PDA

View Full Version : Overrunning into a building



PurpleSun
28-08-2011, 15:36
Can you overrun into a building and then have it count as an assault on the building on your opponent's turn?

My buddy and I played yesterday, his Vampire Counts against my Wood Elves. I was using the Folding Fortress and had a large block of Glade Guard in the Fortress.

On his turn, he used his Grave Guard to charge my Dryads that were guarding the outside of the building. He broke them and pursued right into the Fortress.

Here is were it got goofy. On my turn, I charged his Grave Guard with a unit of Treekin and a Treeman. So we had a big hand to hand between the Glade Guard in the Fortress, the Grave Guard assaulting it, and the Forest Spirits attacking the flank (possible?) of the Grave Guard.

The Wood Elves won the overall combat (although it was really confusing as to whether the banner and BSB in the Grave Guard unit should count for combat rez as it was technically an assault). However, the Grave Guard could not retreat 1" from the assault because the battle was continuing and they were engaged to the flank by the Treekin and Treeman.

What we agreed to do was have the Grave Guard do a combat reform to be only engaged with the Treekin/Treeman and not the Fortress.

We could not find anything in the rules on how to handle this. Thoughts?

Scalebug
28-08-2011, 15:52
No, there is only rules for assaulting a building with an ordinary charge...


Each occupied building may be assaulted by a single unit during each Movement phase.BRB p.127

Think of it as a building assault needing a bit of planning, deciding who are going to be in the assault party, cutting down a small tree for a battering ram and things like that, if you was an explanation.

Vishok
28-08-2011, 16:10
There's no reason for combat not to continue as normal except where noted in the rules.

The Grave Guard could not fight the Glade Guard on an overrun because it requires an "assault" to attack a building - that is, the unit must prepare and do battle specifically with the unit in the building on it's turn, not simply contact it.

Note that there is a technical term in Warhammer called "assault". It specifically applies to buildings.

In this case, the Glade Guard could not fight the Grave Guard if the Grave Guard already fought on their turn.

On the Wood Elf turn, if they were charged by treefolk, that's who they would be fighting on your turn. Not the Glade Guard, they are not involved.

hamsterwheel
28-08-2011, 16:13
I see no reason why you couldn't overrun into a building. The building rules require a charge from one unit to the building to get the occupants in close combat. A pursue or overrun charge is treated like a standard charge with the exception that the distance isn't rolled since its already determined.

The close combat however was done improperly according to the FAQ.

Q: What happens if a unit that is assaulting a building is itself
charged? (p127)
A: The assault on the building is abandoned (move the unit
that was assaulting the building backward 1") The two units
outside the building are now engaged in combat instead and
will fight a round of combat this turn

Scalebug
28-08-2011, 16:20
A pursue or overrun charge is treated like a standard charge with the exception that the distance isn't rolled since its already determined.

Yes, but as I quoted, there are only rules for assaulting a building during the movement phase. Not through Overruns in the close combat phase or magic charges in the magic phase (they are ironing out those of the game anyway as books are upgraded, but I think VC still can Danse into combat, right?).

DeathlessDraich
28-08-2011, 17:09
Can you overrun into a building and then have it count as an assault on the building on your opponent's turn?

My buddy and I played yesterday, his Vampire Counts against my Wood Elves. I was using the Folding Fortress and had a large block of Glade Guard in the Fortress.

On his turn, he used his Grave Guard to charge my Dryads that were guarding the outside of the building. He broke them and pursued right into the Fortress.

Here is were it got goofy. On my turn, I charged his Grave Guard with a unit of Treekin and a Treeman. So we had a big hand to hand between the Glade Guard in the Fortress, the Grave Guard assaulting it, and the Forest Spirits attacking the flank (possible?) of the Grave Guard.

The Wood Elves won the overall combat (although it was really confusing as to whether the banner and BSB in the Grave Guard unit should count for combat rez as it was technically an assault). However, the Grave Guard could not retreat 1" from the assault because the battle was continuing and they were engaged to the flank by the Treekin and Treeman.

What we agreed to do was have the Grave Guard do a combat reform to be only engaged with the Treekin/Treeman and not the Fortress.

We could not find anything in the rules on how to handle this. Thoughts?

:)
No you cannot overrun into a building. The building is treated as impassable terrain (pg 126 2nd column) with 2 exceptions:

1) garrisoning - which occurs during the Movement phase pg 126
2) Assaulting - which is a special charge. Only 1 allowed per Movement phase. N>B> does not (mention)/exclude magical charges

Only 1 assault charge is allowed against a unit garrisoned in a building.
"There can be no multiple assault charges" pg 127
If the building (and garrisoned unit) is subject to an unresolved assault, no other unit may also assault it.

Pursuit into enemy units is also a charge.
So,

Pursuits and hence overruns stops 1" from garrisoned or unoccupied buildings - 1" from impassable terrain. - under Pursuit rules. :)

Yrrdead
28-08-2011, 19:34
Exactly what DD said.

So what should have happened was;

Grave Guard break Dryads and overrun.
Grave Guard overrun move stops 1" away from building.
Treekin/Treeman charge Grave Guard.
Grave Guard fight Treekin/Treeman alone.

Dungeon_Lawyer
28-08-2011, 20:54
Whatever happened to the Dryads anyway? Were they caught and destroyed by the GG before the GG made contact with the building? Just curious...

