let someone wheel all around my skirmishing unit so they can overrun the flank of one of my ranked units. It is so obviously cheating that I can scarcely understand why this thread was more than a few posts long.

Skirmishers should and can dictate the position of units charging them. They and all other units already do so by fleeing from charges and forcing a "failed charge" move. If you find yourself making charges at disadvantageous angles then I'd suggest using more care in the previous turn's movement.



P.S. - Here's a smilie so nobody thinks I'm trying to start a flame war. :)

Festus
02-06-2005, 18:45
Hi

I am definitely with the *wheel-as-much-as-you-like* group here.

In charging skirmishers, you have to contact the closest model, it is the rules.
and the rules is, that you may make one wheel during your charge.

The *maximizing attackers* bit cannot come into play with skirmishers, as they ALWAY maximise their fromtage in relation to the charging unit: The skirmishers bring as many models into the fighting position as they possibly can, as dictated by the width of the charger and the movement of the skirmishers.

You cannot maximise against skirmishers, because you have to stop your charge move AS SOON AS you hit one (the nearest) skirmisher.

Simple, innit?

This leaves any ranked unit charging skirmishers pretty much free reign as to their facing, which is a good thing.
Skirmishers are there to annoy and cover the main blocks from missile fire, not to present a close-fighting unit. they are very vunerable and rightly so.
Heavy cav for example is a skirmishers worst nightmare, in RL as well as in fantasy.

Greetings
festus

Major Defense
02-06-2005, 19:42
According to your "understanding" of the rules for moving charges, this unit...

CC CC
CC CC
CC CC
CC CC



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S - S
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S - S - S

...could charge like this...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CC CC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CC CC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CC CC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SCC CC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S - S
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S - S - S

...and force the combat to rank up like this...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S CC CC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SS CC CC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SS CC CC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S CC CC

...but I guess you think that is a fair interpretation of the rules. :rolleyes:

So tell me...on the planet you guys play on...what happens when the skirmishing unit flees and the charge is failed? Do you somehow move down the field past the charged unit and half way through your impossi-wheel?

T10
03-06-2005, 12:24
You seem to forget that when making a failed charge move you are far more restricted in moving. You HAVE TO move towards the unit as fast as possible, so there is simply no room for tactical maneuvers. You couldn't end your movement by wheeling slightly towards an enemy unit that would otherwise charge your flank.

The discussion is simply a matter of how you engage a skirmishing unit in combat.

Both the "charge closest" and "charge as you like" options allow for really absurd situations in the extreme. Both allow for what either player would refer to as "cheating" or "tactical ingenuity".

The extreme situations would be where the charging unit is simply clipping the edge of the unit. This is in appearance comparable to setting up a charge between ranked units so that only one model in each unit touches each other.

As for the "cheating/tactictal ingenuity" part: it only comes into play as part of what is going to happen after combat has been resolved and the skirmishers have been detroyed (usually the expected result). Both players will have an interest in dicating which direction the charging unit is facing.

I really can't see either player being morally "right". Wether it is allowed or cheating is as far as I can tell highly debatable. Is it not cheating to stretch the meaning of the rules to serve one purpose? Is it not cheating to constrict them to serve another?

-T10

Major Defense
03-06-2005, 13:04
You seem to forget that when making a failed charge move you are far more restricted in moving. You HAVE TO move towards the unit as fast as possible, so there is simply no room for tactical maneuvers. You couldn't end your movement by wheeling slightly towards an enemy unit that would otherwise charge your flank.

You seem to forget the rules so clearly listed on page 52 of the BRB.



"A charging unit cannot turn or change formation. This is because the troops are running or galloping once the charge has begun and are unable to execute delicate manoeuveres even if they were able to hear the orders of their leaders above the din.

The following rules govern manoeuvres during a charge:

1. When a unit charges an enemy the player must endeavour to bring as many models from the charging unti into combat as possible. This can sometimes be achieved by moving the chargers straight forward, but often it will be necessary to wheel slightly to face the enemy. [Please note here that "to weasel a better angle" is NOT in the description of a "necessary" reason to "wheel slightly".] This is a very important rule so be sure to get it right from the start!

2. During a charge a unit can wheel once. It can, and indeed must, wheel in order to maximise the number of charging models able to fight. Again they specify the whole purpose of wheeling during a charge, and none of that reason is intended to be used for any self-serving purposes such as you describe. Note that the unit does not have to wheel if this would mean that it cannot reach its enemy.

