PDA

View Full Version : Fleeing Warmachine Crew: Charging and LOS



DeathlessDraich
21-06-2006, 18:14
Sorry.

Please read my reply to EVC for the full version of this question.

2 questions. Any argument backed by rules references would be most helpful.
Thanks.:)

Q1. If a warmachine crew is already fleeing and the warmachine itself is charged, does the crew have to flee some more?

Q2. Most warchines are not placed on bases. Their sizes and orientations (e.g. position of a cannon barrel) vary . How would you you determine LOS through, or close to, an abandoned warmachine? Should it be orientated in the direction of the last shot? Is there LOS through gaps?
E.g. would only the legs of a bolt thrower block LOS?

EvC
21-06-2006, 18:29
1. If a crew is fleeing, it's not at the warmachine so it wouldn't affect the crew.
2. Use common sense. Feel free to actually get down to the troops' eye-level and see if you really can draw line of sight. Roll a dice if there's disagreement.

DeathlessDraich
22-06-2006, 12:05
Sorry, that doesn't answer the question.
Unfortunately I generalised a complex situation which I'll outline now

A unit of Gutter runners declares a charge on a bolthrower.
The charge is within range of the crew only and is in the rear arc of the archers (one model is practically touching the bolt thrower).

C= Crew, M = Warchine, A = Archers, G = Gutter Runners (slightly above the position shown)

xxxxxxxxxxxMxxMxxxAA
xxxxxxxxxxxxMxxxAA
GxxxxxxxxxxCMxAA
xGxxxxxxxxxCAA

The crew flees and the charge fails. The crew flees only 2" and is placed 1" from the warmachine slightly below the archer unit and in line with it. The fleeing crew is slightly too far away to be caught but the archers are within charge range.

Main Question Can the gutter runners redirect into the archers? - there is sufficient space in the rear of the archers.

Normally warmachine are treated as skirmishers which do not allow other units LOS through their gaps.

Q1 Is it still a skirmishing unit when the crew is fleeing and but 1" away?
Q2 Most players regard the fleeing crew and the warmachine as 2 separate units but are they 2 separate entities when they are still 1" apart?
Q3 If the warchine and a crew is not a skirmish when the crew flees then is LOS determined by bits of the warchine in contact with the table only?

Q4 If another unit had declared a charge (2nd in order), do the warchine crew flee again?

T10
22-06-2006, 15:46
Main question:
It is generally accepted that for a second unit to be a valid target for a redirected charge, it must be one that has been "revealed" as the first unit completed it's Flee! move.

"Revealed" is further assumed to not merely be a matter of line of sight but also access - e.g. a Large target behing a line of archers is visible, but still counts as "revealed" once the arhcers have fled and the path to engage becomes open.

The Gutter Runners would be unable to redirect into the archers if they could have charged them instead of the warmachine.

Secondary questions:
You seem to use the term "a skirmish" to mean "a unit of skirmishers".

Q1: The warmachine and crew are separated and thus no longer make up a single unit of skirmishers.

Q2: Yes, they are two separate entities because the crew models are fleeing but the artillerypiece model is not.

Q3: This is where common sense should be applied. As a minimum, the artillery piece occupies the area directly beneath it.

Q4: If a unit declares a Flee! charge reaction from multiple chargers then it makes a single flee move.

gortexgunnerson
22-06-2006, 19:14
I'm not really sure about the specific of this question. So will highlight a few elements;

1) if you could see the archers before the charge was made no redirect. Which by your case seems likely as the machine is too far away to be charged (only the crew in range) but the archers are in range so they must be closer then the warmachine. It seems unlikely the 2 crew men blocked all line of sight. Remember you only need to see part, you can charge a different bit.

2) abandon warmachines count as open ground for all purposes so can be moved through without penalty and don't block line of sight.

From my understanding of your post no redirect, therefore failed charge

DeathlessDraich
23-06-2006, 20:13
Thanks T10 and Gortex.:)

The second part of my query has been answered - multiple charges on a warchine, opting to flee.

Just to clarify, the Gutter runners could NOT see through the Warmachine initially because of the skirmishers rule on LOS. There was no LOS from the gutter runners to the Archers before fleeing, the crew blocked the archers' front while the machine itself protuded backwards and blocked the archers back.

But when the crew fled, the very same two differing views on LOS cropped up. Hence the question, can units see THROUGH (or through the gaps of) abandoned warchines?

Gortex, you seem to think so but

T10, your statement below opposes this.



Q3: This is where common sense should be applied. As a minimum, the artillery piece occupies the area directly beneath it.






abandon warmachines count as open ground for all purposes so can be moved through without penalty and don't block line of sight.

Viskrit
23-06-2006, 20:52
Hm, I think the correct answer would be that they count exactly as open ground. I know for sure that abandoned machines can be moved through without penalties, and I also believe that they do not block line of sight.

T10
23-06-2006, 22:06
I wouldn't want to argue against gortexgunnerson on his statement that artillery pieces count as open ground. If they do, that eliminates the problem with maneuvering ranked regiments "over" them in order to engage other units.

My statement merely indicated what appears to be the very minimum of area a model occupies, and thus it's effect on line of sight.

-T10

ZomboCom
23-06-2006, 23:29
Yup, the official erratas tell us that abandoned war machines don't block movement at all, so it's safe to assume they don't block line of sight either.

Damage
25-06-2006, 00:38
Yup, the official erratas tell us that abandoned war machines don't block movement at all, so it's safe to assume they don't block line of sight either.

There's nothing in the rules suggesting that they don't block line of sight, just that they can be moved over freely. An abandoned War Machine is a single model. Models in Warhammer block LoS. So while it can be moved over freely, or spiked if your opponent wishes, it can't be seen through while it's still on the table.