PurpleSun
29-08-2011, 00:26
Whatever happened to the Dryads anyway? Were they caught and destroyed by the GG before the GG made contact with the building? Just curious...

We probably messed up the Dryads' fleeing. They rolled 9" and the Grave Guard rolled 7". We just had the Dryads pop out on the other side of the Fortress, but in light of it being generally considered impassible terrain, I suppose they should have been destroyed by the Fortress (sounds dumb fluff-wise, but maybe correct rules-wise.

Yrrdead
29-08-2011, 00:27
We probably messed up the Dryads' fleeing. They rolled 9" and the Grave Guard rolled 7". We just had the Dryads pop out on the other side of the Fortress, but in light of it being generally considered impassible terrain, I suppose they should have been destroyed by the Fortress (sounds dumb fluff-wise, but maybe correct rules-wise.

Nope , fleeing units ignore impassable terrain which includes buildings. You did it correctly. Assuming that you took the appropriate Dangerous Terrain tests. (pg 25)

PurpleSun
29-08-2011, 00:33
I see no reason why you couldn't overrun into a building. The building rules require a charge from one unit to the building to get the occupants in close combat. A pursue or overrun charge is treated like a standard charge with the exception that the distance isn't rolled since its already determined.

The close combat however was done improperly according to the FAQ.

Q: What happens if a unit that is assaulting a building is itself
charged? (p127)
A: The assault on the building is abandoned (move the unit
that was assaulting the building backward 1") The two units
outside the building are now engaged in combat instead and
will fight a round of combat this turn


I missed this in the FAQ, should have looked closer. However, this FAQ makes me think that the rules contemplate that you CAN overrun/pursue into an assault on a building.

The reason I say this is because if you cannot, this FAQ is completely unnecessary. Assaults never continue on to the next turn, they are ALWAYS resolved on your turn. Either you push out the garrisoned unit, and then retreat 1". Or you fail to push out the unit and retreat 1".

So the ONLY way that your opponent could on his turn charge a unit of yours that is involved in an assault is if your unit overran or pursued into the building on your turn and the battle had not yet been fought.

Is there any other scenario in which your opponent would have the opportunity to charge your unit that is assaulting a building? (Except for the obscure scenario where an Empire support unit would counter charge).

Yrrdead
29-08-2011, 00:43
You cannot overrun/pursue into a building. There isn't any wiggle room in the rules for pursuit movement or assaulting a garrisoned building.

I agree that it appears that FAQ is unnecessary. In fact we discussed it very recently on the following linked thread.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314936&page=2

PurpleSun
29-08-2011, 02:11
You cannot overrun/pursue into a building. There isn't any wiggle room in the rules for pursuit movement or assaulting a garrisoned building.

I agree that it appears that FAQ is unnecessary. In fact we discussed it very recently on the following linked thread.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314936&page=2

Wow, I am really confused now. Had the FAQ never been written, I would be less confused.

So they wrote the FAQ assuming that people could not read the BRB and were not following the rule that assaults do not continue from round to round? They were therefore assuming that since everyone did not follow the retreat 1" rule at the end of each round of the assault, that they needed to clarify what would happen if that unit whose owner illegally failed to retreat 1" at the end of the round, was subsequently charged that, at that point in time, the 1" retreat which had previously been ignored would then at that time be enforced!?

I wonder if the board of directors of GW knows that these type of people are running their company?

Yrrdead
29-08-2011, 02:16
I sincerely doubt the guy that wrote that FAQ is running the company.

PurpleSun
29-08-2011, 02:27
I sincerely doubt the guy that wrote that FAQ is running the company.


I meant to say "working" for their company. lol

Gazak Blacktoof
29-08-2011, 11:37
First, I'm not sure that the rules are as clear cut as DeathlessDraich has stated in resolving this situation, the second paragraph of the pursuit into a new enemy section on P58 says, "Carry out the charge as you would in the Movement phase, following all the normal restrictions." To me that says only one unit can assault the building at a time, but they could do so as part of a pursuit/ overrun move, which would then be resolved in the next close combat phase.

Additionally, the FAQ question still remains necessary to resolve a situation in which a unit overruns/ pursues into the assaulting unit, during the turn in which they assaulted the building. This can happen as other combats may be resolved prior to the building assault.

T10
29-08-2011, 12:47
It seems obvious to me that the Building rules do not take into account the possibility of overruns or pursuit into buildings garrisoned by enemies. It's less obvious what GW's intent is here. Should the unit in the building benefit from the relative safety of the enemy only being able to mount one assault per game turn, or should a victorious unit be rewarded with a chance to engage the garrisoned unit?

-T10

Tregar
29-08-2011, 12:57
Indeed, don't let your own lack of imagination force you to pigeon-hole that FAQ into a specific circumstance ;)

As mentioned, there's a few situations that could result in an assaulting unit being charged:
1) Empire detachment counter-charge (makes them VERY good during Watchtower scenario)
2) Pursuit into the unit assaulting the building
3) Storm of Magic shennanigans (such as a VC player being allowed to cast VHD by Fulcrum miscasts)

I'm not absolutely sure that the rules prevent overrunning into buildings and fighting. PiNE on P58 says that if the pursuit would take them into contact with an enemy unit, then the charge should be carried out as you would in the movement phase.