If chargers need to wheel towards their target, execute the wheel as already described, measuring the distance wheeled as you normally would. This distance counts as part of the total distance charged. For example, if a unit can charge 12" it might wheel 4" to bring models to face the enemy and then move up to 8" towards them.

Once a unit has completed any required wheel it is moved straight forward towards the enemy and stops as soon as the two units touch."



I rest my case. Now you go find me a rule that even HINTS that you can abuse the wheel in a charge to get a better angle. Please and thank you.

Festus
03-06-2005, 13:05
Hi

According to your "understanding" of the rules for moving charges, this unit...

...could charge like this...

...but I guess you think that is a fair interpretation of the rules. :rolleyes:

So tell me...on the planet you guys play on...what happens when the skirmishing unit flees and the charge is failed? Do you somehow move down the field past the charged unit and half way through your impossi-wheel?
Yes, if they had movement sufficient to make that charge (nearly impossible with the current M rates, as the 180 wheel would take up more than half of the charger's move generally) they indeed could.

But to the other point:
If the skirmisher's fled (assuming you don't redirect them), you would either run them down (uninteresting here), or you would move half your charge move towards the final position of the skirmishing unit.

Where's your problem, old man? :)

Greetings
Festus

Festus
03-06-2005, 13:14
Hi



"A charging unit cannot turn or change formation. This is because the troops are running or galloping once the charge has begun and are unable to execute delicate manoeuveres even if they were able to hear the orders of their leaders above the din.

The following rules govern manoeuvres during a charge:

1. When a unit charges an enemy the player must endeavour to bring as many models from the charging unti into combat as possible. This can sometimes be achieved by moving the chargers straight forward, but often it will be necessary to wheel slightly to face the enemy. [Please note here that "to weasel a better angle" is NOT in the description of a "necessary" reason to "wheel slightly".] This is a very important rule so be sure to get it right from the start!

2. During a charge a unit can wheel once. It can, and indeed must, wheel in order to maximise the number of charging models able to fight. Again they specify the whole purpose of wheeling during a charge, and none of that reason is intended to be used for any self-serving purposes such as you describe. Note that the unit does not have to wheel if this would mean that it cannot reach its enemy.

If chargers need to wheel towards their target, execute the wheel as already described, measuring the distance wheeled as you normally would. This distance counts as part of the total distance charged. For example, if a unit can charge 12" it might wheel 4" to bring models to face the enemy and then move up to 8" towards them.

Once a unit has completed any required wheel it is moved straight forward towards the enemy and stops as soon as the two units touch."



I rest my case. Now you go find me a rule that even HINTS that you can abuse the wheel in a charge to get a better angle. Please and thank you.
Nice show off ;)

But you miss the point entirely: The rules that you just quoted state:


During a charge a unit can wheel once.

There is no restriction placed on that whatsoever. It just says that it must wheel to maximise the number of charging models able to fight.
This will always be achieved in charging skirmishers, as they will determine the number of models in the fight.

If I want my unit to wheel during a charge, I can let it wheel as much as I like to, provided I maximise the number of chargers fighting.

Nothing else is said in the rules.
The way I use my wheel to set up the battle in my way is my tactical responsibility.
Everything you say is merely wishful thinking, I am afraid.

Greetings
festus

mageith
03-06-2005, 13:35
If I want my unit to wheel during a charge, I can let it wheel as much as I like to, provided I maximise the number of chargers fighting.

Nothing else is said in the rules.

You are not reading carefully, I'm afraid.

"2. During a charge a unit can wheel once. It can, and indeed must, wheel in order to maximize the number of charging models able to fight. Note that the unit does not have to wheel if this would mean that it cannot reach its enemy."

I've emboldened the part you've missed. One wheels to maximize and for no other reason. Dog leg Wheeling then at the end mazimizing is wheeling for a different purpose. The different purpose is to get a different charge angle.

So its not "provided I maximise" but "in order to maximize". You've subverted the clear meaning of the rules by your paraphrase.

Mage Ith

Major Defense
03-06-2005, 13:52
You've subverted the clear meaning of the rules by your paraphrase.

A-*******'-men!!

Gav Thorpe (you know, the guy who wrote the rules) once described "moving your troops into a position to get the most advantageous charge" as "one of the most important dynamics of Warhammer strategy". To decide in the 'moving charges' phase that you wanted to come at it from a different angle is just plain, lazy cheating. It should be OBVIOUS that the movement of a charge is just as compulsory and directed as a failed charge, flee or any other movement in which the rules indicate that a unit is to move how they are supposed to.

