PDA

View Full Version : Turning to face rule



Lord Steven
07-10-2006, 09:57
Something that came up a few days ago..

I charged a unit of zombies in the front with my 4 khorne knights and killed more than enough to win combat.

In the second round I was charged in the flank by a large unit of skellies. I won combat by lots and the zombie unit to the front was wiped out.

As I'd won combat I asked my opponent what the new rules were on turning to face the enemy. We read through the section and couldn't decide whether to reform my knights so that they were all in combat. Some more people from the club came over and the end vote was that my knights form some sort of conga line :D ie. they all just turned to face on the spot.

I wasn't too happy watching my frenzied knights of khorne line up like a bunch of sissies. The result - as voted on by many was this..



SSSSS
->->->->SSSSS
SSSSS
SSSSS
SSSSS


Does this seem right?

In the end my opponent did something really stupid.. he charged another unit of zombies into the flank of my conga line on the next turn. This meant I had an extra 8 attacks with 2 knights and I massacred him with combat res lol

WLBjork
07-10-2006, 10:45
Pg 46 uses the words "turn manouvre", so it follows the rules on page 13 (and diagram 13.2).

In other words, they were wrong.

Lord Steven
07-10-2006, 11:05
pg 13 (4th paragraph under Turn heading)


When a unit is turned to face its side or rear, all the models in the complete ranks are simply turned on the spot, while models in the incomplete rank are moved to the rear of the unit in its new formation


The picture shows the models in contact with the flank charge turning on the spot to face. It then shows the models in the rear rank (2 of them), ranking up behind.

Unfortunately I can still see how everyone else came to the conga line conclusion.

The picture also shows a 5 wide unit with 4 ranks become a 4 wide unit after it has turned - which also seems to agree with the conga line result or my 4 wide unit of knights becoming 1 model wide.

Flame
07-10-2006, 12:10
They were actually right- when you turn a unit each model rotates on the spot 90 degrees, meaning that for a single rank of models you do form a conga line type formation. This is what page 13 shows WLBjork.

Of course, the manourvere was illegal anyway, accoring to a strict RAW reading of the book!

Kotobuki
07-10-2006, 15:48
Don't go trying to get people confused. The rules as written never allow for a Turn to actually take place, due simply to the poor wording of them.

In this case though, your unit of knights would turn to face the enemy, and end up in a single 'conga' line. After you win the next round of combat, (so long as you don't get flanked) you can 'change formation' to increase the number of models in your front rank.

WLBjork
07-10-2006, 16:43
They were actually right- when you turn a unit each model rotates on the spot 90 degrees, meaning that for a single rank of models you do form a conga line type formation. This is what page 13 shows WLBjork.

Of course, the manourvere was illegal anyway, accoring to a strict RAW reading of the book!


That's what comes of glancing, rather than studying the diagram. Saw it as a square with 2 extra models, which didn't change on the turn.

:o :eek: :o

Lord Steven
07-10-2006, 17:48
OK, that's cool then. Thought I'd better check to make sure as it looked very strange on the table.

Almost as strange as cavalry wrapping around used to look, with models pointing in different directions.

DeathlessDraich
07-10-2006, 18:23
The free manoeuvre move is not allowed in this case:

pg 46 "... only if the the winning unit is engaged to just one side"

If it had been worded as "was engaged", then it is definitely not allowed. Since it is not, the rules have to accepted prima facie.
But it also states
"only to bring in more models into base contact"
Since turning does not bring more models in btb with the enemy the free manoeuvre is disallowed.

Reading on to the last paragraph, I think the rules are misleading once again.
1) I can't see how a flanked or rear charged unit can turn and bring more models into btb contact with their enemy.
2) Does the last paragraph qualify/negates the requirements of "only to bring more models into base contact"? i.e. a flanked unit executing a free manoeuvre does not have to bring more models into contact but is simply turning to bring the champion and characters into combat?

Crazy Harborc
07-10-2006, 19:31
Let's see now......You won. The HtH on your flank had become your new front. I suggest you read page 14. Study the two diagrams and follow the directions.:)

WLBjork
08-10-2006, 07:46
The free manoeuvre move is not allowed in this case:

pg 46 "... only if the the winning unit is engaged to just one side"

If it had been worded as "was engaged", then it is definitely not allowed. Since it is not, the rules have to accepted prima facie.
But it also states
"only to bring in more models into base contact"
Since turning does not bring more models in btb with the enemy the free manoeuvre is disallowed.

Reading on to the last paragraph, I think the rules are misleading once again.
1) I can't see how a flanked or rear charged unit can turn and bring more models into btb contact with their enemy.
2) Does the last paragraph qualify/negates the requirements of "only to bring more models into base contact"? i.e. a flanked unit executing a free manoeuvre does not have to bring more models into contact but is simply turning to bring the champion and characters into combat?


The counter to that argument is that the only specific limitations on the manoeuvre are (1) that the winning unit is not enaged on two or more sides and (2) that it does not reduce the number of models in base contact with the enemy.

Thus, the manoeuvre is permitted.

Flame
08-10-2006, 13:52
The counter to that argument is that the only specific limitations on the manoeuvre are (1) that the winning unit is not enaged on two or more sides and (2) that it does not reduce the number of models in base contact with the enemy.

Thus, the manoeuvre is permitted.

The manoevure as per the rule book is NOT permitted. There is NOTHING about not reducing the number of models in base contact, the only stipulation is that it must increase the number of models in base contact.

This wasnt what was meant, but this was what was written.

