PDA

View Full Version : If you win combat against 2 units both flee can you catch both with 1 pursuit?



Diogenes
24-12-2011, 21:25
Just like the title says. If to units flee. Unit A flees 4" unit B flees 7" and you roll a 7 to pursue do you catch both units?

Lord Zarkov
24-12-2011, 21:49
Yes you do

^^Edit: Turns out this is wrong, see below^^

Lord Inquisitor
24-12-2011, 21:52
No see p60 subheading "pursuit".

Lord Zarkov
24-12-2011, 21:56
No see p60 subheading "pursuit".
Wow, that's new, I stand corrected.

Iraf
25-12-2011, 00:28
Actually, Pg 58 Pursuit into a new enemy would mean the second unit of fleeing troops would also be destroyed. As per the Pursuit into Fleeing Foes also on pg 58.

HaeSuse
25-12-2011, 00:36
Actually, Pg 58 Pursuit into a new enemy would mean the second unit of fleeing troops would also be destroyed. As per the Pursuit into Fleeing Foes also on pg 58.

That's the way I read it, as well. Because ALL pursuit is into fleeing targets. So to have an ADDITIONAL entire section devoted to "Pursuit into fleeing troops", means that they are saying you hit ANOTHER fleeing unit. From the sound of the rules, if you are pursuing a fleeing unit, you will wipe out ANY and ALL enemy units that are fleeing, that you come into direct contact with during your pursuit move.

Any official word?

Mr_Rose
25-12-2011, 01:03
No it doesn't. For a start, not all "pursuit" is after a fleeing foe; Overrruns use the same rules, for instance.
Secondly, one unit of fleeing troops can run through another; in which case if you pursued, you would most likely hit the unit fled through rather than the one you originally pursued. And in that case you would stop at the first unit you hit and not catch the unit you were (previously) in combat with.
I'm sure there are other examples, but the point is that Lord Inquisitor and his fuchsia text are correct.

Iraf
25-12-2011, 01:18
Interesting. I see where my confusion stems from. I was under the impression that the fleeing unit doesn't actually stop the pursuing units movement. I see now that you move the charging unit into contact with the fleeing unit, and then remove the fleeing unit. I've been playing it that if you pursue a fleeing unit the pursuer would move his full distance rolled.

Edit: Page 23 first paragraph of Charging a fleeing enemy clears it up. That paragraph changes everything.

2nd Edit: Page 23 paragraph of Charging a fleeing enemy doesn't hold sway over the unit pursued, only the 2nd fleeing unit which ends up being Charged.

Iraf
25-12-2011, 01:31
One other point comes to mind. Pg 56. Caught rule states that the unit that was going 4" would be cut down where it stands. Then on Pg 57. Move Pursuers states that the pursuing unit would then move the full distance rolled (even if the fleeing unit was destroyed) This would/could potentially bring you into contact with the 2nd unit that had rolled 7". So after reading more I'll have to stay with my first assessment that the 2nd unit would be destroyed also.

PurpleSun
25-12-2011, 01:35
Secondly, one unit of fleeing troops can run through another; in which case if you pursued, you would most likely hit the unit fled through rather than the one you originally pursued. And in that case you would stop at the first unit you hit and not catch the unit you were (previously) in combat with.

I may be mistaken, but I thought the only thing that mattered for the first fleeing unit is the numbers rolled on the dice. If the fleeing units rolls 7" and the pursuing unit rolls 8", then the fleeing unit is caught before it really even moves. So the idea that you could roll equal to or more than the fleeing unit and not catch them because you ran into another fleeing unit does not compute.

Diogenes
25-12-2011, 02:06
Glad me and haesuse weren't the only ones who couldn't figure it out. :)

Mr. Shine
25-12-2011, 04:22
Page 60 of the mini-rulebook, under "Flee".

"Fleeing units must roll greater than the scores rolled by all of their pursuers in order to get away."

So you can catch both, but you cannot choose to pursue both. That is, your movement as a result of the pursuit is towards the chosen unit, or the direction it would have fled, but you may end up cutting down every fleeing unit.

Lord Inquisitor
25-12-2011, 16:43
No, I don't think you can pursue into a unit that fled from the pursuing unit and claim it is pursuit into a "new" enemy. It isn't a new enemy. You are only permitted to pursue one enemy unit that's quite explicit. If you would catch up with a unit that has escaped, you stop 1" away.

Iraf
25-12-2011, 18:17
No, I don't think you can pursue into a unit that fled from the pursuing unit and claim it is pursuit into a "new" enemy. It isn't a new enemy. You are only permitted to pursue one enemy unit that's quite explicit. If you would catch up with a unit that has escaped, you stop 1" away.

I disagree wholeheartedly. No where does it say to stop 1" away from an enemy unit, only friendly/impassible terrain. I believe it would count as charging the second unit, and since a fleeing unit would be the unit charged it would be destroyed as per pg 58.

T10
25-12-2011, 23:41
Page 60 of the mini-rulebook, under "Flee".

"Fleeing units must roll greater than the scores rolled by all of their pursuers in order to get away."

So you can catch both, but you cannot choose to pursue both. That is, your movement as a result of the pursuit is towards the chosen unit, or the direction it would have fled, but you may end up cutting down every fleeing unit.

Actually, it's the opposite: you can only catch one. When a unit flees from combat there will be zero or more enemies that pursue it. Those are the pursuers.

T10
25-12-2011, 23:51
I disagree wholeheartedly. No where does it say to stop 1" away from an enemy unit, only friendly/impassible terrain. I believe it would count as charging the second unit, and since a fleeing unit would be the unit charged it would be destroyed as per pg 58.

If you by "no where" mean pp. 60-61, then...

Well, the final paragraph of p. 60 and the really big diagram on p. 61 does indeed tell you to stop 1" away from the enemy unit that has successfully escaped pursuit.

This doesn't really address the situation where two units from the same combat each pursue a different unit, and one gets sufficient move to reach the other unit's target. Personally, I'm undecided on this issue.

Iraf
26-12-2011, 00:32
The problem here is that you're reading them as a pursued enemy. Only the first unit is being pursued. The second unit is not being pursued, it is a separate unit and taken out of the equation once you've chosen not to pursue it. After that, only two things can happen to the second unit. It can either escape or be charged (Not pursued, which seems to be the point of contention). As per pg 58, the unit pursued would be destroyed and the pursuing unit would then travel in the direction of the unit destroyed the full dice rolled. If that dice rolled brings it into a new unit (2nd unit), then that unit is considered to be charged and only has a hold reaction possible. Since the unit being charged is fleeing you must clean up with the unit, and then remove the unit of fleeing troops after forming up to them. The diagram on page 61 actually doesn't deal with this point of contention T10. Nor does the last paragraph on page 60 as the second unit has not been pursued. The last paragraph deals with cases where there are odd angles and someone who pursued rolled less but seems to still make contact with the unit.

Again, the problem here is that the second unit was never pursued. It was charged. Only the first unit was pursued. Follow page 58.

Lord Inquisitor
26-12-2011, 01:58
And you're reading it as a "new" enemy to be pursued into.

It seems clear that you cannot run down more than one enemy otherwise why stipulate that you can only pursue one?

Iraf
26-12-2011, 02:07
That is correct, I do see it as a new enemy. Since you can only pursue one, that leaves the chance to destroy the other with a charge. Nowhere does it say to remain 1" away from any enemy unit except a pursued enemy unit which had rolled > your pursuers. I think we can all agree that the second unit is not a pursued enemy. If it had also been a pursued enemy then he would of been destroyed before being moved, along with the first unit.

As to why a rule is made a certain way, well... some rules just don't make sense. I guess that is why we have discussions like this? If everything made perfect sense then these rules forums would be 2 messages long. Question and Answer.

edit: A good reason that I can see for only being able to actually pursue one enemy is multi-front assaults. Wouldn't make sense to be able to pursue more than one direction.

Iraf
26-12-2011, 02:09
Please note that I'm not saying that the second unit is guaranteed to be destroyed. It still has to be in range of the charging unit and in its line of travel. Obviously if the second unit went a totally different direction it would be safe.

Diogenes
26-12-2011, 02:33
So what you're saying is that only one unit is pursued but that pursuing unit moves it's full distance. If that distance brings it into contact with the second fleeing unit then it is resolved as an overun charge and since the unit is fleeing it's automatically destroyed. Is that correct?

Iraf
26-12-2011, 02:35
So what you're saying is that only one unit is pursued but that pursuing unit moves it's full distance. If that distance brings it into contact with the second fleeing unit then it is resolved as an overun charge and since the unit is fleeing it's automatically destroyed. Is that correct?

This is my interpretation of the situation, and the rules in question. Yes.

Liber
26-12-2011, 13:00
This is my interpretation of the situation

Mine as well.

This came up once and we played it exactly as Iraf has described.

HaeSuse
26-12-2011, 15:51
So what you're saying is that only one unit is pursued but that pursuing unit moves it's full distance. If that distance brings it into contact with the second fleeing unit then it is resolved as an overun charge and since the unit is fleeing it's automatically destroyed. Is that correct?


Unless moving the full distance moves it into contact with the unit it was technically pursuing, and it rolled LESS than the fleeing unit. Which happens....

