PDA

View Full Version : The possible abuse of the 'Crossfire' Rule!



monkeyboyalpha
28-08-2006, 21:13
I have noticed, allready, in some posts by people how they are mentioning how they will use the upcoming crossfire rule...

I can see that this rule is about to be abused quicker than a vietnamese sweatshop worker...

I have read how people intend to spread whatever unit they will use as a blocker into one long thin line, in an attempt to catch as many units as possible on the flee.

Surley this will be an abuse of the rule and not how the rule was intended to be used...

I can see players stringing out a 10 man unt so that 2 or 3 models on the far end of the 10 man line catch an enemy unit as it flees into them claiming the crossfire rule.

What will happen, if say, a 20 man unit of Empire troops lose a couple of men in combat to a skeleton regiment and they lose the combat due to losses, outnumbering and fear etc, and they auto flee from the skeletons.... Wot if the undead player has positioned 5 dire wolves behind them somewhere and only 2 of the wolves are actualy in the retreat corridor of the Empire troops.... Is the undead player going to try and claim crossfire off just 2 wolves intercepting 18 troops..... 2 wolves cannot block and slaughter 18 troops regardless of if they are fleeing.

I think the old rule was just fine, flee into an enemy unit, take another round of hits and keep on fleeing.

I can see wots happening here, with the new possibility to fight extra combats in the combat phase with persuing into fresh enemy and the crossfire rule to mop up stragglers, it's and attempt to speed up the game 'ala ' 40k with its move, fire, assault all at the same time thing, this isn't going to work out well...

I see a *****-storm rising!


Regards
MBA

Gazak Blacktoof
28-08-2006, 21:21
I fail to see how your example is abusing the rule. The swordsmen have fled into a unit waiting for them, they're already panicked so they head for the hills. What's so wrong with that?

Sure its going to suck for you if your flight corridor just clips the edge of an enemy unit but that's the way it goes sometimes. You need some arbitrary elements to rules otherwise it gets overly complex.

Positioning a unit to potentially intercept two fleeing units is no different in my mind to rotating your unit to enable it to have more charge options or prevent it being flanked by two units. Evreybody follows the same rules, its not like you are doing anything your opponent couldn't feasibly acheive given similar units.

monkeyboyalpha
28-08-2006, 21:30
But they haven't fled into the unit as a whole, or the whole of the unit, they have fled into 1 or 2 guys.

That will be a massive abuse of the rule.

I'll wait to see what your opinion is after it happens a few times to one of ure units thats still nearly at full strength and it ends up fleeing through a missfortunate event and it flees into 2 men from a strung out enemy unit!

So, if only 2 Chaos Knights from the unit of 5 juuust clip one of your units when it charges and somebody says all 5 Knights can fight and they wipe out your unit, will that be ok too?

I can see all this coming up when we all get the new rules and this rules turns out to be a turkey.


MBA

TheWarSmith
28-08-2006, 21:32
It adds a new facet to the game, one which encourages placement tactics even more. I love the fact that this game is all about placement and that psychology is a BIG deal.

I play beastmen, but i'm probably not going to string my 20 man unit as wide as possible.

The rule theory comes to play that if an enemy attacks your rear while you're fleeing, you're gonna be minced up really fast. Forcing you to have US5 ONLY where intersected would make this rule stupidly complicated, which 7th is trying to head opposite from.

monkeyboyalpha
28-08-2006, 21:44
It's hardly a placement tactic though.

You cant expect to enter a combat with a unit with 1 or 2 men and expect those 2 men to beat an entire 20/25 man unit.

But if that unit is fleeing and it's still at virtualy full strength, (it can happen against undead and other things) and 21 men clip 3 men from a unit strung out in their own back yard it's ok to say those 3 enemy troops have the ability to remove a unit of that size from the game?????

This is why I said the possible abuse of the upcoming rule!!!!!

Obviously, if you've got 3 men left from a unit that's taken a royal pasting then sure, if 2 or 3 men from an enemy unit strung out behind clip them, then thats ok, it's just getting rid of the need to spend the next 3 turns rolling dice for distance until those last 3 men move off board.


