PDA

View Full Version : Units in buildings are safe from models with "Random Movement"



Tomalock
31-08-2011, 06:27
"Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges . . ." (pg 74 LRB)

"The assaulting unit must declare a charge against the unit in the building" (pg 127 LRB)

Discuss.

Vishok
31-08-2011, 06:30
Yes, they are.

You can't really expect a chaos spawn to dislodge a unit of spearmen defending a watchtower.

It's not really that big of an issue. If you're trying to rely on this you've probably already lost the game.

T10
31-08-2011, 07:42
Can a unit use random movement to garrison a building?

If yes, can they elect to stop one 1" away instead of entering the building?

-T10

sulla
31-08-2011, 07:51
Buildings are impassable except in a few specific circumstances. We decided random movement didn't satisfy any of the circumstances for assaulting or garrisoning. Another group may decide the other way...

Kalandros
31-08-2011, 09:16
But do you count as being in contact with an enemy unit when you assault a building? Because Random movement "counts as charging" when its brought in contact with an enemy unit.

T10
31-08-2011, 09:42
I'm interested in whether or not units with Random Movement can garrison an empty building or not. If it can garrison a building the surely it can assault one.

-T10

Scalebug
31-08-2011, 10:37
Spawn will be the only models in question, right? Other random movers are monsters or chariot-style models. There is no problem with random movers garrisoning a building, if they can reach it, they can garrison it, but by the letter of the rules, this does not mean they can assault someone already in there.

Random movers do not declare charges, but counts as charging if they make contact. You will never make contact with a building unless you declare a charge (or garrison it), you will have to stop 1" away from the impassible terrain.


Feels Gamey? maybe, but it's not like it's the only such occurance where the rules as they stand may feel counter-intuitive. Either play them as written, or agree with your opponent or gaming group to house-rule a change.

Steam_Giant
31-08-2011, 11:53
Spawn will be the only models in question, right?

Squig hoppers?

Mr_Rose
31-08-2011, 12:11
A query; if we assume for a moment (I don't think this is resolved satisfactorily at all yet) that models with random movement are allowed to garrison a building, what of their random movement next turn?
Are they trapped? Or do they have to exit the building?

If they are forced to exit, do they do so in an "orderly" fashion and stop after deploying per the building rules or do they continue on randomly after that?

Tregar
31-08-2011, 13:08
Yes I would think that a Spawn or similar model with random movement could garrison a building (Not Squig Hoppers: they're cavalry). I suppose to leave the building they would just be placed with the rear rank 1" from the building, but with no further movement that turn. Although the rules don't really cover it all that well.

Tuttivillus
31-08-2011, 15:20
Random Movement Units can attack garrisoned units - guys at the studio did it in a battle empire vs. Skaven in WD, i do not remember which issue was that january 2011? The one that introduced HPA.

Tregar
31-08-2011, 15:52
That's because the games in White Dwarf play by the "spirit" of the rules, rather than by the letter ;)

Vishok
31-08-2011, 16:55
But do you count as being in contact with an enemy unit when you assault a building? Because Random movement "counts as charging" when its brought in contact with an enemy unit.

Not if the enemy unit is in the building.

It never comes in contact with them as it stops 1" away from the building.

I'll dig out that WD and verify if you can tell me which number exactly.

Like I said in the other thread, it matters little. They frequently ignore and invent new rules all the time for their battle reports.

Yrrdead
31-08-2011, 19:27
Okay a few bits and bobs to add.

A unit with Random Movement may not Garrison a Building. It cannot ever meet the first requirement of this rule which is;

GARRISONING A BUILDING
A unit can enter and garrison an unoccupied building it it can move into base contact with the building during the Movement phase.[...]
and from the Random Movement Special Rule

RANDOM MOVEMENT
[...]If the random move brings the unit to within 1" of a friendly unit or impassable terrain, it stops immediately and cannot move further during that Movement phase.

Tayrod
31-08-2011, 19:43
Meeh, when the HPA was release, WD did a Battle report with empire vs Skaven, the empire player defending some buildings. I remember distincly the HPA assaulting several buildings.. So according to the WD team, random move models can assault buildings.

Ops, just saw someone beat me to this ^^

RanaldLoec
31-08-2011, 20:00
Hmmm

So that big expensive new chaos spawn from SoM useless for assaulting a fulcrum as its a building.

Some times following the letter of the rules leads to just absolutely poo rules. I think "spirit of the game" is far superior to RAW in some circumstances.

It is not the following the rules as discussed but I would allow a random movement unit assault a building but not garrison it.

But that is merely my opinion as I prefere a smooth running game rather than spending 20 minutes before or during a game explaining why he can't do x y and z with his unit because of a GW's **** like rule writing.

But that's just my out look, officially no random movers assaulting buildings:/

stashman
01-09-2011, 16:33
Squig hoppers?

Nope, cavalry :)

PurpleSun
01-09-2011, 16:46
Yes, they are.

You can't really expect a chaos spawn to dislodge a unit of spearmen defending a watchtower.

It's not really that big of an issue. If you're trying to rely on this you've probably already lost the game.


This is funny, Vishok, because you just said this in another post recently:

"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 bring the unit into contact with a garrisoned building, then that random roll would be considered an "assault"."

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=315586&page=3

Vishok
01-09-2011, 17:03
This thread was started as an offshoot of that other one about the same thing, and we've done a lot of research and discussion since then. The timestamp on the quote in this thread was 11:55.

The timestamp on the other reference was 12:54, an hour of going back and forth and reading manuals later.

Just because I noted that this was possible, doesn't mean that overrun or garrison is possible.

There's an even better question though.

Even if a spawn could enter a building, wouldn't it just leave the next turn? It's a little against the "spirit of the rules" as the other side of the argument would say - you can negate the random movement altogether if you accede this point, and that is incorrect.

decker_cky
01-09-2011, 20:05
It would have to leave the next turn, but would have it's movement increased by the size of the building, and could charge out of a building.

PurpleSun
01-09-2011, 20:37
The biggest question I have is why was this stuff not play-tested before the rule book went to press?

My buddy and I played one game with a Folding Fortress, and a lot of these building issues came up. All GW had to do was take two guys for one week and let them play games non-stop with the new rules. Then they could have tweaked this stuff.

Yrrdead
01-09-2011, 20:38
Again a unit with the Random Movement special rule may not garrison a building. Nor can one assault a building.*


*Though I do recognize that there is a valid argument regarding overrun into a building.