Diogenes
26-12-2011, 20:17
Which actually happened in our game right? You pursued the corsairs who fled 4" rolled 7" an the hydra fled 7". The rules say that in the case of a charge you resolve the new charge as stated in the movement phase section if the book. So does that mean unit b (hydra) gets a chance to rally attar beginninnofnye next turn?

Lord Inquisitor
26-12-2011, 21:03
My problem with this remains that this is not a "new" enemy.

The rule is "PURSUIT INTO A NEW ENEMY" and what you are doing is pursuing into the SAME enemy.

The intent of the rules remains clear. You can only pursue one enemy unit (which is a change from 7th as I recall). There is no rule stating you can pursue into the same enemy you just fought and treat it as a new charge. I'm not sure applying the rules for pursuit into a new enemy is appropriate at all.

There's not much verbiage on this subject either way, so I'm going to leave it alone now. You could argue it either way endlessly. However, the intent of the rules is clear - you can only run down 1 unit.

Iraf
26-12-2011, 21:29
I guess it's a situation where we'll agree to disagree.

Gonzoyola
27-12-2011, 08:25
What do we do about the rule that states a fleeing unit can only choose to flee from a charge.

The unit pursues into a fleeing unit - As per the rules, the unit being pursued into can do nothing but hold for a charge reaction, but a unit that is fleeing can do nothing but flee as a charge reaction as per the rules. How do you handle that?

Gonzoyola
27-12-2011, 08:27
My problem with this remains that this is not a "new" enemy.

The rule is "PURSUIT INTO A NEW ENEMY" and what you are doing is pursuing into the SAME enemy.

The intent of the rules remains clear. You can only pursue one enemy unit (which is a change from 7th as I recall). There is no rule stating you can pursue into the same enemy you just fought and treat it as a new charge. I'm not sure applying the rules for pursuit into a new enemy is appropriate at all.

There's not much verbiage on this subject either way, so I'm going to leave it alone now. You could argue it either way endlessly. However, the intent of the rules is clear - you can only run down 1 unit.

While I agree with your interpretation to an extent, I think we can see by things such as the new ogre faq that in RaW vs RaI, they go for RaW (in regards to Butchers and SMs getting magic armor because they can get ironfists. They then follow it up by saying that by the rules you can do it, but that you shouldnt because its not in the spirit of the rules.

Iraf
27-12-2011, 17:04
What do we do about the rule that states a fleeing unit can only choose to flee from a charge.

The unit pursues into a fleeing unit - As per the rules, the unit being pursued into can do nothing but hold for a charge reaction, but a unit that is fleeing can do nothing but flee as a charge reaction as per the rules. How do you handle that?

Pg 58. Read it again. All units are caught by surprise (including fleeing units). They do not flee again, they are cut down where they stand.

Grimgormx
27-12-2011, 18:22
Well there are different ways this is solved:

If the 2 units that flee where in the same side of the winning unit then they roll to flee and victorious unit rolls to pursue, you dont move units yet, if pursuer rolls higer than fleeing unit, then those units are destroyed, so in your example the 2 units that flee were in the front of the victorious unit and they roll 4 and 7, while pursuing unit rolls 7 (equal or higer) then this 2 units are destroyed. (P56)

If the 2 units were fighting in diferent sides of the wining unit (p60) and those units flee then the winner can only pursuit 1 of them because they go diffetent ways, so in the game we are talking maybe the unit that roll 4 may survive if winner chosse (before rolling) to go aftre the other unit.

HaeSuse
27-12-2011, 20:18
Well there are different ways this is solved:

If the 2 units that flee where in the same side of the winning unit then they roll to flee and victorious unit rolls to pursue, you dont move units yet, if pursuer rolls higer than fleeing unit, then those units are destroyed, so in your example the 2 units that flee were in the front of the victorious unit and they roll 4 and 7, while pursuing unit rolls 7 (equal or higer) then this 2 units are destroyed. (P56)

If the 2 units were fighting in diferent sides of the wining unit (p60) and those units flee then the winner can only pursuit 1 of them because they go diffetent ways, so in the game we are talking maybe the unit that roll 4 may survive if winner chosse (before rolling) to go aftre the other unit.

Well... In the game, it was a horde of Black Orcs on the winning side, versus a 20-25 sized unit of Corsairs, AND a hydra. The Hydra and the Corsairs were both centered on the front of the unit of Black Orcs, so they ran, side by side, directly away from the Black Orcs. Corsairs rolled a 4 flee, and Hydra rolled a 7 flee. Black Orcs rolled a 9 pursue. So, regardless of which unit the Black Orcs chose to pursue, both would be possible to hit given that the roll of 9 on pursuit distance means that they rolled high enough to reach and wipe out both fleeing units.

It seems like this would come up ALL THE TIME in actual games. I mean, with hordes being so wide in the front, there should be tons of instances where the horde wins vs two units in its front, thus allowing them, in theory, to pursue and destroy 2 (or more) units.

FYI, we ruled that I could only pursue one. I caught and slaughtered the corsairs, then killed the hydra in combat on the ensuing turn. Little more FYI, I had already lost the VP battle, and this was all just me lessening the butt-kicking I took.

Grimgormx
27-12-2011, 22:54
ThenI would say, in MHO that both unit should be destroyed after fleeing / pursue rolls, then moving the BO horde 9 inches.

As I understandthe rules you only have to choose a unit to pursue when they flee in different direcctions

Lord Inquisitor
28-12-2011, 00:13
While I agree with your interpretation to an extent, I think we can see by things such as the new ogre faq that in RaW vs RaI, they go for RaW (in regards to Butchers and SMs getting magic armor because they can get ironfists. They then follow it up by saying that by the rules you can do it, but that you shouldnt because its not in the spirit of the rules.
That's not a good example. Much better was the question of whether Ironblasters could stand and shoot. The intent of the rule was obvious (everyone knew they clearly couldn't) yet people persisted in actually playing it against the spirit of the rules. The FAQ ruled exactly how we all knew the rule was meant to work.

The SM and armour question was another matter. The rulebook was entirely explicit that the letter and spirit of the rules was that any wizard with an option to buy armour should be allowed access to magic armour. The authors of the Ogre book just screwed up by giving them an option for armour.

There's a distinction between the two. In the first instance the error was in making the rules clear, even though the intent of the rule was abundantly clear. In the second case the authors had not considered the interaction with another rule but decided to allow it because both rules to stand as they are clear and unambiguous.

In this case the rule is clear - you can only pursue one. Treating a unit that flees from the pursuing unit as a "new" unit is dubious at best.


thus allowing them, in theory, to pursue and destroy 2 (or more) units.
Not "or more". Even assuming this logic worked, you could only run down the unit you pursued and/or the first unit you come in contact with. You don't get to overrun again!

Iraf
28-12-2011, 00:32
Not "or more". Even assuming this logic worked, you could only run down the unit you pursued and/or the first unit you come in contact with. You don't get to overrun again!

I concur with that.

HaeSuse
28-12-2011, 15:44
That's not a good example. Much better was the question of whether Ironblasters could stand and shoot. The intent of the rule was obvious (everyone knew they clearly couldn't) yet people persisted in actually playing it against the spirit of the rules. The FAQ ruled exactly how we all knew the rule was meant to work.

The SM and armour question was another matter. The rulebook was entirely explicit that the letter and spirit of the rules was that any wizard with an option to buy armour should be allowed access to magic armour. The authors of the Ogre book just screwed up by giving them an option for armour.

There's a distinction between the two. In the first instance the error was in making the rules clear, even though the intent of the rule was abundantly clear. In the second case the authors had not considered the interaction with another rule but decided to allow it because both rules to stand as they are clear and unambiguous.

In this case the rule is clear - you can only pursue one. Treating a unit that flees from the pursuing unit as a "new" unit is dubious at best.


Not "or more". Even assuming this logic worked, you could only run down the unit you pursued and/or the first unit you come in contact with. You don't get to overrun again!


But what if there was no overrun, anyway? No charged. What if the battle was a horde of Black Orcs, and they were fighting 6 single models. Say a mix of hydras and characters. Black Orcs win combat. All FLEEing units roll under 6. Black Orcs roll 12. Their wide front gives them the SIZE to run down all the units.

Are you saying the Black Orcs would wipe out the one unit they chose to pursue, and ONE more, and stop there? Not finish out the full 12" move they rolled on pursue? I see no precedent for that in the rules anywhere.

The way I see it is that if the unit is physically able to pursue/destroy a unit of 100 clan rats, then why could it NOT pursue/destroy, 2 units of 20 clanrats? If it rolled high enough...

Iraf
28-12-2011, 16:12
It can only pursue 1 unit, and then must stop once it contacts the first unit, or impassible terrain. Now this theoretical scenario is unlikely, you can not make a charge against multiple units (unless impossible to charge said unit without making multiple unit contacts). So yes, only 2 units would be destroyed and the pursuing unit would stop once contact made. Pg 58...

Iraf
28-12-2011, 16:19
There is really only two ways to interpret this situation according to the current rules. This way or the way Lord Inquisitor does.

Noght
28-12-2011, 17:05
Wouldn't the rules for Multiple Unit Combats on page 59-61 override all the rules for Single Unit Combats on page 56-58?