MBA

monkeyboyalpha
28-08-2006, 21:54
Here's another possible abuse of the rule..

I'll use Skaven coz they have worse LD than the Empire I was gonna use for an example...

Say I'm Chaos and I pop a Greater Daemon in front of a 50 strong unit of rats.

The GD goes "BOO!"

That's a Terror test due to Terror causing creature 'x' amount of inches at the start of their turn... Naturaly, Skaven LD being as high as it is, they flee.

Leeeet's say I've swung a 10 man unit of Maurauders (or wotever the min requirement is) round the back of the Skaven unit currently fleeing.....

A 50 strong unit will now run into 10 Maurauders (if the Mauraders have been ranked up in a nice formation that is) but those 10 Maurauders will be enough to wipe out 50 rats....

Or, let's say the Mauraders have been strung out in a long line, as it looks like the case to be, and only 2 or 3 of the Maurauders clip the 50 strong unit as it passes...

No blow has been struck in the combat phase, yet an entire 50 man/rat unit has been eliminated with no blood spilled.

Those Mauraders wont have beaten those rats in close combat, not with all the bonuses the Skaven get when ranked up, yet they can beat them easily now............

That crossfire rule still working out for you?????

BTW, you're the Skaven player!

If you can't see the abuse coming then you're blind.


Regards
MBA

Ironhand
28-08-2006, 22:06
Monkeyboyalpha, the horse is dead. I don't think anyone but you sees this new rule as a problem.

DjtHeutii
28-08-2006, 22:07
As a Skaven player, if I have let my opponent string a line of non skirmishing infantry (who by the way cannot use the snaking formation anymore) behind my battle line I deserve to have that 50 man unit destroyed.

If I were dumb enough to feild 50 man units at all, anyway.

It's a harsh rule, yes, but everyone know it's there and everyone will be looking to prevent their stuff from getting wiped out like that.

What you are denoting is not "abuse" of a rule, it's just how the rule works. Get used to it and build your tactics with it in mind.

Venkh
28-08-2006, 22:10
Not really abuse, just an opportunity to kill units in new and different ways.

I'm so looking forward to using this rule in cojunction with my harpies and dark riders.
I appreciate that empire dont really have the units to take advantage of the new rule though, shame isnt it:evilgrin:

monkeyboyalpha
28-08-2006, 22:18
Not really abuse, just an opportunity to kill units in new and different ways.

>>> hahahahaahah

I'm so looking forward to using this rule in cojunction with my harpies and dark riders.
I appreciate that empire dont really have the units to take advantage of the new rule though, shame isnt it:evilgrin:

>>> double hahaahhaahah



Well, if you lot don't forsee a problem, only time will tell I guess?



MBA

monkeyboyalpha
28-08-2006, 22:20
Yes, I do spend a lot of time playing "TheoryHammer" lmao


MBA

DarkTerror
28-08-2006, 22:30
No, it's not abuse. This thread is done.

DjtHeutii
28-08-2006, 22:48
Not really abuse, just an opportunity to kill units in new and different ways.

I'm so looking forward to using this rule in cojunction with my harpies and dark riders.
I appreciate that empire dont really have the units to take advantage of the new rule though, shame isnt it:evilgrin:


Well, sure they do. They have Pistoliers and scouts and other skirmishers that can get up and around units with relative ease.

TheWarSmith
28-08-2006, 23:25
MBA, please don't double post. If you think of something to say when you're the most recent poster, simply use the "edit" button and add it to your former post.

and "the 50 man clanrat unit is killed, no blood spilled".....not only does it rhyme, but it's not true. if 50 clanrats are wiped out by crossfire, believe me, there's blood.

Not only that, but your example of 50 clanrats would give them at LEAST ld8, so i'm not feeling for you w/ having low ld.

GodHead
28-08-2006, 23:35
I realize my reply is only bumping it and keeping it up high, but this is so much of a non-issue I can't even believe it. MBA seems to think that the rule functioning as intended is some kind of abuse...

