PDA

View Full Version : Two 7th ed rule question



ghengismark
31-08-2006, 04:08
Last night I was playing 7th ed rules (with the new rule book) and a few questions came up:

1) A monster (Treeman) is charged in the flank by cavalry. Since the Treeman, unlike a character, has a front arc LOS, the chargers get a +1 combat resolution for the flank, correct? Also, the Treeman now has to win combat once to be able to turn to face the attackers in 7th ed, right?

2) Unit 1A overruns into Unit 2A. Then Unit 2B charges unit 1A in the following movement phase. In the following combat phase, both Units 1A and 2B count as charging. In 6th ed, they went in a last charged, first attack reverse order. But in 7th ed, it seem that all chargers "go first" equally, regardless when they charged. So in 7th ed, 1A and 2B both go first, so they compare Inititives to see who goes first. Right? That is how I read the 7th ed. rules.

A follow up to question 2. Some characters have magic items or abilities that "always hit first". This ability is specifically mentioned in the 7th ed rules now. Now if 2 characters have "always hit first", you compare inititives. But is the "always hit first" ability greater then the "charger's go first" or on par? That is, would the order go:

1) "Always go first" (Compare Initiative if more then one)
2) Chargers (Compare Initiative if more then one)
3) Everyone else (Compare Initiative if more then one)

Or

1) "Always go first" + Chargers (Compare Initiative if more then one)
2) Everyone else (Compare Initiative if more then one)

Obviously impact hits is before everything.

T10
31-08-2006, 06:27
2) It appears that you do not mix "strike first/last" priorities but choose one. If both sides have the same priority you go on to compare initiative as normal.

I beleive the tiebreaker for equal initiative is still "winners of last round" go first, then a roll off.

Interestingly, this may result in one side of the chargers gaining a slight advantage by charging into a combat along-side his "winning" comrades.

-T10

Avian
31-08-2006, 08:32
Last night I was playing 7th ed rules (with the new rule book) and a few questions came up:

1) A monster (Treeman) is charged in the flank by cavalry. Since the Treeman, unlike a character, has a front arc LOS, the chargers get a +1 combat resolution for the flank, correct? Also, the Treeman now has to win combat once to be able to turn to face the attackers in 7th ed, right?
Both correct, though characters may have flanks and rear as well.



A follow up to question 2. Some characters have magic items or abilities that "always hit first". This ability is specifically mentioned in the 7th ed rules now. Now if 2 characters have "always hit first", you compare inititives. But is the "always hit first" ability greater then the "charger's go first" or on par? That is, would the order go:
Always strikes first specificallty trumps chargers go first.
(Happily, or else there would not be much point in it)

T10
31-08-2006, 09:11
Always strikes first specificallty trumps chargers go first.
(Happily, or else there would not be much point in it)

Charging First Strike character vs. receiving First Strike character. Who goes first?

'G wondered if one simply worked one's way back through the "initiative hierarchy" until one beats the other, or does one immediately resort to Initiatve comparison?

Always Strike First ability
Charging
Intiative
-- Won last round
---- Roll-off
Always Strike Last
Zombies

-T10

Avian
31-08-2006, 09:16
Charging First Strike character vs. receiving First Strike character. Who goes first?
As per the rulebook you compare initiative, then (IIRC) who won last round and then roll off if it's still a tie.

Charging doesn't come into it at all with Always strikes first things.

Shaitan
31-08-2006, 10:00
I believe it's like this:

1. Always strike first ability
2. Chargers
3. Initiative
4. Always strike last ability

When any of these are tied:
1. Initiative
2. Won last round
3. Roll-off

Festus
31-08-2006, 19:27
Hi

To the original 1):

It appears that the whole *formation change while in combat* rule is utter cr@p in the new rules, because it is wrongly done (in the German rules at least).

The rules tell you that you may turn if you won the previous round AND if it will bring more models into the fighting than before.