Multiple Unit says "Pursue one unit". The 2nd fleeing unit neither counts as "New" nor "Already Fleeing", it's all happening at the same time. Kill the caught unit, stop an 1" short of other unit.

Noght

Iraf
28-12-2011, 17:17
Noght, that is the other interpretation of the rules.

Grimgormx
28-12-2011, 17:22
Sorry guys, but the rules for multiple combats only apply when fighting in different sides of other unit.

Also you never move fleeing units that roll less than pursuing units, so you never stop after touching first fleein unit. a unit that pursue only stops 1" away from impasable terrain, or friend unit, if it touches a enemy unit then it is counted as a charge.

Noght
28-12-2011, 17:55
Sorry guys, but the rules for multiple combats only apply when fighting in different sides of other unit.

Also you never move fleeing units that roll less than pursuing units, so you never stop after touching first fleein unit. a unit that pursue only stops 1" away from impasable terrain, or friend unit, if it touches a enemy unit then it is counted as a charge.

What? As soon as you have 2 vs 1 you're in the multiple combat rules section. Sides doesn't mean Front, Flank, or Rear. It means Me (my side) vs You (your side).

The whole problem with Rules Lawyering is people FAIL to stop reading. The rule on page 60 is clear, "Units on the winning side are only permitted to pursue a single enemy unit that they are in base contact with (declare before any Flee rolls are made). STOP right there.

Like Lord Inq mentioned in an earlier post, sane people read "shoots like a Cannon" for the Ironblaster to mean "shoots like a Cannon" not "shoots like a Chariot".

Noght

Iraf
28-12-2011, 18:05
You are half right Noght. The question that comes up is whether the first unit (after the pursued unit) is considered charged. It can be seen either way. Until a Q&A answers this I believe either way would be right.

Diogenes
28-12-2011, 18:07
What? As soon as you have 2 vs 1 you're in the multiple combat rules section. Sides doesn't mean Front, Flank, or Rear. It means Me (my side) vs You (your side).

The whole problem with Rules Lawyering is people FAIL to stop reading. The rule on page 60 is clear, "Units on the winning side are only permitted to pursue a single enemy unit that they are in base contact with (declare before any Flee rolls are made). STOP right there.

Like Lord Inq mentioned in an earlier post, sane people read "shoots like a Cannon" for the Ironblaster to mean "shoots like a Cannon" not "shoots like a Chariot".

Noght

I think we're all with you, at least the concerned parties (haesuse and myself) but what happens when moving the full amount rolled on the dice for pursuit brings you into contact with a fleeing unit? Is it resolved as a charge? if so does that mean that the fleeing unit dies because fleeing units that are charged are automatically wiped out?

Grimgormx
28-12-2011, 18:55
What? As soon as you have 2 vs 1 you're in the multiple combat rules section. Sides doesn't mean Front, Flank, or Rear. It means Me (my side) vs You (your side).

The whole problem with Rules Lawyering is people FAIL to stop reading. The rule on page 60 is clear, "Units on the winning side are only permitted to pursue a single enemy unit that they are in base contact with (declare before any Flee rolls are made). STOP right there.

Like Lord Inq mentioned in an earlier post, sane people read "shoots like a Cannon" for the Ironblaster to mean "shoots like a Cannon" not "shoots like a Chariot".

Noght

As you say, pls stop half reading, 2 paragraphs early you will see that the rule to chose what unit you should pursue only applies when fleein units would run in different sides. justs read the book in the same page you said, but read 2 paragraphs up.

Sorry I cant quote my book in english, I think that it is this way:

Big BO horde is fighting vs 10 DE spearman at the front and an Hydra to the BO front, DE lose combat then DE players rolls to flee, at the same time OnG roll to pursue, Spearmen roll 4, Hydra 6, BO 10, then BO destroys 2 units, and moves 10" to the front.

Big BO horde is fighting vs 10 DE spearman at its left and an Hydra to the BO front, DE lose combat then DE players rolls to flee the hydra to one direction and the spearmen to anther direcction, this is when OnG player has to choose what unit pursues, he chooses hydra to say something, Spearmen roll 4, Hydra 6, BO 10, then BO destroys only the Hydra. Spearmen moves 4" away from BO, and BO moves 10" to its front.

The player that wins a combat vs multiple units only has to choose what unit pursue when fleeing units run in different directions.

Please, read my full post and the full page you are using as reference.

Grimgormx
28-12-2011, 18:59
I think we're all with you, at least the concerned parties (haesuse and myself) but what happens when moving the full amount rolled on the dice for pursuit brings you into contact with a fleeing unit? Is it resolved as a charge? if so does that mean that the fleeing unit dies because fleeing units that are charged are automatically wiped out?

This is a good question, in 7th I think you would wipe this unit, now in 8th I think that fleeing units can only react to a charge standing where they are (I´m not 100% sure) so they would fight in next combat round.

Grimgormx
28-12-2011, 23:14
Just read the BRB if you pursue or overrun on a fleeing unit (so you charge) then the fleeing unit is autodestroyed and overruning gets the option to reform.

Sorry, I cant edit previous post

HaeSuse
29-12-2011, 16:55
As you say, pls stop half reading, 2 paragraphs early you will see that the rule to chose what unit you should pursue only applies when fleein units would run in different sides. justs read the book in the same page you said, but read 2 paragraphs up.

Sorry I cant quote my book in english, I think that it is this way:

Big BO horde is fighting vs 10 DE spearman at the front and an Hydra to the BO front, DE lose combat then DE players rolls to flee, at the same time OnG roll to pursue, Spearmen roll 4, Hydra 6, BO 10, then BO destroys 2 units, and moves 10" to the front.

Big BO horde is fighting vs 10 DE spearman at its left and an Hydra to the BO front, DE lose combat then DE players rolls to flee the hydra to one direction and the spearmen to anther direcction, this is when OnG player has to choose what unit pursues, he chooses hydra to say something, Spearmen roll 4, Hydra 6, BO 10, then BO destroys only the Hydra. Spearmen moves 4" away from BO, and BO moves 10" to its front.

The player that wins a combat vs multiple units only has to choose what unit pursue when fleeing units run in different directions.

Please, read my full post and the full page you are using as reference.


I think you're right. ALL of the rules under "Multiple Combats and Pursuit" on pg 60 of BRB apply to one rule. "It can happen that one or more victorious units have defeated several enemies that were engaging from different sides. Where this happens, bear the following in mind."

This means "side" as in front/rear/flank, not "side" as in "my orcs side, your dark elves side".

Also, it specifically says on pg 60, "Note that this will sometimes lead to a pursuing unit 'catching up' with a fleeing unit that rolled high enough to escape. In this case, the pursuing unit must stop 1 inch away."

So. As Grimgormx said, if the units flee in different directions (usually due to 2 being on different unit sides (front/flank/rear), you must choose one, and pursue it. Maybe even if they are both in front, and fleeing side by side, allowing you to possibly hit both, you still have to pick one. It wouldn't make too much difference in the issue, though. So, you pick one unit fleeing in front of you (or not), and roll to pursue it. And, since it gives a specific rule for what to do WHEN/IF this move brings you into contact with a fleeing unit that rolled high enough to escape (stop 1" short), then we must assume that since there is a rule for that scenario, stopping you from wiping out the unit, that in the OPPOSITE case, if you catch up to another fleeing unit that did NOT roll high enough to escape, then you WILL wipe it out.

Make sense? I think that's got to be their intention, given the BRB as it stands.

Diogenes
31-12-2011, 14:40
Asked an employee at the GW bunker yesterday and he says that one is caught the other is fleeing unit which is charged and wiped out.

AMWOOD co
02-01-2012, 02:59
Asked an employee at the GW bunker yesterday and he says that one is caught the other is fleeing unit which is charged and wiped out.

For future reference, we don't use the word of employees of the GW stores or phone services as reliable as these are the particular store's answers for these questions, but the final word from the FAQ writers may be very different.

Diogenes
02-01-2012, 03:00
For future reference, we don't use the word of employees of the GW stores or phone services as reliable as these are the particular store's answers for these questions, but the final word from the FAQ writers may be very different.

Noted. I wasnt taking it for gospel, merely adding it's weight to the current arguments.

HaeSuse
03-01-2012, 16:50
Asked an employee at the GW bunker yesterday and he says that one is caught the other is fleeing unit which is charged and wiped out.



Seems to make sense. In Warhammer, if a single model (say, a Dark Elf lord) wins combat versus a horde of 1000 goblins, he can pursue them and wipe them all out, if they flee. Single dude, wiping 1000 goblins. So, why shouldn't a black orc horde be able to wipe out a few corsairs, and a hydra?

As dude stated, GW employee is not be-all end-all of WHFB rules, but I think that's got to be their intention.

HaeSuse
03-01-2012, 16:53
For more clear example... Consider our game... Black Orcs beat a hydra and a corsair. Both the hydra and corsair fled in the same direction, AWAY from the Blorc frontline. Lets say the Black Orcs chose to pursue the hydra. Okay... Now, Hydra rolls for flee, and Corsairs roll for flee. Lets say the hydra rolls a 6, and the corsairs roll a 2. The Black Orcs roll a 10 for pursue.