And frankly, the building rules are so bad, and give so many benefits to the defender that it would be quite nice to be able to engage the building through a choice overrun! I'd only play it this way with the agreement of my opponent, however.

Vishok
29-08-2011, 17:29
It's very clear.

You can only "assault" a building. You can only do that once a unit prepares to do so, in the Movement phase, because assaulting a defended building isn't a matter of moving through the walls as if they weren't there and fighting the enemy inside.

You cannot pursue or overrun into them.

End of story.

For the record, FAQ means "Frequently Asked Questions" - it doesn't stand for anything else, including "all the rules we left out" or "rules we didn't think you'd actually need".

It's not that difficult.


Indeed, don't let your own lack of imagination force you to pigeon-hole that FAQ into a specific circumstance ;)

*snip*

I'm not absolutely sure that the rules prevent overrunning into buildings and fighting. PiNE on P58 says that if the pursuit would take them into contact with an enemy unit, then the charge should be carried out as you would in the movement phase.

And frankly, the building rules are so bad, and give so many benefits to the defender that it would be quite nice to be able to engage the building through a choice overrun! I'd only play it this way with the agreement of my opponent, however.

It states enemy unit, not building.

The building rules are pretty tight, as far as building rules go. You'd have to play that way with the agreement of your opponent because it's the same as any house rule - you can't whip it out at a tourney or club where such things are not permissible.

PurpleSun
30-08-2011, 01:11
It's very clear.

You can only "assault" a building. You can only do that once a unit prepares to do so, in the Movement phase, because assaulting a defended building isn't a matter of moving through the walls as if they weren't there and fighting the enemy inside.

You cannot pursue or overrun into them.

End of story.

For the record, FAQ means "Frequently Asked Questions" - it doesn't stand for anything else, including "all the rules we left out" or "rules we didn't think you'd actually need".

It's not that difficult.



It states enemy unit, not building.

The building rules are pretty tight, as far as building rules go. You'd have to play that way with the agreement of your opponent because it's the same as any house rule - you can't whip it out at a tourney or club where such things are not permissible.

After re-reading several sections of the BRB, I think that the most sensible interpretation is that the building counts as impassible terrain for purposes of overruns/pursuits and that the unit should stop 1" away from the building.

But I disagree that it is clear. There is enough room to say that the rules simply do not address the situation and you must take a common sense approach to it.

Scalebug
30-08-2011, 12:56
But I disagree that it is clear. There is enough room to say that the rules simply do not address the situation and you must take a common sense approach to it.

The "Do not adress" part there is actually what makes it clear...

It's a game, the rules tell you what you can do. If the rules don't tell you how to do it, you cannot.

As they say, common sense is not that common, you cannot assume that your idea that it should by common sense work one way is what other people think.

(Of course, then you can house rule and agree with your opponent/gaming group all you want, but for discussions sake we assume everyone is playing the rules as written.)

Steam_Giant
30-08-2011, 13:52
Pursuit into a new enemy:

"Carry out the charge as you would in the movement phase"

An assault is a charge in all but name.

Its the combat afterwards, that behaves differently.

Scalebug
30-08-2011, 13:58
Nobody is doubting that, that is really what the discussion starts out on.

But then it ends with you not being allowed to charge with more than one unit in the movement phase, and no allowance for how many you may use in other phases, and because of that no rules for doing it. It doesn't matter that you do the charge as if you were in the movement phase, you are not in the movement phase because of that.

Tregar
30-08-2011, 14:37
I really think this is probably the kind of topic where you should ONLY discuss the matter with the rulebook in front of you, as building rules are so badly written they are not very easy to remember exactly right. After their perfunctory reference to the movement phase, they then go on to say "If multiple units are forced to declare a charge against an enemy-occupied building, only one can complete the charge", which is general enough to cover charges that might happen outside the movement phase.

I think the key to the discussion is the statement that the assaulting unit must declare a charge on the enemy-occupied building. I can't see anything on P59 stating that a charge is actually declared, just that the charge is enacted, and so without the charge declaration, the assault can't happen. I also choose (for the sake of my own sanity) to ignore the reference to pursuit into a new enemy as being an "assault"...

This allows for magic-charges such as Vanhels Danse to happen as normal, as charge declarations happen as normal. Unfortunately, it does mean that models with random movement can't assault a building, as they don't declare a charge- but then they couldn't assault the building according to Vishok's interpretation anyway, as the building itself isn't the enemy unit.

Unsatisfactory either way, and certainly not clear- anyone who claims building rules are clear does themselves a dis-service.

Steam_Giant
30-08-2011, 14:45
But then it ends with you not being allowed to charge with more than one unit in the movement phase, and no allowance for how many you may use in other phases,

A charge is a charge no matter what phase its in.

Scalebug
30-08-2011, 15:10
Yes, but you are missing the point: The numbers of assaults you can make against a building is one (1) in the movement phase, and no rules for doing it in other phases. Therefore, being a game, you cannot do it in other phases.