Tregar
01-09-2011, 20:49
According to your previous post it can't do that because it can't approach to within 1" of a building. But technically, no unit can approach to within 1" from a building. I think it's implicit in the garrisoning rules that models are allowed to approach to within 1" to garrison the building... although it's a lot tidier to just not let them in (then you don't have to worry about letting them out)!

Yrrdead
01-09-2011, 20:58
According to your previous post it can't do that because it can't approach to within 1" of a building. But technically, no unit can approach to within 1" from a building. I think it's implicit in the garrisoning rules that models are allowed to approach to within 1" to garrison the building... although it's a lot tidier to just not let them in (then you don't have to worry about letting them out)!

Thank you Tregar. You finally got me to read the passages I needed to in full, instead of piecemeal. And it isn't implicit it is very explicit.

I was wrong. Chaos Spawns may garrison away.

Leth Shyish'phak
01-09-2011, 23:05
Spawn are monstrous beasts, fairly sure those can't enter buildings.

Yrrdead
01-09-2011, 23:22
Spawn are monstrous beasts, fairly sure those can't enter buildings.

That is not correct. Infantry, monstrous infantry, war beasts, monstrous beasts and swarms can garrison a building.(pg 126)

DeathlessDraich
02-09-2011, 17:25
Random movers do not declare charges, but counts as charging if they make contact. You will never make contact with a building unless you declare a charge (or garrison it), you will have to stop 1" away from the impassible terrain.


Just reinforcing this answer with the relevant rules

pg 127 - "only way to take an occupied building is by ...an assault"
pg 127 - "assaulting unit must declare a charge"

pg 74 - "Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges"

So Models with Random Movement cannot assault a building.

I've yet to encounter this situation myself. :)

DeathlessDraich
02-09-2011, 17:26
On the question of Garrisoning: IIRC there was an FAQ about this (or along similar lines) but I'm not sure whether it is 6th, 7th ed or 8th ed?

There are 2 conflicting rules:

1) Random movement
"move the model forward a number of inches equal to the dice roll" - Note - "equal to" and not "up to".

In circumstances where the model cannot move its full distance e.g. blocked by friendly units or impassable terrain, it has to stop 1" away

i.e. Random movement dictates a full movement or a forced stop 1" away.

2) Garrison
"if it can move into base contact". - this is achievable in only 1 restrictive circumstance - (C) below.

However I can see 3 ways in which players will interpret this:

A) Ignore the full distance of the Random Movement dice roll i.e. treat Random movement as 'up to' for garrisoning.

B) Allow the garrison if the full movement is still within the confines of the building e.g. dice roll of 10 for a Spawn 6" away from a building equal to or more than 4" in length = garrison succeeds
but if the building is 2" long = garrison fails

C) Apply the rules strictly. i.e. Random Movement model has to roll a precise no. of inches to just take it into base contact with the building.


:)

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2011, 18:48
Hang on, let's address Random Movement being unable to charge a building first.

Random movement
(1) "Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges."

(2) "If the move is found to take the unit into contact with an enemy, then it counts as charging."

Normal movement
(3) "You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge".

Buildings
(4) "The assaulting unit must declare a charge against the unit in the building."

Let's start with a premise: since the random movement (RM) rules state that RM units count as charging if they come in contact, these units CAN engage in combat.

With this assumption, the RM rules MUST be giving an implicit exception to quote (3) otherwise this would prevent a RM unit from engaging in combat.

Assuming RM gives exception to (3), it follows that it also gives exception to (4) since these two rules are functionally identical.

Therefore if you accept my premise, then RM units can charge buildings.



Now for whether RM units can garrison, buildings are tricky because they're not exactly Impassable. From the FAQ
Q: Can a model move within an inch of a building without
garrisoning it? (p126)
A: No.

Ergo a unit can move within an inch of a building when garrisoning it.

(5) "For the most part, buildings act as impassable terrain" (p126)
(6) "A unit is not allowed to apporach closer than 1" to ... impassable terrain" (p13)
(7) "A unit can enter and garrison an unoccupied building if it can move into base contact" (p126)
(8) "If the random move brings the unit to within 1" of ... impassable terrain, it stops" (p74)

If we accept that a unit can indeed, garrison an unoccupied building as per (7), and we take into account that buildings do not ALWAYS act as impassable terrain (5), therefore for the purposes of buildings being garrisoned do NOT count as impassable terrain and (6) and (8) do not apply.

So RM units can garrison buildings.

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 18:55
I don't accept your premise.

The section under Random Movement that contact with an enemy counts as charging is not a charge declaration.

A charge declaration is needed to assault a building.


In regards to regular units.
1.Normal rules; You cannot move into close combat without having a declared a charge.
2.Special rule; Random Movement overrides the above with its own section.

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2011, 18:58
Then quote (3) prevents a RM unit from charging any unit.

RM does not give any explicit exception to quote (3). I do not see any functional difference between (3) and (4). If we are assuming an implicit exception to (3) then we can assume one for (4) too.

Malorian
02-09-2011, 19:00
Interesting arguments...

By reading all this it's my opinion that RAW saws they can't charge a building, but I don't think I'd ever call someone on it.

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 19:00
Then quote (3) prevents a RM unit from charging any unit.

What? No, the random movement rule overrides the normal rule.

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 19:03
Argh, stop editing LI >.<

Random movement does grant explicit permission in paragraph 3.

The functional difference is pretty big. And by big I mean a building. Which is a piece of terrain. Which has a bunch of rules associated with it.

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2011, 19:03
What? No, the random movement rule overrides the normal rule.

I agree. And this implicit override by extension overrides the building rule too, since they are functionally identical.

Edit:


Argh, stop editing LI >.<

Random movement does grant explicit permission in paragraph 3.

The functional difference is pretty big. And by big I mean a building. Which is a piece of terrain. Which has a bunch of rules associated with it.
Sorry about the edits but here's one more :o

OK lets keep it simple. What is the explicit permission?

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 19:08
I agree. And this implicit override by extension overrides the building rule too, since they are functionally identical.

No , it isn't implicit and the building rules are not functionally identical.

Again paragraph 3 under the Random Movement rules is explicit. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the term implicit.

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2011, 19:16
Okay I'll spell it out.

The rules again

Random movement
(1) "Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges."

(2) "If the move is found to take the unit into contact with an enemy, then it counts as charging."

Normal movement
(3) "You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge".

Buildings
(4) "The assaulting unit must declare a charge against the unit in the building."

Let's assume the most slavishly literal reading of the rules. Quote (2) does NOT say "This move allows the unit to move within 1" of the enemy unit without declaring a charge".