You charge-cheaters can learn something here instead of stubbornly ignoring the spirit AND the wording of the rules. And by "can" I guess you might interpret that I am telling you to do so or suffer a painful death...because the word "can" could be interpreted in so many ways. :rolleyes:

mageith
03-06-2005, 14:07
You charge-cheaters can learn something here instead of stubbornly ignoring the spirit AND the wording of the rules. And by "can" I guess you might interpret that I am telling you to do so or suffer a painful death...because the word "can" could be interpreted in so many ways. :rolleyes:
There are many rules interpretors who think that 'tactical charging' is not only within the spirit but even the letter of the rules. I think the letter is pretty clear, but the spiritual side is more gray.

There are problems with too much letter when following this rule.

1) And off center charge always looks bad on the table. Its not quite clipping but its ugly. If the only requirement is to maximize models (vs. maximize frontage), ugliness results.

2) The rise of skirmishers in WFB. Skirmishers are probably over powered in the game right now. One of the best ways to deal with them is the 'tactical charge'.

I have a problem with interpreting rules in order to solve other problems, however. Interpreting the charge rule to allow tactical charge to solve these above problems makes the game pretty murky.

Mage Ith

T10
03-06-2005, 14:08
Technically, a wheel is a wheel.

In theory the chargers could be forced to make a massive 180 degree wheel in order to reach the target unit: The chargers ar moving along a chasm and see skirmishes on the other side. Their charge move of 16" is sufficient to...

1) move to the point where the chasm ends (say 4").
2) wheel approxiamtel 180 degrees left (twice the width of the unit - 8")
3) move to contact a skirmishing model (2")

This is a perfectly legal move.

Now, this should indicate that even this excessive wheeling is allowed within the constraints of "no delicate manoeuveres". It is, however, not particularilly "slight". :)

Then it is the matter of "wheeling in order to". Well, against a skirmisher unit, in practice any degree of wheeling will achive the same (required) result: Once the chargers halt their move the skirmishers form up in front of the unit. The argument goes from "you're putting in exactly enough effort" to "you're putting in too much effort".

Now, what is missing from the charge rules is the statement that you must approach the enemy by the fastest and most direct route. The rules are missing a restriction on the degree of movement ("slight" hardly qualifies as "the minimum necessary"). In short - the rules for charging skirmishers are not quite as hard and clear as self-proclaimed "movement Nazi" Major Defense would have us believe.

-T10

T10
03-06-2005, 14:20
A-*******'-men!!

Gav Thorpe (you know, the guy who wrote the rules) once described "moving your troops into a position to get the most advantageous charge" as "one of the most important dynamics of Warhammer strategy". To decide in the 'moving charges' phase that you wanted to come at it from a different angle is just plain, lazy cheating.

You have not forgotten how the game works do you? I'll sum it up briefly.

Player A moves his chargers into position.
Player B fails to move his skirmishers into a safe position (e.g. out of sight, out of range, into undesireable terrain). Or worse! moves them into position to be charged!
Player A charges with a smug grin and takes full advantage of the situation.

Who is the more fool? The one who failed to spot the fact that he was in an untenable position and further failed to respond to the situation? Or the one who now takes the opportunity presented and makes full use of it?

Warhammer favours the charger, not the defender.

-T10

Major Defense
03-06-2005, 15:14
In short - the rules for charging skirmishers are not quite as hard and clear as self-proclaimed "movement Nazi" Major Defense would have us believe.

Finally you say something I can agree with! Yes, many of the rules in FB are worded loosely enough to ensure plenty of rules lawyering for those who love to bend things to fit their own interests. You did an awful lot of typing just to defend your self-serving, skirmisher-hating interpretation of the word "can" and you can go ahead and believe what you want to believe. I'm only in this argument to prevent you from poisoning the view of newer players that are trying to look for a rational solution to such questions.

The simple fact of the matter is, for those bored enough to read this far into the thread, every player will always argue his own advantage - even if he is trying to be fair and objective. I don't particularly love or hate skirmishers and I am not at odds with their loose formations causing ranked units to move and charge more carefully. That said, I can objectively see that the intent and wording of the rules, while worded loosely enough to allow squirming rules lawyers to draw incorrect conclusions, means to have charges moved as simply and directly as possible.

If there were no skirmishers in this game then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It is that sort of reactionary, understandably self-serving, misguided interpretation of the rules that I do accuse you of. In short, better a movement nazi than a rules lawyer any day! :D

Festus
03-06-2005, 15:25
Hi


You are not reading carefully, I'm afraid.