Tregar
30-08-2011, 15:44
Flipping hell scalebug, I corrected that misinterpretation of yours in the post right before! If you can't be bothered to read the rulebook (There's more on how you can only have one assault at a time in the rulebook, without specifying the movement phase only, if you care to look), or the posts in the thread, what is the point of posting here at all? :wtf:

Scalebug
30-08-2011, 16:00
What crawled up your butt?


exactly right. After their perfunctory reference to the movement phase, they then go on to say "If multiple units are forced to declare a charge against an enemy-occupied building, only one can complete the charge", which is general enough to cover charges that might happen outside the movement phase..


...is just so without grounds misinterpreted it was ignored... There is absolutely nothing supporting your "general enough to cover charges that might happen outside the movement phase..".

No, just no... What you have there is a case of believing something and it being so obvious to you, so strongly you flip out what the contrary is pointed out and you just cannot see how your view lacks basis in reality (or, as in this case, a piece of text...). It happens.

There might well come out an FAQ/Errata saying overrunning into buildings is ok, but until then you have to play it one of two ways:
1) As the text says, only one assault in each movement phase. Period.
or
2) Whatever way you agree on modifying the rules. And then it is a mod, not what you like Tregar believes have any grouds for from the text. Which is perfectly fine, if your group is clear with it, but not something you can argue is actually there in the rulebook, and if someone says they prefer to play by the book, you will have to do it another way than you had agreed (or not play them..).

Vishok
30-08-2011, 17:13
A charge is a charge no matter what phase its in.

A charge is not, by definition, an assault.

Therefore, an assault can only be launched in the movement phase, as no other rules address it.

PurpleSun
30-08-2011, 18:36
The "Do not adress" part there is actually what makes it clear...

It's a game, the rules tell you what you can do. If the rules don't tell you how to do it, you cannot.

As they say, common sense is not that common, you cannot assume that your idea that it should by common sense work one way is what other people think.

(Of course, then you can house rule and agree with your opponent/gaming group all you want, but for discussions sake we assume everyone is playing the rules as written.)


You are short-changing your analysis here, Scalebug. A reasonable analysis of the rules do permit an interpretation that you can do this:

Assault = Charge during the movement phase on a building
Overrun = Equivalent to a charge during the movement phase
Overrun into a Building = Equivalent to a charge during the movement phase on a building.

My whole point is that what you should do in this situation is not as clear as some have posted here.

And as to your assertion that if it is not written in the rules that you can do something, then you cannot do it.... I would refer you to Tom Cruise's cross-examination of Keifer Sutherland in "A Few Good Men". (Tom was wondering how soldiers knew how to walk to the mess hall and eat dinner if it wasn't written in the guidebook given to them when they arrived at the base).

Mr_Rose
30-08-2011, 18:54
No. You have that backwards; you declare an assault on a building then move the assaulting unit as if it were charging another unit. You DO NOT randomly charge a building and that charge magically turns into an Assault.

And you can drop that disingenuous "but laws don't work that way" business right now. First: no kidding; life is different to a game, what a shock. Second: Tom Cruise movies? Ugh! If you're going to make irrelevant references at least make classy ones. Third: Speaking of, Movies don't work that way either; Cruise only said those lines because they were in the script - many, many directors get really narked if you ad-lib, especially if you're terrible at it.

Vishok
30-08-2011, 20:35
You are short-changing your analysis here, Scalebug. A reasonable analysis of the rules do permit an interpretation that you can do this:

Assault = Charge during the movement phase on a building
Overrun = Equivalent to a charge during the movement phase
Overrun into a Building = Equivalent to a charge during the movement phase on a building.

My whole point is that what you should do in this situation is not as clear as some have posted here.

And as to your assertion that if it is not written in the rules that you can do something, then you cannot do it.... I would refer you to Tom Cruise's cross-examination of Keifer Sutherland in "A Few Good Men". (Tom was wondering how soldiers knew how to walk to the mess hall and eat dinner if it wasn't written in the guidebook given to them when they arrived at the base).

That's a really generous "interpretation". If you said this to me during a competitive game, I'd laugh and tell you that was wrong. A charge is NOT equivalent to an assault and that's that.

The game's rules are inclusive, not exclusive: that means if it's not explicitly in the rules, then the answer is no.

PurpleSun
30-08-2011, 21:26
No. You have that backwards; you declare an assault on a building then move the assaulting unit as if it were charging another unit. You DO NOT randomly charge a building and that charge magically turns into an Assault.

And you can drop that disingenuous "but laws don't work that way" business right now. First: no kidding; life is different to a game, what a shock. Second: Tom Cruise movies? Ugh! If you're going to make irrelevant references at least make classy ones. Third: Speaking of, Movies don't work that way either; Cruise only said those lines because they were in the script - many, many directors get really narked if you ad-lib, especially if you're terrible at it.


I do apologize for making a Tom Cruise reference. I knew it was wrong when I did it, but for some unknown reason I could not help myself.

You are fully justified in discounting my arguments based on such faulty citations.

PurpleSun
30-08-2011, 21:29
Wait, one more thing though.

Is it therefore the learned consensus of all Warseer that you cannot overrun/pursue into an assault on a building? If so, I will print this out and add it to my BRB FAQ for use at my next tourney.

Yrrdead
30-08-2011, 21:40
I doubt you are going to get a consensus on this. That just doesn't happen here in my experience.

Nor would it matter to almost any TO if you have a printout from the Interwebs.

tmarichards
30-08-2011, 22:53
The rules are pretty clear, it's pretty much just a stubborn minority who argue against them. Very few people I have met at tournaments (so people who actually frequently play the game) claim you can over-run into a building, it's pretty much only on the internet you'll see it argued.