As you can not bring more models into the fight by turning (only less in the case of not squared bases like chavalry and chariots etc.), and the number of fighters will keep the same, you may not turn.

You may indeed expand your frontage, though (hardly an issue with a single-monster-unit :( )

Festus

Mad Makz
31-08-2006, 20:26
Festus, from what I have read of the discussion the common interpretation is clearly that this is a mistake in the rules and the interpretation has to be if you can bring the same number of models or more into combat, otherwise the circumstances for it to be used are almost non-existant in the new edition (especially with the whole point of the 5 wide ranks to most eliminate units with longer files than ranks wide)

Festus
01-09-2006, 19:03
Hi

Yes, it is a mistake in the rules, unfortunately.

But as the rules now stand, this *free* manoeuvre is an *impossible* manoeuvre indeed.

TBH, we played 7th ed a lot recently and have quickly adopted the solution: allow the winning unit to turn without increasing the number of fighting models. You know, it makes sense, really :)

Festus

Atrahasis
01-09-2006, 19:21
A lot of the time even that won't be possible unfortunately, as any incomplete rank is moved to the rear of the formation following a turn.

flain
01-09-2006, 21:54
you do not exactly "turn" the unit, but the models inside a unit. fe, a unit of cavalry (5 files, 2 ranks) is charged in the flank and wins, the models may turn (ends up in 2 files, 5 ranks). the problem is that cavalry bases are quite big and the unit gets very long which makes a lot more flank charges possible.
I have seen that people didn't turn with cavalry as it would block the movement of the rest of the army :P

@Festus: the english book says: "winning units with enemies to their flank/rear can perform a free turn manoeuvre to face their enemies". So nothing about more models in combat at all.

Atrahasis
01-09-2006, 22:07
you do not exactly "turn" the unit, but the models inside a unit. Yes, and if the turn results in more than one incomplete rank (an illegal formation), the offending models are moved to teh rear of the formation after the turn, which will likely lead to less models in combat, which is not allowed.


@Festus: the english book says: "winning units with enemies to their flank/rear can perform a free turn manoeuvre to face their enemies". So nothing about more models in combat at all.

Read on. It most definitely DOES talk about the number of models in combat.

flain
02-09-2006, 18:43
ah, found the part referring to the number of models in combat. However, the book contradicts itself. First it states that you can only perform the free manoeuvres when you get more models in combat and later on it states that you cannot if that would result in less models in combat.
So yes, non-square bases cannot turn it seems :eyebrows:

Festus
02-09-2006, 22:07
Hi

A lot of the time even that won't be possible unfortunately, as any incomplete rank is moved to the rear of the formation following a turn.
I don't see a problem there, honestly:

If in combat, a 21 strong unit of 6x4 (example) caught in the flank

XXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX

becomes a unit of 4x6 after a turn of 90 (and losing its rank bonus until a reform, as the formation change is a permanent one :D )

XXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

Both have 4 models in combat


So yes, non-square bases cannot turn it seems
by the letter of the rules, not even square ones could :(

Greetings
Festus

Atrahasis
02-09-2006, 23:20
If in combat, a 21 strong unit of 6x4 (example) caught in the flank

XXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX

becomes a unit of 4x6 after a turn of 90° (and losing its rank bonus until a reform, as the formation change is a permanent one :D )

XXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

Both have 4 models in combat

Check the rules for turns. Your unit becomes this:

XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Which has 3 models in combat.

Festus
03-09-2006, 07:34
Hi

Check the rules for turns. Your unit becomes this:

XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Which has 3 models in combat.
Why is that so?
Have the rules for turning changed that substantially?

I have to go and reread them after the weekend.... :(

Festus

Atrahasis
03-09-2006, 08:18
Why is that so?
Have the rules for turning changed that substantially?

I have to go and reread them after the weekend.... :(

If, after turning, the formation is illegal (ie there is more than one incomplete rank) the offending files are moved to the rear of the formation to make it legal.

Its only a change to the extent that the rule used to be in the appendix, but is now in the main text.