Don't be afraid,I know perfectly what I am doing ;)


"2. During a charge a unit can wheel once. It can, and indeed must, wheel in order to maximize the number of charging models able to fight. Note that the unit does not have to wheel if this would mean that it cannot reach its enemy."

I've emboldened the part you've missed. One wheels to maximize and for no other reason. Dog leg Wheeling then at the end mazimizing is wheeling for a different purpose. The different purpose is to get a different charge angle.

So its not "provided I maximise" but "in order to maximize". You've subverted the clear meaning of the rules by your paraphrase.


Well, I didn't miss that part of the rules.
This is why there are two sentences:

First sentence:
The chargers can wheel. (In any case, no restrictions given.)

Second sentence:
The chargers must wheel to maximise the charging models able to fight, (subclause) if able to do so.

You are the one making assumptions - and now it is my turn to say it - I am afraid.

If we have a close look at the second sentence, you will surely see that it consists of two sentences combined into one, where the first is left eliptic, because the relevant part that is left out is repeated as a part of the second sentence.

There are two main clauses here (connected by the conjunction *and*):

1. It can wheel in order to maximize the number of charging models able to fight.

2. It indeed must wheel in order to maximize the number of charging models able to fight.

This is a very common form of using language following the main principle of Thema-Rhema. Even the combination in one sentence is very much run-of-the-mill usage.
The meanig of this in proper English is to be taken as:

1. The unit can wheel to maximise the models.

2. The unit is not only able to (as in *can*) but even have to (as in *must*) wheel if there is a number of models to be *maximised*.

Greetings
Festus

Festus
03-06-2005, 15:33
Hi

In short, better a movement nazi than a rules lawyer any day! :D
I know that you said that only in jest (hence the smiley), but there is a man who is not rules lawyering but trying to make the game balanced here (T10 that is).

If you stick to your interpretation of the rules, as you may do, of course, you will run into no end of problems with skirmish heavy armies that force the way your ranked units move across the table by positioning them as to draw the units away.

Example:

If your reading of the rules holds true, I could easily tackle your heavy hitter with two minimal size skirmishing units (say Ghouls) positioned just in front an to the sides of my ranked infantry unit (like an L). As you have to charge the closest skirmisher (It is the rules, agreed?) you have no say whatsoever on the course of your charge.

You make contact and easily slaughter/break the skirmishers.

Either you overrun (bringing you through my lines and wasting a turn turning and another on charging the other pesky unit of Ghouls), or you will stay put and be wide open for a flank charge of my infantry unit in my next turn.

See, that is severely broken.

Greetings
Festus

Major Defense
03-06-2005, 16:57
I know that you said that only in jest (hence the smiley), but there is a man who is not rules lawyering but trying to make the game balanced here (T10 that is).

:eyebrows: I am seriously much happier being a movement nazi. Good of you not to claim that you are not here as a rules lawyer because that last post in reply to Mageith was artfully ********ious.


If you stick to your interpretation of the rules, as you may do, of course, you will run into no end of problems with skirmish heavy armies that force the way your ranked units move across the table by positioning them as to draw the units away.

Example:

If your reading of the rules holds true, I could easily tackle your heavy hitter with two minimal size skirmishing units (say Ghouls) positioned just in front an to the sides of my ranked infantry unit (like an L). As you have to charge the closest skirmisher (It is the rules, agreed?) you have no say whatsoever on the course of your charge.

You make contact and easily slaughter/break the skirmishers.

Either you overrun (bringing you through my lines and wasting a turn turning and another on charging the other pesky unit of Ghouls), or you will stay put and be wide open for a flank charge of my infantry unit in my next turn.

Wow. Um, no. While I've seen and used skirmishing tactics of the most tricky sort, I do not have difficulty with them. You are assuming in your scenario that I am obligated to declare a charge. I would instead position my "heavy hitter" just outside of the charging range of your infantry unit(s) and shoot the hell out of your foolishly placed skirmishing units - a nice ability of HE armies. Now your skirmishers are fleeing from the 25% casualties and/or too weak to survive their charging a "heavy hitter".

I play against Chaos beast herds a lot and there is simply no more diverse skirmishing unit in the entire game. My friend likes to put characters in his beast units that do nasty little things like cast spells or add D3" to their charge. He is also very adept at spreading out a unit to be in two or three places at once and weaseling model placement to force disadvantageous charges at his unit. I still manage to beat him about half the time and my Lizardmen and Skaven friends fare about as well against those same skirmishers because they have a deeper understanding of tactics.