This thread is a failure. Can we get it locked?

Fred_Scuttle
28-08-2006, 23:46
I think that what one might be calling ABUSE could more easily be seen by the players at large as HARSH or UNFORGIVING.

The last two, I do at least, believe it is. But not abuse. Just making placement and manouvering MUCH more important than before, and as others have mentioned, is a good thing related to a deadly possibility.

On the same topic, something * I AM * kinda scared of is the rush to fill the board with un-passable terrain ( real name leaving me at moment - damn it to be at work without my books ). If you flee into that terrain, poof - yer dead. I am not looking forward to players rushing to populate the board with deadly terrain, but 'dem's da rules..........


Oh......on the fleeing into un-engaded enemy units....Skeleton speed bump of death anyone?

Hehehehe..........loves me my VC.........

EvC
28-08-2006, 23:48
Wait, not until he answers the question I'm going to ask! It is funny though, almost as funny as imagining a unit of 40 goblins in combat with just 5 Chaos Warriors and a Battle Standard who kill a few of the Goblins, and then run them all down, every single one of them, no survivors, oh maaaaaan, what a rules abuse that would be!


I think the old rule was just fine, flee into an enemy unit, take another round of hits and keep on fleeing.

What the heck is this old rule you speak of?

monkeyboyalpha
28-08-2006, 23:51
On the same topic, something * I AM * kinda scared of is the rush to fill the board with un-passable terrain ( real name leaving me at moment - damn it to be at work without my books ). If you flee into that terrain, poof - yer dead. I am not looking forward to players rushing to populate the board with deadly terrain, but 'dem's da rules..........

Hmmm, good point.


MBA

TheWarSmith
28-08-2006, 23:52
I thought you simply skirted around all units when fleeing. Was there something about being re engaged?

Neknoh
29-08-2006, 04:51
If you were caught whilst fleeing in the old rules (charged and the enemy managed to get you), you were dead, but you still could enter contact with a new unit? This new rule is what makes it logical, if an entirely new unit can run you down whilst fleeing, why would you be able to flee into an enemy unit?

As for the abuse, you haven't seen nothing yet!

a Beastherd is skirmishing with 25 mm bases, a unit of 20 Beastmen... which can AMBUSH... would cover 1 metre of board, flee into THAT!

Twisted Ferret
29-08-2006, 05:10
I see MBA's problem. It doesn't seem very logical to me that one or two marauders could kill 50 clanrats, to use an extreme example. However, that is pretty extreme and I don't see it happening a lot... so I think that the rule, on the whole, is fine.

Avian
29-08-2006, 08:31
People complain about a single guy running down a unit of 50 guys as well and that doesn't happen very often.

Remember that you have to make a unit flee to get a crossfire, which is a lot less easy than some people make it sound.

eldrak
29-08-2006, 09:17
I dislike that terrain thing too, I foresee more units being positioned so that units charging them will flee into terrain and autokill themselves.

Will look weird if you have, say one tiny impassable stone pillar on an otherwise open field and then lots of troops will run into it and crush themselves :wtf:

Zywus
29-08-2006, 09:41
You also have to bear in mind that when a unit is destroyed by pursuit or crossfire, it doesn't mean that the creatures the models represent were all killed, but merely that the regiment were scattered and disorganised to the point that they cannot be battle-fit for a long while. They will see the battle as lost and try to get to a safe place and the battlefield will begin to fill with stragglers. We remove the models altogether for simplicity's sake though.

And as Avian said the absurdities that crossfire creates does already exist. Let's say those 50 clanrats were broken by say, a skeleton unit and a banshee and only the banshee roll high enough on the pursuit roll. They are then run down by a single model.

zak
29-08-2006, 09:45
MBA, I can see your point. BUT....The only army I can see causing this sort problem is the Beasts of Chaos. They can ambush from the rear in a skirmish formation, so 20 models could cover almost half the board. This in itself is not an abuse of the rule. It just means that your opponent will have to take steps to prevent it. As for the argument about terrain. I think that common sense must come in to play. One single column isn't going to block your troops, a house or other larger object will. However, I can see some players sticking to this rule and abusing it to win. Sad but true.