Tomalock
31-08-2011, 02:17
Interestingly enough, the interpretation that a unit has to declare a charge on a unit in a building in order to have an "assault" automatically excludes all random movement units from ever assaulting a building.

"Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges . . ." (pg 74 LRB).

While I would love to always be protected from an HPA while inside a building, I think such a strict RAW is dubious at best in this circumstance, as the rules for overrun and random movement modify the basic rules for charges and therefore assaults of a building (as normal charges/assaults can only ever occur in the movement phase and must be declared, yet both are overruled in overruning and random movement).

Just my 2 cents on this matter as I think strict RAW is foolish in most cases, but especially in this.

Liber
31-08-2011, 02:43
Exactly what DD said.

So what should have happened was;

Grave Guard break Dryads and overrun.
Grave Guard overrun move stops 1" away from building.
Treekin/Treeman charge Grave Guard.
Grave Guard fight Treekin/Treeman alone.

exactly. glad to see this is the general consensus as its what i would have done in that situation.


by the way people -

The Last Samurai

Collateral

Minority Report

Interview with the Vampire (the books are far superior however)

Mission Impossible (the first and 3rd - don't think i saw the 2nd)

A Few Good Men

are all excellent movies. excellent.

i have never understood the majority of human beings who seem so hell-bent on mixing the personal and professional lives of individuals.

so what if someone is a crazy/deluded/gay/scientologist? if they are good at what they do, thats all that they should be professionaly judged by..,Tom Cruise is good at what he does.

its like back in the 90's when Bill Clinton got a blow job in the oval office - who cares? the country was doing great, i could care less if he was a horn dog.

ever since people got a glimpse of the rather unstable wacky side of Cruise its become taboo to like him or his movies.



sorry this is so off topic. at least the first part was relevant :angel:

PurpleSun
31-08-2011, 04:39
Interestingly enough, the interpretation that a unit has to declare a charge on a unit in a building in order to have an "assault" automatically excludes all random movement units from ever assaulting a building.

"Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges . . ." (pg 74 LRB).

While I would love to always be protected from an HPA while inside a building, I think such a strict RAW is dubious at best in this circumstance, as the rules for overrun and random movement modify the basic rules for charges and therefore assaults of a building (as normal charges/assaults can only ever occur in the movement phase and must be declared, yet both are overruled in overruning and random movement).

Just my 2 cents on this matter as I think strict RAW is foolish in most cases, but especially in this.

An excellent and apparently overlooked point. That would mean according to RAW HPA/Spawns/Rampaging Hellcannons can never assault a building. So anytime their random movement took them towards a building, they would stop 1" away the same as if they came upon impassible terrain.

Is that how the rest of you are playing it right now? Random movement units cannot assault buildings? Surely this has had to come up.

Yrrdead
31-08-2011, 04:43
That actually hasn't come up for me. Not that I would use a HPA to try to assault a building as it seems like a pretty bad tactical idea.

But it also seems kind of clear.

Though when people use an argument that is based on RAW being "foolish" I usually don't take them that seriously. If you feel that RAW is foolish then you are in the wrong forum.

Tomalock
31-08-2011, 06:11
Though when people use an argument that is based on RAW being "foolish" I usually don't take them that seriously. If you feel that RAW is foolish then you are in the wrong forum.

Sadly it is you who are in the wrong forums, I am afraid. Unfortunately for people narrow minded like yourself, GW has created a rule set where strict RAW is actually impossible, and illogical, to follow. On pages 2 and 3 there are two important rules that are generally overlooked by the RAW zombies that inhabit this forum: "The Most Important Rule" and "The Spirit of the Game." Feel free to dismiss them as simpleton edicts by a confused and misguided game company, but as soon as you disregard those rules you cease to be a RAWer (and no, the irony is not lost on me that I have to embrace following the rules as written to argue that it is a flawed approach to take in a rules discussion based on a system that has the two above rules). I've argued this point before and it never gets me far, as rules lawyers lose their minds when simple logic is applied to any given situation, but maybe if I keep bringing it up every couple months the blow-hards will soften up a bit. After all, if you cannot follow rules as simple as those two, why should you be taken seriously in any other rule discussion?

Vishok
31-08-2011, 06:18
Interestingly enough, the interpretation that a unit has to declare a charge on a unit in a building in order to have an "assault" automatically excludes all random movement units from ever assaulting a building.

"Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges . . ." (pg 74 LRB).

*snip*



Absolutely correct.

You can't rely on those sorts of units performing a task that requires a lot of thought, such as assaulting a building.

Tomalock
31-08-2011, 06:25
While even I find bringing fluff into a rules discussion to be slightly suspect, I will take the bait.

Who said anything about assaulting the building? My HPA is merely moving through a temporary structure that was placed inconveniently in its path. So their happened to be some squishy man-things inside at the time, my HPA is not concerned by that.