So I return to my original (and correct) accusation: you and T10 interpret the charging rules the way you do because you're afraid of skirmishers and you don't know how to deal with them short of construing a rule to allow you to break the intended mechanics of the game. Not only is my understanding of the charging rules unarguably more objective but the guy who wrote them so much as agreed with my understanding. I am only sad that this thread has degenerated to ego-bashing and that I took part in it. Now there is no hope that you will come around, as pride is the preverbial b!tch.

mageith
04-06-2005, 01:58
Well Festus, I don't know how to answer you, because I pretty much don't know what you said.



The meanig of this in proper English is to be taken as:

1. The unit can wheel to maximise the models.

2. The unit is not only able to (as in *can*) but even have to (as in *must*) wheel if there is a number of models to be *maximised*.

I do see that your paraphrase ignores my point. The wheel has purpose and that purpose is to maximize models or its subsumed in your point 1.

1. The unit can wheel to maximise the models.
That's pretty much what I am saying. A unit can wheel to maximize models. No other reason is given to wheel.

We can only do what the rules say we can.

Mage Ith

T10
04-06-2005, 10:46
Please, no-where in his example does Festus claim that the "heavy hitter" unit is obliged to charge. The only assumption here was that it would be in the players' interest to do so. Neither he (nor I) assumed a unit of ultra-accurate missile troops would show up and automatically cause a panic test on the skirmishing unit.

I fail to see how Gavin Thorpe's statement (see above) supports your line of thinking. If anything, it clearly states that the unit that has positioned itself best for a charge (as opposed to positioned itself to recieve one) has achieved Warhammer "Zen".

Your arguments have been answered with concise examples that describe how they do not hold up under extreme circumstances. You have simply decided to disregard or make light of them. I shall therefore reiterate:

A ranked regiment charging skirmishers:

1) A charging unit can wheel once.
2) The skirmishers will automatically rank up against the charging unit as wide as possible, thus automatically fulfilling the objective of wheeling in the first place.

3) The charging unit that it must wheel "slightly" to bring as many models into combat as possible.

Points 1 and 2 I am sure we all agree upon.
Point 3, however is the point of contention.

I have pointed out that there is not practical "upper limit". As you can make a 180 degree wheel to navigate past an obstacle, then the magnitude of a wheel during a charge is not up for debate.

Against a ranked regiment, the wheel may not be made in order to engage the target from the incorrect flank. This effectively allows the receiving unit to dictate the "battle-line" and thus the direction each unit involved in the combat will be facing. Against a skirmishing unit, the role is reversed with the skirmishers lining up against the chargers and the battle line is drawn dependent on the chargers' angle of approach.

When approaching a ranked unit you appear to have a number of options. Do you immediately make a wheel to face the unit and the move straight forward? Or do you move a bit forward and then make a more pronounced wheel?

These things will not affect the battle line, but may affect which models you bring into contact. A unit charging a narrow unit would certainly benefit from bringing a character into position to fight. This can typically be achieved by wheeling more than strictly necessary - lets call it "over-wheeling". It achieves the same result, but the charger takes advantage of the maneuver.

So: can you or can you not over-wheel?

If you allow over-wheeling, then skirmishers are fair game. If not, then the skirmishers have the advantage.

Major Defense
04-06-2005, 16:55
Please, no-where in his example does Festus claim that the "heavy hitter" unit is obliged to charge. The only assumption here was that it would be in the players' interest to do so. Neither he (nor I) assumed a unit of ultra-accurate missile troops would show up and automatically cause a panic test on the skirmishing unit.

That's okay. We all make mistakes. ;)



I fail to see how Gavin Thorpe's statement (see above) supports your line of thinking. If anything, it clearly states that the unit that has positioned itself best for a charge (as opposed to positioned itself to recieve one) has achieved Warhammer "Zen".

Then I would be happy to assist you in overcoming your failure. :)

"Moving your troops into a position to get the most advantageous charge [is] one of the most important dynamics of Warhammer strategy".

The first half of the quote speaks of two turns; one in which you move your troops into position and the second in which, from the advantageous position, charge. Not even rules lawyering could claim to not understand what that means because it is such a simple sentence but if you truthfully cannot grasp it then try referencing the hundreds of instances where GW speaks of movement and charges as two entirely different actions that take place in different phases of the game.

The second half of the quote, when taken in the full context of the topic he was speaking of, bemoans players trying to abuse the wording of the rules to gain a tactical advantage that the rules do not intend. He's basically pissed about all the people trying to excuse themselves to get a flank charge they didn't earn by moving properly in the previous turn. I think that Mr. Thorpe would hate you less if you presented your impossi-wheel charge as a house rule to answer your difficulties with skirmishers instead of twisting his words and trying to make others think that your way *the* way.