Hiveling
29-08-2006, 09:50
All the armies benefit from this rule. The problem is that this rule coroughages(spelling :wtf: ) people to use more fast units: cavalry, skirmishers and especially flyers ( which received many readiculous advantages, not to mention that they were excellent already as they were). I thought that infantry blocks were the ones that needed boosting. Simply put: people will use even less infantry which is slow and easy to surround.

TheWarSmith
29-08-2006, 13:28
Armies with cheap flyers will be able to make use of it a bit easier as long as they can hold out long enough. Furies, harpies, etc.

But yeah, unless you're playing undead, forcing a flee at exactly the right time is NOT very easy. What I could see being nastier than breaking with combat, are "panic causers" and the like, such as black horror, flame cannon, that one ogre spell(name?), terror, etc. It's probably going to be much easier to position for crossfire this way than by using combat.

One of the other things beastmen can also do is cause crossfire the OTHER way. Most people are complaining that you'll panic towards your starting board edge, which has essentially now been shortened by 10" by a beast herd, but that beast herd could also charge a rear(or front if you turn) and flee the unit into the main battle line.

I'm looking forward to figuring out new tactics, and how often this trick can really be pulled off.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
29-08-2006, 13:48
I think it's excellent, as my utterly filthy Harpies just got even more sickeningly potent, considering their cost!

Pretty much every army I'm aware of will suffer the same to this rule. Even Chaos, Bretonnians etc... Hmmm...


Harpies behind the Bretonnians, and try to scare them off with a War Hydra.

Harpies 1. Bretonnian Bus 0.

Also, I would like to point out the following.

When it comes to your men legging it, there are two very distinct terms for such an occurence.

1. Your Regiment is Broken

2. Your Regiment has been Routed.

When you break from Combat, and run away, consider it a hasty, but still fairly well organised retreat. The unit falls back to a safer position, giving ground to the enemy.

Now, if you've been Routed, the survivors of your unit are EVERYWHERE. They have been scattered. This is not to say they are necessarily dead, quite far from it, and they could certainly be rounded up into a fighting formation again, but this takes time, and is outside the scope of a Warhammer game.

So, consider the Crossfire rule to be Routing your units. As your Regiment falls back, keeping as orderly as possible, they realise their line of retreat is cut off. Already demoralised and anxious, your men panic, and flee in all directions.

Bam. Yer done.

sliganian
29-08-2006, 14:00
Point-of-Order:

Doesn't the enemy unit doing the Crossfiring need to be a minimum of Unit Strength 5?

No rules, handy, Obviously!

Mad Doc Grotsnik
29-08-2006, 14:11
They do indeed. But it seems the OP is concerned about only running into one or two models from the offending unit.

I see where he's coming from, I just don't see it as a problem myself.

Dtrik
29-08-2006, 14:13
pretty sure it is US5, but that isn't difficult, a small unit of anything could do it however not a single infantry model like alot of people are complaining about. Honestly I think this rule is great and encourages much more tactical movement. You have to really think how difficult it is though to perfectly position a unit behind your enemies while they flee, it will take alot of skill on your part or alot of mistakes on the enemy's part to let something like that happen.

TheWarSmith
29-08-2006, 14:13
from all accounts of 7th, yes, the unit has to flee into a US5+ unit to be "cross fired"(plays old campy cross fire music)

Meaning that if people try to use flyers/fast cav to position, try to get them down to US4. Stinks that screamers, being 2 wound models, are still US1 and thus would be a costly unit to use for this tactic.

Atrahasis
29-08-2006, 14:36
Just to bang another nail into the coffin of the "abuse" claims, the example in the rulebook has a diagram where a unit flees into another, only just clipping two models in the enemy unit.