Therefore quote (3) and the 1" rule kicks in. The random movement unit cannot move into contact and therefore rule (2) never actually applies. We can assume it is redundant and designed purely for some hypothetical RM unit with a special rule that allows it to move within 1" of the enemy unit.

Now obviously this is patently absurd and we can assume that the rule (2) gives permission to come within 1" of the enemy! However to do so we have to assume an exception to quote (3).

I do not follow that we should not assume an exception to quote (4) by the same means. Particularly since we're assuming the exception on the basis that it makes sense that RM can charge units, why doesn't it make sense that RM units can charge buildings? Quote (3) and quote (4) are functionally identical (by which I mean they both basically say the same thing - you have to declare a charge to charge).

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 19:26
I'm sorry but it looks like you are cherry picking here.

Random Movement

[...]There's a chance that the model's peculiar movement will cause it to come into contact with an enemy, so measure the distance in a straight line before the model is moved. If the move is found to take the unit into contact with an enemy, then it counts as charging, and this is resolved using the normal rules for charges and using the distance rolled as its charge range. Charge reactions cannot be declared against enemies with the Random Movement special rule - the enemy find it impossible to recognize the danger until it is far too late!

This is what I meant by explicit. That paragraph gives very explicit permission (and instructions) to violate the normal rules laid out on pg 16. That covers normal units. A building on the other hand isn't a normal unit. Though it looks like you are pretty convinced so I'm not sure more quotes are going to change your mind. Which is fine.

decker_cky
02-09-2011, 19:54
I'm sorry but it looks like you are cherry picking here.

Random Movement


This is what I meant by explicit. That paragraph gives very explicit permission (and instructions) to violate the normal rules laid out on pg 16. That covers normal units. A building on the other hand isn't a normal unit. Though it looks like you are pretty convinced so I'm not sure more quotes are going to change your mind. Which is fine.

That quote doesn't actually let them violate the 1" rule. It says once they're going to contact the unit, they count as charging, but not how they can contact a unit. LI's argument is pretty strong in showing that the interpretation shown for buildings could be considered absurd.

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 19:58
That quote doesn't actually let them violate the 1" rule. It says once they're going to contact the unit, they count as charging, but not how they can contact a unit. LI's argument is pretty strong in showing that the interpretation shown for buildings could be considered absurd.

Yes it does. The sentence "this is resolved using the normal rules for charges" covers the 1" rule.

decker_cky
02-09-2011, 20:00
It can't have a move which would take it into contact with a unit until it's already violated the 1" rule.

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 20:01
It can't have a move which would take it into contact with a unit until it's already violated the 1" rule.

Did you read the paragraph? It tells you to measure first.

decker_cky
02-09-2011, 20:12
That is why I used a conditional in my sentence. You measure, and there's a unit there. Unfortunately, because of the 1" rule, that movement would not take the random mover into contact with them. Therefore it doesn't count as a charge and let them ignore the 1" rule.

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 20:33
I see , I interpreted that differently.

So your argument is that units with Random Movement can't charge anything? I'm confused now. Going for a run, hopefully that will help me wake up a bit because I must be missing something obvious.

decker_cky
02-09-2011, 20:41
That obviously isn't right, but it's showing that the wording isn't air tight enough to excluding RM units from charging buildings. Technically, there's a hole in their rules that doesn't even allow them to charge, but the intent is quite obvious. If you accept what's said there, it follows right into Lord Inquisitors argument.


Okay I'll spell it out.

The rules again

Random movement
(1) "Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges."

(2) "If the move is found to take the unit into contact with an enemy, then it counts as charging."

Normal movement
(3) "You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge".

Buildings
(4) "The assaulting unit must declare a charge against the unit in the building."

Let's assume the most slavishly literal reading of the rules. Quote (2) does NOT say "This move allows the unit to move within 1" of the enemy unit without declaring a charge".

Therefore quote (3) and the 1" rule kicks in. The random movement unit cannot move into contact and therefore rule (2) never actually applies. We can assume it is redundant and designed purely for some hypothetical RM unit with a special rule that allows it to move within 1" of the enemy unit.

Now obviously this is patently absurd and we can assume that the rule (2) gives permission to come within 1" of the enemy! However to do so we have to assume an exception to quote (3).

I do not follow that we should not assume an exception to quote (4) by the same means. Particularly since we're assuming the exception on the basis that it makes sense that RM can charge units, why doesn't it make sense that RM units can charge buildings? Quote (3) and quote (4) are functionally identical (by which I mean they both basically say the same thing - you have to declare a charge to charge).

DeathlessDraich
02-09-2011, 21:25
Hang on, let's address Random Movement being unable to charge a building first.

Random movement
(1) "Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges."

(2) "If the move is found to take the unit into contact with an enemy, then it counts as charging."

Normal movement
(3) "You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge".

Buildings
(4) "The assaulting unit must declare a charge against the unit in the building."

Let's start with a premise: since the random movement (RM) rules state that RM units count as charging if they come in contact, these units CAN engage in combat.

With this assumption, the RM rules MUST be giving an implicit exception to quote (3) otherwise this would prevent a RM unit from engaging in combat.

Assuming RM gives exception to (3), it follows that it also gives exception to (4) since these two rules are functionally identical.

Therefore if you accept my premise, then RM units can charge buildings.



Nicely reasoned. :) by bringing in the 1" rule.

Having read it and thought about it, I've still come to the conclusion that an Assault by a Random movement model is disallowed.

I'll put it succinctly as it's bedtime and my spousal duties await!:D -

The 1" rule and Random Movement rule is reconciliable by noting the difference between the phrase "declare charge" and "charge" (movement).
I think the crux of your argument lies in that but ... Of course my reading of your text is cursory and I may have omitted some other arguments you presented

Yrrdead
02-09-2011, 22:16
Let me attempt to rephrase/paraphrase;

<<Since you allow RM units to charge regular units you should allow them to assault a buildings.>>

That is what I'm reading from LI. My problem with it is it doesn't follow. There are two separate rules involved, that he is making appear to be related. The 1" rule and the rules for assaulting a building which requires a charge declaration.

By this I mean, the problem (that you've shown) with the wording regarding RM units charging ANY unit, is the 1" rule.

The problem, with Assaulting a building, is the necessity to make a charge declaration to do so.


Allowing one doesn't necessitate allowing the other.

AMWOOD co
03-09-2011, 04:56
I may be way off the mark, but couldn't one interpret "...is resolved using the normal rules for charges..." to mean that the unit with Random Movement has in fact 'declared a charge' as that is the first step of making a charge? It actually points out that charge reactions cannot be made explicitly, so I would think that the normal charge rules apply in their totality (exceptions noted in Random Movement's rules).