WLBjork
08-10-2006, 17:56
Wrong Flame. In fact it specifically states:


They cannot be executed if the winning side is engaged on two or more sides or if the manoeuvre would result in reducing the number of models in base contact with the enemy!

Flame
08-10-2006, 18:04
...and if you read above it, it states when the free turn can be performed


These free manoeuvres can be executed only if the winning unit is engaged to just one of its sies, and only in order to bring more models in base contact with enemies

In this specific situation, a single rank of cavalry CANNOT turn to face when using the book RAW, as by turning it is not increasing the number of models in base contact, it is keeping them the same. Your example is to stop players form abusing it by bringing models out of combat, and are not the stipulations to perform it in the first place.

WLBjork
08-10-2006, 20:28
Have to come out with the blasted obvious point then - it's legal because it's specifically mentioned.

Similar situations (in priciple) exist with Treemen, Slayers and probably other units as well in that they have ItP and Stubborn or Unbreakable and Hatred.

Flame
08-10-2006, 20:56
I'm sorry, but humour me.

How exactly is it legal? Presumably you are ignoring the first half of the rule that I quoted above?

Atrahasis
08-10-2006, 23:27
Flame is correct.

The "Free Manoeuvres" section is stupendously badly written, and under RAW can never be used.

Even removing the necessity to increase models (and reducing it to a requirement of not removing models from the fight), it can rarely be used.

mageith
08-10-2006, 23:50
Flame is correct.

The "Free Manoeuvres" section is stupendously badly written, and under RAW can never be used.

Even removing the necessity to increase models (and reducing it to a requirement of not removing models from the fight), it can rarely be used.
Since this rule requires an errata I hope they allow players to use both special maneuvres in the same turn.

This would require a TWO WORD change. "Units that have won the fight, but are still engaged in combat because their enemies did not break, can at this point execute one of the manuevers below." (46)

This would allow cavalry to turn in a reasonable manner, would allow units to get more models into combat and I can't think of it being out of balance.

Mage Ith

Atrahasis
08-10-2006, 23:53
A unit that wins combat when flanked probably deserves to be able to do both.

WLBjork
09-10-2006, 05:24
RAW, a Treeman isn't Stubborn and Slayers don't Hate Orcs and Goblins :rollseyes:

Actually, I believe the Slayers have an exception for their Hatred, but Treemen certainly dont for Stubborn. However, are you going to prevent a Treeman being Stubborn?

This is effectively the same situation, by the limitations such a manoeuvre is illegal, yet the mere fact that it is listed as an option superceeds the rules.

Edit: Mageith, Atrahasis - why not substitute both manoeuvres for a single free Reform? Clarify precisely where keeping the number of models in base-to-base contact should fall (allowable or not).

Flame
09-10-2006, 09:44
RAW, a Treeman isn't Stubborn and Slayers don't Hate Orcs and Goblins :rollseyes:

Actually, I believe the Slayers have an exception for their Hatred, but Treemen certainly dont for Stubborn. However, are you going to prevent a Treeman being Stubborn?

This is effectively the same situation, by the limitations such a manoeuvre is illegal, yet the mere fact that it is listed as an option superceeds the rules.

Edit: Mageith, Atrahasis - why not substitute both manoeuvres for a single free Reform? Clarify precisely where keeping the number of models in base-to-base contact should fall (allowable or not).

Do keep up :rolleyes: . Treemen are stubborn because ItP now only includes immunity to fear, panic and terror.

DeathlessDraich
09-10-2006, 12:36
Edit: Mageith, Atrahasis - why not substitute both manoeuvres for a single free Reform? Clarify precisely where keeping the number of models in base-to-base contact should fall (allowable or not).

I agree. A simple reform to face the enemy and maximise seems easiest but what is the rationale behind this rule. Is it a substitute for the old expand frontage?

The underlying reasons, why this rule has been introduced should be clarified as well. Why should a winning side be able to manoeuvre? Does this manoeuvre make combat more realistic? I don't think it does.

mageith
09-10-2006, 15:07
I agree. A simple reform to face the enemy and maximise seems easiest
If GW were to re-write the entire rule, perhaps.

My suggestion, I believe, accomplishes the same thing with a minimum amount of CHANGE to the current rules. Of course I might be missing something.




...but what is the rationale behind this rule. Is it a substitute for the old expand frontage? The underlying reasons, why this rule has been introduced should be clarified as well. Why should a winning side be able to manoeuvre? Does this manoeuvre make combat more realistic? I don't think it does.
GW rarely rationalizes their changes in the Rulebook. And when they do it often adds to the confusion rather than clarifies anything.

I think they added the chance of turning in place due to the great number of complaints in the prior edition and apparently one of the designers (Alessio) thought it was realistic or logical enough to include.

Personally I think something needs to be done to give allow the models to move into greater contact after the initial contact. I really never thought lapping was a problem but it's gone.

EvC
09-10-2006, 17:54
This is another situation that requires the Rule of Unwritten Common Sense: Flame and WLBjork both point to sections in the rules that state how the turn can be done, which contradict each other. Thus, the player MUST make a decision as to which bit is correct:

(1) The first statement that more models must be brought into combat, or
(2) The following statement that it must not reduce the models.

Since (2) is the "common sense" ruling and (1) means that the rule being described does not exist, I would advise all gamers to work under the assumption of interpretation (2) being correct.

Crazy Harborc
09-10-2006, 19:19
I do believe the 7th Edition writers do warn us that the rules (I'm paraphasing here) aren't perfect and that we should do die rolls to decide, for that time only, a point of contention between the players.