How can something the designers so clearly intend be "abuse"?

sliganian
29-08-2006, 14:48
from all accounts of 7th, yes, the unit has to flee into a US5+ unit to be "cross fired"(plays old campy cross fire music)

Meaning that if people try to use flyers/fast cav to position, try to get them down to US4. Stinks that screamers, being 2 wound models, are still US1 and thus would be a costly unit to use for this tactic.

I guess where I was getting at is that the units people seem to use to effect this 'crossfire' are mostly light Fast Cav or Flyers - things even my Elven archers could deal with (or, at least take below US 5 with a volley). A single Harpy won't cut. :D So, long story longer, at this point in time, put in the 'not abuse - rules working as designed' camp.

The rule does also have interesting implications for Undead players looking to pull an Invocation of Nehek. If you cast the right level and roll well, congrats, you got US 5 behind me. If not, you've wasted your spell.

As for Screamers, they annoy me to no end so I don't mind seeing them disadvantaged. :p

TheWarSmith
29-08-2006, 14:52
I'm a devoted tzeentch player, and I'm not complaining that screamers won't fill a cross firing use for me at all. I have other things(beastmen and marauder horse) to fill this role.

Does Invocationto nehek need LOS as to where it's placed? I assume not given your example, and if it works like that, it'll be a good placement.

monkeyboyalpha
29-08-2006, 16:32
What the heck is this old rule you speak of?


Ahhhhhhhhhhh! I think I've got the skirmishing rules mixed up with fleeing.

I haven't played in around 5 years or maybe more. Last rules I had were Lizardmen/Bretonians box set.

Old rules, fleeing units went round the unit if they fled past your own units, if they were charged they fled straight away again, if you fled into any enemy unit you formed up in front of the enemy unit to fight a combat in the next combat phase...

But, me thinks I've got the skirmishers ranking up to fight a combat mixed up with the fleeing into enemy unit...

Haha, I'm not getting any younger you know! lmao


Regards
MBA

monkeyboyalpha
29-08-2006, 16:35
And as Avian said the absurdities that crossfire creates does already exist. Let's say those 50 clanrats were broken by say, a skeleton unit and a banshee and only the banshee roll high enough on the pursuit roll. They are then run down by a single model.


Well, yeah, another good point, I never saw it very often where a single model persued down a block of fleeing troops, but I see your point.


MBA

monkeyboyalpha
29-08-2006, 16:41
Just to bang another nail into the coffin of the "abuse" claims, the example in the rulebook has a diagram where a unit flees into another, only just clipping two models in the enemy unit.

I'd just like to point out that, like many others, I don't have the new rules yet so could not have seen said diagram... Obviously!


MBA

Atrahasis
29-08-2006, 16:48
I'd just like to point out that, like many others, I don't have the new rules yet so could not have seen said diagram...

I don't have the new rules yet either, but I've seen them.

Its nice that you feel the need to complain about something before seeing it though. Also, please don't triple post :rolleyes:

ZomboCom
29-08-2006, 17:30
The idea of 5 models crossfiring and destroying a whole unit of 50 is no worse than 5 models beating the unit in combat and running them down.

Both situations are a little daft, but crossfire is no dafter than running down.

Also, remember than being run down/crossfired doesn't really represent every model in the unit being killed. It represents the unit being mobbed and utterly broken, and the members of the unit fleeing for the hills in random directions as quickly as they can.

It's a simplification to keep the game playable in a limited period of time.

Latro
29-08-2006, 17:41
Perhaps a bit late, but I like giving my opinion ... so here it comes :D

It's a very harsh rule, true. It can and probably will, have a deciding infuence on many battles ... also very true. But most of all, it's a situation any capable player can see coming, prepare for and react to ... and that's what makes it acceptable and balanced in my opinion.

Wings of Doom
29-08-2006, 17:42
Monkey Boy Alpha,
It's generally seen as polite and good manners to not post repetedly, as it fills up threads with wasted space and makes them a bore to read. If you have something to add to a comment, use the EDIT button.
Is it good manners to refer to someone as a muppet?
And, as you have so hypocritically pointed out, not everyone in England uses good manners. We've got as many yobs as any other country- stereotyping isn't nice, especially when you're being elitest.