Your arguments have been answered with concise examples that describe how they do not hold up under extreme circumstances. You have simply decided to disregard or make light of them.

We both should understand that that is your opinion but I will go ahead and let you know that I am not convinced out of stubborness. I just don't agree with your examples. Why don't you give me another one and I will apply all that we have been talking about to show you how it is wrong.



I shall therefore reiterate:

Thanks! :D



1) A charging unit can wheel once.

Yes! They "can" because sometimes they don't need to wheel at all. Otherwise they "must" wheel, as the rules describe as nessecary to bring as many models into contact as possible. You're doing good so far.



2) The skirmishers will automatically rank up against the charging unit as wide as possible, thus automatically fulfilling the objective of wheeling in the first place.

I spoke too soon. The phase where the skirmishers rank up has not happened yet and right now we're just moving the chargers. They are still required to wheel in order to get as many in contact as possible.



3) The charging unit that it must wheel "slightly" to bring as many models into combat as possible.

Taking the bad grammar into account, I believe I understand what you mean here. You're reiterating "the player must endeavour to bring as many models from the charging unti into combat as possible."



Points 1 and 2 I am sure we all agree upon.
Point 3, however is the point of contention.

Nope. It is point 2 that you have happening in the wrong order and what we really disagree on is that you think the wheel is optional and/or that it can be used for purposes other than bringing as many chargers into contact as possible.



I have pointed out that there is not practical "upper limit". As you can make a 180 degree wheel to navigate past an obstacle, then the magnitude of a wheel during a charge is not up for debate.

Mmm-kay. :eyebrows:



Against a ranked regiment, the wheel may not be made in order to engage the target from the incorrect flank. This effectively allows the receiving unit to dictate the "battle-line" and thus the direction each unit involved in the combat will be facing. Against a skirmishing unit, the role is reversed with the skirmishers lining up against the chargers and the battle line is drawn dependent on the chargers' angle of approach.

Yes, very correct paraphrasing of the rules there. Unfortunately, you still have this incorrect concept that the "angle of approach" is something you can freely dictate in a charge. It is not.



When approaching a ranked unit you appear to have a number of options. Do you immediately make a wheel to face the unit and the move straight forward? Or do you move a bit forward and then make a more pronounced wheel?

That's easy enough to answer. You're supposed to make the charge with as little of your movement used as possible. You should make the wheel immediately unless terrain requires you to move forward some to get around it. Hope that helps.



These things will not affect the battle line, but may affect which models you bring into contact. A unit charging a narrow unit would certainly benefit from bringing a character into position to fight. This can typically be achieved by wheeling more than strictly necessary - lets call it "over-wheeling". It achieves the same result, but the charger takes advantage of the maneuver.

You were doing so good but this entire paragraph was junk. I understood what you wrote but it is full of assumptions.



So: can you or can you not over-wheel?

No, you cannot over-wheel because you only need to wheel enough to put the units into contact. Over-wheeling to reposition your character against the enemy unit is cheating and they already say that you can't move a character along the line of a unit while charging so I don't think I need to explain that any further.



If you allow over-wheeling, then skirmishers are fair game. If not, then the skirmishers have the advantage.

And so it is that "over-wheeling" is a house rule that you play with.

Festus
04-06-2005, 17:36
Hi

One last reply before I leave this thread for good, as we don't seem to agree in decades here, so I will let it be...


I spoke too soon. The phase where the skirmishers rank up has not happened yet and right now we're just moving the chargers. They are still required to wheel in order to get as many in contact as possible.

This, my dear friend is nonsensical:

With skirmishers you have to move, so that you touch one model after the charge: The closest skirmisher.
The number of your charging troops in a fighting position is NOT determined by your charge or wheel or whatever, but simply by the skirmishers.

You cannot get *as many in contact as possible* and this is not even demanded by the rules! The rules need as mayn as possible in a fighting position, which is something different entirely.

Well, sorry for my *********ting*, so long, and thanks for all the fish.

Festus

mageith
04-06-2005, 17:44
So: can you or can you not over-wheel?

This really is the crux of the question. All the rest of the debate, I think, comes from which rule/assumption the debater chooses.

To me the rules are clear and we are limited to a required wheel, so no over wheeling. I've debated this on other forums and even taken a poll and about 2/3rds of players think over-wheeling is within the interpretation of the rule. So pretty much, I play that it is OK. If it's an issue, then the players ought to discuss it before the game.