So, by the rules, and no one is questioning this part, the hydra (who the Blorcs chose to pursue) is run down. Blorcs rolled 10, hydra rolled 6. Easy enough. Dead hydra. However, doing so would have caused the Blorcs to run OVER the corsairs, who rolled a 2. What do the corsairs do? This could very easily have the Blorcs sitting ON TOP of the cosairs...

Lord Inquisitor
03-01-2012, 17:13
The rules say you can only pursue one of them. Assuming you can't treat the unit that just fled from you as a new unit, then the rules are you have to stay 1" away from any unit you cannot charge. Therefore the blorcs would simply move 1" before having to stop.

Iraf
03-01-2012, 17:27
Or you can treat the Corsairs as a new separate unit and thus it would be charged and destroyed.

Grimgormx
03-01-2012, 18:59
I think, that the best answer is that of the store employee, you overun 1, and charge the other fleing and autodestroying it,then get free reorg.

so limit will be max 2 destroyed units.

Noght
03-01-2012, 19:18
The rules say you can only pursue one of them. Assuming you can't treat the unit that just fled from you as a new unit, then the rules are you have to stay 1" away from any unit you cannot charge. Therefore the blorcs would simply move 1" before having to stop.

:eek: Once again this.

Noght

HaeSuse
03-01-2012, 19:24
The rules say you can only pursue one of them. Assuming you can't treat the unit that just fled from you as a new unit, then the rules are you have to stay 1" away from any unit you cannot charge. Therefore the blorcs would simply move 1" before having to stop.

I don't see where the rules say that? Got a page number and quote?

HaeSuse
03-01-2012, 19:26
I think, that the best answer is that of the store employee, you overun 1, and charge the other fleing and autodestroying it,then get free reorg.

so limit will be max 2 destroyed units.

Why 2?

What if a unit of 100 Black Orcs is fighing 5 units on the front? Corsairs, 3 hydras, and a cold one knight. Black Orcs win by 10, all 5 dark elf units fail a snake eyes break test. All 5 units flee directly away from the black orcs, and none of them roll over a 6. Black orcs roll 10 pursue.

Where do the Black Orcs end up? Which fleeing units are dead? Why should the Black Orcs NOT slay them all?

Archis
03-01-2012, 19:29
Going to go with LI here, I think the argument is going to be over the words "new unit." I don't think there's a page number that's is going to tell you the unit you were just in combat with is new/old.

A random thought from the example in your game though. I may be wrong (no BRB at work), but do you not flee center to center even from combat? If so, the 2 fleeing units can't go in the same direction. I guess it's possible to have a pursuing unit so wide you still hit the other fleeing unit, but it would make this situation occur less in the first place.

Lord Inquisitor
03-01-2012, 19:50
Or you can treat the Corsairs as a new separate unit and thus it would be charged and destroyed.
Agreed. Assuming the Corsairs are treated as a new separate unit.


I don't see where the rules say that? Got a page number and quote?
The rules don't say much either way but as Archis says, the rule on p58 is concerning pursuit into a NEW unit. That rather presumes not pursuit into the same unit that's fleeing from you. Additionally the rule is very clear you can only pursue one unit - if you were able to "catch up" with other fleeing units I would have expected that to be noted in the rules for multiple combats. The intent of the rule seems clear - you can only catch one.

However, I don't disagree that Iraf's interpretation is logically sound and he has defended it well, it just hinges on the assumption that a unit fleeing from combat can be treated as a new unit. I don't think that's the intent, that's all.


Why 2?

What if a unit of 100 Black Orcs is fighing 5 units on the front? Corsairs, 3 hydras, and a cold one knight. Black Orcs win by 10, all 5 dark elf units fail a snake eyes break test. All 5 units flee directly away from the black orcs, and none of them roll over a 6. Black orcs roll 10 pursue.

Where do the Black Orcs end up? Which fleeing units are dead? Why should the Black Orcs NOT slay them all?
Because (again) if you pursue into a fleeing unit you wipe them out and are allowed a reform but you cannot continue overrunning nor overrun again.


A random thought from the example in your game though. I may be wrong (no BRB at work), but do you not flee center to center even from combat? If so, the 2 fleeing units can't go in the same direction. I guess it's possible to have a pursuing unit so wide you still hit the other fleeing unit, but it would make this situation occur less in the first place.
Correct. Although with a really short flee (2-3") the difference in flee corridor isn't going to matter much.

FuzzyOrb
03-01-2012, 20:30
I may be wrong (no BRB at work), but do you not flee center to center even from combat?


I remember fleeing center to center from 7th, but i think it is out now in 8th. Would clear a lot of issues, but on page 57 it only talks about fleeing directly away from the enemy and the diagrams are all conveniently chosen so the problem doesn't crop up.
We play it as a house rule here to flee center to center, but from the rules (and the diagrams especially) you could also read it as turning 180 degrees, especially considering you make the turn first and then make the move.

Iraf
03-01-2012, 20:32
I remember fleeing center to center from 7th, but i think it is out now in 8th. Would clear a lot of issues, but on page 57 it only talks about fleeing directly away from the enemy and the diagrams are all conveniently chosen so the problem doesn't crop up.
We play it as a house rule here to flee center to center, but from the rules (and the diagrams especially) you could also read it as turning 180 degrees, especially considering you make the turn first and then make the move.

There is an errata dealing with this. Yes, it is center of the unit fleeing from the center of the largest model count unit on the side that won.

Llew
03-01-2012, 20:38
This thread makes me chuckle. After 8 editions, shouldn't this really be something that they've nailed down in the rules in clear, unambiguous language?

FuzzyOrb
03-01-2012, 20:48
There is an errata dealing with this. Yes, it is center of the unit fleeing from the center of the largest model count unit on the side that won.

Glad to hear!
Thanks for clearing that up.

H33D
03-01-2012, 21:44
Isn't it most complete ranks not models?

Iraf
03-01-2012, 22:01
Isn't it most complete ranks not models?

Pg. 60 Direction of Flight. Yep, more ranks of five or more models.

Diogenes
03-01-2012, 22:26
Center to center? I don't follow.

H33D
03-01-2012, 22:36
Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to which unit you flee from. Its the unit with the most complete ranks of 5 or more models, not the unit with the most models.

Iraf
03-01-2012, 23:05
Center to center? I don't follow.

You don't just turn the unit around and go the distance rolled. The errata now has you make a line between the center of the unit you flee from and the center of the fleeing unit. Then rotate the unit and flee in the direction of the line.

Diogenes
03-01-2012, 23:09
Hmmm... Interesting.

HaeSuse
03-01-2012, 23:10
The rules don't say much either way but as Archis says, the rule on p58 is concerning pursuit into a NEW unit. That rather presumes not pursuit into the same unit that's fleeing from you. Additionally the rule is very clear you can only pursue one unit - if you were able to "catch up" with other fleeing units I would have expected that to be noted in the rules for multiple combats. The intent of the rule seems clear - you can only catch one.

But the same BRB has a specific rule. IF you catch up to a unit that is ALSO fleeing from you, but you did NOT roll high enough to catch them, then stop 1" away. Right? That's explicit in the rules. No ifs, ands, or buts. If your pursuit move brings you into contact with another unit CURRENTLY fleeing from you that rolled HIGHER than the pursuit roll, then you stop 1" short. Again, if the BRB has a specific rule in the case where the fleeing unit rolls HIGHER than the pursuer, then isn't it clear and obvious that when the fleeing unit does NOT roll high enough to escape, that something ELSE happens? I mean, there would not be a specific rule, if there wasn't a GENERAL rule that it was breaking. If, in the scenario we have been discussing all along, pursuing black orcs had rolled higher than the one I chose to pursue, but lower than the other one, then, EASY. Wipe out the one, stop 1" short of the other. Plain. Simple. Explicitly in the rules.

But, if I roll high enough to wipe both of them, then shouldn't the opposite happen? Clearly, I do NOT stop 1" short. That happens when the fleeing unit rolled high enough to escape.


At a minimum, I think if your stance is what you say it is, then you need to logically explain why there is the explicit rule for "stop 1 inch short of a fleeing unit if your pursue move would bring you into contact with it, but it rolled high enough to escape".

Diogenes
03-01-2012, 23:27
This thread makes me chuckle. After 8 editions, shouldn't this really be something that they've nailed down in the rules in clear, unambiguous language?

Indeed! You'd think this has come up frequently.

Lord Inquisitor
04-01-2012, 00:25
But the same BRB has a specific rule. IF you catch up to a unit that is ALSO fleeing from you, but you did NOT roll high enough to catch them, then stop 1" away. Right? That's explicit in the rules. No ifs, ands, or buts. If your pursuit move brings you into contact with another unit CURRENTLY fleeing from you that rolled HIGHER than the pursuit roll, then you stop 1" short. Again, if the BRB has a specific rule in the case where the fleeing unit rolls HIGHER than the pursuer, then isn't it clear and obvious that when the fleeing unit does NOT roll high enough to escape, that something ELSE happens? I mean, there would not be a specific rule, if there wasn't a GENERAL rule that it was breaking. If, in the scenario we have been discussing all along, pursuing black orcs had rolled higher than the one I chose to pursue, but lower than the other one, then, EASY. Wipe out the one, stop 1" short of the other. Plain. Simple. Explicitly in the rules.