Yrrdead
31-08-2011, 06:29
Sadly it is you who are in the wrong forums, I am afraid. Unfortunately for people narrow minded like yourself, GW has created a rule set where strict RAW is actually impossible, and illogical, to follow. On pages 2 and 3 there are two important rules that are generally overlooked by the RAW zombies that inhabit this forum: "The Most Important Rule" and "The Spirit of the Game." Feel free to dismiss them as simpleton edicts by a confused and misguided game company, but as soon as you disregard those rules you cease to be a RAWer (and no, the irony is not lost on me that I have to embrace following the rules as written to argue that it is a flawed approach to take in a rules discussion based on a system that has the two above rules). I've argued this point before and it never gets me far, as rules lawyers lose their minds when simple logic is applied to any given situation, but maybe if I keep bringing it up every couple months the blow-hards will soften up a bit. After all, if you cannot follow rules as simple as those two, why should you be taken seriously in any other rule discussion?

Insulting me is probably not the best way to go about changing my mind. I often am wrong and admit to such on a regular basis. I don't have a direct line to Mat Ward so I can magically divine the intent of the designers. Nor do I claim such. I also don't consider an insult filled diatribe to be an argument.

I'm kinda sad as well as I considered us to be 2nd degree buddies. :cries:

Vishok
31-08-2011, 06:31
While even I find bringing fluff into a rules discussion to be slightly suspect, I will take the bait.

Who said anything about assaulting the building? My HPA is merely moving through a temporary structure that was placed inconveniently in its path. So their happened to be some squishy man-things inside at the time, my HPA is not concerned by that.

YOU actually brought it up. You can't attack a unit inside a building except with a special kind of charge called an assault, not random movement.

Buildings are Impassible terrain.

You're gonna move around them. End of story.

T10
31-08-2011, 07:32
It's probably not of any interest to you, but in our gaming group we allow random movement and overrun/pursuit to be used to assault buildings. In fact, any movement that would result two units engaging each other in close combat also applies if one of those units is in a building.

Only one unit may assault building, though.

-T10

Steam_Giant
31-08-2011, 08:54
I did it in a tournament in cardiff last weekend. My opponent didn't give it a second thought, though it lost him a large victory.


Absolutely correct.

You can't rely on those sorts of units performing a task that requires a lot of thought, such as assaulting a building.

Does that mean my zombies cant assault a building?

Since they are braindead I think they would probably be too busy struggling with the concept, that the movement they were about to make is called an "assault" and not a "charge".

What about chaos hounds, do they take a break from their mutant barking to "huddle up" and decide the best way to charge the watch tower? (how will they open the door?)

A goblin squig hoppers however would completely disregard attacking a garrisoned unit. Why? because their movement is too random!

Yeah sure ;)

Liber
31-08-2011, 10:21
it doesn't make any sense to pursue an enemy on foot, and whilst chasing mad dog like after them to just begin to lay seige to a different set of individuals who are holed up inside a structure.

for once the rules and logic agree - you cannot pursue/over run AND attack a building at the same time. you stop infront of it, while the fleeing unit moves around/through it as impassable terrain.

if you wanna house rule it, that is of course completely fine. i would play by said rules if i was in said house. but the rules make it pretty clear that you need to specifically assualt a building. remember the unit pursuing would run into the building first, not the unit. they are in a building, not just standing there in open ground - open to getting 'pursued' into.
its the building that is getting pursued into, and it makes perfect sense that the unit would have to stop for a few minutes to assess the situation.

you stop. consider your next move. then (if you decide) you assault the building. it does not just happen all at once. as you are not physically colliding with other enemy models, you are having to stop (in formation) at a building that the enemies you are pursuing have just raced past.

Steam_Giant
31-08-2011, 10:45
it doesn't make any sense to pursue an enemy on foot, and whilst chasing mad dog like after them to just begin to lay seige to a different set of individuals who are holed up inside a structure.

for once the rules and logic agree - you cannot pursue/over run AND attack a building at the same time. you stop infront of it, while the fleeing unit moves around/through it as impassable terrain.

What if you made the tactical decision before entering your first combat, to smash your opponents unit out of the way, so you can lay siege to the garrisoned unit?

It doesn't make any sense your troops would pause in front of an enemy position to stop and pick their nose!

You cant argue your "scenario" is logical and mine isn't.

an overrun behaves like a charge, an assault is a charge.

Liber
31-08-2011, 11:07
What if you made the tactical decision before entering your first combat, to smash your opponents unit out of the way, so you can lay siege to the garrisoned unit?


simple. you ASSAULT the building during your next movement phase. just like it describes in the rulebook, which you seem to want to ignore.

"It doesn't make any sense your troops would pause in front of an enemy position to stop and pick their nose!"

right. as this is exactly what i and everyone else is implying they would be doing...not sizing up the strength of the building, or looking for ways to harm the defenders inside. nope picking their noses. when you resort to arguments like this it should be obvious you are on the losing side. which you are.

"You cant argue your "scenario" is logical and mine isn't."

refer to picking noses commentary above. yes i can. and i did. and i will...you get the point.

"an overrun behaves like a charge, an assault is a charge"

WRONG! this is where everyone gets confused - an assualt is a specific type of charge. the poor abused BRB goes to great lengths to convey this, i feel sorry so many choose to ignore the oh so simple and clean rules found on page 127 under Assaulting a Building:


"The only way to take an occupied building is by the bloody tactic of storming in with one of your units. This is called an assault (note: not charge, different word, they are not doing this on a whim). Each occupied building may be assaulted by a single unit during each movement phase.
The assaulting unit must declare a charge against the unit in the building."

you cannot randomly collide with a building whilst pursuing a seperate unit and immediately begin to attack and seige the new unit within. you have to declare and then perform a special charge called an assualt during the movement phase. thats it.

at this point anyone who continues to argue the other side is blatantly ignoring the rules, and should be subject to high scrutiny as to their motives for doing so. i doubt they are pure past this post.