Yrrdead
03-09-2011, 05:24
I may be way off the mark, but couldn't one interpret "...is resolved using the normal rules for charges..." to mean that the unit with Random Movement has in fact 'declared a charge' as that is the first step of making a charge? It actually points out that charge reactions cannot be made explicitly, so I would think that the normal charge rules apply in their totality (exceptions noted in Random Movement's rules).

I wouldn't think so. Resolving as a charge != a charge declaration. Though that is my opinion, that a charge declaration and the resolution of a charge are two separate and discrete events.

But honestly the best thing about this thread is how far from an actual game we've gotten. It actually makes me laugh when I start telling my buddy about threads like this and he looks at me like I'm off my meds. Ahh the rules forum is so much fun.

DeathlessDraich
03-09-2011, 10:34
Resolving as a charge != a charge declaration. Though that is my opinion, that a charge declaration and the resolution of a charge are two separate and discrete events.


! = not, I take it. Reading the above I feel as if you've drawn Venn diagrams.:D for the 2 events.


I may be way off the mark, but couldn't one interpret "...is resolved using the normal rules for charges..." to mean that the unit with Random Movement has in fact 'declared a charge' as that is the first step of making a charge? It actually points out that charge reactions cannot be made explicitly, so I would think that the normal charge rules apply in their totality (exceptions noted in Random Movement's rules).

I'll just quote the rules again to add to Yrrdead's post.

pg 74 "Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges"
pg 127 "assaulting unit must declare a charge"

The 2 rules above are imperatively phrased and cannot be obviated.

On Random Movement charges - The full rules has to be taken in context.
"If the move takes the unit into contact, it counts as charging".

Note - "counts as" - This is a special type of charge where there is no charge declaration (and none needed) in accordance with the previous rules.

Next phrase "and is resolved using the normal rules of charging".

This 'resolving' bit can only refer to Closing the Door, since contact has already been made.
i.e. the only rule that the Random Movement charge borrows from normal charge rules is Clsoing the Door.

Sorry, but it is clear enough to me that a Random Movement model cannot assault a building :)

PurpleSun
04-09-2011, 00:30
! = not, I take it. Reading the above I feel as if you've drawn Venn diagrams.:D for the 2 events.



I'll just quote the rules again to add to Yrrdead's post.

pg 74 "Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges"
pg 127 "assaulting unit must declare a charge"

The 2 rules above are imperatively phrased and cannot be obviated.

On Random Movement charges - The full rules has to be taken in context.
"If the move takes the unit into contact, it counts as charging".

Note - "counts as" - This is a special type of charge where there is no charge declaration (and none needed) in accordance with the previous rules.

Next phrase "and is resolved using the normal rules of charging".

This 'resolving' bit can only refer to Closing the Door, since contact has already been made.
i.e. the only rule that the Random Movement charge borrows from normal charge rules is Clsoing the Door.

Sorry, but it is clear enough to me that a Random Movement model cannot assault a building :)


Okay, this is all well and good, but one must take into account that in the previously mentioned White Dwarf, they allowed an HPA to assault the watchtower and neither of the players nor whoever was writing up the article ever thought it was a problem.

So those who may assert that it is obvious that random movement cannot assault of building have overlooked the fact to many others it seems obvious that they can.

Mr_Rose
04-09-2011, 00:41
Okay, this is all well and good, but one must take into account that in the previously mentioned White Dwarf, they allowed an HPA to assault the watchtower and neither of the players nor whoever was writing up the article ever thought it was a problem.

So those who may assert that it is obvious that random movement cannot assault of building have overlooked the fact to many others it seems obvious that they can.
No one mustn't. WD battle reports are notorious for getting rules flat out wrong and/or using playtest rules that got changed before release for reports with new armies.

PurpleSun
04-09-2011, 03:06
No one mustn't. WD battle reports are notorious for getting rules flat out wrong and/or using playtest rules that got changed before release for reports with new armies.

No where in my post did I say that WD got it right or was by necessity correct in their interpretation. My point was that some people think it obvious on the face that a random movement unit can assault a building, and those people are just not painstakingly reading the rules incredibly tight with their sphincter muscles clenched firmly.

Please read my post again. It did not say "White Dwarf said it is this way so it must be this way because what they say goes." I am aware that White Dwarf makes mistakes, I just said that it should be taken into consideration. Find someone else to Troll.

RanaldLoec
04-09-2011, 09:25
I don't like hellpits they annoy me.

But I'm not going to stop one assaulting my unit in a building.

Again I think RAW fails miserably here, many rules in WFB just become horrible messy game stopping steaming pile of turds when people apply RAW so religiously.

If I pulled this chestnut on an opponent mid game it would grind to a halt while we argued warseer style mid game.

And yes I have read and understood the whole thread.

Lord Inquisitor
05-09-2011, 00:27
That is why I used a conditional in my sentence. You measure, and there's a unit there. Unfortunately, because of the 1" rule, that movement would not take the random mover into contact with them. Therefore it doesn't count as a charge and let them ignore the 1" rule.
Somebody gets it! :D


I see , I interpreted that differently.

So your argument is that units with Random Movement can't charge anything? I'm confused now. Going for a run, hopefully that will help me wake up a bit because I must be missing something obvious.
Yes, RM cannot charge anything.

Which is absurd, of course, but there's no explicit exception. If we assume an implicit one, there's no reason not to assume it for all instances where a declaration of charge is required by the rules.


The 1" rule and Random Movement rule is reconciliable by noting the difference between the phrase "declare charge" and "charge" (movement).
I think the crux of your argument lies in that but ... Of course my reading of your text is cursory and I may have omitted some other arguments you presented
Agreed but it wasn't the 1" rule that prevents the charge (only coming within 1"), it's this:

(3) "You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge".

If RM doesn't give an exception to needing to declare a charge then RM units can't charge anything, not just buildings...


I may be way off the mark, but couldn't one interpret "...is resolved using the normal rules for charges..." to mean that the unit with Random Movement has in fact 'declared a charge' as that is the first step of making a charge? It actually points out that charge reactions cannot be made explicitly, so I would think that the normal charge rules apply in their totality (exceptions noted in Random Movement's rules).
Well, the RM rules specifically say they can't declare charges but the end result is the same.


I'll just quote the rules again to add to Yrrdead's post.

pg 74 "Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges"
pg 127 "assaulting unit must declare a charge"

The 2 rules above are imperatively phrased and cannot be obviated.
pg 74 "Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges"
pg 16 "You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge"

The 2 rules above are imperatively phrased and cannot be obviated.