But, if I roll high enough to wipe both of them, then shouldn't the opposite happen? Clearly, I do NOT stop 1" short. That happens when the fleeing unit rolled high enough to escape.


At a minimum, I think if your stance is what you say it is, then you need to logically explain why there is the explicit rule for "stop 1 inch short of a fleeing unit if your pursue move would bring you into contact with it, but it rolled high enough to escape".
If a unit rolls high enough to escape, but the pursuer would be able to catch up with them, the pursuer is put 1" behind. This frequently happens with deep units that are flanked - if you are 5 wide and 10 deep, when you rotate about the centre of the unit to flee from a flanker, the rear of the unit is not going to get as many inches away as you roll.

However in this situation we are not talking about a unit that is being pursued at all since you can only pursue one unit. There are two interpretations - if you have enough movement to move into a unit that fled from you but you chose not to pursue, you can either treat them as a new unit or not a new unit.

Where did I get 'stop 1" away' from? P. 13, under '1" apart'. If we assume that you cannot treat a unit that just fled from your unit as 'pursuit into a new enemy' then you cannot charge therefore you cannot come within 1".

Kalandros
04-01-2012, 00:43
And then I sat and opened my Warmachine rulebook and joy filled me as I found CLEAR rules with CLEAR wording and then opened the PP forums to discover actual OFFICIAL rules answer for when one THINKS there could be something more to a rule.

Seriously, aren't you guys tired of all these ridiculous rules thread here on Warseer?

Ok enough semi-trolling from me.

HaeSuse
04-01-2012, 00:58
If a unit rolls high enough to escape, but the pursuer would be able to catch up with them, the pursuer is put 1" behind. This frequently happens with deep units that are flanked - if you are 5 wide and 10 deep, when you rotate about the centre of the unit to flee from a flanker, the rear of the unit is not going to get as many inches away as you roll.

BRB 60, final paragraph: "Note that this will sometimes lead to a pursuing unit 'catching up' with a fleeing unit that rolled high enough to escape."

If this rule was intended ONLY for single combats and single pursuit and flees, I could see your logic making sense. However, it is NOT. It's explicitly for multiple combats.


However in this situation we are not talking about a unit that is being pursued at all since you can only pursue one unit. There are two interpretations - if you have enough movement to move into a unit that fled from you but you chose not to pursue, you can either treat them as a new unit or not a new unit.

But on p58, it says that IF pursuit would bring you into contact with another unit, then you MUST charge that enemy.



Where did I get 'stop 1" away' from? P. 13, under '1" apart'. If we assume that you cannot treat a unit that just fled from your unit as 'pursuit into a new enemy' then you cannot charge therefore you cannot come within 1". [/COLOR]


Why in the world would we assume that you cannot treat a unit that just fled from your unit 'as pursuit into a new enemy'???

Llew
04-01-2012, 01:05
Perhaps because they wouldn't be a "new" enemy? Seems like an understandable assumption that the rules do nothing to *definitively* answer.

Diogenes
04-01-2012, 01:52
And then I sat and opened my Warmachine rulebook and joy filled me as I found CLEAR rules with CLEAR wording and then opened the PP forums to discover actual OFFICIAL rules answer for when one THINKS there could be something more to a rule.

Seriously, aren't you guys tired of all these ridiculous rules thread here on Warseer?

Ok enough semi-trolling from me.

Maybe I'm biased but steampunk wargames are lame.

Kalandros
04-01-2012, 02:03
Maybe I'm biased but steampunk wargames are lame.

Hordes isn't Steam Punk and its the same exact rules system with its own variations in the way mechanics work but are fully compatible (which is awesome)

Anywho, I'm just saying, a clear rule set with a clear explanation of the order of things and good terminology go a long way.

While Mr Ward, and whoever else 'writes' for GWShop, create confusion by using general wording expecting everyone to think the same way. When the same "kind of rule" has 3 different wordings sometimes in the same book, there's a problem.

But of course, I'm not saying "go switch system", I'm just saying that these tiresome rules argument should really never happen - its just showing a major problem with the game itself.

Beautiful miniatures (which I keep buying, damn my collection needs!), terrible terrible 'authors'.

Grimgormx
04-01-2012, 05:17
Well I think I understand all arguments now, and imho think this is the way intended.

Blac Orc deffeat spearmen and Hydra

the player that loses has to roll to see how much his units flee, spearmen roll 4, and hydra 6.

Winner choose a unit to pursue, as spearmen run 4, they are easier to catch so rolls and get a 10, spearmen are caught even before moving, then hydra is moved 6, then orcs try to move 10, they move enought to charge the hydra, that now is a new unit, because it wasnt the one selected to be pursued, so as it is fleeing and is being charged then its destroyed, BO get a reorg after moving only 6"

That store employee is right.

As LI says, the word is "new", but what exactly new new? I think its any unit you hit after your first one or another unit different to your choice.

What would happen if player choose hydra and only rolls a 5? then hydra would flee and spearmen will be killed because they become new choice, they are fleeing, they got charged, then BO get to reorg 1 inch away Hydra.

I like this rules discusion, and you can only get a game with no rules discussion if it is simple, and if it hasnt enought players.

Iraf
04-01-2012, 05:23
the player that loses has to roll to see how much his units flee, spearmen roll 4, and hydra 6.

Winner choose a unit to pursue, as spearmen run 4, they are easier to catch so rolls and get a 10

I get the impression from this statement that you're choosing which unit you are pursuing after they have rolled. You MUST choose the unit you are pursuing before any dice for fleeing/pursuit are rolled.

Other then that, I agree with your interpretation.

Grimgormx
04-01-2012, 05:35
As I read the flee and pursue rules in P 56

If a unit fails its Ld test after been defeat it has to flee

Victorious player has to decide if he pursues or doesnt, player has to roll a ld test to stop the unit.

after victorious unit chosse if it pursues or stops

Then fleeing units roll for fleeing distance

Then pursuers roll their pursuing distance.

I cant find a page saying that pursuing roll and fleeing roll has to be done at the same moment. ( dont remember but I think that was in 7th)

Iraf
04-01-2012, 05:52
Page 60. Pursuit- Units on the winning side are each only permitted to pursue a single enemy unit that they are in base contact with (declare this before any Flee rolls are made).

Also, I never played 6th or 7th. Which makes it easier for me, since I don't have to try to forget all those rules.

FuzzyOrb
04-01-2012, 10:33
I am currently digging my way through the FAQ but that center-to-center tidbit is nowhere to be found.:eyebrows:

Llew
04-01-2012, 10:48
I like this rules discusion, and you can only get a game with no rules discussion if it is simple, and if it hasnt enought players.

Untrue. You can only get a rules discussion like this if the rules writers can't be bothered to think clearly about how they intend the game to operate and then write it in a clear, uncluttered manner.

Warmachine is a much more complex game than the GW games, and yet it's rules are laid out much more clearly. People may get confused because they skip over a rule, but once they pay attention to the text and learn it, it stays learned. Fundamental issues of game play are easily resolvable.

It's embarrassing that a game system with as much history as WFB doesn't have a clear definition of a simple game concept. For example, the "new" issue I already remarked on. They could just as easily throw a definition of 'new' into the rule text, whatever they decided that definition was. (i.e. "A new unit is one that the pursuing unit was not in combat with during the turn in which the break test was made.")

Discussions like these make me think that WFB has been intentionally designed to include rules arguments as a *feature*, not as an unfortunate byproduct of badly-written rules.

Iraf
04-01-2012, 13:11
I am currently digging my way through the FAQ but that center-to-center tidbit is nowhere to be found.:eyebrows:

Page 6, right column.

Q: When a unit flees ‘directly away’ from another, does this mean
that you turn the unit about its centre, so that it will flee directly
away from the centre of the unit it is fleeing from? (p57)
A: Yes.

Grimgormx
04-01-2012, 13:33
Page 60. Pursuit- Units on the winning side are each only permitted to pursue a single enemy unit that they are in base contact with (declare this before any Flee rolls are made).

Also, I never played 6th or 7th. Which makes it easier for me, since I don't have to try to forget all those rules.

Page 60 rules apply only when the victorious units are fighting vs units in different sides (front, flank rear) thats why you choose before rolling because you cant spread in all directions. To apply this rule the combat should be like this:

BO big horde, fights vs spearmen and hydra to the front, and some shades in the left flank, BO wins, DE LD all 3 units fail, BO unit has to decide if pursues, player dont wants but fails LD test to restrain, so unit decides to pursuit, pursue what unit? well if I choose hydra or spearmen I could get more points than with those shades so I choose Hydra, DE rolls to flee, DE spearmen 4, Hydra 6, shades 8, then orc rolls to pursue 10, Hydra gets destroyed before even moving (because was the unit that BO catch before moving), Spearmen move (they have to turn backwards P57) 4 inch, and shades also turn backwards and flee 8 Inch, BO overrun Hydra and get to charge a new (different to the one you choose) fleeing unit so they destroy this new unit, then they get reorg.

also only pursues align to the fleeing unit center to center P57

Arijharn
04-01-2012, 13:33
I honestly think in this case the best answer is simply let a roll off, or a die roll be the answer.

I personally think that the unit would catch both, they were both in base contact, they both fled the same conflict, in this case it was the Orcs being Orcs and being particularly violent.