Note: i should also mention that garrisoning a building must also be deliberately (not randomly) done during the movement phase. and the movement phase only.

Steam_Giant
31-08-2011, 11:23
at this point anyone who continues to argue the other side is blatantly ignoring the rules, and should be subject to high scrutiny as to their motives for doing so. i doubt they are pure past this post.

Possible "impure motives" include

The taint of chaos
deliberate thread derailment
Trying to instigate a policy of using fluff in place of actual rules :p


However tight you believe the rules are sewn up, this is a legitimate question that needs an answer from GW. (no matter how much you shout about it).

Liber
31-08-2011, 11:30
Possible "impure motives" include

Trying to instigate a policy of using fluff in place of actual rules :p



But...but...the rules...they are...right there...i just...posted....BLARGH *head explodes*

honestly i'm done with the topic.

i think i recognize the problem - my reading comprehension is godlike :evilgrin:

and i should not expect all my fellows to obtain the same laser accurate results from their own minds as those that i am gifted with. yes, yes...i leave you all to your debate.


-common ground- gw should take a more active role in clarifying the finer points and more odd results of their own rulesystem. just for times when there is a real issue, not a manufactured one :angel:

Tregar
31-08-2011, 12:59
The rules are pretty clear, it's pretty much just a stubborn minority who argue against them. Very few people I have met at tournaments (so people who actually frequently play the game) claim you can over-run into a building, it's pretty much only on the internet you'll see it argued.


I did it in a tournament in cardiff last weekend. My opponent didn't give it a second thought, though it lost him a large victory.

You guys both went to the same tournament last weekend, and both have two different POVs on the same rule. This happens, and there's nothing wrong with that, but note which poster derides his opponent's way of playing as that of a "stubborn minority". There's no need for the frequent ad hominem attacks and browbeating of the side that think you can pursue into a building, we're all in this together :)

Incidentally, Liber, given your godlike reading comprehension, can I get an opinion on this quote from pursuit into new enemies: "Naturally, the charged unit is taken by surprise by this impromptu assault"..? Seems that there really is little point in placing so much emphasis on "charging" and "assaulting" being two different things, when GW conflate the two terms in the rulebook.

Course, I do add that I still wouldn't play with pursuit/overruns into buildings- but if an opponent wanted to, I wouldn't try and shout him down or attack his "impure motives". I'd just say, "Rules say you need to declare a charge, unfortunately, and your pursuing unit hasn't done this." Although I certainly would reserve the right to accuse him of being tainted by Chaos :shifty:

PurpleSun
31-08-2011, 13:01
at this point anyone who continues to argue the other side is blatantly ignoring the rules, and should be subject to high scrutiny as to their motives for doing so. i doubt they are pure past this post.


If you are obsessed with your opinions/interpretations being the final word, run for Judge in your local district. Otherwise, please get out of the way and allow the rest of us to have a reasoned debate on the matter.

DeathlessDraich
31-08-2011, 16:50
Some advice, addressed to no one in particular :)
It is important to put aside petulance and impatience in these discussions. Please do not try to justify a response tinged with anger and churlishness, using provocation as an excuse. Wouldn't that be reducing yourself to the level that you censure?

Can I suggest apologies and appeasements by all and sundry.
A little patience certainly helps.

There is 1 more point I would like to make on the original debate but I'll wait till the tone of this thread resumes with an acceptable level of civility.

Vishok
31-08-2011, 16:56
I did it in a tournament in cardiff last weekend. My opponent didn't give it a second thought, though it lost him a large victory.



Does that mean my zombies cant assault a building?

Since they are braindead I think they would probably be too busy struggling with the concept, that the movement they were about to make is called an "assault" and not a "charge".

What about chaos hounds, do they take a break from their mutant barking to "huddle up" and decide the best way to charge the watch tower? (how will they open the door?)

A goblin squig hoppers however would completely disregard attacking a garrisoned unit. Why? because their movement is too random!

Yeah sure ;)

Zombies don't have random movement. They are being controlled by a Vampire or Necromancer.


What if you made the tactical decision before entering your first combat, to smash your opponents unit out of the way, so you can lay siege to the garrisoned unit?

It doesn't make any sense your troops would pause in front of an enemy position to stop and pick their nose!

You cant argue your "scenario" is logical and mine isn't.

an overrun behaves like a charge, an assault is a charge.

An assault is a special kind of charge. An overrun is not an assault.

You might not think it's logical, and I'm not saying "I'm more logical than you LOL".

What I'm saying is that it's illegal as far as Warhammer 8th ed goes.

I have every White Dwarf in existence. Tell me the # where the spawn attacked the building and I will dig it out. That in itself doesn't matter though - those guys in WD routinely make up new rules or break rules during Battle Reports.



Possible "impure motives" include

The taint of chaos
deliberate thread derailment
Trying to instigate a policy of using fluff in place of actual rules :p


However tight you believe the rules are sewn up, this is a legitimate question that needs an answer from GW. (no matter how much you shout about it).