Therefore RM units cannot move into close combat.


On Random Movement charges - The full rules has to be taken in context.
"If the move takes the unit into contact, it counts as charging".

Note - "counts as" - This is a special type of charge where there is no charge declaration (and none needed) in accordance with the previous rules.
I agree ... BUT it requires an exception to the above rule.

I argue that this gives an implicit exception to both.

Otherwise you need to explain to me why it ignores this rule:

"You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge"

but not this rule

"assaulting unit must declare a charge"

I can't see any functional difference between the two so you're cherry picking which your implicit exception applies to.

Tomalock
05-09-2011, 01:04
Careful Lord Inquisitor or all the RAW Zombies' heads will explode and you'll have no one left to argue with on this forum!

Yrrdead
05-09-2011, 07:36
Okay LI , I like what you are putting down. One last thing for you to take a look at.

Random movement is part of the Advanced Rule set, where both charging , movement and the 1" rule are part of the Basic Rules.

Doesn't pg11 mean that Random Movement would override those applicable sections of the Basic Rules?

Lord Inquisitor
05-09-2011, 16:57
Right, but the point is that there is no explicit rule to override the basic rule.

Obviously it does give an exception, I'm not really arguing that RM units can't charge anything. The advanced rules overrule the basic rules but I don't think this is an issue. There's also no issue with the special rules overriding the terrain rules as applicable - obviously strider overrides the terrain rules!

AMWOOD co
05-09-2011, 21:19
I wouldn't think so. Resolving as a charge != a charge declaration. Though that is my opinion, that a charge declaration and the resolution of a charge are two separate and discrete events.

True, it's not a necessity that resolving the charge is the same as a declaration. However, it is possible that it is the intention of the authors that it is the same. We cannot be certain.


This 'resolving' bit can only refer to Closing the Door, since contact has already been made.
i.e. the only rule that the Random Movement charge borrows from normal charge rules is Clsoing the Door.

Well, that's... not true.

Let's look at Squig Hoppers. When they move into another unit, they must still rank up, maximise models, etc. That doesn't sound like just Closing the Door. Also, it's worth noting that the rules for Random Movement make mention that no charge reactions are allowed. This is an explicit statement that something else involved in a charge beyond just moving the charging unit is to be ignored, so it isn't beyond reason that other aspects may be involved.

Yrrdead
05-09-2011, 22:14
Right, but the point is that there is no explicit rule to override the basic rule.

Obviously it does give an exception, I'm not really arguing that RM units can't charge anything. The advanced rules overrule the basic rules but I don't think this is an issue. There's also no issue with the special rules overriding the terrain rules as applicable - obviously strider overrides the terrain rules!


Your original argument was based on the premise that if you allow a unit with RM to charge a normal unit than you have to allow a unit with RM to assault a building.

I still disagree with your premise. What allows a unit with RM to "charge" a unit is the special rule Random Movement. The points in the rule for Random Movement where something wouldn't be allowed by the basic rules for charging , movement and the 1" rule is where the basic rules are being overruled by the advanced rules.

The problem that still exists is that the Building rules are likewise advanced. So we are still at a point where you don't have permission to override the advanced rule covering building.

Another problem related to this is the rule that only a single unit may assault a building. Are you going to treat a building that has already been assaulted as a special case now for Random Movement? So that Random Movement may assault buildings using the Random Movement rules unless the building has already been assaulted in that case the Random Movement unit may not assault a building and instead treats it as impassable terrain?

Lord Inquisitor
05-09-2011, 22:45
The strider rule states that they "do not have to take Dangerous Terrain tests." But Dangerous Terrain is also an "advanced" rule. Dangerous Terrain rule states that the model does have to take a test when moving through Dangerous Terrain. There's no permission for Strider to overrule this.

If RM gives an exception to requiring declaration then there's no issue with basic vs advanced rules as many advanced rules give exception to other advanced rules.

There is an implicit exception to requiring a declaration to charge. There is no such exception for the "one unit at a time" rule. I don't understand your point.

At the end of the day, what's the point of all this? Let's assume there are two possible interpretations, that the RM rule overrides the building rule or it doesn't. Which is the more reasonable? Which has evidence that the studio play it this way?

Is anyone really of the opinion that a RM unit shouldn't be able to charge a unit in a building? Because it feels like you're looking to prove a loophole that prevents RM charging buildings when it is both counter-intuitive and on shaky rules ground at best.

PurpleSun
05-09-2011, 23:00
At the end of the day, what's the point of all this? Let's assume there are two possible interpretations, that the RM rule overrides the building rule or it doesn't. Which is the more reasonable? Which has evidence that the studio play it this way?


THANK YOU!!! This is what I have been trying to get across for a week. There are two possible interpretations, and neither is a clear winner.

I cannot stand people that say "This is the way it is, and I would laugh at, or refuse to play with, anybody who says otherwise."

Scalebug
05-09-2011, 23:10
Thing is; it's not a case of two possible interpretations, it is of two ways to play it. The rules clearly by the letter say a RM unit cannot assault, but that doesn't mean we have to play it that way, or even that the GW studio does (thus meaning the intent of the rule is this).

The "problem" is that if we agree to play the game as the rules are written, the "no assault" side can point to the book and be right. The other side can merely say "yeah, but that makes no sense, ans is probably not what was intended".

Until ironed out in an errata.

Lord Inquisitor
05-09-2011, 23:25
Thing is; it's not a case of two possible interpretations, it is of two ways to play it. The rules clearly by the letter say a RM unit cannot assault,
So you are saying a RM unit cannot move into contact with anything ever?

I don't think that's RAW.

The rules as written allow RM units to move into contact without declaring a charge. RAW doesn't mean a slavishly literal interpretation, so it is still reasonable to assume an exception to the rule requiring a declaration to charge as implicit while still being RAW, otherwise the rules as written don't make sense.

Ergo RM can charge buildings and that's RAW.

Scalebug
05-09-2011, 23:43
Feels a bit pointless to re-iterate what has already been said, but ok;

Only way to make contact with a garrisoned building is by declaring a charge, then you are what the rules call lauching an assault.

RM units never declare assaults, they only count as charging if they make contact. Which they here cannot do. Because they didn't declared an assualt.

By the letter of the rules, RM cannot touch someone in a building.

I wouldn't play it that way, but it doesn't stop me acnowledging that this is what the rules say.

You are adding "reasonable assumptions" there, I don't disagree, but as you so do, it stops being playing rules as written.