Grimgormx
04-01-2012, 13:37
Page 6, right column.

Q: When a unit flees ‘directly away’ from another, does this mean
that you turn the unit about its centre, so that it will flee directly
away from the centre of the unit it is fleeing from? (p57)
A: Yes.

Wow that faq is wrong, p57 says that fleeing unit flips backwars ignoring enemy units, pursues are the only unit that turn center to center of a fleeing unit that they couldnt catch.

To ignore this rule I need an errata, not a faq

Iraf
04-01-2012, 13:44
Wow that faq is wrong, p57 says that fleeing unit flips backwars ignoring enemy units, pursues are the only unit that turn center to center of a fleeing unit that they couldnt catch.

To ignore this rule I need an errata, not a faq

It matters not to me what you ignore. You asked for the correct way to play. The ignore enemy units means to ignore them as far as placement of your unit, and the path it takes along the way.

Iraf
04-01-2012, 13:57
And no, the rules for picking which unit to pursue when multiple flees happen does not only mean when engaged on multiple side. It means just that, multiple fleeing units. Choose one to pursue.

Grimgormx
04-01-2012, 14:21
And no, the rules for picking which unit to pursue when multiple flees happen does not only mean when engaged on multiple side. It means just that, multiple fleeing units. Choose one to pursue.

Page 60 " "It can happen that one or more victorious units have defeated several enemies that were engaging from different sides. Where this happens, bear the following in mind."

As I read its mandatory to be engaged from different sides to follow those rules.

Iraf
04-01-2012, 14:29
First sentence if Pursuit rule on page 60 is very clear. A single enemy unit that they are in base contact with. Not a single side or direction. Unit is very clear, even without the FAQ.

Iraf
04-01-2012, 15:00
Removed my comment. It was unwarranted and rude.

Lord Inquisitor
04-01-2012, 15:14
Wow that faq is wrong, p57 says that fleeing unit flips backwars ignoring enemy units, pursues are the only unit that turn center to center of a fleeing unit that they couldnt catch.

To ignore this rule I need an errata, not a faq
I don't follow - "pivots about its centre (ignoring enemy units)" means you can ignore enemy units for the purposes of the pivot. The FAQ is entirely consistent with the rules as they are "directly away from the enemy with the most ranks" is right there and in every case in the rulebook "directly away" means from centre-centre. It wasn't hugely clear (especially since it was different in 7th) but the FAQ doesn't actually contradict any rules in the rulebook.

Page 60 " "It can happen that one or more victorious units have defeated several enemies that were engaging from different sides. Where this happens, bear the following in mind."

As I read its mandatory to be engaged from different sides to follow those rules.
It's an odd line, to be sure. But since there is nothing in the rules to cover what happens when more than one unit flees from one side, I assume the same rules apply. After all, the example given does not have one unit that has defeated several enemies on different sides!

Noght
04-01-2012, 15:55
I think I understand your argument now. You stipulate that the only portion of the brb that deals with multiple combats only pertains to a certain type of multiple combat, and an FAQ that deals with pursuing and fleeing unit is wrong so can be ignored. Okay well... Cheers mate. Hope you have a great day.

Don't worry Iraf. People ignore/change/override rules from the BRB all the time. If it doesn't fit their world view they create silly arguments all the time.

I tried to tell Grim pages ago that you can only pursue 1 unit. If you roll enough to catch a 2nd unit from the same combat you stop an 1" short just like the rule book says.

**Shrug**.

Noght

HaeSuse
04-01-2012, 19:57
First sentence if Pursuit rule on page 60 is very clear. A single enemy unit that they are in base contact with. Not a single side or direction. Unit is very clear, even without the FAQ.


Iraf, You are missing Grimgormx's main point.

The BRB is laid out simply. There are "chapters", IE - "Close Combat". There are "sections", IE - "4. Flee and Pursue." There are "subsections", IE - "Multiple Combats and Pursuit". And finally there are individual "rules", IE - "Pursuit". It is very easy to pick the divisions out. The "Chapters" are in something like font size 30, and always start on a new page. They are also in the table of contents as bold. "Sections" are listed in the table of contents in NON-bold text. "Subsections" and "rules" are NOT individually listed in the contents.


Under each "subSection", is a bit of bold text. So, for the section you are using to back up your argument, Iraf, there is that bold text. You are pulling from the "Multiple Combats and Pursuit" subsection of the "Multiple Close Combats" section of the "Close combat" chapter. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The line you are using is, "Units on the winning side are each only permitted to pursue a single enemy unit that they are in base contact with."

However... The very first line (bold) under the "Multiple combats and pursuit" subsection, is "It can happen that one or more victorious units have defeated several enemies that were engaging them from different sides. Where this happens, bear the following in mind".

You have chosen, over and over again, to utterly ignore this clause. According to the BRB, EVERYTHING from "Multiple Combats and Pursuit", ALL THE WAY to "Shrinking Units and Mutliple Fights", ONLY applies to battles where a unit is engaged from multiple sides. It explicitly says this. There is no debate.

ALL RULES in that section ONLY apply to units engaged from more than one side. You keep quoting from a section that absolutely, without a doubt, does NOT apply to the debate.

HaeSuse
04-01-2012, 20:05
It's an odd line, to be sure. But since there is nothing in the rules to cover what happens when more than one unit flees from one side, I assume the same rules apply. After all, the example given does not have one unit that has defeated several enemies on different sides!

Why assume this? At the beginning of the "Flee and Pursue" subsection, it gives specific rules governing fleeing/pursuing, right? Later, it gives specific rules for if engaged on multiple sides, right? Well, if NOT engaged on mutliple sides, then shouldn't we instead fall back on the normal rules? The multiple sides rules are to lay out that it's impossible to pursue one unit in one direction, and another unit in another direction. That makes perfect sense. But, if you don't fall into this category, then shouldn't you fall into the catch-all category of the main text? P56 never mentions that "these rules do not apply if there is more than a single unit fleeing".

It seems the rules on 60 are only for multiple sides combat. The regular rules apply everywhere else.

Iraf
04-01-2012, 20:08
No, I get his point. His point does not take into consideration that these are the only rules for any form of multiple unit combat. The pages 59-61 go over multiple close combats. The only pages in fact. To ignore this form of multiple combat because of the one sentence on page 60 seems absurd to me.

Iraf
04-01-2012, 20:22
You have to follow either the multiple combat rules for this situation, or treat it like a single combat situation (which seems to be what Grim suggests). To me it is obviously that it is a multiple combat situation, and thus follows the rules on 59-61.

Kalandros
04-01-2012, 20:56
I like this rules discusion, and you can only get a game with no rules discussion if it is simple, and if it hasnt enought players.
If only it were mere discussions this forum was filled with...

LiddellHart
04-01-2012, 22:23
You have to follow either the multiple combat rules for this situation, or treat it like a single combat situation (which seems to be what Grim suggests). To me it is obviously that it is a multiple combat situation, and thus follows the rules on 59-61.

According to the first regular print paragraph at p. 59 all rules for single combat also apply to multiple combat, but some situations work a little different, which are -restrictively IMO- discussed on pp. 59-61.
This seems to me that if you're specific MC situation isn't mentioned: treat is as single combat.

In fact, there IS a single combat rule that covers this exactly. It is under the -not so wel chosen- header "pursuit into a new enemy", specificly subheader "Pursuit into fleeing foes".

I know the new/not new/not really new discussion has been held at length.
But we shouldn't lend too much weigth to just a header. The bold text either introduces or summarises the plain text, and the plain text is the law. Headers are IMO just for convenience to find the proper rule quickly.

NOWHERE in the paragraph, besides the header, is the word "new" mentioned. Not even in the bold text.
So "new" shouldn't be an issue. And then the fiercely debated multiple combat situation is neatly covered by regular single combat rules. As the authors referred to on p. 59 third sentence of first plain text paragraph.

Grimgormx
04-01-2012, 22:38
Removed my comment. It was unwarranted and rude.

Dont worry, I got the message, Have a great day!

Iraf
04-01-2012, 22:39
I like how we've come full circle. I agree whole heartedly with that statement. As I agreed with Grims full statement, accept where he suggested he would choose to pursue after both units had rolled.

Iraf
04-01-2012, 22:44
First post on page 5 was agreement with Grim except on the point of choosing when to choose which unit to pursue.

Iraf
04-01-2012, 22:46
Either way, this has degraded to nothing but a runaround.

Grimgormx
04-01-2012, 22:49
Don't worry Iraf. People ignore/change/override rules from the BRB all the time. If it doesn't fit their world view they create silly arguments all the time.

I tried to tell Grim pages ago that you can only pursue 1 unit. If you roll enough to catch a 2nd unit from the same combat you stop an 1" short just like the rule book says.

**Shrug**.

Noght

Sorry Noght I have tried to find the rule you have tried so hard to teach me, but I cant find it. Can you, please, help me find it, so I can change my mind from this topic. I want specific place to find this: If you roll enough to catch a 2nd unit from the same combat you stop an 1" short

If I find this quote, then I would say Im wrong ( that I may be because English isnt my first language, and GW translation of rules arent good enought)

Arijharn
05-01-2012, 01:20
Grim, I think he's talking about the rule 1" Apart listed on pg13. Granted it's a basic rule that is therefore over-ridden by advanced rules (pg11 'Basic Versus Advanced') in case of contradiction.