You're saying that you haven't seen the new rules for crossfires, and haven't played fantasy since fifth edition, yet you're complaining about how the new rules are so much worse than sixth edition?

And, when you get right down to it, when are you going to have a unit that can stretch far enough to be behind two enemy units? I think that only fast cavalry, scouts and flyers will be able to achieve this role (as they should), and not stretching past one combat.

(As a side note- you earlier used the example of skaven because they have worse leadership than empire troops, but when in a unit of fifty, I assume they would have (at least) three ranks, and so actually have better leadership than your average unit of imperial soldiers. And your use of punctuation is appauling- you only need one exclimation mark or question mark to make your point.)

Captain Brown
29-08-2006, 17:58
That is enough gentlemen.

I have removed several posts from two members regarding WarSeer Rules and posting habits. I suggest you let it drop as you have brought the attention of the Inquisition.

Captain Brown
WarSeer Inquisition

Peegore
29-08-2006, 19:02
This seems like a good opportunity to now take smaller units of missile troops. Keeping them near flanks, they can take out the odd model or two in that dratted Fast Cavalry unit of 5/6 models just gagging to get behind your troops to 'cross-fire' them, thus rendering them impotent;)

Units larger than this not only become unweildy and less likely to get behind; taking into account the new rule that units march block ALL models within range, means that taking a rear position behind the enemy is probably more unlikely than before, and will take some modicum of skill to achieve.

It adds layer of strategy, and that is a good thing IMO! ( Shoot the Flyers first...:rolleyes: )

Bloody Gauntlet
29-08-2006, 19:14
I dislike that terrain thing too, I foresee more units being positioned so that units charging them will flee into terrain and autokill themselves.

Will look weird if you have, say one tiny impassable stone pillar on an otherwise open field and then lots of troops will run into it and crush themselves :wtf:

That's what I see, too. One small part of a house or fortress wall - or even a too small fortress gate - could route your troops. Very harsh, too harsh imo. Or are these not impassable terrain? Can anyone look this up in the building rules?

Bob5000
29-08-2006, 19:46
Well , I had better make sure I stock up on those Dispell Scrolls and Damsels to stop those Tomb Kings raising units behind me . My Bretts run away fairly frequently , and it would be embarrasing to have a whole block cut down by 5Skellies that popped up

Peegore
29-08-2006, 20:10
Well , I had better make sure I stock up on those Dispell Scrolls and Damsels to stop those Tomb Kings raising units behind me #

Fortunately Tomb Kings don't raise new units, just add to them! But God, I DREAD facing my friends VC multi-Necrarch horde! Now, there'll not only be small units popping up behind my battlelines like zits on a sweaty kids face, he doesn't even have to build on them and commit them! Just leave them there, waiting to claw, grasp and chow-down on my (usually) jittery and panicky Empire foot-troops:cries:

I love it ! IT'S FUN!!! Its just a game....;)

TheWarSmith
29-08-2006, 20:16
Do VC need line of sight to where they summon new units?

ZomboCom
29-08-2006, 20:21
Do VC need line of sight to where they summon new units?

Nope. That's half the fun.

Peegore
29-08-2006, 20:23
At the moment, no LOS needed. Cast range 18". And must generate 5 or more models or the unit doesn't appear.

Will this change? god I hope so....!

eldrak
29-08-2006, 21:48
And the can decide where they place the unit after the spell is successfully cast. Before i used to let the summoning go trough and then dispell the movement spell when he tried to charge my rear. That will have to change now.

It seems to me that in about half of the battles i play there is at least one occasion where troops are fleeing around some enemy units. I bet this will happen a lot more when you get so great rewards for doing it now.

Seems the unbreakable armies get a nice little boost by this rule. One can at least hope that skirmishing fliers get a points increase, were any changes made to the warhawk riders in this regard?

monkeyboyalpha
29-08-2006, 22:00
It's ok folks, we can call this query over with...