Lord Inquisitor
05-09-2011, 23:52
Then you agree that RM units cannot charge any unit at any time. Yes, we have been over this before.

pg 74 "Models with Random Movement cannot declare charges"
pg 16 "You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge"

If you disagree you need to explain which part of the RM rules circumvents the rule quoted above from pg16 without also circumventing the restriction on buildings.

Scalebug
06-09-2011, 00:11
You can never contact without charging, sure, but the the rules for Random movement tells you that you count as charging if you are found to reach an enemy.

They also you tells you to stop 1" away from impassible terrain, meaning you will never make contact with a building.

I'm not debating this further, again, I'm not disagreeing with you on how to play it, only that it is not what the rules say.

Yrrdead
06-09-2011, 00:31
At the end of the day, what's the point of all this? Let's assume there are two possible interpretations, that the RM rule overrides the building rule or it doesn't. Which is the more reasonable? Which has evidence that the studio play it this way?

Is anyone really of the opinion that a RM unit shouldn't be able to charge a unit in a building? Because it feels like you're looking to prove a loophole that prevents RM charging buildings when it is both counter-intuitive and on shaky rules ground at best.

Sorry to snip some of your post LI.

1.I don't feel that the argument of "reasonable" or "studio play" has much of a place in a rules debate. Reasonable being extremely subjective and studio play being well....studio play.
2. I think that this and other posts clearly show that there are at least a few people of the opinion that a RM cannot assault a building (which is not a charge). I'm sorry if you feel like I'm trying to "prove" a loophole. I'm not.

As far as this goes. I still don't accept your premise because it doesn't follow. You have incorrectly conflated(imo) charging and assaulting a building. Which are two discrete events.

As far as me personally , I'm having a discussion here because I enjoy it. I would most likely be arguing your position if you were arguing mine because it is fun for me. Which has little to do with how I would treat it in an actual game.

BEEGfrog
06-09-2011, 00:32
The RM rules override the need to declare charges against units.

Buildings are not units they are terrain.

The RM rules do not override the requirement to stop 1" from terrain. The RM rules therefore require the RM unit to stop 1" from contact, thus preventing the override requirement from taking effect.

I.e. a RM unit with a move that is long enough to contact a unit counts as charging that unit, however impassible terrain will shorten the RM units move to 1" from the terrain so the move isn't long enough to count as charging.

Lord Inquisitor
06-09-2011, 01:00
You can never contact without charging, sure, but the the rules for Random movement tells you that you count as charging if you are found to reach an enemy.
"If the move is found to take the unit into contact with an enemy, then it counts as charging."

This can be interpreted one of two ways with regard to this rule. Either it overrides this:

pg 16 "You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge"

In which case it also overrides this: pg 127 "assaulting unit must declare a charge" ... meaning RM can charge buildings...

...or it doesn't, in which case they cannot charge anything!


I'm not debating this further, again, I'm not disagreeing with you on how to play it, only that it is not what the rules say.

Fine. As long as we end up in the same practical resolution, but I disagree that there is no RAW position on allowing RM to charge buildings.

Yrrdead
06-09-2011, 02:23
"If the move is found to take the unit into contact with an enemy, then it counts as charging."

This can be interpreted one of two ways with regard to this rule. Either it overrides this:

pg 16 "You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge"

In which case it also overrides this: pg 127 "assaulting unit must declare a charge" ... meaning RM can charge buildings...

...or it doesn't, in which case they cannot charge anything!



Fine. As long as we end up in the same practical resolution, but I disagree that there is no RAW position on allowing RM to charge buildings.

Because a unit with RM overrides the bit on pg 16 doesn't also mean that it overrides pg 127. These two rules aren't in anyway identical. I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

Lord Inquisitor
06-09-2011, 02:32
Because a unit with RM overrides the bit on pg 16 doesn't also mean that it overrides pg 127. These two rules aren't in anyway identical. I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

Please explain to me the difference between these two pieces of text:

Normal movement
(3) "You ... cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge".

Buildings
(4) "The assaulting unit must declare a charge against the unit in the building."

If there is a functional difference between the two I will concede the point. You've dodged this several times. The page number, location of the rules or advanced vs basic doesn't actually change the rules - none of these constitute a difference in the rules.

The only difference is one is phrased as a prohibitive and the other is phrased as an imperative but they both mean the same thing - you must declare a charge to move into contact.

BEEGfrog
06-09-2011, 02:44
As a unit is counting as charging it must also count as having declared a charge because the only way to be charging is to have declared a charge.

Yrrdead
06-09-2011, 03:13
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. 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. There can be no multiple assault charges against a building., as the assaulting unit is imagined to surround it. If multiple units are forced to declare a charge against an enemy occupied building, only one can complete the charge - the controlling player decides which one will do so after rolling the charge distances. The other units automatically fail their charges.




The first thing you need to do in the charge sub-phase is to declare any charges you wist to make. Except in a few unusual circumstances, you are never forced to charge. It's almost always your decision, so don't let a glib-toungued opponent tell you otherwise! However, charging is the only way for units to reach close combat with the foe. If you want to attack an enemy you must charge him - you simply cannot move into close combat without having declared a charge.

Random movement allows you to override the latter but doesn't exempt you from the requirements of the former.

Steam_Giant
06-09-2011, 09:03
Random movement allows you to override the latter but doesn't exempt you from the requirements of the former.

Why?

IMO a charge and an assault are the same thing, with different targets.

What possible reason would the game designers not want a RM unit to charge a building?

Vishok
06-09-2011, 17:37
Because a unit with RM overrides the bit on pg 16 doesn't also mean that it overrides pg 127. These two rules aren't in anyway identical. I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

People have been conflating those two rules incorrectly for this entire conversation.

They somehow attempt to "prove" they are connected by saying the same thing over again, which, contrary to the way some governments act = DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.





IMO a charge and an assault are the same thing, with different targets.



Yet they are not.

The_Lemon
06-09-2011, 22:29
The way I see it is that RM units only count as charging if their movement distance allows them to come in contact with an enemy unit. When they move towards a building with a garrisoned unit they do not come in contact with the unit they "touch" the building, therefore it does not count as charging and cannot assault it. Remember that building garrisoning a unit =/= unit.

decker_cky
07-09-2011, 00:54
Yet they are not.

An assault is a charge which was declared in the movement phase.

A charge is a charge which was declared in the movement phase.

Lord Inquisitor
07-09-2011, 02:47
The way I see it is that RM units only count as charging if their movement distance allows them to come in contact with an enemy unit. When they move towards a building with a garrisoned unit they do not come in contact with the unit they "touch" the building, therefore it does not count as charging and cannot assault it. Remember that building garrisoning a unit =/= unit.