I think the main phrase that shows that only a required wheel is allowed is the one that says we may wheel "in order to maximize".

But there are others.

"...necessary to wheel slightly..."
"once a unit as completed any required wheel..."

The only sentence that supports free wheeling is "During a charge a unit can wheel once." In order to suport it, it has to be taken out of its context in the paragraph. I think this sentence is clearly a limiting rule and not an expansive rule. By that I mean, a unit can ordinarily wheel an unlimited amount of times. In a charge, it can wheel but once, at most. It cannot wheel unless its required to (which is what the following sentence says to me) and if only it's required to to maximize models, the only reason given.

Does anyone disagree that the over-wheel has a different purpose? It's either to come at a better angle on skirmishers to to include or exclude a character on the edge of one of the units? Does the over-wheel in any way increase the maximization of models?

When it comes to skirmishers, a wheel is generally not required or allowed because the skirmishers do the maximizing for you. However when charging a skirmisher unit it is required to charge the nearest one. So in order to do that, a (slight or minimal) wheel may be required.

But since so many folks disagree with this, I no longer argue it in a game and probably won't argue it here anymore.

Mage Ith

Lordmonkey
04-06-2005, 17:51
When it comes to skirmishers, a wheel is generally not required or allowed because the skirmishers do the maximizing for you. However when charging a skirmisher unit it is required to charge the nearest one. So in order to do that, a (slight or minimal) wheel may be required.Mage Ith

I would leave this to the chargers discretion. Obviously, as the rules state, if more models can be engaged then they must, and indeed WILL be engaged by the chargers, one way or another. Apart from this, if in the case originally described the wheel would make no difference to the number of ghouls in base contact then the charger should be free to charge however he/she likes.
Only if more ghouls could be engaged in the charge should the unit be forced to wheel. If this is not possible, no wheel is compulsory, but it IS allowed if the charger so wishes.

Major Defense
05-06-2005, 14:20
With skirmishers you have to move, so that you touch one model after the charge: The closest skirmisher.
The number of your charging troops in a fighting position is NOT determined by your charge or wheel or whatever, but simply by the skirmishers.

You cannot get *as many in contact as possible* and this is not even demanded by the rules! The rules need as mayn as possible in a fighting position, which is something different entirely.

By that logic we'd have to incorrectly assume that when charging a lone skirmisher the ranked unit doesn't have to worry about maximizing models in contact. Whether you're charging that single model or a unit of skirmishers, we're dealing ONLY with the part of the phase known as "moving charges" and at that time you treat the target charged with the same rules whether he is a ranked unit, member of a skirmishing unit, single skirmisher or a monster. The rules for charging DO NOT state different applications for moving charges based on what is being charged. In all charges you must adhere to the rules as they are written and that means wheeling enough to maximize the number of charging models in contact. It does NOT allow for you to wheel further than what is required, no matter how badly you want to skew the angle of charge or wheel further to get your champion into a charge against a narrower unit. All this time you've been talking about a rule that just does not exist at all in writing anywhere in all of the WHFB books! If, after all of this discussion, it is still possible to see my plain and obvious point as "nonsensical" then I can understand why a person would have such difficulty in correctly understanding the rules as a whole.



the charger should be free to charge however he/she likes.

Yes, he shoud! He should also be free to change formation during the charge and shoot at the other unit on his way in! He should be free to leap over the charged unit and charge the one behind them! He should even be free to give a dragon a reach-around!

Unfortunately, none of these things he should be free to do are allowed in the rules. They just aren't. Even now. I keep checking my book but the words don't ever seem to jump off the page like Fantasia extras and reform into a description of units wheeling during a charge for any purpose other than to maximize the number of charging models in contact.

...

Checked again. Still no impossi-wheel. I'll report back as soon as the situation changes.

...

Still the same rule.

...

I went outside and beat a dead horse for a few minutes.

...

Still no change.

...

T10
06-06-2005, 10:21
Indeed, LM

If the charger has enough move and room to maneuver he should take advantage of the situation. I would consider it a matter of courtesy that he does not indulge in anything truly extravagant.

-T10

Gabacho Mk.II
03-09-2005, 07:58
I find the overflight and u-turn charge on skirmishers to be a particularly egregious example. The requirement that the chargers charge the nearest skirmisher model must include (I believe) that the charge be made by the shortest route. Any other result is a mockery of the rule (but admittedly within the letter of the rules).



This is well said.

Further, I do indeed follow your reasoning, and I game with the above given belief.

Good post.