I posted an honest query about an upcoming rule in a book none of us have, but some of us have seen, yet I got pissy comments from some idiots...

I've had some good replies from some intelliegent posters and I'm happy with the consensus that it looks like a rule that has very limited opportunity to be abused. Somebody mentioned they had seen the diagram relating to the rule in the new book, I'm sure when I get my hands on the new book all will become a lot clearer....

Thnx again to the intelligent ones among you who can hold a decent conversation...

To any new posters on this thread, move along, nothing to see here! haha


Regards
MBA

Peegore
29-08-2006, 22:03
Eldrak -
Warhawks were half the current cost in the Warhammer Chronicles list in WD269, but didn't have the Hit & Run rules ( plus slightly different stats )

The Skink Terradons are 5pts cheaper, with same ability but lower stat line.

From this generalised overview, I would assume the Wood Elves Warhawks were still point-tied to 6th edition.

alextroy
30-08-2006, 01:10
One can at least hope that skirmishing fliers get a points increase, were any changes made to the warhawk riders in this regard?

Warhawk riders will be easier to hit with missile weapons. Only US1 flyers will benefit from the -1 to hit Skirmishers rules for missile fire. That should help on pushing them to less then the US5 needed for Crossfire.

Ironhand
30-08-2006, 01:38
Speak for yourself MBA, I've got the book.

TheWarSmith
30-08-2006, 02:14
I thought it wasn't so much only US1 but rather if you have "flying cavalry" rule, you don't get -1 skirmish rule.

I'm not aware of any US2+ flyers that AREN'T "flying cavalry", but it could come up sometime(screamers should be US2)

NakedFisherman
30-08-2006, 02:21
I'm not aware of any US2+ flyers that AREN'T "flying cavalry", but it could come up sometime(screamers should be US2)

Dragons? Great Eagles? Griffons? :p

TheWarSmith
30-08-2006, 02:22
but eagles don't form a skirmish unit do they? They're individuals, right?

What I meant were flying units w/ US2+ that aren't "flying cavalry"

BigJon
30-08-2006, 02:31
Bet you'll see alot more VC armies out there. The ability so raise dead behind your enemy troops just begs of the crossfire rule.

BJ

Brimstone
30-08-2006, 05:24
I posted an honest query about an upcoming rule in a book none of us have, but some of us have seen, yet I got pissy comments from some idiots...

Thnx again to the intelligent ones among you who can hold a decent conversation...

To any new posters on this thread, move along, nothing to see here! haha


Well I'm a new poster and there is plenty to see here mainly you breaking the forum rules.

Please read the FAQ (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=the_forums#faq_rules) especially the section on strikeable offences, in this case it's flaming/trolling.

Please try to avoid repeating such behaviour as next time you will receive a strike & suspension from Warseer.

The Warseer Inquisition.

Shaitan
30-08-2006, 08:01
It is not about ABUSING the rules.... it is about USING the rules to your advantage.

And when both sides are doing this, I don't see a problem.

monkeyboyalpha
30-08-2006, 12:30
Well I'm a new poster and there is plenty to see here mainly you breaking the forum rules.

Please read the FAQ (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=the_forums#faq_rules) especially the section on strikeable offences, in this case it's flaming/trolling.

Please try to avoid repeating such behaviour as next time you will receive a strike & suspension from Warseer.

The Warseer Inquisition.

I'm only defending myself, if this conversation was happening in a GW, I would be defending myself, I have free speech to defend myself if I feel I am being uneccecarily spoken to when raising an honest query as is my right to do so.