- David.

ZomboCom
25-06-2006, 01:53
There's nothing in the rules suggesting that they don't block line of sight, just that they can be moved over freely. An abandoned War Machine is a single model. Models in Warhammer block LoS. So while it can be moved over freely, or spiked if your opponent wishes, it can't be seen through while it's still on the table.

- David.

Yes, models normally block line of sight, but then models normally block movement too.

Since abandoned warmachines don't block movement, it's reasonable to suggest that they may not block line of sight either.

mageith
25-06-2006, 06:21
Since abandoned warmachines don't block movement, it's reasonable to suggest that they may not block line of sight either.

Why would it be reasonable to throw out a perfectly clear rule based on another rule being ignored????

OTOH, the unit/model blocked by a machine would have to be pretty small. With models with bases, most players assume that there is a block of blockage equal to the base. Since most machines generally don't have a base and aren't required to have one, we are given no direction whatsoever. The model itself would block LOS, but it wouldn't block much.

DeathlessDraich
25-06-2006, 11:44
Well Mageith,
Quite often small units or single models will charge a Warp Lightning Cannon, which has an extra long barrel.
After the auto flee, it is very possible that some other unit would be revealed for a redirected charge.
Would the long barrel now block LOS, considering that the fleeing crew is a skirmishing unit and the machine is ... uh, undefined?
Using the guidelines provided, which is positioning a player's eye along the tabletop and checking LOS, the lack of a base causes problems and it would be possible to see under the barrel.

When I arbitrated in the game mentioned above, that was my interpretation - which was understandably disputed.

BTW Zombo and Damage, which pg is the movement over abandoned warmachines rule please?

ZomboCom
25-06-2006, 14:02
BTW Zombo and Damage, which pg is the movement over abandoned warmachines rule please?

It's in the errata, not the main rulebook. You can find it in the chronicles/annuals, or in the online errata on the GW site.

mageith
25-06-2006, 20:22
When I arbitrated in the game mentioned above, that was my interpretation - which was understandably disputed.

I don't think we disagree. All I was saying is just because abandoned war machines allow movement over them doesn't mean they are invisible.

On the other hand, models block line of line sight. As a convention, most players, I think, consider a model to block LOS based on its base. In other words, a dwarf blocks line of sight to other man sized models as if it were a solid block 20mm x 20mm x infinity. As rule a skirmisher unit blocks line of sight to other units even though the 1 inch between them could easily be interepreted as open to viewing. The rules clearly state otherwise.

Now you have a war machine with no base and is very holey, not very tall and could easily be seen through. Since it has no base, then only the MODEL inself blocks line of sight. Your suggestion of viewing from the model's eye view is as good as any and supported by the rules themselves.

However as a convention (not written rule), players ignore this rule. As a convention, they use the base size rule I mentioned above.

But the model without a base presents a problem. Do we count the whole model as being on a base. Or do we count the whole model as not being on a base. I vote for the latter convention. Still, however, the model itself blocks Line of sight, but it doesn't block much. So in essence it really doesn't block line of sight except in the most extreme cases.

What we have here is an intersection of conventions, not rules. As a judge you have the obligation to rule as best you see fit.

Three umpires debated the philosophy of judging:
1) "I call it like I see it!" Said the first.
2) No, said the second, "I call it like it is!"
3) The old umpire said. "No, It ain't nothing until I call it!"

IMO, this situation wasn't anything until you called it. Congratulations! You are a Level 3 umpire, IMO.

Mage Ith

T10
25-06-2006, 23:54
I don't think we disagree. All I was saying is just because abandoned war machines allow movement over them doesn't mean they are invisible.


Agreed. It still has a profile, for starters, and it can be targeted by shooting, magic or chargers. It's stil there. :)



But the model without a base presents a problem. Do we count the whole model as being on a base. Or do we count the whole model as not being on a base. I vote for the latter convention. Still, however, the model itself blocks Line of sight, but it doesn't block much. So in essence it really doesn't block line of sight except in the most extreme cases.


The convention of bases and line of sight essentially mean that the battle-field is a faux-two-dimensional universe. Normal models can see over (or rather: through) small models such as swarms or over (through) normal models to models on hills or models that are Larget Targets. And so on.

Following this trend it seems appropriate to treat an artillery piece as being a normal model, and in missing a base it seems appropriate it covers the entire area beneath it.

-T10

mageith
26-06-2006, 02:04
Following this trend it seems appropriate to treat an artillery piece as being a normal model, and in missing a base it seems appropriate it covers the entire area beneath it.

I don't think the rules support that (nor the conventions). Another convention is that Dragon wings don't block line of sight, but only the part over the base does.

Since no part of the warmachine is over a base, the most we can say is the model itself blocks line of sight.

Ganymede
26-06-2006, 03:49
IMO, this situation wasn't anything until you called it. Congratulations! You are a Level 3 umpire, IMO.

Mage Ith

Haha, I actually ran into this situation yesterday at an RTT I participated in. My opponent insisted that his lone wizard could draw line of sight through the middle of the cannon he was lying behind in order to cast a fireball. I disagreed but I let him have it, cause when you are whomping all over someone, you'll let em get away with pretty much anything.

DeathlessDraich
29-06-2006, 12:18
Thanks for the replies and suggestions.

Zombo, I've searched the official errata - it is not there and I can't find it in the Warmachines section of Chronicles 4 Q&A.


None of my questions here are contrived Mageith.:) and I'm certainly too inexperienced to be an umpire.:D

My queries are all taken from actual battle situations in the small club I run. We try our best to play strictly in accordance with the rules and there are no club rules.

Very often the same opposing arguments from the problem are repeated here but sometimes this forum conjures up simple solutions!
So you can look forward to more from me!:angel: :D