Noght
05-01-2012, 11:25
Wouldn't the rules for Multiple Unit Combats on page 59-61 override all the rules for Single Unit Combats on page 56-58?

Multiple Unit says "Pursue one unit". The 2nd fleeing unit neither counts as "New" nor "Already Fleeing", it's all happening at the same time. Kill the caught unit, stop an 1" short of other unit.

Noght

This is WAAAAY back on page 2, post 39 of this thread. In my world no amount of verbal gymnastics = 2 dead units in a pursuit move. I'll submit the argument then becomes what is the definition of New or Already Fleeing.

What if your Blorcs declare a pursuit vs my Greatswords. My Halberdiers roll and flee 5". My Greatswords flee 10" and your Blorcs pursue 6". Now what? You haven't caught the unit your pursuing. Is in stacked GS/Blorcs/Halb? Or is it GS/Halb/Blorcs? In any case nothing gets caught per rules on page 59-61.

Noght

Grimgormx
05-01-2012, 15:49
Ok, for pursuer to be obligated to choose a unit to pursuit (per rules for combat with multiple units) my BO has to be fighting at the start vs 2 or more enemies engaged from different sides, so in your example we have to add a 3rd unit, lets say some pistoliers at BO left side.

Now, BO win, your 3 units fail their LD test, haldberd and great swords are engaged at the front and had to flee, greatswords are the juiciest unit and thats why I choose to pursue (so I can try to catch them) I will pursue to the greatswords direcction, roll to flee, Greatswords (my choice) to pursue flee 10, haldberdierss flee 5", BO pursue 6", pistoliers flee 2", fleeing units are moved, then BO move 6 " in the greatswors direction. but ops! there are some fleeing Haldberdiers that I can reach with my pursuing movement, so I get in contact with a new unit (its a different one than the one I wanted to catch) , and is fleeing and so my BO destroy them.

Sorry my BO are not so brilliant but It would be stu..d to think that they will say this:

Look rubglub we are going to catch those hummies that are runing away, kill them ladz!!!

No wait nazga, they are not the onez wez want, we alredy fought them, letz stop 1 yard away.

In Mho Black Orcs in this example, pursue great swords, that they wont catch, but charge a new unit, Halbs, and destroy them, pistoliers run away in a different direction.

Damocles8
05-01-2012, 16:11
I thought you can only charge a new unit when you overrun.

Archis
05-01-2012, 16:25
Ok, for pursuer to be obligated to choose a unit to pursuit (per rules for combat with multiple units) my BO has to be fighting at the start vs 2 or more enemies engaged from different sides, so in your example we have to add a 3rd unit, lets say some pistoliers at BO left side.

Now, BO win, your 3 units fail their LD test, haldberd and great swords are engaged at the front and had to flee, greatswords are the juiciest unit and thats why I choose to pursue (so I can try to catch them) I will pursue to the greatswords direcction, roll to flee, Greatswords (my choice) to pursue flee 10, haldberdierss flee 5", BO pursue 6", pistoliers flee 2", fleeing units are moved, then BO move 6 " in the greatswors direction. but ops! there are some fleeing Haldberdiers that I can reach with my pursuing movement, so I get in contact with a new unit (its a different one than the one I wanted to catch) , and is fleeing and so my BO destroy them.

Sorry my BO are not so brilliant but It would be stu..d to think that they will say this:

Look rubglub we are going to catch those hummies that are runing away, kill them ladz!!!

No wait nazga, they are not the onez wez want, we alredy fought them, letz stop 1 yard away.

In Mho Black Orcs in this example, pursue great swords, that they wont catch, but charge a new unit, Halbs, and destroy them, pistoliers run away in a different direction.

The issue with the "two units to the front" not counting as two sides is that when they break, they flee in different directions (see the FAQ on fleeing center to center.) If you don't have to choose which one to pursue (which I think is your argument, but correct me if I'm wrong) one unit cannot go two different directions at once.

Iraf
05-01-2012, 16:29
That rule Grim has already expressed goes against the rules and unless an errata changes the rule he will ignore this FAQ.

Lord Inquisitor
05-01-2012, 17:20
Sorry my BO are not so brilliant but It would be stu..d to think that they will say this:

Look rubglub we are going to catch those hummies that are runing away, kill them ladz!!!

No wait nazga, they are not the onez wez want, we alredy fought them, letz stop 1 yard away.
How many units do you think they should be able to singlehandedly kill in one pursuit move? Personally, I think they're busy dealing with the unit they chose to pursue.

There's plenty of cases where you might want the orcs to engage in combat but be disallowed because of the rules.

Ultimately, this is a deliberate design. The 7th edition rules were that all units fleeing in one direction could be pursued at once. In 8th, each enemy unit flees in its own direction, and each pursuer can only pursue one enemy unit.

Grimgormx
06-01-2012, 14:45
The issue with the "two units to the front" not counting as two sides is that when they break, they flee in different directions (see the FAQ on fleeing center to center.) If you don't have to choose which one to pursue (which I think is your argument, but correct me if I'm wrong) one unit cannot go two different directions at once.

I read that FAQ, its not a arrata, fleeing units that get to move (that are not catch by the pursuer flip backwars (180) from enemi unit, the center to center is only used to see the pursuers direction.

Black Orcs <<<< DE units

BOBOBO<<<<
BOBOBO<<<<
BOBOBO<<<<
BOBOBO<<<<
BOBOBO
BOBOBO<<<<
BOBOBO<<<<

BO wins so elfs roll Ld, they fail and rolls to flee spearmen (big unit) rolls to flee 4¨ Hydar rolls 6" BO rolls 10", (I would say that as you are fighting to your front you dont have to choose what unit BO are going after both units should be destroyed IMHO, but I have to say that Im trying to follow some of the observations done by you guys), but well lets say I choose the spearmen, and they are destroyed before moving because BO rolled Higer. So Hydra get to flee, Hydra flips backward (180 degrees)

BOBOBO
BOBOBO
BOBOBO
BOBOBO
BOBOBO
BOBOBO>>>>
BOBOBO>>>>

Then move 6"


BOBOBO
BOBOBO
BOBOBO
BOBOBO
BOBOBO
BOBOBO______>>>>
BOBOBO 6¨ >>>>

BO then can move up to 10" because they rolled 10, and if you catch a unit you are able to move up to your full roll, but Hydras are in the way, so they are charging, they are fleeing , they wherent my choosed unit to pursue, they are "new" so they get charged, BO just get to touch Hydra, destroys it, and stops after moving only 6" and gets a free reorganization.

This is using the original example from this topic.

Now if BO had chssen to pursue Hydra (bad choice because that will be harder to catch) the result would be this:

Hydra gets cath (BO rolled 10, Hydra rolled 6), then Spearmen move only 4¨Black Orcs would move 10 but charge the spearmen, fleeing, new, destroys them and reorginice after moving 4¨

Maybe if BO wasnt a horde, and Hydra has rolled a 9, spearmen a 11, BO had choose to pursue spearmen and rolled only a 10, then maybe the 2 DE units would be able to flee.

BOBOBO<<<<Spearmen
BOBOBO<<<<
BOBOBO<<<<
BOBOBO<<<<
BOBOBO<<<< Hydra
<<<<

BO wins, DE Flee, both units get to move as BO choose to pursue the one that rolled Higer.

BOBOBO >>>>Spearmen
BOBOBO___________>>>>
BOBOBO 11¨ >>>>
BOBOBO >>>>
BOBOBO_________>>>> Hydra
9¨ >>>>

BO move then to the choosed unit AKA spearmen 10", in direction Center to center

BOBOBO >>>>Spearmen
BOBOBO ______>>>>
BOB________ >>>>
BOBOBO >>>>
BOBOBO >>>> Hydra
>>>>

Maybe, just maybe (need to use actual models) Hydra wont be charged (because of angle, and direction, not distance) Maybe BO will be less than an Inch from Hydra, so they will have to stop 1¨ away from Hydra.

Lord Inquisitor:

I havent found the rule that says that you cant kill more than one fleeing unit to the pursue direcction, if you catch one, then with pursuing movement you get another one then what happens? sorry I need help to find that rule. I can only find the pursue explanation (with only 1 fleeing unit, the pursuing into a new enemy, and the pursuing after a multicombat with the condition that unit should be engaged with enemies from different sides.

I agree you can only catch one (destroy it before moving) by rolling higer, But also I thin that you can kill a second one, if it gets charged when fleeing.

Grimgormx
06-01-2012, 14:50
so they are charging, .
Should say ¨they are being charged" I cant edit

Diogenes
06-01-2012, 14:50
just curious, has anyone ever actually tried emailing GW and asking for a rules clarification?

Diogenes
06-01-2012, 14:56
just curious, has anyone ever actually tried emailing GW and asking for a rules clarification?

from GW website:

Please note: Rules questions and gaming related problems can only be answered via email. Please contact us and we will respond within 3 business days.


Email has been sent. We should know something official next week.

Lord Inquisitor
06-01-2012, 15:43
I read that FAQ, its not a arrata, fleeing units that get to move (that are not catch by the pursuer flip backwars (180) from enemi unit, the center to center is only used to see the pursuers direction.
This is ridiculous.