MBA

Mr_Rose
30-08-2006, 12:46
I'm only defending myself, if this conversation was happening in a GW, I would be defending myself, I have free speech to defend myself if I feel I am being uneccecarily spoken to when raising an honest query as is my right to do so.
MBA
You would have free speech, except that you voluntarily signed a contract limiting the nature of that speech when you signed up for the board.
Equally, there are ways and ways of defending oneself that don't involve breaking the terms of that contract.
Additionally, no-one has yet attacked you; you have nothing to defend against.

yphead
30-08-2006, 12:57
hi,
having just read through the thred i think monkey you forgot one major point, You have to be a very bad general if you let your opponant get into a possition to use the cross fire rule. (unless of course your up against beastmen, of flyers).
also the timeing is nearly impossible with infantry/cavalry....the unit has to be in the fleeing corridoor when they flee, how many times has this actually happened to you? Me never!! (And I have been playing for nearly 20 years)

Also i remember thinking the same thing with the pursuing rules, 6 men on horseback win against 30 men on foot, the infantry flees and the cavalry destroys them to a man. (i smiled for a week when i did this, knight errants vs chaos warriors).

anyhow the game... is well a game.... and like all games just play to your advantage and be wary that you apponant will do the same....... in other words be very afraid of beastmen armies and flyers......

Alathir
31-08-2006, 06:10
I love this new rule... the idea that chosen chaos knights could get instantly slaughtered by a few waywatchers is hilariously satisfying.

Adept
31-08-2006, 07:17
But if that unit is fleeing and it's still at virtualy full strength, (it can happen against undead and other things) and 21 men clip 3 men from a unit strung out in their own back yard it's ok to say those 3 enemy troops have the ability to remove a unit of that size from the game?????

Yes. I fail to see why you consider this a problem. The unit is panicked, and is not given time to calm down and restore order before they are again confronted with the enemy. There might be only a single dire-wolf in their path of flight, but panicked men simply scream 'WOLVES!' and their spirit is broken. The unit disintegrates, flees from the table, and takes no further part in the battle.


This is why I said the possible abuse of the upcoming rule!!!!!

I fail to see any abuse.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
31-08-2006, 12:37
Surely, it would only be abuse of the rule if only one or two armies would benefit from it.

As every army has the exact same rule open to their exploits, it simply cannot be classified as abuse.

I suppose you could accuse one of my favourite tactics of 'abuse'

Move up Dragon with Harpies. Enemy regiment flees in Terror from Dragon, next turn declare charge with Harpies. Enemy doesn't flee far enough, Harpies wipe them out.

Is that abuse? Nope. Thats a solid, sneaky tactic. Absolutely nothing illegal or even slightly rules bending about it.

Brimstone
31-08-2006, 18:00
I'm only defending myself, if this conversation was happening in a GW, I would be defending myself, I have free speech to defend myself if I feel I am being uneccecarily spoken to when raising an honest query as is my right to do so.

Well of course you have the right to defend yourself as long as you do it within the forum rules, In this case you did not.

You do not have completely free speech as already pointed out, this is a private forum with a set of rules with you have agreed to ahere to.

Mad Makz
31-08-2006, 19:21
One thing which hasn't been pointed out regarding the Crossfire rule is that is clearly the reason why Skirmishing units can now be marched block. The ability to run behind a unit after it was engaged by another unit would be far too powerful.

Requiring US more than 5 does prevent most elite scouting units from becoming a huge threat (although larger units of Gutter Runners for example just jumped in value.) as they will be easily targetted by shooting/magic and people will know focus on just getting them under US 5.

It is also very interesting to think about the repercussions on using panic causing weapons (warpfire throwers, screaming skull catapults etc.) to force units to flee towards one of your own units. This increased power is somewhat offset by the fact that units in combat will not have to take these tests.

Interestingly it also makes archers more powerful, as they can now be combined with fast cav to outright destroy rather than just panic enemy units in a single turn.

monkeyboyalpha
31-08-2006, 21:44
Like I said about 2 pages back, I'm quite happy with the consensus of intelligent posters who seem to think it's an ok rule with limited chance of misuse.

After some musin over such replies I am happy with that.

Lot's of people at the moment are siezin on a new rule that is alarmin them, and people are thinkin the worst. When we all get our new rulebooks and when we can all see the instructional diagrams I'm sure lot's of people's concerns will disappear overnight.

This thread can be locked any time now, the subject has come to a satisfactory conclusion!


Regards
MBA