Diato
04-09-2006, 03:34
Turning is in the movment section the page is even referenced in the rule. Also the rule says you cannot have fewer models in combat with the enemy. Nothing about keeping all the enemy models in contact is in rule. What to do with an incomplete rank in combat in a flank is well handled you move the rank over into combat. Once you apply these three factors this rule works fine. While the rule isolated from the rule book looks cumbersome it is not at all. I have seen this rule in action and do like it.

Atrahasis
04-09-2006, 08:13
Turning is in the movment section the page is even referenced in the rule. Also the rule says you cannot have fewer models in combat with the enemy. Nothing about keeping all the enemy models in contact is in rule. What to do with an incomplete rank in combat in a flank is well handled you move the rank over into combat. Once you apply these three factors this rule works fine. While the rule isolated from the rule book looks cumbersome it is not at all. I have seen this rule in action and do like it.

I don't think you understand, the Turn manoeuvre works as I described it, and if you do it, it will reduce the number of models in combat, which is prohibited by the rules.

The problem has nothing to do with sliding incomplete ranks into combat, but to do with what happens to that incomplete rank once it is a file (ie after the turn).

warlord hack'a
08-09-2006, 12:07
lookt to me like we found the first ambiguous rule in 7th edition, and it is not even released yet..

Avian
08-09-2006, 12:10
The first ambigous rule in 7th edition was found two months ago... :p

Draazahir
09-09-2006, 14:10
I acctually think I figured it out, well, correct me if I'm wrong but with this aproach everything makes sense, atleast to me ;)

The rule is obviously there to allow more troops in to base contact after a unit has won. And obviously as the rules state you can not perform any of these manouvers if you lost the previous combat or if engaged on multiple fronts.

So ponder this: What if.... You were alowed to conduct booth these free manouvers if you won the combat? Acctually, reading through the text I can't find it anywhere that states you can not.


Hence:

Units X and Y battle it out with unit X being cav and unit Y being a block of infantery charging them in the flank, something like this att the start:
-------YYYYY
-------YYYYY
XXXXX YYYYY
-------YYYYY
-------YYYYY

And now, lets pretend unit X wins and wants to bring more models to the fight.

They now preform the two Free Manouvers allowed by the rules. First, they perform the second manouver wich allows them to make a turn and face their enemy, same diagram as above but with a 10 inch long cavalery line =)

Now they are engaged to the front and so they can preform the first free manouver allowing them to bring up to 5 unengaged modells in to the fight. Should look like this.

XYYYY
XYYYY
XYYYY
XYYYY
XYYYY


Wadda you say? =)

Pardon my english

//Draaz

Draazahir
09-09-2006, 14:21
I can se the problem with the treeman as it doesn't "bring more modells to the fight"....
hmmm...

clearly the wordning is bad

But anyway, this is how I would play it. Ignoring the "only to bring more modells" sentence and playing by the "not to bring less modells"

Nice nice

Draazahir
09-09-2006, 14:29
Aw ***** I hate these rules! =)

Just saw this: "can at this point execute ONE of the manoeuvres bellow" sucks...


oh well, please consider my version above, atleast that one makes sense and gives the whole "Redress the Ranks" rules meaning.

cheers

Festus
09-09-2006, 15:53
Hi

The rules are meant OK (with HW/Shield only working to the front, as well as pikes and spears and such...), but they are worded very bad indeed.

BTW, the turning rules are equally stupid and counterintuitive IMNSHO:
A formation of 5x3 should become a 3x5, regardless of any incomplete rank nonsense...

... and change formation now allows to add/deduct up to 10 files? What the heck, who brewed up this crazy madness? From 15x2 to 6x5 in one go? Stupid if you ask me...

Festus

edit Draazahir- you may use the edit button instead of making double posts :)

eldrak
10-09-2006, 15:27
You might want to position yourself so you get charged in the rear now, that way you can always make use of the turn should you happen to win the combat :)