T10
03-09-2005, 11:44
The shortest path to the closest model may not be the shortest path to reach the unit.

A wide unit may need to perform a realtively long wheel (in distance) to direct istelf towards the closest model (A). This wheel may result in the unit being brought closer to or even into contact with a different model even before the distance to the closest model has been affected.

In the example below, the shortest path to the skirmishing (X) unit is straight forward. To reach the closest model, the charging unit will actually have to run over intervening skirmishers.





X X X X X
X
AAAAAAAA

Makaber
03-09-2005, 16:08
This is actually a reply to post nr. 11. If one blindly charge the nearest skirmisher no matter the circumstances, you might end up with something ridicilous like this:



CCCCC
CCCCC
CCCCC






S S S S
S S S S S S S S S
S S S S S
S S


... ending up like this:




CCCCC
CCCCC
CCCCC
SSSSSSS
SSSSSSS
SSSSSS



... which is a tad odd as well. So around here, we wing it depending on circumstances and charge the main mass. It's a house rule.

Major Defense
03-09-2005, 21:38
So around here, we wing it depending on circumstances and charge the main mass. It's a house rule.

Thank you!! Look, T10 and Festus! See how Makaber freely admits that his own loose interpretation of the rules is a house rule? That I can respect. This way we can go on with more important discussions instead of you two forcing your ignorance upon us.

Uber-wheel with whomever you can convince to allow it and leave the oh-so-seldom clearly stated rule like it is.

Festus
03-09-2005, 22:07
Major Defense-

do you happen to have a bad day?
Don't things go your way?

Why do you insist on picking on me/us?

We think differently than you do. So what?

Nothing you said or wrote made it definite that you are right and we are wrong: We are discussing interpretations here, not rules.
If the rules were clear, this thread would have been long dead.

It isn't.

But there still is no need for attacking me/us...

Festus

PS: I am still not of your opinion :)

Major Defense
04-09-2005, 01:28
do you happen to have a bad day?

Actually, I've been very happy lately. Not that my personal life is any of your business. Need I remind you that this is a rules forum?


Don't things go your way?

I think you're starting to form a fantasized opinion of me. The Christian/redneck thing tipped me off.


Why do you insist on picking on me/us?

If contradicting your every attempt to assert wholly incorrect notions is picking on you then I guess I am guilty.


We think differently than you do. So what?

Yeah, your PMs are getting a little creepy.


Nothing you said or wrote made it definite that you are right and we are wrong:

You mean aside from the fact that your take on charges is a house rule?


We are discussing interpretations here, not rules.

Then you're in the wrong forum. Try the 'Rumor Discussion' forum instead.


If the rules were clear, this thread would have been long dead.

While I will agree with you that the rules, as a whole, are not clear, this particular item is quite clear. The only confusion I have read is from those few of you who think that we should all just sit down and accept that you're anywhere near right for seperating the first sentence of the section in question.


But there still is no need for attacking me/us...

That is the one thing in which you are totally correct and I have been very wrong. I sincerely apologize for any personal insults. It takes away from how completely correct I and the brave few who chose to argue with you have been in this matter of moving charges.


Festus

I gathered that.


PS: I am still not of your opinion :)

What does that even mean!?

Makaber
04-09-2005, 04:17
See how Makaber freely admits that his own loose interpretation of the rules is a house rule?

I don't feel it is a "loose interpretation" as such. Rather, it's dealing with an issue that's very vague as the rules are written, since all the rules you cite is concerning a regiment charging another regiment, and most of the criteria for this isn't relevant as soon as you're charging skirmishers (namely, wheeling to get as many models into base to base as possible, as this happens automatically).

As for this discussion, I don't feel you're any more right than T10 is, as far as the rule-wise boundaries are concerned. The rules concerning charging assume ranked regiment vs. ranked regiment, and as soon as that parameter disintegrates, so does the wheeling limitations. I think you're too stubborn to admit this, and I think T10 is too obsessed with the logical aspect and "clever maneuvering" to admit he's really pushing the spirit of the rules.

Personally, I believe neither the puritan "cannot wheel unless stricyly needed" interpretation and the liberal "over-wheel" approach is fully satisfactory, and that the focal point of a charge should be the rough centre of the main mass of the skirmishing unit getting charged. Hence, the house rule. With a little common sense and case-to-case interpretation, it works fine. I really hope the problem is something they deal with in 7th ed. though.

Finally, incidentially, T10 is a nice guy and great fun to play against. He is not the rabid rules-lawyering logic-monkey he might appear as in the forums. I secretly think he likes to look the part for his online persona, though.