"An assault charge is resolved just as if the building were the target unit."

Presuming a RM unit can come within an inch just as if it were moving towards a unit, then the building counts as the target unit.

T10
07-09-2011, 07:17
If that argument holds true, then surely overrunning/pursuing units can assault buildings too.

-T10

Lord Inquisitor
07-09-2011, 14:36
If that argument holds true, then surely overrunning/pursuing units can assault buildings too.

-T10

Y...eah. That seems to follow.

It's exactly the same issue, isn't it? The pursuit rules give an implicit exception to the 1" and "must declare a charge to charge" rules we've gone over several times in this thread. This presents the same issues with the building rules requiring a declared charge to charge but a pursuit rule not requiring a declared charge to charge.

I'd say you could pursue into a building assault. Is there an issue with that I'm not seeing?

(Incidentally, I found this gem in the FAQ:

Q: Can a model move within an inch of a building without garrisoning it? (p126)
A: No.

That makes it impossible for anyone to charge a garrison in the building, right? :angel:)

Tregar
07-09-2011, 14:40
Heh, indeed there is. The entire topic of this thread came from the other thread wherein we were discussing whether you could pursue/overrun into buildings, where I noted that a charge must be declared in order for a building assault to take place, whilst models with random movement do not declare charges per se. I agree with you generally that it would seem pursuit/random charges have an implicit charge declaration built in, but others disagree. There was a very forceful anti-overrun-into-buildings camp in the other thread that refuses to countenance that the rules might not even be 100% clear, let alone that it is reasonable to think you can pursue into a building...

Lord Inquisitor
07-09-2011, 14:49
Okay then. Well, my position therefore is exactly the same on pursuit into a building and I reckon if you allow pursuit to overrule the 1" rule and the requirement to declare a charge in the basic rules then that also overrules the corresponding rules in the building rules.

Steam_Giant
07-09-2011, 15:01
Yet they are not.


An assault is a charge which was declared in the movement phase.

A charge is a charge which was declared in the movement phase.

Beyond the difference in the number of charges & the target, (you cannot "assault" an empty building, so their isn't really that much difference in target). There is no new mechanic taking place, the two actions behave in the same manner. It's the combat that acts differently.

Vishok, Please explain why you say they are different?


Okay then. Well, my position therefore is exactly the same on pursuit into a building and I reckon if you allow pursuit to overrule the 1" rule and the requirement to declare a charge in the basic rules then that also overrules the corresponding rules in the building rules.

Agreed

Scalebug
07-09-2011, 15:14
Can we press the brakes here?

It is not true that you by the rules can assault through random movement, and because of this should be allowed to overrun because it is similar...

All that is said is that we have agreed that the intent likely is for RM'ers to be allowed to assault.

Still a no on overrun/pursuits.

CaliforniaGamer
07-09-2011, 17:14
Can we press the brakes here?

It is not true that you by the rules can assault through random movement, and because of this should be allowed to overrun because it is similar...

All that is said is that we have agreed that the intent likely is for RM'ers to be allowed to assault.

Still a no on overrun/pursuits.

Huh so Random Movement models CAN assault per the rules or merely the spirit of the rules (intent not RAW)? or both?

First few pages of reading convinced me RM cannot assault...

Leading me to my second question: definitely mangler squigs cannot pass through buildings distributing hits per their rules, correct?

AMWOOD co
07-09-2011, 17:19
Can we press the brakes here?

It is not true that you by the rules can assault through random movement, and because of this should be allowed to overrun because it is similar...

Still a no on overrun/pursuits.

Oh? Why not? As far as I can tell, the only reason for not allowing it remaining would be that it isn't done in the movement phase, but the Pursuit rules state to treat it as carried out just like a charge in the movement phase.

There is also the arguiment of intent to allow due to an FAQ involving pursuing into buildings, is there not?

Yrrdead
07-09-2011, 17:26
Okay then. Well, my position therefore is exactly the same on pursuit into a building and I reckon if you allow pursuit to overrule the 1" rule and the requirement to declare a charge in the basic rules then that also overrules the corresponding rules in the building rules.

Isn't this starting to bug you a bit? How your premise introduces so many situations that need "overriding/ignoring". Doesn't that raise red flags to you?

Whilst just treating buildings as impassable in regards to Random Movement doesn't open up any loopholes.

Yet I'm the one arguing for loopholes?

Additionally , your argument opens up the ability for random movement to assault a building that has already been assaulted.

Lord Inquisitor
07-09-2011, 17:44
Isn't this starting to bug you a bit? How your premise introduces so many situations that need "overriding/ignoring". Doesn't that raise red flags to you?

Whilst just treating buildings as impassable in regards to Random Movement doesn't open up any loopholes.

Yet I'm the one arguing for loopholes?

Additionally , your argument opens up the ability for random movement to assault a building that has already been assaulted.

Yes. Firstly, in semantic terms, the general consensus is there's no real reason a hellpit can't charge a building when a giant can. Suggesting it can't is exploiting a (debatable) rules loophole to say it can't. That doesn't raise any red flags to you?

I'm not going over this again. The simple fact is that the most strict rules as written do not allow RM units to charge anyone and indeed, per the FAQ, noone can charge buildings either. Both are patently absurd but to resolve require a bit of common sense to assume that we should ignore the corresponding rules to allow these rules to function as obviously intended.

You are simply arbitrarily determining that you're going to ignore the "must declare charges" rule for one scenario rather than the other and yes I read your post on the previous page but you failed to show why you picked one over the other.

I see no red flags in reading the rules in a way that is consistent (RM/Overruns don't require charge declarations, so let's assume they don't require charge declarations for every case where charge declarations would be required) and taking the interpretation that leads to a common sense result (yes, RM can charge buildings!) that is the intent of the rules (as evidenced by the studio using the rules in this manner in a battle report).

Edit:

And no, there is no issue with multiple units charging a building via overrun or RM. Both overrun and RM are considered charges, they just don't require declaration. The rules clearly state there cannot be multiple assault charges and if a building is already engaged then it would be treated as any other unit that is ineligible to be charged. (I.e. stop 1" away).

BEEGfrog
07-09-2011, 19:49
The rules aren't as clear as they could be, they are GW rules, a certain amount of reading between the lines is required.

RM cannot declare charges but can count as charging (p74)

The rules allow a RM unit to count as charging if its move is long enough to contact a unit (p74). Therefore a RM unit can move within 1" of other units and terrain when the RM unit is counting as charging because the charge rules allow this. As the building assault rules say to count the building as the charge target (p127) and follow the rules for charging/resolving combat with some specific chages then the RM unit counts as assaulting too, as this is not one of the specified changes.