No it's not. It seems like people are only saying that because they either can't read or they are actually fervently praying GW will somehow publish a contradiction to their own rules. They don't usually do that within the same edition.




Incidentally, Liber, given your godlike reading comprehension, can I get an opinion on this quote from pursuit into new enemies: "Naturally, the charged unit is taken by surprise by this impromptu assault"..? Seems that there really is little point in placing so much emphasis on "charging" and "assaulting" being two different things, when GW conflate the two terms in the rulebook.



When does this happen? That's a blatant lie.

Tregar
31-08-2011, 17:07
It's in that exact quote of mine that you replied to. Don't be so insufferable.

Vishok
31-08-2011, 17:54
In WD they often do things just to showcase their new toys.

In the case of the WD you mention, Jan '11 - the buildings are just as new as the HPA.

No mention of rules were made, except in the earlier secion entitled "House Rules" - a pun made on making buildings better with house rules.

In the battle report, the HPA "slams into the watchtower".


Therefore I present my revised thesis on the subject:


My take on it is this - there aren't house rules, and they didn't use house rules in the battle report. What??

Ok, hear me out. It is considered a "charge" if the random movement roll brings it into contact with an enemy unit. Once the direction and distance are rolled, if it would bringthe unit into contact with a garrisoned building, then that random roll would be considered an "assault".

Note that this still bars overruns into buildings, which is not done anywhere in any battle report. Because it's illegal.

PurpleSun
31-08-2011, 18:18
In WD they often do things just to showcase their new toys.

In the case of the WD you mention, Jan '11 - the buildings are just as new as the HPA.

No mention of rules were made, except in the earlier secion entitled "House Rules" - a pun made on making buildings better with house rules.

In the battle report, the HPA "slams into the watchtower".


Therefore I present my revised thesis on the subject:


My take on it is this - there aren't house rules, and they didn't use house rules in the battle report. What??

Ok, hear me out. It is considered a "charge" if the random movement roll brings it into contact with an enemy unit. Once the direction and distance are rolled, if it would bringthe unit into contact with a garrisoned building, then that random roll would be considered an "assault".

Note that this still bars overruns into buildings, which is not done anywhere in any battle report. Because it's illegal.


So you are now saying that:
1. When random movement contacts an enemy, it counts as a charge during the movement phase.
2. An assault is a charge during the movement phase.
3. Therefore, a creature with random movement can assault a building.

How is that any different than my earlier post?:
1. An overrun is counted as a charge during the movement phase.
2. An assault is a charge during the movement phase.
3. Therefore, a unit overrunning can assault a building.


It is the exact same logic of: if A = B and B = C then A = C.

Vishok
31-08-2011, 18:27
So you are now saying that:
1. When random movement contacts an enemy, it counts as a charge during the movement phase.
2. An assault is a charge during the movement phase.
3. Therefore, a creature with random movement can assault a building.

How is that any different than my earlier post?:
1. An overrun is counted as a charge during the movement phase.
2. An assault is a charge during the movement phase.
3. Therefore, a unit overrunning can assault a building.


It is the exact same logic of: if A = B and B = C then A = C.

That is absolutely NOT what I said and that doesn't make sense. You're bridging two different things and phases here.

A Charge can be three things:
1) A normal charge
2) An Assault on a Building in the movement phase.
3) An overrun in the Combat phase.

A charge can become an assault in the movement phase. Random movement becomes a charge, then an assault, if all criteria are met.

Overruns are handled in the Close Combat phase. Therefore an overrun cannot be an assault. It can be treated as a charge in the next combat if it contacts a unit, but it can't be considered an assault in the same movement phase as it must stop outside the building during the overrun.

A building is still impassable terrain whether or not there is a unit inside it. Never does this fundamental EVER change.

PurpleSun
31-08-2011, 18:38
Overruns are handled in the Close Combat phase. Therefore an overrun cannot be an assault. It can be treated as a charge in the next combat if it contacts a unit, but it can't be considered an assault in the same movement phase as it must stop outside the building during the overrun.

A building is still impassable terrain whether or not there is a unit inside it. Never does this fundamental EVER change.


The rules for overrun say that an overrun equals a charge in the movement phase. An overrun "happens" during the Close Combat phase, but it is the equivalent of a charge during the movement phase.

Claiming that the building is impassible terrain does not end the analysis. You can have a hill with an impassible cliff. You cannot charge the unit on top of the hill up the impassible cliff. Buildings are impassible terrain except when they are charged. An overrun is the equivalent of a charge.

I sincerely believe that you can interpret the rules either way. Those who act like it is obvious and beyond discussion are a mystery to me.

Vishok
31-08-2011, 18:40
I think you just proved yourself wrong in that last statement about the impassable hill.

You aren't charging the building or the unit inside. You're overrunning another enemy unit.

An overrun is only similar to a charge under certain conditions.

PurpleSun
31-08-2011, 19:13
I think you just proved yourself wrong in that last statement about the impassable hill.

You aren't charging the building or the unit inside. You're overrunning another enemy unit.

An overrun is only similar to a charge under certain conditions.


I just lost interest in this discussion. Toddles!

Vishok
31-08-2011, 20:09
I just lost interest in this discussion. Toddles!

I don't blame you.