There rulebook says nothing about flipping 180 degrees and fleeing in that direction. Anywhere.

Indeed, if you look at any situation where a unit flees, if it flees from a charge it flees along the centre-centre line, if it flees from panic it "pivots" and flees "directly away" from the causing/nearest enemy unit. Again in combat, the unit pivots to flee "directly away from the enemy unit" and for multiple combats "directly away from the enemy with the most ranks".

In each case the unit flees "directly away". This is presumably centre-centre looking at the rules as flight from chargers and pursuit is away/towards the centre of the unit but it isn't explicit. The FAQ asked for clarification - does this mean "directly away from the centre" and the FAQ answered yes. Looking back it is unfortunate that every example shows fleeing units that were directly aligned.

This is RAW. I've known several others outright refuse to acknowledge this particular FAQ. Understandable, we all made an assumption due to lousy rules writing and the FAQ changed how we all played, but looking back, it was an assumption on our part and nowhere does the rules actually say you flee perpendicular away from the flank engaged.

Grimgormx, most people aren't going to debate rules with you on any subject if your principle is to ignore FAQs if you don't like them.

Diogenes
06-01-2012, 16:08
I already got a response, but I don't have time to call. Somebody else game?


Thanks for writing in to us! We handle all rules questions through our Customer Services department. If you give us a call at 1-800-394-4263 we’ll be able to answer any questions you have. Unfortunately, we don’t answer rules questions via e-mail any more. We find its way quicker to answer them over the phone and we can answer any follow up questions that may come up.

Lord Inquisitor
06-01-2012, 16:15
I already got a response, but I don't have time to call. Somebody else game?


Thanks for writing in to us! We handle all rules questions through our Customer Services department. If you give us a call at 1-800-394-4263 we’ll be able to answer any questions you have. Unfortunately, we don’t answer rules questions via e-mail any more. We find its way quicker to answer them over the phone and we can answer any follow up questions that may come up.

Honestly, if you call with a rules question you get a customer service representative who will do their best to give you their opinion. The question is not likely to get passed to the studio for consideration, even less over the phone. It doesn't hurt to ask but if you're hoping to get put through to Mat Ward or something it isn't going to happen.

HaeSuse
06-01-2012, 16:19
Here's a huge problem with the stance a lot of people are taking on here. The stance I'm referring to is that you can only pick ONE unit, and can only run it down, and must stop short of ALL other units.

Okay, so in our scenario... the same old blackorcs and hydra and corsairs.

Lets say that even with the flee "center-to-center" rule, the corsairs and hydra are still fleeing in such a way that the black orcs will hit both of them in pursuit. Okay. So, now, lets say i choose the hydra to follow. The hydra rolls a 7, and the corsairs roll a 2. Blackorcs roll a 12. So. Now, the corsairs will be IN THE WAY of the black orc pursuit, just by virtue of having rolled low enough to be a blockade. So, do I stop 1" short of the corsairs, and not even get to kill ANYTHING? Just because of terrible rolls by the Fleeing units??!?! Or do I leapfrog the corsairs, leaving them where they are, and move into contact with the hydra, destroying it?

In this scenario, where both fleeing units are able to be pursued by the pursuing unit in the same arc, and the pursuers had the misfortune of picking the one who rolled HIGHER, then what happens? The lower rolling fleeing unit is blocking the pursuing unit from moving, if we use the "can only pursue one unit, must stop 1" short of all other units" methodology. IT makes no sense.

Lord Inquisitor
06-01-2012, 16:33
It's perfectly possible to engender a similar scenario where the pursuit is blocked by impassable terrain or just plain not able to reach the fleeing unit because of the vagaries of the pivot step.

If you roll higher than a unit you pursue, they're dead, full stop. Being able to actually reach them is not required.

This is a red herring anyway because even if we say that a fleeing unit is treated as a new unit, then the unit will stop when it hits the corsairs, destroying them and is not permitted to pursue further or overrun again. By your argument that would prevent them pursuing the chosen unit, the hydra.

Iraf has got an entirely logical argument already presented. I agree with EVERYTHING he has said. The only point of contention, as we have already addressed, is whether or not you are allowed to treat a fleeing unit that flees from combat as a "new unit" for the purposes of a pursuing unit. It isn't defined unambiguously in the rules one way or the other. I have to concede that Iraf's argument is sound and RAW does lean towards him, but I maintain that the intent is pretty clear, the marked change from 7th edition indicates that the rule that you can only pursue one unit should also mean you can only destroy one unit. Everything since then has been irrelevant, confusing or just plain wrong.

Iraf
06-01-2012, 16:45
I agree with Lord Inq, I think this thread is about 3 pages longer than it needs to be personally.

HaeSuse
06-01-2012, 17:10
Just to add to the fire... Talked to GW on the phone. Dude said you can only kill one, and that's how GW playtests. Only one, regardless. No ifs ands or buts. But, as Diogenes pointed out, a GW employee at a store said the opposite.

Wonderful!

HaeSuse
06-01-2012, 17:13
...the marked change from 7th edition indicates that the rule that you can only pursue one unit should also mean you can only destroy one unit. Everything since then has been irrelevant, confusing or just plain wrong.



Fair enough. I don't necessarily disagree. Just trying to get to the bottom of it. I have yet to see a solid argument, though on one point. The rules that say you can only pursue and wipe out one unit are specifically in a section that says it is ONLY for multiple combats where being attacked from multiple sides. Did I miss something? Or are we still falling back on the argument that "sides" means "players"? This is plain as day in the BRB. The whole section only applies to combats from multiple sides. Full stop.

Lord Inquisitor
06-01-2012, 18:32
Fair enough. I don't necessarily disagree. Just trying to get to the bottom of it. I have yet to see a solid argument, though on one point. The rules that say you can only pursue and wipe out one unit are specifically in a section that says it is ONLY for multiple combats where being attacked from multiple sides. Did I miss something? Or are we still falling back on the argument that "sides" means "players"? This is plain as day in the BRB. The whole section only applies to combats from multiple sides. Full stop.

Honestly I'm not sure what to make of it.

Let's say you're right and the whole section applies only to pursuit in the instance of several enemies engaging from different sides of the pursuing unit(s).

Then what rules do we follow in the case of units where multiple defeated units are on the same side of the victorious unit? It's simply undefined. What's more BOTH the examples on pages 60 and 61 referenced under the same heading clearly shows a scenario where the victorious units are NOT engaged on multiple sides (the defeated units are, but that's not the point).

I can only assume that the rules for MULTIPLE COMBATS AND PURSUIT apply to all multiple combats and pursuit, and the bolded text is simply poorly worded.

No, it isn't a satisfying answer but that seems to be abundantly clear to be the intent given the examples shown and applying the multiple combat rules only where enemies are on different sides causes the huge issue of "what rules do we follow if they aren't on different sides?"

Here the rules are contradictory (rule vs example) and in any case where the rules are contradictory but the intent is clear, I think we can safely infer what the rules are.

Grimgormx
08-01-2012, 18:01
Honestly I'm not sure what to make of it.

Let's say you're right and the whole section applies only to pursuit in the instance of several enemies engaging from different sides of the pursuing unit(s).

Then what rules do we follow in the case of units where multiple defeated units are on the same side of the victorious unit? It's simply undefined. What's more BOTH the examples on pages 60 and 61 referenced under the same heading clearly shows a scenario where the victorious units are NOT engaged on multiple sides (the defeated units are, but that's not the point).

I can only assume that the rules for MULTIPLE COMBATS AND PURSUIT apply to all multiple combats and pursuit, and the bolded text is simply poorly worded.

No, it isn't a satisfying answer but that seems to be abundantly clear to be the intent given the examples shown and applying the multiple combat rules only where enemies are on different sides causes the huge issue of "what rules do we follow if they aren't on different sides?"

Here the rules are contradictory (rule vs example) and in any case where the rules are contradictory but the intent is clear, I think we can safely infer what the rules are.

LI, There is the 1st paragraph in P59 of multiple combat it says that all rules from one on one combat apply unless its is covered as an exception in rules for multiple combats.

Combat with multiple units engaged to the front isnt covered on pages 59 to 61, so all rules for combat one on one apply.

Per this first paragraph a unit that wins a combat and is engaged only to the front by any number of enemies and get to roll higer than fleeing units its is able to wip all those lower rollers.

Also, I m not choosing to ignore the flip backwards from the enemy faq, I just think is wrong, at least compared on how it is worded in the spanish BRB, where it is clearly expresed that units flip backward to flee, I would like that units could flip the way the Faq says, but no, rules says different. also this apply only when fleeing from combat, we all now that enemy fleeing from a charge is aligned to the center of charging unit, as well as a charging unit is aligned to the center of charged unit (as better as posible to maximize units engaged in combat)

And yes, i will always ignore a faq that changes a rule. for that we need an errata

Grey Seer
09-01-2012, 22:52
Just to add to the fire... Talked to GW on the phone. Dude said you can only kill one, and that's how GW playtests. Only one, regardless. No ifs ands or buts. But, as Diogenes pointed out, a GW employee at a store said the opposite.

Wonderful!

I have not voiced an opinion on this rule, but, with respect to the above, GW employees know less than the gamers. They are not an authority on the rules.