The rules for stopping due to terrain for RM units does not apply if the RM unit is counted as charging/assaulting because this is one of the exceptions to applying standard impassable terrain rules to buildings. (p127)

The rules for pursuing units are different (p58), pursuing units have to charge if they would actually contact a fresh enemy, but since they have to stop 1" from terrain then they cannot contact the building and so cannot charge it. I.e. the "Pursuit into an obstruction" rule prevents the "Pursuit into a new enemy" rule from taking effect.

Scalebug
07-09-2011, 20:08
It's not really about reading between the lines, it is about reading the rule, finding it may not be suitable as written, and agreeing to modify it. Thus allowing RM to assault the buildings.

Doesn't mean you must automatically allow pursuers to overrun, just because there is similarities between pursuits and random movements.

There is an obvious intent to restrict assaults, otherwise the rules would not have been written as is, it could just have been written (or rather, left out, no need for pointing anything special out.) that you charge the building as you would another unit.

Yrrdead
07-09-2011, 22:42
Fair enough. I still feel that Random Movement and Buildings don't mix. I'll continue to keep my HPA from assaulting watch towers.

Though if and when my opponent wants to get his RM units garrisoning and assaulting buildings I'll be more than happy to let him.

BEEGfrog
07-09-2011, 23:05
While the deeper reading of the rules mean that I now think that RM models must assault buildings their random move allows them to contact, I am not so sure about them being able to garrison the building.

If the building isn't garrisoned I think the RM model should stop 1" short of the building making it impossible for them to garrison an unoccupied building.

Also, if they won an assault, the requirement to make a random move out of the building would only allow them to remain in the building until their next movement phase. I feel it would be more consistent to treat them like monsters or cavalry that are also unable to garrison buildings.

Vishok
08-09-2011, 05:49
Yes. Firstly, in semantic terms, the general consensus is there's no real reason a hellpit can't charge a building when a giant can. Suggesting it can't is exploiting a (debatable) rules loophole to say it can't. That doesn't raise any red flags to you?

You need a reality check if you think this is the consensus. You are the one arguing for loopholes, not us.


I'm not going over this again.

*SNIP*



Good. You keep referencing multiple rules and saying they apply to one another when it has been pointed out multiple times in the last few pages why you are wrong.


You are simply arbitrarily determining that you're going to ignore the "must declare charges" rule for one scenario rather than the other and yes I read your post on the previous page but you failed to show why you picked one over the other.

No, it has been repeatedly shown - both in this thread and the other.


I see no red flags in reading the rules in a way that is consistent (RM/Overruns don't require charge declarations, so let's assume they don't require charge declarations for every case where charge declarations would be required) and taking the interpretation that leads to a common sense result (yes, RM can charge buildings!) that is the intent of the rules (as evidenced by the studio using the rules in this manner in a battle report).

Consistent by what standard?



Edit:

And no, there is no issue with multiple units charging a building via overrun or RM. Both overrun and RM are considered charges, they just don't require declaration. The rules clearly state there cannot be multiple assault charges and if a building is already engaged then it would be treated as any other unit that is ineligible to be charged. (I.e. stop 1" away).

Are you serious?

N1AK
08-09-2011, 09:21
I have found the case made by LI to be far more persuasive than the alternative. He has repeatedly highlighted some issues that support his interpretation which have not been effectively countered.

I do not believe the rules support the idea that charging a unit occupying a building is any different from charging a unit outside of a building, except in the ways explicitly covered in the rules. The requirements regarding the declaration of a charge are the same in both cases.

A unit with random movement doesn't have to declare charges, if it did it would not be able to charge, anything, ever.

The only remotely contentious part of the debate is the rules about impassable terrain; but a building is not impassible terrain for all purposes, as the rules make clear. One of the ways in which it is clearly not impassible terrain is when it is garrisoned and someone charges it.

Yrrdead
08-09-2011, 18:50
Really I thought the contentious part of the debate was Basic Rules vs. Advanced Rules and whether the Building Rules were advanced and if so how they interacted with other Advanced Rules.

Lord Inquisitor
08-09-2011, 19:00
Consistent by what standard?
Vishok, I'm going to address this one but I suggest you go back and look over the arguments. You keep saying such-and-such has been shown but it hasn't.

There is a basic issue with RM movement (and pursuit into new enemy) rules that prevents them from working properly as they lack a clause that exempts them from the requirement to declare charges. Assuming an implicit exception, you need to explain why this implicit exception applies to one of two identical rules but not the other.

My way is more consistent because I'm saying a unit with an exception to having to declare charges is excepted from any situation where it is required to declare charges.


Really I thought the contentious part of the debate was Basic Rules vs. Advanced Rules and whether the Building Rules were advanced and if so how they interacted with other Advanced Rules.
Indeed, this I felt was the one argument you have put forward that actually addresses why it would overrule one (basic) rule but not the other (advanced) rule. I can respect that as it deals with the actual crux of the argument!

My counterargument is that special rules must be able to overrule other advanced rules in the terrain section or Strider rule wouldn't work for example.

Yrrdead
08-09-2011, 19:45
The Strider rule I don't see as an issue as it is very simple and explicit in its mechanics.

RM less so :) .

Lord Inquisitor
08-09-2011, 19:58
Agreed... but if we agree that the RM rule (which I think we can agree is poorly worded! ;)) gives exception to the requirement to declare a charge... the fact that Buildings are Advanced doesn't affect matters because if a Special Rule give an exception to a terrain rule, the Special Rule takes precedence, as in the example of Strider, which is nicely unambiguous.

Yrrdead
08-09-2011, 20:17
Well i don't agree with that statement but we've already gone over this enough.

Dammit , I'm letting this thread lie. Stop trying to suck me back in LI >.< .

Lord Inquisitor
08-09-2011, 21:09
Well i don't agree with that statement but we've already gone over this enough.

Dammit , I'm letting this thread lie. Stop trying to suck me back in LI >.< .

My wife has been known to whisper to dinner guests "just agree with him, it's so much quicker that way" if that helps ;)

Vishok
09-09-2011, 01:58
Agreed... but if we agree that the RM rule (which I think we can agree is poorly worded! ;)) gives exception to the requirement to declare a charge... the fact that Buildings are Advanced doesn't affect matters because if a Special Rule give an exception to a terrain rule, the Special Rule takes precedence, as in the example of Strider, which is nicely unambiguous.

I agree that the Random Movement entry could use work, and I'm going to go ahead and suggest that it be reworked entirely.

This is some pretty basic stuff and should have been addressed clearly in the rulebook.